4.7 Article

Utility of C3d and C4d immunohistochemical staining in formalin-fixed skin or mucosal biopsy specimens in diagnosis of bullous pemphigoid and mucous membrane pemphigoid

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-38193-8

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for C3d and C4d can help differentiate between bullous pemphigoid (BP) and mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP). C3d has better diagnostic importance in BP, while C3d and C4d have lower diagnostic significance in MMP.
Bullous pemphigoid (BP) and mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) sometimes have overlapping clinical, histopathological, and direct immunofluorescence (DIF) features in the early stages. Complement deposition is an intrinsic component of the patho-mechanism of BP in contrast to MMP. Hence immunohistochemistry (IHC) for C3d and C4d may be helpful in differentiating the two disorders. Seventy-four patients of BP and 18 patients of MMP along with 10 negative controls were enrolled in this study. C3d and C4d IHC was performed in formalin-fixed skin biopsy specimens. C3d IHC staining in BP/MMP had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 59.2%/41.2%, 100%/100%, 100%/100%, 25.6%/50.0%, respectively. C4d IHC staining in BP/MMP had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 26.8%/17.6%, 100%/100%, 100%/100% and 16.1%/41.7%, respectively. Receiver operator analysis showed utility of C3d in diagnosing both BP [Area under curve (AUC) = 0.8, p = 0.0001] and MMP (AUC = 0.71; p = 0.001). C4d was useful in diagnosis of BP (AUC = 0.5; p = 0.0001), but not MMP (AUC = 0.6; p = 0.064). Hence, C3d is a better diagnostic modality for BP as compared to C4d, whereas C3d and C4d have lower diagnostic importance in MMP. C3d IHC can be employed in diagnosing BP when a second biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) is not possible or where a facility for IF microscopy does not exist.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available