Search

Abstract Background Distinguishing urothelial carcinoma (UC) from prostate carcinoma (PC) is important due to potential therapeutic and prognostic implications. However, this can be a diagnostic challenge when there is limited tissue and in poorly differentiated tumors. We evaluated the diagnostic utility of a dual immunohistochemical stain comprising p63 and P501S (prostein), applied sequentially on a single slide and visualized by double chromogen reaction, in differentiating these two cancers. Thus far, there have been no previous studies assessing the diagnostic utility of p63 and P501S combined together as a dual immunostain in distinguishing between these two cancers. Methods p63/P501S dual-color sequential immunohistochemical staining was performed on archival material from 132 patients with high-grade UC and 23 patients with PC, and evaluated for p63 (brown nuclear) and P501S (red cytoplasmic) expression. Both the staining intensity and percentage of positive tumor cells were assessed. Results p63 was positive in 119/132 of UC and negative in PC. P501S was positive in 22/23 of PC and negative in UC. The p63+/P501S- immunoprofile had 90% sensitivity and 100% specificity for UC. The p63-/P501S+ immunoprofile had 96% sensitivity and 100% specificity for PC. Conclusion Our results indicate that double sequential immunohistochemical staining with p63 and P501S is highly specific and can be a useful tool in distinguishing UC from PC especially when there is limited diagnostic tissue as it can be performed on a single slide.

The National Mesothelioma Virtual Bank (NMVB) was established to provide annotated biospecimens to the mesothelioma research community. The resource provides tissue microarrays (TMA) to evaluate the biomarkers along with a variety of other resected mesothelioma specimens. In this manuscript, we describe the immunohistochemical evaluation of the mesothelioma TMA with three key antibodies that are used in making the diagnosis of mesothelioma, and compared the immunohistochemical assessment between manual scoring and image analysis. The TMA was assessed for the immunohistochemical expression of calretinin (N=39), cytokeratin (CK) 5/6 (N=33), and D2-40 (N=37). Immunohistochemistry was evaluated by semi-quantitative (manual) scoring using light microscope (MS) and by automated image analysis (AS). Calretinin staining was seen in both cytoplasmic and nuclear locations. CK5/6 stain was localized to the cytoplasm. D2-40 stain showed only membranous expression in our cases. • Based on the pathologist’s scores, calretinin was positive in 31 of the 39 cases (80%), CK 5/6 in 15 of the 33 cases (46%) and D2-40 in 18 of the 37 cases (49%). • The percent-positive agreement between manual scores and image analysis was 90% (35/39), 94% (31/33), and 95% (35/37) for calretinin, CK 5/6, and D2-40, respectively. There was a substantial agree-ment between manual and automated scores for calretinin (kappa = 0.614) and an almost perfect agreement for CK5/6 (kappa = 0.879) and D2-40 (kappa = 0.892). Our study confirms that the immunohistochemical staining pattern of mesotheliomas in the NMVB UPMC TMA is similar to other studies. Our findings also show that automated image analysis provides similar results to manual scoring by pathologists, and provides a reproducible, objective, and accurate platform for immunohistochemical assessment of biomarker expression., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.)