3.8 Article

Immunohistochemical Classification of Primary and Secondary. Glioblastomas

Journal

KOREAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 6, Pages 541-548

Publisher

KOREAN SOCIETY PATHOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2013.47.6.541

Keywords

Glioblastoma; Immunohistochemistry; IDH1 protein; human; Genes; erbB-1; Genes, p53

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Glioblastomas may develop de novo (primary glioblastomas, P-GBLs) or through progression from lower-grade astrocytomas (secondary glioblastomas, S-GBLs). The aim of this study was to compare the immunohistochemical classification of glioblastomas with clinically determined P-GBLs and S-GBLs to identify the best combination of antibodies for immunohistochemical classification. Methods: We evaluated the immunohistochemical expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), p53, and isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH-1) in 150 glioblastoma cases. Results: According to clinical history, the glioblastomas analyzed in this study consisted of 146 P-GBLs and 4 S-GBLs. Immunohistochemical expression of EGFR, p53, and IDH-1 was observed in 62.6%, 49.3%, and 11.1%, respectively. Immunohistochemical profiles of EGFR(+)/ p53(-), IDH-1(-)/EGFR(+)/p53(-), and EGFR(-)/p53(+) were noted in 41.3%, 40.2%, and 28.7%, respectively. Expression of IDH-1 and EGFR(-)/p53(+) was positively correlated with young age. The typical immunohistochemical features of S-GBLs comprised IDH-1(+)/EGFR(-)/p53(+), and were noted in 3.6% of clinically P-GBLs. The combination of IDH-1(-) or EGFR(+) was the best set of immunohistochemical stains for identifying P-GBLs, whereas the combination of IDH-1(+) and EGFR(-) was best for identifying S-GBLs. Conclusions: We recommend a combination of IDH-1 and EGFR for immunohistochemical classification of glioblastomas. We expect our results to be useful for determining treatment strategies for glioblastoma patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available