4.4 Article

Frequent expression of follicular dendritic cell markers in Hodgkin lymphoma and anaplastic large cell lymphoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 66, 期 7, 页码 589-596

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2012-201425

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Center, Republic of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Although the tumour cells of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are derived from mature B-cells, the lineage infidelity of Hodgkin/Reed-Sternberg cells (HRSs) often causes diagnostic problems. Recently introduced HRS markers are also positive for follicular dendritic cells (FDCs). We investigated the expression of several FDC markers in HL and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) and evaluated their diagnostic efficacy. Methods Eighty-five cases of HL and 52 cases of ALCL were included in this study. Immunohistochemistry was performed for glioma-associated homologue (GLI) 3, class III beta-tubulin (TUBB3), fascin, clusterin, gamma-synuclein, podoplanin, syntenin, CD21, CD35 and EGFR. Results HRSs were diffusely positive for GLI3, fascin and TUBB3; the mean positivity rates per case were 94% for GLI3, 82% for fascin, 69% for TUBB3, 17% for clusterin, 17% for gamma-synuclein and 14% for syntenin. Podoplanin, CD21, CD35 and EGFR were almost negative. However, the frequency of marker expression was not associated with the histologic subtype or the presence of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). ALCL showed a similar pattern to HL, but the overall frequency of positivity was lower than that observed in HL. The mean positivity rates were 56% for GLI3, 62% for fascin, 58% for TUBB3 and 21% for clusterin. The other markers were nearly negative. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma kinase positivity did not affect the expression rates. Conclusions This study confirmed the frequent expression of FDC markers in HL and ALCL. Especially, GLI3, fascin and TUBB3 are the most sensitive markers. Further studies are required to evaluate the association between FDCs, HRSs and ALCL cells.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据