Salivary duct carcinoma: Part II. Immunohistochemical evaluation of 13 cases for estrogen and progesterone receptors, cathepsin D, and c-erbB-2 protein

https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(94)90120-1Get rights and content

Abstract

Salivary duct carcinoma is an infrequent highly aggressive salivary gland tumor that is histologically similar to ductal carcinoma of the breast. We studied 13 cases by immunohistochemistry for the presence of estrogen and progesterone receptors, cathepsin D, and c-erbB-2 protein to determine whether the similarity to breast carcinoma extended beyond the light microscope to the molecular level and, if so, whether these markers might have therapeutic or prognostic value. Twelve of 13 cases contained sufficient amounts of tumor tissue for evaluation. Of these 12 cases, one (8%) was positive for estrogen receptors, none was positive for progesterone receptors, five (42%) were positive for cathepsin D, and three (25%) were positive for c-erbB-2 protein. Expression of cathepsin D and c-erbB-2 protein does not appear to have prognostic significance in salivary duct carcinoma. The 8% incidence of immunopositivity for estrogen receptors and absence of progesterone receptors in salivary duct carcinoma is considerably less than that seen in breast cancer. Nevertheless, because the occurrence of systemic metastasis in salivary duct carcinoma is such an ominous development largely unresponsive to chemotherapy, antihormonal therapy, such as used in breast cancer, might be considered on a trial basis for those tumors that are estrogen receptor-positive when conventional therapeutic modalities fail.

References (39)

  • IW Dimery et al.

    Estrogen receptors in normal salivary gland and salivary gland carcinoma

    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

    (1987)
  • R Delgado et al.

    High grade salivary duct carcinoma [Abstract]

    Mod Pathol

    (1992)
  • KS McCarty et al.

    Estrogen receptor analyses: correlation of biochemical and immunohistochemical methods using monoclonal antireceptor antibodies

    Arch Pathol Lab Med

    (1985)
  • C Charpin et al.

    Multiparametric study (SAMBA 200) of estrogen receptor immunocytochemical assay in 400 human breast carcinomas: analysis of estrogen receptor distribution heterogeneity in tissues and correlations with dextran coated charcoal assays and morphologic data

    Cancer Res

    (1988)
  • L Cheng et al.

    Demonstration of estrogen receptors by monoclonal antibody in formalin-fixed breast tumors

    Lab Invest

    (1988)
  • O Hiort et al.

    Immunohistochemistry of estrogen receptor protein in paraffin sections: effects of enzymatic pretreatment and cobalt chloride intensification

    Am J Clin Pathol

    (1988)
  • FF Parl et al.

    Discrepancies of the biochemical and immunohistochemical estrogen receptor assays in breast cancer

    Hum Pathol

    (1988)
  • DC Allred et al.

    Immunocytochemical analysis of estrogen receptors in human breast carcinomas: evaluation of 130 cases and review of the literature regarding concordance with biochemical assay and clinical relevances

    Arch Surg

    (1990)
  • A Reiner et al.

    Immunocytochemical localization of estrogen and progesterone receptor and prognosis in human primary breast cancer

    Cancer Res

    (1990)
  • Cited by (92)

    • Salivary Glands

      2020, Gnepp's Diagnostic Surgical Pathology of the Head and Neck, Third Edition
    • A mucin-rich variant of salivary duct carcinoma with a prominent mucinous component, a tumor that mimics mucinous adenocarcinoma

      2013, Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      The tumor cells are immunoreactive for epithelial antigens such as CKs, and a majority of tumors are reactive for GCDFP-153,4 and AR.3,5,6 About half of reported tumors react with Her-2/neu oncoprotein.7-9 Many investigators found the tumors to be nonreactive with S-100 protein and other myoepithelial markers.4,10

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This study was supported by the Pathology Education and Research Foundation, Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

    View full text