Yeu-Sheng Tyan2026-10-162026-10-162010-02-01Pure ID: 14912567Pure UUID: 9939011f-a989-4610-a205-19fb426a3c3710.1007/s00404-009-1115-zhttps://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/77950359257https://scholars.csmu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/27701Background The choice of appropriate therapeutic plans for primary endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) depends on the tumor's site of origin. Some panels of antibodies help to distinguish primary ECA from EMA. However, unexpected expressions of those markers often exist, which causes this diagnostic dilemma to be still unresolved. In this study, we investigate Wve commonly used monoclonal antibodies (p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34βE12) to evaluate their potential use in distinguishing between these two gynecologic malignancies. Methods A tissue microarray was constructed using paraYnembedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. Utilizing the avidin-biotin (ABC) technique, tissue array sections were immunostained with the Wve aforementioned commercially available antibodies. Results Immunohistochemical (IHC) expressions of p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34βE12 were all nonsignificant (P > 0.05) in frequency diVerences between the immunostaining results (positive vs. negative) in tumors from both the two primary adenocarcinomas (ECA vs. EMA). Conclusion It is still uncertain which markers or panels would be the most appropriate for making diagnoses; hence, exploration of other useful markers, which make a deWnitive distinction between ECA and EMA merits further studies. This study, however, uncovered that the Wve commonly used monoclonal antibodies (p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34βE12) are of no beneWcial value in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.7enjournal article