4.6 Article

Papillary thyroid carcinomas with and without BRAF? V600E mutations are morphologically distinct

Journal

HISTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 60, Issue 7, Pages 1052-1059

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04149.x

Keywords

BRAF mutation; molecular testing; papillary; thyroid; thyroid carcinoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Finkelstein A, Levy G H, Hui P, Prasad A, Virk R, Chhieng D C, Carling T, Roman S A, Sosa J A, Udelsman R, Theoharis C G & Prasad M L ?(2012) Histopathology similar to 60, 10521059 Papillary thyroid carcinomas with and without BRAF?V600E mutations are morphologically distinct Aims: The BRAF V600E mutation resulting in the production of an abnormal BRAF protein has emerged as the most frequent genetic alteration in papillary thyroid carcinomas (PTCs). This study was aimed at identifying distinctive features in tumours with and without the mutation. Methods and results: Thirty-four mutation-positive and 22 mutation-negative tumours were identified by single-strand conformation polymorphism of the amplified BRAF V600E region in the tumour DNA. Mutation-positive tumours were more common in patients older than 45 years (24/33, P = 0.05), in classic (23/30, P = 0.01), tall cell (4/5) and oncocytic/Warthin-like (2/2) variants of PTC, and in subcapsular sclerosing microcarcinomas (4/4). In contrast, all 12 follicular variants (P < 0.0001) and two diffuse sclerosing variants were negative for the mutation. Mutation-positive tumours displayed infiltrative growth (32/34, P = 0.02), stromal fibrosis (33/34, P < 0.001), psammoma bodies (17/34, P = 0.05), plump eosinophilic tumour cells (22/34, P = 0.01), and classic fully developed nuclear features of PTC (33/34, P = 0.0001). Encapsulation was significantly associated with mutation-negative tumours (15/22, P = 0.02). Conclusions: BRAF V600E mutation-positive and negative PTCs are morphologically different. Recognition of their morphology may help in the selection of appropriate tumours for genetic testing.

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