Value of ER, VIM, CEA and p16 detection in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas / 南方医科大学学报

ABSTRACT

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate the value of the detection of a 4-marker (ER, VIM, CEA and p16) panel in the differential diagnosis of primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Immunohistochemical EnVison method was used to detect the expressions of ER, VIM, CEA and p16 in paraffin-embedded tissues from 31 cases of primary endocervical adenocarcinomas and 30 cases of endometrial adenocarcinomas. The specificity, sensitivity, predictive value and accuracy were compared between the 4-marker and 3-marker (ER, VIM and CEA) panels.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The positivity rates of ER, VIM, CEA and p16 in endocervical adenocarcinomas were 35.5%, 19.4%, 77.4% and 67.7%, respectively; those in endometrial adenocarcinomas were 70%, 73.3%, 40% and 13.3%, respectively, showing significant frequency differences (P<0.05) between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. The specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and accuracy of the 4-marker panel in endocervical adenocarcinomas were significantly higher than those of the 3-marker panel (96.3% vs 90.2%, 65.1% vs 57.6%, 94.9% vs 89.4%, and 85.8% vs 80.6%, respectively). These values were almost similar for both panels in endometrial carcinoma except for better negative predictive value and accuracy value with the 4-marker panel (58.7% vs 51.9% and 75.4% vs 68.6%, respectively).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Adding the p16 marker to the traditional 3-marker panel may have significant clinical importance in the differential diagnosis of primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas to improve the diagnostic accuracy, although there is only a slight increase in the diagnostic sensitivity.</p>