Yeu-Sheng Tyan2026-10-162026-10-162010-02-01Pure ID: 15452971Pure UUID: c217450b-1940-4b57-8d55-e38097a19a3510.1007/s00404-009-1094-0https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/77950342159https://scholars.csmu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/29872Background Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that aVect the uterus; however, their biological behaviors are quite diVerent. This distinction has clinical significance because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. The purpose of this study is to evaluate two diVerent scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemical (IHC) stain in distinguishing between primary ECAs and EMAs. Methods A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using formalin-Wxed, paraYn-embedded tissue from hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 21 EMAs. Tissue array sections were stained with a commercially available antibody, p16INK4a. The avidin-biotin complex method was used to visualize antigens. The staining intensity and extent of the IHC reactions were evaluated using a semi-quantitative scoring system. Two scoring methods were deWned on the following bases: (1) independent cytoplasmic staining alone, irrespective of nucleic stain (Method C) and (2) independent nucleic staining alone, irrespective of cytoplasmic staining. (Method N). Results Of the two scoring mechanisms for p16INK4a expression, Method N showed a signiWcant divergence (P = 0.015), but Method C showed no signiWcant (P = 0.432) frequency diVerences in distinguishing between ECAs and EMAs. However, Method N had a higher overall accuracy rate (71.4%) in accurately diagnosing ECAs from EMAs in the total number of p16INK4a IHC cases. Conclusion According to the data of p16INK4a expression in this TMA study, Method N is favorable and eYcient in distinguishing between ECAs and EMAs, while Method C is not.8enjournal article