Detection of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA and immunohistochemical expressions of p16, vimentin, ER, and PR in primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore a panel of useful markers in differential diagnosis of primary endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinoma (EMA). Materials and Methods: Thirty-three ECAs and 31 EMAs were collected and examined for high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) (16/18) DNA using in situ hybridization, and for p16, vimentin, ER, PR expression using immunohistochemistry (IHC). Results: Detection rate of hr-HPV (16/18) DNA in ECA (72.7%, 24/33) was significantly higher than that in EMA (12.9%, 4/31) (p < 0.01). Twenty-four of 33 (72.7%) cases of ECA, but only five of 31 (16.1%) cases of EMA showed high expression of p16. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) hr-HPV DNA-positive ECA and all four (100.0%) hr-HPV DNA-positive EMA showed high levels of p16 expression. High expression rates of vimentin (90.3%, 28/31), ER (58.1%, 18/31), and PR (71.0%, 22/31) in EMA were significantly higher than those in ECA, respectively (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Detection of hr-HPV DNA combined with immunohistochemical expressions of p16, vimentin, ER, and PR have important value in differential diagnosis between ECA and EMA.

hr-HPV DNA; p16; Vimentin; ER/PR; In situ hybridization; Immunohistochemistry; Endocervical adenocarcinoma; Endometrial adenocarcinoma.

[1] Yemelyanova A., Vang R., Seidman J.D., Gravitt P.E., Ronnett B.M.: “Endocervical adenocarcinomas with prominent endometrial or endomyometrial involvement simulating primary endometrial carcinomas. Utility of HPV DNA detection and immunohistochemical expression of p16 and hormone receptors to confirm the cervical origin of the corpus tumor”. Am. J. Surg. Pathol., 2009, 33, 914.

[2] Jones M.W., Onisko A., Dabbs D.J., Elishaev E., Chiosea S., Bhargava R.: “Immunohistochemistry and HPV in situ hybridization in pathologic distinction between endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: comparative tissue microarray study of 76 tumors”. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer, 2013, 23, 380.

[3] Giatromanolaki A., Sivridis E., Papazoglou D., Koukourakis M.I., Maltezos E. : “Human papillomavirus in endometrial adenocarcinomas: infectious agent or a mere ‘‘passenger’’? ”. Infect. Dis. Obstet. Gynecol., 2007, 2007, 60549.

[4] Ansari-Lari M.A., Staebler A., Zaino R.J., Shah K.V., Ronnett B.M.: “Distinction of endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: Immunohistochemical p16 expression correlated with human papillomavirus DNA detection”. Am. J. Surg. Pathol., 2004, 28, 160.

[5] Esheba G.E.: “ProExC is a novel marker for distinguishing between primary endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas”. J. Egypt.Natl. Canc. Inst., 2013, 25, 87. [6] Plunkett M., Brestovac B., Thompson J., Sterrett G., Filion P., Smith D., et al.: “The value of HPV DNA typing in the distinction between adenocarcinoma of endocervical and endometrial origin”. Pathology, 2003, 35, 397.

[7] Staebler A., Sherman M.E., Zaino R.J., Ronnett B.M.: “Hormone receptor immunohistochemistry and human papillomavirus in situ hybridization are useful for distinguishing endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas”. Am. J. Surg. Pathol., 2002, 26, 998.

[8] Hadzisejdć I., Krasević M., Haller H., Grahovac B.: “Distribution of human papillomavirus types in different histological subtypes of cervical adenocarcinoma”. Coll. Antropol., 2007, 2, 97.

[9] Wang X., Lin L., Ren X., Lin Z., Li Z., Li C., et al.: “High expression of oncoprotein DEK predicts poor prognosis of small cell lung cancer”. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol., 2014, 7, 5016.

[10] Bosch F.X., Lorincz A., Munoz N., Meijer C.J., Shak K.V.: “The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer”. J. Clin. Pathol., 2002, 55, 44.

[11] Klaes R., Friedrich T., Spitkovsky D., Ridder R., Rudy W., Petry U.,et al.: “Overexpression of p16(INK4a) as a specific marker for dysplastic and neoplastic epithelial cells of the cervix uteri”. Int. J. Cancer, 2001, 92, 276.

[12] Zaino R.J.: “The fruits of our labors: distinguishing endometrial from endocervical adenocarcinoma”. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol., 2002, 21, 1.

[13] Xiong Y., Xiong Y.Y.: “Expressions of p16, cyclin D1 and COX-2 in benign endometrial hyperplasia, EIN lesion and endometrioid adenocarcinoma”. Zhong Liu Fang Zhi Yan Jiu Za Zhi, 2010, 37, 551.

[14] Sano T., Oyama T., Kashiwabara K., Fukuda T., Nakajima T.: “Expression status of p16 protein is associated with human papillomavirus oncogenic potential in cervical and genital lesions”. Am. J. Pathol., 1998, 153, 1741.

[15] Saad R.S., Mashhour M., Noftech-Mozes S., Ismiil N., Dubé V., Ghorab Z., et al.: “P16INK4a expression in undifferentiated carcinoma of the uterus does not exclude its endometrial origin”. Int. Gynecol. Pathol., 2012, 31, 57.

[16] O, Neill C.J., McCluggage W.G.: “p16 expression in the female genital tract and its value in diagnosis”. Adv. Anat. Pathol., 2006, 13, 8.

[17] Papadopoulos N., Kotini A., Cheva A., Jivannakis T., Lambropoulou M., Bobos M., et al.: “Immunohistochemical expression of vimentin and secretory component antigens in endometrial hyperplasia and neoplasia”. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol., 2002, 23, 411.

[18] Azumi N., Battifora H.: “The distribution of vimentin and keratin in epithelial and nonepithelial neoplasms. A comprehensive immunohistochemical study on formalin- and alcohol-fixed tumors”. Am. J. Clin. Pathol., 1987, 88, 286.

[19] Liao C.L., Hsu J.D., Lee M.Y., Kok L.F., Li Y.J., Wang P.H., et al.: “Distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas: is a 2-marker (Vim/CEA) panel enough? ”. Virchows Arch., 2010, 456, 377.

[20] Liao C.L., Lee M.Y., Tyan Y.S., Kok L.F., Wu T.S., Koo C.L., et al.: “Progesterone receptor does not improve the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker panel, consisting of estrogenreceptor, vimentin and carcinoembryonic antigen in distinquishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray extension study”. J. Transl. Med., 2009, 7, 37.

[21] Yao C.C., Kok L.F., Lee M.Y., Wang P.H., Wu T.S., Tyan Y.S., et al.: “Ancillary p16(INK4a) adds no meaningful value to the performance of ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study”. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet., 2009, 280, 405.

[22] Han C.P., Lee M.Y., Kok L.F., Ruan A., Wu T.S., Cheng Y.W., et al.: “Adding the p16INK4a-marker to the traditional three-marker(ER/Vim/CEA) panel engenders no supplemental benefit in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study”. Int. J. Gynecol. Pathol., 2009, 28, 489.

[23] Mylonas I., Jeschke U., Shabani N., Kuhn C., Kriegel S., Kupka M.S., et al.: “Normal and malignant human endometrium express immunohistochemicallyestrogen receptor alpha (ER-alpha), estrogen receptor beta (ER-beta) and progesterone receptor (PR)”. Anticancer Res., 2005,25,1679.

[24] McCluggage W.G.: “Immunohistochemistry as a diagnostic aid in cervicalpathology”. Pathology, 2007, 39, 97.