scholarly journals Use of immunohistochemical analysis of CK5/6, CK14, and CK34betaE12 in the differential diagnosis of solid papillary carcinoma in situ from intraductal papilloma with usual ductal hyperplasia of the breast

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 205031211881154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ichiro Maeda ◽  
Shinya Tajima ◽  
Yoshihide Kanemaki ◽  
Koichiro Tsugawa ◽  
Masayuki Takagi
Keyword(s):  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Papillary Carcinoma ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Immunohistochemical Staining ◽  
Immunohistochemical Analysis ◽  
Intraductal Papilloma ◽  
Solid Papillary Carcinoma ◽  
Usual Ductal Hyperplasia ◽  
Ductal Hyperplasia

Objectives: The aim of this study was to use immunohistochemistry to differentiate solid papillary carcinoma in situ from intraductal papilloma with usual ductal hyperplasia (IPUDH). Three types of high-molecular-weight cytokeratins (CKs) – CK5/6, CK14, and CK34betaE12 – were targeted. Methods: We studied 17 patients with solid papillary carcinoma in situ and 18 patients with IPUDH diagnosed by at least two pathologists. Immunohistochemical analyses used antibodies to CK5/6, CK14, and CK34betaE12 to make the differential diagnosis of solid papillary carcinoma in situ versus IPUDH. Immunohistochemical staining was scored as 0–5 using Allred score. Results: Immunohistochemistry with CK5/6 and CK14 antibodies produced scores of 0–3 in all patients with solid papillary carcinoma in situ and 2–5 in all patients with IPUDH. Immunohistochemical staining with CK34betaE12 antibody produced scores of 1–3 in all patients with solid papillary carcinoma and 3–5 in all patients with IPUDH. In tissues from patients with IPUDH, significantly more cells were stained with CK34betaE12 than CK5/6 ( p < 0.05) or CK14 ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: The immunoreactivity of CK5/6, CK14, and CK34betaE12 antibodies was useful to differentiate solid papillary carcinoma in situ from IPUDH. CK34betaE12 is especially useful for distinguishing solid papillary carcinoma from IPUDH.

scholarly journals Estrogen Receptor and Cytokeratin 5 Are Reliable Markers to Separate Usual Ductal Hyperplasia From Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

2016 ◽  
Vol 140 (7) ◽  
pp. 686-689 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony P. Martinez ◽  
Cynthia Cohen ◽  
Krisztina Z. Hanley ◽  
Xiaoxian (Bill) Li
Keyword(s):  
Estrogen Receptor ◽  
Progesterone Receptor ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Usual Ductal Hyperplasia ◽  
Ductal Hyperplasia ◽  
Cytokeratin 5

Context.—High–molecular weight cytokeratins, such as cytokeratin 5 (CK5), are helpful to distinguish usual ductal hyperplasia (UDH) from atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) or low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Few studies have looked at combining CK5 with estrogen receptor (ER) to differentiate UDH from ADH. Objective.—To evaluate the expression pattern of CK5 and ER as single or combined markers to separate UDH from ADH and low-grade DCIS. Design.—A total of 23 ADH, 10 low-grade DCIS, and 32 UDH whole-tissue slides were stained for ER, CK5, progesterone receptor (PR), and Bcl-2. Nuclear staining of ER and PR was scored as diffuse (&gt;80%), focal (10%–80%), or negative (&lt;10%). Cytoplasmic staining of CK5 and Bcl-2 was scored as diffuse (&gt;60%), focal (10%–60%), or negative (&lt;10%). Differences in staining patterns were evaluated. Results.—For ER staining: 94% of ADH/DCIS cases showed a diffuse staining pattern, whereas none of the 32 UDH cases showed diffuse staining. For CK5 staining: 96% of ADH/DCIS cases were negative or focally positive, whereas all 32 UDH cases had diffuse staining. The combination of ER and CK5 increased the sensitivity (94% to 97%). For PR staining: 11 of 23 ADH cases (48%), 6 of 10 DCIS cases (60%), and 4 of 32 UDH cases (13%) showed diffuse staining. Bcl-2 staining showed no statistical significance (P = .73). Conclusions.—Although morphology remains the gold standard, ER and CK5 are useful makers to differentiate UDH from ADH. Progesterone receptor staining may have limited value, and Bcl-2 staining is not useful.

scholarly journals Elastography findings of encapsulated solid papillary carcinoma of breast in a man

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 491
Author(s):  
Işıl Başara Akın ◽  
Hakan Abdullah Özgül ◽  
Duygu Gürel ◽  
Süleyman Özkan Aksoy ◽  
Pınar Balcı
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Papillary Carcinoma ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Solid Papillary Carcinoma ◽  
Papillary Lesions ◽  
Us Elastography ◽  
Radiologic Features

Encapsulated solid papillary carcinoma (ESPC) is one of the malignant papillary lesions and classified it as ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiologic features of ESPC have been reported in the literature many times. However, to our best knowledge US elastography findings of ESPC have not been reported in the published literature yet. In this case report, we present US elastography findings of ESPC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document