IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS AS A METHOD FOR INCREASING THE DETECTION OF PROSTATE CANCER IN PRIMARY BIOPSY
S. V. Popov,
R. G. Guseynov,
O. N. Skryabin,
I. N. Orlov,
A. A. Vorobyov,
A. G. Martov,
V. L. Shchukin https://doi.org/10.17709/2409-2231-2019-6-1-4
Abstract
Morphological manifestations of prostate cancer (PCa) in 15–20% of cases are similar to those with benign hyperplastic processes in prostate tissue and/or with a histological pattern of atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP).
The purpose of this study is a comparative study of the detection of prostate cancer in biopsy material using a review morphological analysis and immunohistochemistry with the use of monoclonal antibodies to the nuclear p63 protein, high molecular weight cytokeratins of clone 34βE12 and α-methylacyl-CoA-racemase.
Materials and methods. The method of the study was a retrospective analysis of the findings on the review morphological and immunohistochemical (IHC) analyzes of biopsy material of 428 patients who were examined and treated in the urological hospital for the period from 2013 to 2017.
Results. Almost half of the cases of ASAP, determined by routine histological examination of biopsy specimens with hematoxylin-eosin staining, in the process of IHC analysis using monoclonal antibodies to the nuclear protein p63, cytokeratins of clone 34βE12 and α-methylacyl-CoA racemase were verified for prostate cancer. The number of histological findings on benign prostatic hyperplasia detected in routinely stained preparations decreased by 12.38% in favor of the histological diagnosis of prostate cancer after the IHC study.
Conclusion. Immunohistochemical analysis of biopsy material using monoclonal antibodies to nuclear p63, high-molecular cytokeratins of clone 34βE12 and α-methylacyl-CoA racemase for suspected prostate cancer: firstly, specifies the micromorphological picture and demasks prostate cancer; secondly, it increases the detectability of prostate cancer; thirdly, it reduces the occurrence of false-negative results.
About the Authors
S. V. Popov
St. Petersburg State Clinical Hospital of St. Luke
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
MD, PhD, DSc, professor, urologist
46 Chugunnaya str., St. Petersburg, 194044, Russian Federation
R. G. Guseynov
St. Petersburg State Clinical Hospital of St. Luke
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
urologist
46 Chugunnaya str., St. Petersburg, 194044, Russian Federation
O. N. Skryabin
St. Petersburg State Clinical Hospital of St. Luke
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
MD, PhD, DSc, professor, chief oncologist
46 Chugunnaya str., St. Petersburg, 194044, Russian Federation
I. N. Orlov
St. Petersburg State Clinical Hospital of St. Luke
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
MD, PhD, urologist
46 Chugunnaya str., St. Petersburg, 194044, Russian Federation
A. A. Vorobyov
St. Petersburg State Clinical Hospital of St. Luke
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
MD, PhD, urologist
46 Chugunnaya str., St. Petersburg, 194044, Russian Federation
A. G. Martov
State Research Center – Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency (SRC-FMBC)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
MD, PhD, DSc, professor, head of the department of urology
46 Zhivopisnaya str., Moscow, 123182 Russian Federation
V. L. Shchukin
St. Petersburg City Clinical Hospital №20
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
urologist
21 Gastello str., St. Petersburg, 196135, Russian Federation
References
1. Boyle P, Maisonneuve P, Napalkov P. Incidence of prostate cancer will double by the year 2030: arguments. Eur Urol. 1996;29 Suppl 2:3–9.
2. Ruijter E, van de Kaa C, Miller G, Ruiter D, Debruyne F, Schalken J. Molecular genetics and epidemiology of prostate carcinoma. Endocr Rev. 1999 Feb;20 (1):22–45. DOI: 10.1210/edrv.20.1.0356
3. Vorobiev VA, Krzyvitsky PI. Prospects of prophylaxis, diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Practical Oncology. 2008;9 (2):71–82. (In Russian).
4. Elina YuA. Medico-social characteristics of patients with prostatic diseases and organizational basis of prevention. Diss. Мoscow, 2012, 163 p. (In Russian).
5. Kogan, OS. Morbidity of urological diseases of men and the organization of specialized care in the subject of the Russian Federation. Diss. Ekaterinburg, 2012, 52 p. (In Russian).
6. Gurina LI, et al. Epidemiological features of malignant tumors of the prostate gland in the region of Siberia and the Far East. Optimization of early diagnosis and treatment tactics. Vladivostok: Publishing House Dal’nevost. University, 2005, 354 p. (In Russian).
7. Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Johansson S, Bergström R, Adami HO. Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer. A prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA. 1997 Feb 12;277 (6):467–71.
8. Pulbere SA, Babichenko II, Kotov SV, Guspanov RI. Application immunohistochemically research methods in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Herald Urology. 2017;5 (3):30–8. DOI: 10.21886/2308–6424–2017–5-3–30–38 (In Russian).
9. Apolikhin OI, Sivkov AV, Jernov AA, Keshishev IG. Cost-Effectiveness of LHRH Analogues in Prostate Cancer Treatment in Russian Federation: preferential provision argumentation. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2010;3:76–8. (In Russian).
10. Alekseev BYa, Kaprin AD, Matveev VB, Nyushko KM. Clinical recommendations for diagnosis and treatment prostate cancer. Мoscow: Russian Union of Public Associations of the Association of Russian Oncologists; 2014, 44 p. (In Russian).
11. Pushkar DYu, Govorov AV, Sidorenkov AV, Prilepskaya EA, Kovylina MV. Early diagnosis of prostate cancer. Methodical rec-ommendations No. 19. Мoscow: OOO “ABV-Press Publishing House”; 2015, 52 p. (In Russian).
12. Pozharissky KM, Vorobiev AV. Pathomorphological characteristics and features of prostatic carcinoma. The significance of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Practical Oncology. 2001;2 (6):17–23. (In Russian).
13. Frank GA. Morphology of prostate cancer. Practical Oncology. 2008;9 (2):65–70. (In Russian).
14. Kovylina MV. Tumor diseases of the urino-genital organs. Modern possibilities of histomorphologic evaluation of prostate biopsy specimens: the urgency of the problem. Cancer Urology. 2004;6 (7):75–8. (In Russian).
15. Loran OB, Pushkar’ DYu, Frank GA. Prostate-specific antigen and morphological characteristics of prostate cancer. Мoscow: “MED-press” Publ.; 1999, 143 p. (In Russian).
16. Allina DO, Andreeva IuIu, Zavalishina LÉ, Kekeeva TV, Frank GA. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: State-of-the-art. Arkhiv Patologii (Archive of Pathology). 2015;77 (1):69–74. DOI: 10.17116/patol201577169 (In Russian).
17. Bostwick DG, Norlen BJ, Denis L. Prostatic Intraepithelial neoplasia: the preinvasive stage of prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 2000; (205):1–2.
18. Epstein JI, Potter SR. The pathological interpretation and significance of prostate needle biopsy findings: implications and current controversies. J Urol. 2001 Aug;166 (2):402–10.
19. Leite KR, Srougi M, Sanudo A, Dall’oglio MF, Nesrallah A, Antunes AA, Cury J, Camara-Lopes LH. The use of immunohistochemistry for diagnosis of prostate cancer. Int Braz J Urol. 2010 Sep-Oct;36 (5):583–90.
20. Alsikafi NF, Brendler CB, Gerber GS, Yang XJ. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia with adjacent atypia is associated with a higher incidence of cancer on subsequent needle biopsy than high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia alone. Urolo¬gy. 2001 Feb;57 (2):296–300.
21. Leite KR, Mitteldorf CA, Camara-Lopes LH. Repeat prostate biopsies following diagnoses of prostate intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small gland proliferation. Int Braz J Urol. 2005 Mar-Apr;31 (2):131–6.
22. Schlesinger C, Bostwick DG, Iczkowski KA. Highgrade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation: predictive value for cancer in current practice. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Sep;29 (9):1201–7.
23. Epstein JI, Herawi M. Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol. 2006 Mar;175 (3 Pt 1):820–34. DOI: 10.1016/S0022–5347(05)00337X
24. Gown AM, Vogel AM. Monoclonal antibodies to human intermediate filament proteins. II. Distribution of filament proteins in normal human tissues. Am J Pathol. 1984 Feb;114 (2):309–21.
25. Brawer MK, Peehl DM, Stamey TA, Bostwick DG. Keratin immunoreactivity in the benign and neoplastic human prostate. Cancer Res. 1985 Aug;45 (8):3663–7.
26. Hedrick L, Epstein JI. Use of keratin 903 as an adjunct in the diagnosis of prostate carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1989 May;13 (5):389–96.
27. O’Malley FP, Grignon DJ, Shum DT. Usefulness of immunoperoxidase staining with high-molecular-weight cytokeratin in the differential diagnosis of small-acinar lesions of the prostate gland. Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol. 1990;417 (3):191–6.
28. Wojno KJ, Epstein JI. The utility of basal cell-specific anti-cytokeratin antibody (34 beta E12) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. A review of 228 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1995 Mar;19 (3):251–60.
29. Signoretti S, Waltregny D, Dilks J, Isaac B, Lin D, Garraway L, et al. P63 is a prostate basal cell marker and is required for prostate development. Am J Pathol. 2000 Dec;157 (6):1769–75. DOI: 10.1016/S0002–9440 (10)64814–6
30. Barbareschi M, Pecciarini L, Cangi MG, Macrì E, Rizzo A, Viale G, et al. P63, a p53 homologue, is a selective nuclear marker of myoepithelial cells of the human breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001 Aug;25 (8):1054–60.
31. Shah RB, Zhou M, LeBlanc M, Snyder M, Rubin MA. Comparison of the basal cell-specific markers, 34betaE12 and p63, in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002 Sep;26 (9):1161–8.
Review
For citations:
Popov S.V., Guseynov R.G., Skryabin O.N., Orlov I.N., Vorobyov A.A., Martov A.G., Shchukin V.L. IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS AS A METHOD FOR INCREASING THE DETECTION OF PROSTATE CANCER IN PRIMARY BIOPSY. Research and Practical Medicine Journal. 2019;6(1):41-49. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17709/2409-2231-2019-6-1-4
Views:
3277
Email this article 