4.4 Article

DOG1 Utility in Diagnosing Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors on Fine-Needle Arspiration

期刊

CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 119, 期 3, 页码 202-208

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20149

关键词

DOG-1; GIST; fine-needle aspiration; cell blocks; immunohistochemistry

资金

  1. Department of Pathology at Emory University Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and the majority contain KIT or PDGFRA activating mutations. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) is a valuable technique in the diagnosis of GIST and may allow for preoperative therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Because of the morphologic diversity of these tumors, routine diagnosis of GIST often relies on C-Kit immunohistochemical staining in addition to morphologic findings. However, up to 15% of GISTs are C-Kit negative. Antibodies with increased sensitivity and specificity for detection of C-Kit-negative GIST cases may be of value, especially because some of these cases may also benefit from TKI therapy. METHODS: Immunohistochemical staining for DOG-1, C-Kit (CD117) and protein kinase C theta (PKC theta) was performed on FNA cell-block preparations representing 30 GISTs, 17 leiomyosarcomas, 16 melanomas, 16 schwannomas, 11 adenoid cystic carcinomas, and 8 leiomyomas. RESULTS: DOG-1 was found to have 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity in diagnosis of GIST. C-Kit demonstrated 70% sensitivity and 76% specificity, and PKC theta showed 40% sensitivity and 86% specificity. When only spindle-cell neoplasms were considered (adenoid cystic carcinomas excluded), the specificity of C-Kit increased to 89%. Of interest, all C-Kit-negative cases showed DOG-1 positivity. CONCLUSIONS: DOG-1 was the most sensitive and specific of the 3 markers for the diagnosis of GIST in cell-block preparations and may be of particular use in the diagnosis of C-Kit-negative GIST.Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2011;119:202-8. (C) 2077 American Cancer Society

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