Comparison of Immunohistochemical Expression of Cytokeratin 19, c-KIT, BerEP4, GATA3, and NUTM1 Between Porocarcinoma and Squamous Cell Carcinoma - PubMed (original) (raw)
Comparative Study
. 2021 Nov 1;43(11):781-787.
doi: 10.1097/DAD.0000000000001901.
Affiliations
- PMID: 33767067
- DOI: 10.1097/DAD.0000000000001901
Comparative Study
Comparison of Immunohistochemical Expression of Cytokeratin 19, c-KIT, BerEP4, GATA3, and NUTM1 Between Porocarcinoma and Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Keisuke Goto et al. Am J Dermatopathol. 2021.
Abstract
Distinguishing porocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is clinically significant; however, differential diagnosis can often be challenging. This study sought to confirm the diagnostic utility of cytokeratin 19, c-KIT, BerEP4, GATA3, and NUTM1 immunohistochemistry in distinguishing porocarcinoma from SCC. Immunohistochemical analysis of cytokeratin 19, c-KIT, BerEP4, GATA3, and NUTM1 in 14 porocarcinomas and 22 SCCs was performed; the extents and intensities of expression of these markers were recorded. The statistical associations of the immunoexpression between porocarcinoma and SCC were analyzed using the Pearson χ2 test. Cytokeratin 19 was positive in 13 (92.9%) of 14 porocarcinomas, and for all the positive cases, staining was strong and evident in >20% of the tumor cells. By contrast, 9 (40.9%) of 22 SCCs expressed cytokeratin 19 (P = 0.0018), of which 6 showed extremely focal (≤10% of the tumor cells) expression. Of the 14 porocarcinomas, 11 (78.6%) cases showed c-KIT positivity, whereas only 3 of 22 SCCs (13.6%) expressed c-KIT focally (P = 0.0001). In addition, BerEP4 immunostaining differed between porocarcinomas and SCCs (57.1% vs. 9.1%, respectively; P = 0.0017). However, no significant difference between the groups was reported in terms of GATA3 expression (57.1% vs. 72.7%, respectively; P = 0.3336). NUTM1 was expressed in 4/14 (28.6%) porocarcinomas but not in the SCCs. Immunohistochemistry for cytokeratin 19, c-KIT, and BerEP4 could be helpful in distinguishing porocarcinomas from SCCs. In addition, NUTM1 immunoexpression is highly specific, although not sensitive, to porocarcinomas. GATA3 immunohistochemistry has no meaningful implications in the differential diagnosis of porocarcinoma and SCC.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Similar articles
- CD117 (KIT) is a useful immunohistochemical marker for differentiating porocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma.
Goto K, Takai T, Fukumoto T, Anan T, Kimura T, Ansai S, Oshitani Y, Murata Y, Sakuma T, Hirose T. Goto K, et al. J Cutan Pathol. 2016 Mar;43(3):219-26. doi: 10.1111/cup.12632. Epub 2015 Oct 29. J Cutan Pathol. 2016. PMID: 26449497 - An immunohistochemical comparison of cytokeratin 7, cytokeratin 15, cytokeratin 19, CAM 5.2, carcinoembryonic antigen, and nestin in differentiating porocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma.
Mahalingam M, Richards JE, Selim MA, Muzikansky A, Hoang MP. Mahalingam M, et al. Hum Pathol. 2012 Aug;43(8):1265-72. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2011.10.005. Epub 2012 Jan 26. Hum Pathol. 2012. PMID: 22285043 - Engrailed Homeobox 1 and Cytokeratin 19 Are Independent Diagnostic Markers of Eccrine Porocarcinoma and Distinguish It From Squamous Cell Carcinoma.
Miura K, Akashi T, Namiki T, Hishima T, Bae Y, Sakurai U, Murano K, Shiraishi J, Warabi M, Tanizawa T, Tanaka M, Bhunchet E, Kumagai J, Ayabe S, Sekiya T, Ando N, Shintaku H, Kinowaki Y, Tomii S, Kirimura S, Kayamori K, Yamamoto K, Ito T, Eishi Y. Miura K, et al. Am J Clin Pathol. 2020 Sep 8;154(4):499-509. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa066. Am J Clin Pathol. 2020. PMID: 32556098 - Porocarcinoma: Clinical and Histological Features, Immunohistochemistry and Outcomes: A Systematic Review.
Bienstman T, Güvenç C, Garmyn M. Bienstman T, et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2024 May 25;25(11):5760. doi: 10.3390/ijms25115760. Int J Mol Sci. 2024. PMID: 38891945 Free PMC article. Review. - An Unusual Case of a Scrotal Porocarcinoma and Review of the Literature.
Hartsough EM, Moran J, Devins K, Wszolek M, Cornejo KM. Hartsough EM, et al. Am J Dermatopathol. 2023 Jan 1;45(1):51-55. doi: 10.1097/DAD.0000000000002327. Epub 2022 Nov 2. Am J Dermatopathol. 2023. PMID: 36484607 Review.
Cited by
- Eccrine Porocarcinoma: A Review of the Literature.
Tsiogka A, Koumaki D, Kyriazopoulou M, Liopyris K, Stratigos A, Gregoriou S. Tsiogka A, et al. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Apr 16;13(8):1431. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13081431. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023. PMID: 37189532 Free PMC article. Review. - KITLG Copy Number Germline Variations in Schnauzer Breeds and Their Relevance in Digital Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Black Giant Schnauzers.
Aupperle-Lellbach H, Heidrich D, Kehl A, Conrad D, Brockmann M, Törner K, Beitzinger C, Müller T. Aupperle-Lellbach H, et al. Vet Sci. 2023 Feb 11;10(2):147. doi: 10.3390/vetsci10020147. Vet Sci. 2023. PMID: 36851451 Free PMC article. - Diagnosis and Management of Porocarcinoma.
Miyamoto K, Yanagi T, Maeda T, Ujiie H. Miyamoto K, et al. Cancers (Basel). 2022 Oct 25;14(21):5232. doi: 10.3390/cancers14215232. Cancers (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36358649 Free PMC article. Review. - Recent Advances on Immunohistochemistry and Molecular Biology for the Diagnosis of Adnexal Sweat Gland Tumors.
Macagno N, Sohier P, Kervarrec T, Pissaloux D, Jullie ML, Cribier B, Battistella M. Macagno N, et al. Cancers (Basel). 2022 Jan 18;14(3):476. doi: 10.3390/cancers14030476. Cancers (Basel). 2022. PMID: 35158743 Free PMC article. Review.
References
- Elder DE, Massi D, Scolyer RA, et al. eds. WHO Classification of Skin Tumours. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2018.
- Mahalingam M, Richards JE, Selim MA, et al. An immunohistochemical comparison of cytokeratin 7, cytokeratin 15, cytokeratin 19, CAM 5.2, carcinoembryonic antigen, and nestin in differentiating porocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2012;43:1265–1272.
- Mahomed F, Blok J, Grayson W. The squamous variant of eccrine porocarcinoma: a clinicopathological study of 21 cases. J Clinpathol. 2008;61:361–365.
- Robson A, Greene J, Ansari N, et al. Eccrine porocarcinoma (malignant eccrine poroma): a clinicopathologic study of 69 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:710–720.
- Shinohara J, Koga H, Uhara H, et al. Eccrine porocarcinoma: clinical and pathological studies of 12 cases. J Dermatol. 2007;34:516–522.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous