4.6 Article

Immunohistochemical detection of EGFR, fibrillin-2, P-cadherin and AP2β as biomarkers for rhabdomyosarcoma diagnostics

Journal

HISTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 7, Pages 873-879

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2009.03303.x

Keywords

AP2 beta; diagnosis; EGFR; fibrillin-2; P-cadherin; rhabdomyosarcoma

Funding

  1. OncoSuisse [01944-08-2006]
  2. Swiss Research Foundation Child and Cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Subclassification of rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) has clinical relevance, as the two major subclasses embryonal (ERMS) and alveolar (ARMS) rhabdomyosarcoma differ greatly in terms of aggressiveness and prognosis. However, histological analysis is not always sufficient for an unequivocal subclassification of RMS. Furthermore, clinical presentation of ARMS has been reported to mimic other tumour types, specifically lymphoma. The aim was to determine the role of four biomarkers in the diagnosis of rhabdomyosarcoma. Recently, we identified four potential biomarkers to subclassify RMS with high sensitivity and specificity. These included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and fibrillin-2 as markers for ERMS, and AP2 beta and P-cadherin as markers for translocation-positive ARMS. Here, we further validate the potential of these four markers in a second, independent patient cohort by immunohistochemistry on 80 sections of RMS biopsy specimens as well as a tissue microarray representing 18 different additional tumour types, including seven lymphomas. The combination of EGFR and fibrillin-2 was able to detect ERMS with a specificity of 76% and sensitivity of 90%. The combination of AP2 beta and P-cadherin detected ARMS with a specificity of 97% and sensitivity of 90%, data very similar to our previous study. Furthermore, all lymphomas were clearly negative for AP2 beta and P-cadherin. These four biomarkers are suitable for clinical implementation in the future diagnosis of RMS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available