4.5 Article

The role of immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions

期刊

PATHOLOGY
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 68-76

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1080/00313020802563544

关键词

Breast; immunohistochemistry; breast carcinoma; myoepithelial cell; cytokeratin; papilloma; ductal carcinoma in situ; neuroendocrine; apocrine; spindle cell carcinoma; phyllodes tumour

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immunohistochemistry may be helpful in the diagnosis of various breast lesions. It can be used to assist in distinguishing benign and malignant conditions, or to clarify the histological subtype of invasive carcinomas. There are several markers relatively frequently utilised. Myoepithelial markers (p63, alpha-SMA, smooth muscle myosin heavy chain, and others) are useful to highlight myoepithelial cells. They are employed to verify myoepithelial cell lining in intraductal papillary lesions, or to recognise peripheral myoepithelial cells for non-invasive carcinoma, although their staining results are not always excellent. High molecular weight cytokeratins (CK5/6, CK14, 34 beta E12) typically show a mosaic-like pattern of expression in benign papillary/hyperplastic lesions, and are mostly negative in ductal in situ carcinoma, but some exceptions exist. Neuroendocrine differentiation ( confirmed by anti-chromogranin A or synaptophysin) suggests malignancy in solid and papillary intraductal epithelial proliferations. The significance of immunohistochemical evaluation of apocrine lesions is still controversial. Negative E-cadherin staining is used for making confirmative diagnosis of lobular carcinoma, with a specificity and sensitivity of approximately 90%. Cytokeratins, especially the antibody 34 beta E12, are of value to differentiate spindle cell carcinoma from phyllodes tumour. There are some other useful markers for characterising certain histological sub-types. Nevertheless, for accurate diagnosis, it is essential to correlate the immmunohistochemical staining results with the histological findings.

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

4.5
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