4.7 Article

Diagnostic utility of phosphatase and tensin homolog, β-catenin, and p53 for endometrial carcinoma by thin-layer endometrial preparations

Journal

CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 114, Issue 3, Pages 155-164

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23495

Keywords

endometrial cytology; thin-layer preparations; immunocytochemistry; phosphatase and tensin homolog; beta-catenin; p53; endometrial carcinoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND. For the current report, the authors examined the characteristic features of morphology and molecular biology of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN), beta-catenin, and p53 immunocytochemistry in endometrial carcinoma by using thin-layer cytologic preparations. METHODS. During a 6-month period, 120 endometrial samples were collected directly by using the Uterobrush, and thin-layer specimens were prepared. Immunocytochemical expression levels of PTEN, beta-catenin, and p53 were investigated by using 40 specimens of endometrial carcinoma (EC), and 30 specimens each of proliferative endometrium, secretory endometrium, and atrophic endometrium. RESULTS. For PTEN immuno reactivity, the a cutoff value of 50% PTEN expression appeared to be useful for the correct diagnosis of EC in endometrial cytology. For beta-catenin immunoreactivity, an increase in cytoplasmic and nuclear beta-catenin expression and a loss of beta-catenin expression appeared to be useful for the correct diagnosis of EC in endometrial cytology and may aid in the stratification of EC into low grade and high grade EC. For p53 immunoreactivity, the application of a cutoff score >= 4 for nuclear p53 expression appeared to be useful for the diagnosis of high-grade EC in endometrial cytology. CONCLUSIONS. Immunocytochemical findings from a combination of PTEN, beta-catenin, and p53, in addition to cytomorphologic features, appeared to be useful for the more accurate diagnosis of EC in endometrial cytology.

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