{"title":"乳腺原位导管癌、无特殊类型的浸润性乳腺癌和粘液腺癌与实性乳头状癌在神经内分泌标志物表达方面的形态学和免疫组化研究比较。","authors":"Yoshiro Otsuki, Yuki Asano, Tomonari Ikeya, Yuki Ishida, Shota Sezaki, Hiroshi Kobayashi","doi":"10.1007/s00428-024-03857-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The exact relationship between solid papillary carcinoma (SPC) and invasive breast carcinoma of no special type (IBC-NST) with neuroendocrine differentiation and SPC and mucinous carcinoma (MC) of the breast remains unclear. To clarify the relationship, we conducted a comparative study of morphological and neuroendocrine features between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS, 72 cases) and SPC in situ (35 cases), and IBC-NST (103 cases) and invasive SPC (92 cases). We also conducted the study between MC associated with and without SPC. Synaptophysin, chromogranin A, and INSM1 were employed for the immunohistochemical study. IBC-NST had occasionally a morphological similarity with invasive SPC. While 123 of 127 cases with SPC demonstrated diffuse staining with one or more of the neuroendocrine markers, the only one case of DCIS and none of IBC-NST showed it. Type B was observed in 16 of 18 cases of MC associated with SPC and in 13 of 33 cases of MC without it. All the cases of MC with SPC and 6 of 33 cases without it showed diffuse staining for at least one of the neuroendocrine markers. In conclusion, a careful distinction between invasive SPC and IBC-NST with neuroendocrine differentiation is required. We assume that SPC in situ is a potential candidate for precursor of IBC-NST with neuroendocrine differentiation. MC of the breast is suggested to have two pathogenetic pathways through SPC in situ or non-SPC in situ. SPC in situ is thought to be less common as a precursor of MC than non-SPC in situ.</p>","PeriodicalId":23514,"journal":{"name":"Virchows Archiv","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A morphological and immunohistochemical study of ductal carcinoma in situ, invasive breast carcinoma of no special type, and mucinous carcinoma of the breast in comparison with solid papillary carcinoma regarding neuroendocrine marker expression.\",\"authors\":\"Yoshiro Otsuki, Yuki Asano, Tomonari Ikeya, Yuki Ishida, Shota Sezaki, Hiroshi Kobayashi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00428-024-03857-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The exact relationship between solid papillary carcinoma (SPC) and invasive breast carcinoma of no special type (IBC-NST) with neuroendocrine differentiation and SPC and mucinous carcinoma (MC) of the breast remains unclear. To clarify the relationship, we conducted a comparative study of morphological and neuroendocrine features between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS, 72 cases) and SPC in situ (35 cases), and IBC-NST (103 cases) and invasive SPC (92 cases). We also conducted the study between MC associated with and without SPC. Synaptophysin, chromogranin A, and INSM1 were employed for the immunohistochemical study. IBC-NST had occasionally a morphological similarity with invasive SPC. While 123 of 127 cases with SPC demonstrated diffuse staining with one or more of the neuroendocrine markers, the only one case of DCIS and none of IBC-NST showed it. Type B was observed in 16 of 18 cases of MC associated with SPC and in 13 of 33 cases of MC without it. All the cases of MC with SPC and 6 of 33 cases without it showed diffuse staining for at least one of the neuroendocrine markers. In conclusion, a careful distinction between invasive SPC and IBC-NST with neuroendocrine differentiation is required. We assume that SPC in situ is a potential candidate for precursor of IBC-NST with neuroendocrine differentiation. MC of the breast is suggested to have two pathogenetic pathways through SPC in situ or non-SPC in situ. SPC in situ is thought to be less common as a precursor of MC than non-SPC in situ.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23514,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Virchows Archiv\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Virchows Archiv\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-024-03857-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virchows Archiv","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-024-03857-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
有神经内分泌分化的实性乳头状癌(SPC)和无特殊类型浸润性乳腺癌(IBC-NST)与乳腺实性乳头状癌和粘液腺癌(MC)之间的确切关系仍不清楚。为了明确两者之间的关系,我们对乳腺导管原位癌(DCIS,72 例)和原位 SPC(35 例),以及 IBC-NST(103 例)和浸润性 SPC(92 例)的形态和神经内分泌特征进行了比较研究。我们还对伴有和不伴有 SPC 的 MC 进行了研究。免疫组化研究采用了突触素、嗜铬粒蛋白 A 和 INSM1。IBC-NST偶尔与浸润性SPC形态相似。在127例SPC病例中,有123例表现出一种或多种神经内分泌标记物的弥漫性染色,而只有一例DCIS病例和一例IBC-NST病例没有表现出这种染色。在 18 例伴有 SPC 的 MC 中,16 例观察到 B 型,在 33 例未伴有 SPC 的 MC 中,13 例观察到 B 型。所有伴有 SPC 的 MC 病例和 33 例未伴有 SPC 的 MC 病例中的 6 例均显示至少一种神经内分泌标记物的弥漫性染色。总之,需要仔细区分浸润性 SPC 和神经内分泌分化的 IBC-NST。我们认为原位 SPC 有可能是神经内分泌分化的 IBC-NST 的前体。乳腺 MC 被认为有两种致病途径,即原位 SPC 或非原位 SPC。与非原位 SPC 相比,原位 SPC 被认为是 MC 的较少见前体。
A morphological and immunohistochemical study of ductal carcinoma in situ, invasive breast carcinoma of no special type, and mucinous carcinoma of the breast in comparison with solid papillary carcinoma regarding neuroendocrine marker expression.
The exact relationship between solid papillary carcinoma (SPC) and invasive breast carcinoma of no special type (IBC-NST) with neuroendocrine differentiation and SPC and mucinous carcinoma (MC) of the breast remains unclear. To clarify the relationship, we conducted a comparative study of morphological and neuroendocrine features between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS, 72 cases) and SPC in situ (35 cases), and IBC-NST (103 cases) and invasive SPC (92 cases). We also conducted the study between MC associated with and without SPC. Synaptophysin, chromogranin A, and INSM1 were employed for the immunohistochemical study. IBC-NST had occasionally a morphological similarity with invasive SPC. While 123 of 127 cases with SPC demonstrated diffuse staining with one or more of the neuroendocrine markers, the only one case of DCIS and none of IBC-NST showed it. Type B was observed in 16 of 18 cases of MC associated with SPC and in 13 of 33 cases of MC without it. All the cases of MC with SPC and 6 of 33 cases without it showed diffuse staining for at least one of the neuroendocrine markers. In conclusion, a careful distinction between invasive SPC and IBC-NST with neuroendocrine differentiation is required. We assume that SPC in situ is a potential candidate for precursor of IBC-NST with neuroendocrine differentiation. MC of the breast is suggested to have two pathogenetic pathways through SPC in situ or non-SPC in situ. SPC in situ is thought to be less common as a precursor of MC than non-SPC in situ.
期刊介绍:
Manuscripts of original studies reinforcing the evidence base of modern diagnostic pathology, using immunocytochemical, molecular and ultrastructural techniques, will be welcomed. In addition, papers on critical evaluation of diagnostic criteria but also broadsheets and guidelines with a solid evidence base will be considered. Consideration will also be given to reports of work in other fields relevant to the understanding of human pathology as well as manuscripts on the application of new methods and techniques in pathology. Submission of purely experimental articles is discouraged but manuscripts on experimental work applicable to diagnostic pathology are welcomed. Biomarker studies are welcomed but need to abide by strict rules (e.g. REMARK) of adequate sample size and relevant marker choice. Single marker studies on limited patient series without validated application will as a rule not be considered. Case reports will only be considered when they provide substantial new information with an impact on understanding disease or diagnostic practice.