4.6 Article

Diagnostic Utility of SOX4 Expression in Adult T-Cell Leukemia/Lymphoma

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11050766

关键词

SOX4; p16; adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma; peripheral T-cell lymphoma; not otherwise specified

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study suggests that the expression of SOX4 and p16 may help differentiate between ATLL and PTCL-NOS, with significantly higher expression of SOX4 in ATLL patients. It is recommended to perform immunohistochemical staining of SOX4 when pathologists face challenges discriminating between the two diseases.
Differentiation between adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS), is often challenging based on pathological findings alone. Although serum anti-HTLV-1 antibody positivity is required for ATLL diagnosis, this information is often not available at the time of pathological diagnosis. Therefore, we examined whether the expression of SOX4 and p16 would be helpful for differentiating the two disease entities. We immunohistochemically examined SOX4 and p16 expression (which have been implicated in ATLL carcinogenesis) in 11 ATLL patients and 20 PTCL-NOS patients and classified them into four stages according to the percentage of positive cells. Among the ATLL cases, 8/11 (73%) were SOX4-positive, while only 2/20 (10%) PTCL-NOS cases expressed SOX4. The mean total score was 4.2 (standard deviation (SD): 0.61) in the ATLL group and 0.50 (SD: 0.46) in the PTCL-NOS group (p < 0.001). Positive expression of p16 was noted in 4/11 (36%) patients with ATLL and 3/20 (15%) patients with PTCL-NOS, with mean total scores of 1.9 (SD: 0.64) and 0.70 (SD: 0.48) in the ATLL and PTCL-NOS groups, respectively (p = 0.141). These results suggest that SOX4 may be strongly expressed in ATLL compared to PTCL-NOS cases. Therefore, it may be helpful to perform immunohistochemical staining of SOX4 when pathologists face challenges discriminating between ATLL and PTCL-NOS.

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