4.3 Article

Expression of somatostatin receptor types 1-5 in 81 cases of gastrointestinal and pancreatic endocrine tumors -: A correlative immunohistochemical and reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction analysis

Journal

VIRCHOWS ARCHIV
Volume 440, Issue 5, Pages 461-475

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s00428-002-0609-x

Keywords

GEP; somatostatin receptors; pancreatic islets; neuroendocrine tumor; immunohistochemistry; RT-PCR

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Somatostatin receptors (SSTRs) have been extensively mapped in human tumors by means of autoradiography, reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), in situ hybridization (ISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC). We analyzed the SSTR type 1-5 expression by means of RT-PCR and/or IHC in a series of 81 functioning and non-functioning gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) endocrine tumors and related normal tissues. Moreover, we compared the results with clinical, pathological and hormonal features. Forty-six cases (13 intestinal and 33 pancreatic) were studied for SSTR 1-5 expression using RT-PCR, IHC with antibodies to SSTR types 2, 3, 5 and ISH for SSTR2 mRNA. The vast majority of tumors expressed SSTR types 1, 2, 3 and 5, while SSTR4 was detected in a small minority. Due to the good correlation between RT-PCR and IHC data on SSTR types 2, 3, and 5, thirty-five additional GEP endocrine tumors were studied with IHC alone. Pancreatic insulinomas had an heterogeneous SSTR expression, while 100% of somatostatinomas expressed SSTR5 and 100% gastrinomas and glucagonomas expressed SSTR2. Pre-operative biopsy material showed an overlapping immunoreactivity with that of surgical specimens, suggesting that the SSTR status can be detected in the diagnostic work-up. It is concluded that SSTRs 1-5 are heterogeneously expressed in GEP endocrine tumors and that IHC is a reliable toot to detect SSTR types 2, 3 and 5 in surgical and biopsy specimens.

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