Search

It is critical to extensively sample an OAN as one should discriminate a pure oncocytic tumor either from an ordinary adrenocortical tumor with focal oncocytic changes or its conventional counterpart of the compact cell type in order not to incorrectly apply the Weiss system and accordingly inadequately estimate its biological behavior. Also, an oncocytic tumor can only be labeled as pure after quantifying each individual component (oncocytic and clear) since pure and mixed oncocytic tumors do not seem to share similar clinical outcome.[[4]] The tumor was composed of entirely oncocytic cells in the present case. Adrenocortical tumors are usually solitary lesions and their vast majority occur in adults without sex predilection.[[3]] Bisceglia et al. have proposed categories for OAN as pure oncocytic tumor, if a tumor is exclusively or almost entirely composed (greater than 90%) of oncocytic cells, mixed oncocytic tumor, when a clear cell component is also present (ranging from 10 to 50%), and ordinary adrenocortical tumor with focal oncocytic changes, if the oncocytic component is not a predominant one (less than 50% of the tumor mass). [Extracted from the article]

Background: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) II and CIN III have a high progression rate to invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Histopathological assessment is known to have intra and inter-observer diagnostic discrepancies even among two panels of pathologist. Subsequently, to improve on the accuracy of histopathological examination, various IHC biomarkers have been evaluated in the biopsy of cervix., Aim: The present study was undertaken to evaluate the immunoexpression and interrelationship of p16INK4A, MIB-1 and CK17 in histopathologically diagnosed cases of CIN and invasive cervical carcinoma (ICC) which could aid in differentiating CIN and ICC from benign cervical lesions., Materials and Methods: This study included 120 cases of cervical lesions; out of which 20 cases were each of negative for malignancy/dysplasia (NED), CIN I and CIN III, 10 cases of CIN II and 50 cases of ICC. A technique of manual tissue microarray was employed for the study of immunohistochemical markers such as p16INK4A, CK17 and MIB-1 in all cases. Results were subjected to statistical analysis., Results: The difference in p16 immunoexpression between NED (0/20, 0%) and CIN+ICC (97/100, 97%) cases was statistically highly significant. (p<0.01) The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of p16 immunoexpression in comparison to histopathological diagnosis was 97%, 100%, 100%, 86.96% and 97.5% respectively. The overall agreement of p16 staining with histopathological diagnosis was 97.5% (?=0.9151 i.e. very good) The difference in MIB-1 immunoexpression between CIN-I (6/20, 30%) and CIN II+III (30/30, 100%), CIN (36/50,72%) and ICC (50/50, 100%) cases was statistically highly significant. (p<0.01) The difference in MIB-1 immunoexpression between NED (0/20, 0%) and CIN+IC (86/100, 86%) cases was statistically highly significant. (p<0.01) The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of MIB-1 immunoexpression in comparison to histopathological diagnosis was 86%, 100%, 100%, 58.82% and 88.33% respectively. The overall agreement of MIB-1 staining with H&E diagnosis was 88.33%. (?=0.6719 i.e. good) The difference in CK17 immunoexpression between CIN-I (11/20, 55%) and CIN-II+III (26/30, 86.67%) cases was statistically significant. (p=0.030) The difference in CK17 immunoexpression between CIN (37/50, 74%) and ICC (46/50, 92%) cases was statistically significant. (p=0.033) The difference in CK17 immunoexpression between NED (0/20, 0%) and CIN+ICC (83/100, 83%) cases was statistically highly significant. (p<0.01) The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of CK 17 immunoexpression in comparison to histopathological diagnosis was 82%, 100%, 100%, 52.63% and 85% respectively. The overall agreement of CK 17 staining with histopathological diagnosis was 85% (?=0.6029 i.e. moderate) The agreement between p16 and MIB-1 immunostaining was 89.16%. (?= 0.7 i.e., good) The agreement between CK17 and MIB-1 immunostaining was 86.6%. (?= 0.683 i.e., good) The agreement between p16 and CK17 immunostaining was 84.16%. (?= 0.5908 i.e., moderate) Conclusion: The findings of the present study indicate that the IHC report of p16, MIB-1 and CK-17 in CIN and ICC cases if included in each histopathology report could aid in accurate diagnosis which could facilitate in better patient management.