4.4 Article

OCT4 is superior to CD30 in the diagnosis of metastatic embryonal carcinomas after chemotherapy

期刊

HUMAN PATHOLOGY
卷 37, 期 6, 页码 662-667

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2006.01.019

关键词

testis; neoplasia; germ cell tumor; embryonal carcinoma; metastasis; chemotherapy; OCT3/4; CD30; cytokeratin AE1/AE3; biomarker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Correctly diagnosing a metastatic germ cell tumor after chemotherapy may be challenging because of the diverse morphological manifestations of postchemotherapy tumors. Both OCT4 and CD30 are sensitive markers for the identification of primary embryonal carcinomas; however, loss of expression of CD30 (65%) has been reported in metastatic embryonal carcinomas after chemotherapy. The present study was conducted to evaluate the expression patterns of OCT4 and CD30 in postchemotherapy metastatic embryonal carcinomas and to compare their utility as diagnostic tools. Twenty-five cases of metastatic embryonal carcinoma after chemotherapy were immunohistochemically analyzed for CD30, OCT4, and cytokeratin AE1/AE3 expression. The staining intensities and the percentages of positively staining tumor cells were recorded. Nineteen (76%) of 25 cases revealed diffuse, moderate to strong nuclear OCT4 staining in postchemotherapy embryonal carcinomas. Among these 19 OCT4-positive cases, 8 also revealed diffuse and moderate to strong membranous CD30 staining. Seven of these OCT4-positive cases retained focal and weak CD30 expression. The remaining 4 OCT4-positive cases demonstrated a complete loss of CD30 expression. The 19 OCT4-positive cases showed a positive but variable cytokeratin AE1/AE3 expression pattern. Six (24%) of 25 cases were negative for both CD30 and OCT4 but demonstrated diffuse and strong cytokeratin AE1/AE3 staining. OCT4 is a useful diagnostic marker to identify metastatic embryonal carcinomas after chemotherapy, with a better sensitivity than CD30. (c) 2006 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