4.4 Article

Histologic and immunohistochemical differences between hereditary and sporadic diffuse gastric carcinoma

期刊

HUMAN PATHOLOGY
卷 74, 期 -, 页码 64-72

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2017.12.023

关键词

Gastric carcinoma; Hereditary diffuse gastric carcinoma; CDH1 mutation; p16; CDX2

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We aimed to identify histopathologic features unique in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) by comparing with its sporadic counterpart (SDGC). 11 patients with confirmed CDH1 mutation who were found to have HDGC in a prophylactic total gastrectomy were collected. Median age of HDGC patients was 39 years (range 24-57). All HDGC cases had intramucosal signet ring cell carcinoma. Twenty-three invasive tumor foci from 7 patients with HDGC were available for ancillary studies, and we evaluated each focus separately. Almost all foci (20/23) showed two distinct tumor cell populations, namely, large signet ring cells and small signet ring cells. The large cells were located just beneath the surface epithelium and were positive for mucicarmine and pCEA, while the small cells were found in the deeper lamina propria and were mostly negative for mucicarmine and pCEA. A subset of small cells (6 foci from two resected stomachs) showed poorly differentiated morphology with p16 positivity. All other tumor cells with well-differentiated signet ring cell morphology were negative for p16. In contrast, 18 of 20 SDGCs were positive for p16. In addition, all HDGCs were negative for CDX2, while 19 of 20 SDGCs were positive. We propose that there are three distinct tumor cell populations in HDGC: well-differentiated large cells, well-differentiated small cells, and poorly differentiated small cells, and that the latter group with aberrant p16 expression may represents a more aggressive phenotype. The absence of CDX2 in HDGC suggests that it may develop along a carcinogenetic pathway different from that of SDGC. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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