Search

Background: Breast cancer (BCA) is the second most common cancer among women in India and accounts for 7% of global burden of BCA. The axillary lymph node status is an independent prognostic factor. The combined estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2/neu biomarker expression is a predictor of BCA status for therapeutic guidance. Studies have demonstrated that these biomarkers are unstable throughout their tumor progression. Varying concordance and discordance rates in the biomarker expression between primary breast carcinoma (PBC) and metastatic axillary lymph node (MALN) status are reported.Aim: This study was conducted for studying and comparing the expression of immunohistochemistry (IHC) markers, i.e., ER, PR, HER2/neu, p53, and Ki67 between PBC and their corresponding MALN for prognostication and therapeutic purpose.Methods: Sixty cases of PBC with metastasis to axillary lymph nodes diagnosed between years 2008 and 2014 were included in the study. A technique of manual tissue array was employed for cases subjected to IHC. Analyses of the expression of IHC markers were attempted between the PBC and their corresponding synchronous MALN and classified as concordant or discordant. Results were subjected to statistical analysis.Results: Substantial agreement was observed for biomarker ER, PR, HER2/neu, p53, and Ki67 expression between PBC and MALN with k-value 0.79, 0.75, 0.89, 0.7, and 0.6, respectively.Conclusion: There was high concordance for the IHC markers: ER, PR, HER2/neu, p53, and Ki67 expression in matched pairs of PBC and corresponding synchronous MALN. However, the discordance noted in small subgroups cannot be overlooked. Thus, there is a need to perform ER, PR, HER2/neu, p53, and Ki67 IHC studies routinely in both PBC and MALN to help design therapies that are tailored to target the specific tumor clones and render maximum benefit to patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.