These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Heterogeneity of epithelial marker expression in routinely processed, poorly differentiated carcinomas.
    Author: Kamel OW, Rouse RV, Warnke RA.
    Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1991 Jun; 115(6):566-70. PubMed ID: 1710100.
    Abstract:
    The application of immunohistochemical markers against epithelial antigens has proved useful for studying tumor differentiation and in aiding tumor diagnosis. However, the reactivity of various epithelial markers with poorly differentiated carcinomas (the situation in which they are most often used) has not been well established. As a result, it is unclear how negative results should be interpreted and how often more than one antibody may be needed to document the epithelial nature of poorly differentiated neoplasms. We studied 98 poorly differentiated epithelial tumors with AE1, CAM 5.2, and EMA to assess the use of these markers in their diagnosis. Both CAM 5.2 and EMA provided support for epithelial differentiation in 71% (70/98) of the cases, while AE1 stained 50% (49/98) of the tumors; CAM 5.2 was the single most useful marker in the subset of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas, staining 20 (77%) of 26 tumors. Use of these markers in pairs increased the recognition of epithelial differentiation (at least one marker showing positive staining) as follows: AE1/CAM 5.2, 80% (78/98); AE1/EMA, 87% (85/98); and CAM 5.2/EMA, 99% (97/98). Thirty carcinomas stained with all three markers, 34 with two markers, and in 34 cases only one antibody supported epithelial differentiation. Twelve (21%) of 58 tumors showed evidence of S100 reactivity. None of the 71 cases to which PD7 was applied showed staining This study indicates that poorly differentiated carcinomas are heterogeneous in their expression of antigens recognized by AE1, CAM 5.2, and EMA. Moreover, these results quantitate the probability of reactivity with poorly differentiated carcinomas for each marker and support the use of one or more antibodies in a "backup" panel when a negative result is obtained with a single antibody and the diagnosis of carcinoma is still suspected.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]