4.3 Article

p16/CDKN2A FISH in Differentiation of Diffuse Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma From Mesothelial Hyperplasia and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 143, Issue 6, Pages 830-838

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPOATJ9L4GCGDA

Keywords

Diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma; p16; 9p21; Fluorescence in situ hybridization; Reactive mesothelial hyperplasia; Epithelial ovarian cancer

Categories

Funding

  1. Izumo City Supporting Cancer Research Project
  2. Research Center for Advanced Molecular Medicine, Fukuoka University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: It can be difficult to differentiate diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (DMPM) from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (RMH) or peritoneal dissemination of gynecologic malignancies, such as epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), which cause a large amount of ascites. Detection of the homozygous deletion of p16/CDKN2A (p16) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is an effective adjunct in the diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma. The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of the p16 FISH assay to differentiate DMPM from RMH and EOC. Methods: p16 FISH was performed in 28 DMPMs (successful in 19), 30 RMHS, and 40 EOC cases. The cutoff values of p16 FISH were more than 10% for homozygous deletion and more than 40% for heterozygous deletion. Results: According to the above criteria, nine (47.4%) of 19 successful DMPM cases were homozygous deletion positive, and three (15.8%) of 19 were heterozygous deletion positive, whereas all RMH cases were negative for the p16 deletion. In all four major histologic subtypes of EOC, neither p16 homozygous nor heterozygous deletions were detected. To differentiate DMPM from RMH or EOC, the sensitivity of the p16 homozygous deletion was 32% (9/28), and the specificity was 100%. Conclusions: Our study suggests that p16 FISH analysis is useful in differentiating DMPM from RMH and EOC when homozygous deletion is detected.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available