4.3 Article

p16/CDKN2A FISH in Differentiation of Diffuse Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma From Mesothelial Hyperplasia and Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 143, 期 6, 页码 830-838

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPOATJ9L4GCGDA

关键词

Diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma; p16; 9p21; Fluorescence in situ hybridization; Reactive mesothelial hyperplasia; Epithelial ovarian cancer

资金

  1. Izumo City Supporting Cancer Research Project
  2. Research Center for Advanced Molecular Medicine, Fukuoka University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: It can be difficult to differentiate diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (DMPM) from reactive mesothelial hyperplasia (RMH) or peritoneal dissemination of gynecologic malignancies, such as epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), which cause a large amount of ascites. Detection of the homozygous deletion of p16/CDKN2A (p16) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is an effective adjunct in the diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma. The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of the p16 FISH assay to differentiate DMPM from RMH and EOC. Methods: p16 FISH was performed in 28 DMPMs (successful in 19), 30 RMHS, and 40 EOC cases. The cutoff values of p16 FISH were more than 10% for homozygous deletion and more than 40% for heterozygous deletion. Results: According to the above criteria, nine (47.4%) of 19 successful DMPM cases were homozygous deletion positive, and three (15.8%) of 19 were heterozygous deletion positive, whereas all RMH cases were negative for the p16 deletion. In all four major histologic subtypes of EOC, neither p16 homozygous nor heterozygous deletions were detected. To differentiate DMPM from RMH or EOC, the sensitivity of the p16 homozygous deletion was 32% (9/28), and the specificity was 100%. Conclusions: Our study suggests that p16 FISH analysis is useful in differentiating DMPM from RMH and EOC when homozygous deletion is detected.

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

4.3
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