Repository logo
  • English
  • 中文
  • Log In
    New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
Repository logo
    Communities & Collections
    Research Outputs
    Fundings & Projects
    People
    Organizations
    Statistics
  • English
  • 中文
  • Log In
    New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. Chung Shan Medical University
  3. Pure學術人才庫轉入
  4. Progesterone receptor does not improve the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker panel, consisting of estrogen receptor, vimentin and carcinoembryonic antigen in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray extension study
 
  • Details
Options

Progesterone receptor does not improve the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker panel, consisting of estrogen receptor, vimentin and carcinoembryonic antigen in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray extension study

Journal
Journal of Translational Medicine
Date Issued
2009-05-28
Author(s)
Yeu-Sheng Tyan  
DOI
10.1186/1479-5876-7-37
URI
https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/67649850565
https://scholars.csmu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/31224
Abstract
Objective: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) are uterine malignancies that have differing biological behaviors. The choice of an appropriate therapeutic plan rests on the tumor's site of origin. In this study, we propose to evaluate whether PR adds value to the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Methods: A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 38 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 24 EMA. Tissue microarray (TMA) sections were immunostained with 4 antibodies, using the avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and extent of the immunohistochemical (IHC) reactions were appraised using a semi-quantitative scoring system. Results: The three markers (ER, Vim and CEA) and their respective panel expressions showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) frequency differences between ECA and EMA tumors. Although the additional ancillary PR-marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (p < 0.05) between ECA and EMA tumors, it did not demonstrate any supplementary benefit to the 3-marker panel. Conclusion: According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is easier, sufficient and appropriate to use in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Although the 4-marker panel containing PR also reveals statistically significant results, the PR-marker offers no supplemental benefit to the pre-existing 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel in the diagnostic distinction between ECA and EMA.
Type
journal article
Make it your own

DSpace-CRIS can be extensively configured to meet your needs. Decide which information need to be collected and available with fine-grained security. Start updating the theme to match your Institution's web identity.

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback