4.6 Article

5-Hydroxymethylcytosine expression in metastatic melanoma versus nodal nevus in sentinel lymph node biopsies

期刊

MODERN PATHOLOGY
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 218-229

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2014.99

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [5P40CA093683-09]
  2. Women's Hospital
  3. Bristol-Meyers-Squibb

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sentinel lymph node biopsies are conducted to stage patients with newly diagnosed melanomas that have histopathological attributes conferring defined levels of metastatic potential. Because benign nevic cells may also form 'deposits' in lymph nodes (nodal nevus), the pathological evaluation for metastatic melanoma within sentinel lymph nodes can be challenging. Twenty-eight sentinel lymph node biopsy cases containing either metastatic melanoma (N= 18) or nodal nevi (N= 10) were retrieved from the archives of the Brigham and Women's Hospital, Department of Pathology (2011-2014). In addition, two sentinel lymph node cases that were favored to represent metastatic disease but whose histopathological features were viewed as equivocal, with melanoma favored, were also included. Dual labeling for the melanocyte lineage marker, MART-1, and the epigenetic marker, 5-hydroxymethylcytosine, a functionally significant indicator that has been shown to distinguish benign nevi from melanoma, was performed on all cases using immunohistochemistry and/or direct immunofluorescence. All (18 of 18) metastatic melanoma cases showed complete loss of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine nuclear staining in MART-1-positive cells, and all (10 of 10) nodal nevus cases demonstrated 5-hydroxymethylcytosine nuclear staining in MART-1-positive cells. In addition, 5-hydroxymethylcytosine staining confirmed the favored diagnoses of metastatic melanoma in the two 'equivocal' cases. Thus, 5-hydroxymethylcytosine may be a useful adjunctive marker to distinguish between benign nodal nevi and metastatic melanoma during the evaluation of sentinel lymph node biopsies for metastatic melanoma.

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

4.6
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