Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Aims Thymic carcinoma and atypical thymoma (WHO type B3 thymoma) are unusual tumours the separation of which may be challenging in small biopsies. Both tumours consist of epithelioid tumour cells that share similar morphology and immunophenotype with conventional markers. Therefore, additional antibodies are needed to differentiate between these tumours.
Methods For this purpose, a panel of immunohistochemical stains including PAX2, PAX5, PAX8 (all monoclonal) and CD70 was used on whole tumour sections of 30 thymic carcinomas and 30 atypical thymomas to determine the expression pattern of these antibodies. In addition, all tumours were stained with markers that are well known to be expressed in both tumours, including pancytokeratin and cytokeratin 5/6. The percentage of positive tumour cells as well as the intensity of staining were evaluated and scored.
Results PAX5 stained close to 70% of thymic carcinomas while all atypical thymomas were negative for this marker. CD70 was expressed in 18 thymic carcinomas (60%) and in 1 case of atypical thymoma (3%). On the other hand, monoclonal PAX8 was negative in all cases while PAX2 was positive in a single thymic carcinoma. Of the established stains, pancytokeratin and cytokeratin 5/6 were equally positive in both tumours.
Conclusions Among the markers explored, only PAX5 and CD70 appear to be differentially expressed and are predominantly restricted to thymic carcinomas. Therefore, in small biopsy specimens and in resections in which the morphological features remain equivocal, application of these particular stains may facilitate separation of thymic carcinoma and atypical thymoma.
- CARCINOMA
- DIAGNOSIS
- IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY
- Lung Neoplasms
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Not applicable.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Not applicable.
Footnotes
Handling editor Vikram Deshpande.
Contributors Both authors contributed equally to the conception, case selection, analysis and writing of this manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.