Liam Robinson, Chané Smit, Marlene B van Heerden, Haroon Moolla, Amir H Afrogheh, Johan F Opperman, Melvin A Ambele, Willie F P van Heerden
{"title":"Surrogate Immunohistochemical Markers of Proliferation and Embryonic Stem Cells in Distinguishing Ameloblastoma from Ameloblastic Carcinoma.","authors":"Liam Robinson, Chané Smit, Marlene B van Heerden, Haroon Moolla, Amir H Afrogheh, Johan F Opperman, Melvin A Ambele, Willie F P van Heerden","doi":"10.1007/s12105-024-01704-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The current study aimed to investigate the use of surrogate immunohistochemical (IHC) markers of proliferation and stem cells to distinguish ameloblastoma (AB) from ameloblastic carcinoma (AC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study assessed a total of 29 ACs, 6 ABs that transformed into ACs, and a control cohort of 20 ABs. The demographics and clinicopathologic details of the included cases of AC were recorded. The Ki-67 proliferation index was scored through automated methods with the QuPath open-source software platform. For SOX2, OCT4 and Glypican-3 IHC, each case was scored using a proportion of positivity score combined with an intensity score to produce a total score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All cases of AC showed a relatively high median proliferation index of 41.7%, with statistically significant higher scores compared to ABs. ABs that transformed into ACs had similar median proliferation scores to the control cohort of ABs. Most cases of AC showed some degree of SOX2 expression, with 58.6% showing high expression. OCT4 expression was not seen in any case of AC. GPC-3 expression in ACs was limited, with high expression in 17.2% of ACs. Primary ACs showed higher median proliferation scores and degrees of SOX2 and GPC-3 expression than secondary cases. Regarding SOX2, OCT4 and GPC-3 IHC expression, no statistically significant differences existed between the cohort of ABs and ACs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ki-67 IHC as a proliferation marker, particularly when assessed via automated methods, was helpful in distinguishing AC from AB cases. In contrast to other studies, surrogate IHC markers of embryonic stem cells, SOX2, OCT4 and GPC-3, were unreliable in distinguishing the two entities.</p>","PeriodicalId":47972,"journal":{"name":"Head & Neck Pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11452366/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Head & Neck Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12105-024-01704-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The current study aimed to investigate the use of surrogate immunohistochemical (IHC) markers of proliferation and stem cells to distinguish ameloblastoma (AB) from ameloblastic carcinoma (AC).
Methods: The study assessed a total of 29 ACs, 6 ABs that transformed into ACs, and a control cohort of 20 ABs. The demographics and clinicopathologic details of the included cases of AC were recorded. The Ki-67 proliferation index was scored through automated methods with the QuPath open-source software platform. For SOX2, OCT4 and Glypican-3 IHC, each case was scored using a proportion of positivity score combined with an intensity score to produce a total score.
Results: All cases of AC showed a relatively high median proliferation index of 41.7%, with statistically significant higher scores compared to ABs. ABs that transformed into ACs had similar median proliferation scores to the control cohort of ABs. Most cases of AC showed some degree of SOX2 expression, with 58.6% showing high expression. OCT4 expression was not seen in any case of AC. GPC-3 expression in ACs was limited, with high expression in 17.2% of ACs. Primary ACs showed higher median proliferation scores and degrees of SOX2 and GPC-3 expression than secondary cases. Regarding SOX2, OCT4 and GPC-3 IHC expression, no statistically significant differences existed between the cohort of ABs and ACs.
Conclusion: Ki-67 IHC as a proliferation marker, particularly when assessed via automated methods, was helpful in distinguishing AC from AB cases. In contrast to other studies, surrogate IHC markers of embryonic stem cells, SOX2, OCT4 and GPC-3, were unreliable in distinguishing the two entities.
目的:本研究旨在探讨使用增殖和干细胞的替代免疫组化(IHC)标记物来区分成釉细胞瘤(AB)和成釉细胞癌(AC):研究共评估了29例AC、6例转化为AC的AB和20例AB的对照组。研究记录了AC病例的人口统计学和临床病理学细节。Ki-67增殖指数通过QuPath开源软件平台的自动方法进行评分。对于SOX2、OCT4和Glypican-3 IHC,每个病例均采用阳性比例评分结合强度评分的方法进行评分,得出总分:所有AC病例的增殖指数中位数都相对较高,达到41.7%,与AB病例相比,得分明显更高。转化为 AC 的 AB 与对照组 AB 的中位增殖指数相似。大多数 AC 病例都有一定程度的 SOX2 表达,其中 58.6% 呈高表达。在所有 AC 病例中均未发现 OCT4 表达。GPC-3在AC中的表达有限,只有17.2%的AC有高表达。与继发性病例相比,原发性 AC 的中位增殖评分以及 SOX2 和 GPC-3 的表达程度更高。在SOX2、OCT4和GPC-3 IHC表达方面,ABs和ACs之间不存在统计学意义上的显著差异:结论:Ki-67 IHC 作为一种增殖标记物,尤其是通过自动化方法评估时,有助于区分 AC 和 AB 病例。与其他研究不同的是,胚胎干细胞的替代IHC标记物SOX2、OCT4和GPC-3在区分AC和AB病例时并不可靠。
期刊介绍:
Head & Neck Pathology presents scholarly papers, reviews and symposia that cover the spectrum of human surgical pathology within the anatomic zones of the oral cavity, sinonasal tract, larynx, hypopharynx, salivary gland, ear and temporal bone, and neck.
The journal publishes rapid developments in new diagnostic criteria, intraoperative consultation, immunohistochemical studies, molecular techniques, genetic analyses, diagnostic aids, experimental pathology, cytology, radiographic imaging, and application of uniform terminology to allow practitioners to continue to maintain and expand their knowledge in the subspecialty of head and neck pathology. Coverage of practical application to daily clinical practice is supported with proceedings and symposia from international societies and academies devoted to this field.
Single-blind peer review
The journal follows a single-blind review procedure, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous. Single-blind peer review is the traditional model of peer review that many reviewers are comfortable with, and it facilitates a dispassionate critique of a manuscript.