Evaluation of Combined p57KIP2 Immunohistochemistry and Fluorescent in situ Hybridization Analysis for Hydatidiform Moles Compared with Genotyping Diagnosis.
{"title":"Evaluation of Combined p57KIP2 Immunohistochemistry and Fluorescent in situ Hybridization Analysis for Hydatidiform Moles Compared with Genotyping Diagnosis.","authors":"Hirokazu Usui, Kazufusa Hoshimoto, Asuka Sato, Motofumi Kano, Toshio Fukusato, Yukio Nakatani, Makio Shozu","doi":"10.1097/PGP.0000000000001000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Immunostaining with p57KIP2 is a widely used diagnostic technique to differentiate complete hydatidiform moles (CHMs) from partial hydatidiform moles (PHM) and non-molar hydropic abortion. However, distinguishing between PHMs and non-molar hydropic abortions using histopathology alone is often challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the technical validity and additional benefits of using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in combination with p57KIP2 immunostaining to diagnose molar and non-molar conceptuses. The study involved 80 specimens, which underwent genetic diagnosis using short tandem repeat analysis, including 44 androgenetic CHMs, 20 diandric monogynic PHMs, 14 biparental non-molar hydropic abortions, 1 monoandric digynic triploid abortion, and 1 vaginal specimen of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Two pathologists independently diagnosed the cases based on morphology and p57KIP2 immunostaining while the clinical information was masked. FISH analysis was performed using 3 probes (CEP17, CEPX, and CEPY), which revealed that all androgenetic CHM and biparental diploid non-molar hydropic abortion specimens were diploid. Among the 20 diandric monogynic PHM cases examined by analyzing short tandem repeat polymorphisms, 18 were triploid, and the remaining 2 were diploid. These two specimens were possibly androgenetic/biparental mosaics based on FISH analysis, where the three-signal ratios counting 50 cells were clearly within the diploid ranges. Eight of the 20 genetic PHMs and 2 of the 14 genetically confirmed non-molar hydropic abortions that were falsely diagnosed based on morphology and immunohistochemistry by at least 1 pathologist were correctly diagnosed as PHM and non-molar hydropic abortion, respectively, by FISH analysis. However, 1 monoandric digynic villus was classified as triploid by FISH analysis, leading to a false PHM diagnosis. In conclusion, the combination of FISH analysis with p57KIP2 immunostaining helps in diagnosing molar and non-molar conceptuses in numerous cases; nevertheless, exceptional cases should be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":14001,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecological Pathology","volume":" ","pages":"474-486"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11332376/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecological Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000001000","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Immunostaining with p57KIP2 is a widely used diagnostic technique to differentiate complete hydatidiform moles (CHMs) from partial hydatidiform moles (PHM) and non-molar hydropic abortion. However, distinguishing between PHMs and non-molar hydropic abortions using histopathology alone is often challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the technical validity and additional benefits of using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in combination with p57KIP2 immunostaining to diagnose molar and non-molar conceptuses. The study involved 80 specimens, which underwent genetic diagnosis using short tandem repeat analysis, including 44 androgenetic CHMs, 20 diandric monogynic PHMs, 14 biparental non-molar hydropic abortions, 1 monoandric digynic triploid abortion, and 1 vaginal specimen of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia. Two pathologists independently diagnosed the cases based on morphology and p57KIP2 immunostaining while the clinical information was masked. FISH analysis was performed using 3 probes (CEP17, CEPX, and CEPY), which revealed that all androgenetic CHM and biparental diploid non-molar hydropic abortion specimens were diploid. Among the 20 diandric monogynic PHM cases examined by analyzing short tandem repeat polymorphisms, 18 were triploid, and the remaining 2 were diploid. These two specimens were possibly androgenetic/biparental mosaics based on FISH analysis, where the three-signal ratios counting 50 cells were clearly within the diploid ranges. Eight of the 20 genetic PHMs and 2 of the 14 genetically confirmed non-molar hydropic abortions that were falsely diagnosed based on morphology and immunohistochemistry by at least 1 pathologist were correctly diagnosed as PHM and non-molar hydropic abortion, respectively, by FISH analysis. However, 1 monoandric digynic villus was classified as triploid by FISH analysis, leading to a false PHM diagnosis. In conclusion, the combination of FISH analysis with p57KIP2 immunostaining helps in diagnosing molar and non-molar conceptuses in numerous cases; nevertheless, exceptional cases should be considered.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Gynecological Pathology is the official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists (ISGyP), and provides complete and timely coverage of advances in the understanding and management of gynecological disease. Emphasis is placed on investigations in the field of anatomic pathology. Articles devoted to experimental or animal pathology clearly relevant to an understanding of human disease are published, as are pathological and clinicopathological studies and individual case reports that offer new insights.