4.4 Article

Evaluation of p40 as a Myoepithelial Marker in Different Breast Lesions

Journal

PATHOBIOLOGY
Volume 82, Issue 3-4, Pages 166-171

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000375127

Keywords

Adenomyoepithelioma; Basal-like carcinoma; Breast; Ductal carcinoma in situ; Immunohistochemistry; Myoepithelial cells; p40; p63; Sclerosing lesions

Funding

  1. European Union
  2. State of Hungary
  3. European Social Fund [TAMOP 4.2.4.A/2-11-1-2012-0001]
  4. University of Szeged
  5. [TAMOP-4.2.2.A-11/1/KONV-2012-0035]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The identification of myoepithelial cells (MEC) is a valuable clue in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. A series of breast lesions with occasional absence of or decrease in the staining for some MEC markers was analyzed for the expression of a novel marker, p40, and results were compared to the p63 staining profile. Methods: Samples (n = 34) from patients with benign sclerosing lesions (n = 11), ductal carcinoma in situ (n = 13) and adenomyoepithelial lesions (n = 10) and associated normal breast tissues (n = 31) were selected to evaluate the differential expression of p40 and p63 using immunohistochemistry. Triple-negative, cytokeratin 5 (CK5)-expressing invasive breast carcinomas (n = 19) were also assessed for p40 expression. Results: Normal structures showed similar diffuse and strong MEC positivity using p40 and p63 in all 31 cases. The two antibodies performed similarly in all 34 breast lesions acknowledged to present altered expression of MEC markers; focal losses of expression occurred in a parallel fashion. CK5-positive carcinomas expressed p40 more frequently than p63 (18/19 vs. 8/19) and the staining was more marked. Conclusions: It seems that both antibodies can be used interchangeably for MEC identification, but show differences in the labeling at least in a subset of tumor cells in triple-negative carcinomas. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available