Simultaneous carcinoma of the endometrium and ovary vs endometrial carcinoma with ovarian metastases: a clinical and immunohistochemical determination.

The aim of this study was to perform a clinical and immunohistochemical comparison between simultaneous independent tumors involving endometrium and ovary and metastatic endometrial tumors, and to try to find clinical and /or immunohistochemical parameters differentiating between these two entities. Sixteen cases of simultaneous independent primaries of endometrium and ovary, presenting the same histologic type, were compared with 12 cases of primary endometrial cancer, demonstrating ovarian metastases. The comparison related to patients' characteristics and immunohistochemical expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors (ER,PR), bcl-2, HER-2 /neu, p53, and cell proliferation marker Ki-67 in endometrial and ovarian tumors. The only clinical parameter differentiating significantly between the groups was the prevalence of familial cancer, being more frequent in the group of metastatic tumors (P = 0.03). Immunohistochemical analysis demonstrated the same immunostaining in endometrium and ovary for all immunohistochemical parameters in cases of metastatic endometrial cancer. Conversely, 62.5% of cases with simultaneous tumors of endometrium and ovary could be differentiated from metastatic tumors by distinct immunohistochemical expression of ER and PR in endometrial and ovarian tumors (P = 0.0006), and 31.3% of cases could be differentiated by distinct immunostaining for bcl-2 (P = 0.03). Immunohistochemical parameters HER-2 /neu, p53 and Ki-67 were not appropriate for the distinction between the two study groups. We conclude that the application of immunohistochemical analysis may play an important role in the differentiation between cases of simultaneous independent carcinomas of endometrium and ovary vs. cases of endometrial carcinoma with ovarian metastases.

Clinical and molecular comparison between borderline serous ovarian tumors and advanced serous papillary ovarian carcinomas.

The aim of this study was to characterize the clinical and molecular markers of borderline serous ovarian tumors (BSOT), and to study their expression in the progression from benign lesions to advanced serous papillary ovarian carcinomas (SPOC). The clinical records of 20 patients with BSOT and 22 patients with SPOC were reviewed. Specimens from all these cases and from six benign ovarian serous cystadenomas were evaluated for expression of estrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors (PR), p53. HER-2/neu and Ki-67 by immunohistochemical techniques. The mean patient age and the age at menarche differed significantly between the compared groups of BSOT and SPOC (p=0.0006 and p=0.0014, respectively). No difference was observed comparing the other clinical parameters. The immunohistochemical analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the expression of ER (100% vs 72.7%), and a significant decrease in the immunoreactivity for p53 (0% vs 45.4%) and Ki-67 (2% vs 26.8%) in cases of BSOT compared with those of SPOC (p=0.007, p=0.0003 and p=0.012, respectively). No significant difference was demonstrated comparing the expression of PR and HER-2/neu. The immunostaining of benign ovarian serous cystadenoma specimens did not differ significantly from immunoreactivity observed in cases of BSOT. According to immunohistochemical analysis, BSOT had much more in common with benign serous tumors than with SPOC. The main difference between BSOT and SPOC was regarding the overexpression of p53 and Ki-67.

Immunohistochemical comparison of primary peritoneal and primary ovarian serous papillary carcinoma.

Twenty-six patients, meeting strict criteria for primary peritoneal serous papillary carcinoma (PPSPC), were matched to 22 patients with ovarian serous papillary cancer (OSPC) for age and stage. Immunohistochemistry was used to determine the status of estrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors (PR), the expression of cell proliferation marker Ki-67, and the overexpression of HER-2/neu and p53 protein. Of the PPSPCs, 53.8% were poorly differentiated, as were 18.2% of the OSPCs (p = 0.012). Positive immunostaining for ER and PR was less in PPSPCs (30.8% and 46.2%, respectively) than OSPCs (72.7% and 90.9%; p = 0.003 and p = 0.001, respectively). Conversely, a significant increase in the expression of Ki-67 was found in PPSPCs (37.7%) versus OSPCs (26.8%) (p = 0.039). The same trend was found for HER-2/neu, being overexpressed in 38.5% of the PPSPC versus 9.1% of the OSPCs (p = 0.019). Overexpression of p53 was found in 30.8% of the PPSPCs and 45.4% of the OSPCs (not significant). There was a significantly worse survival rate for PPSPCs than for OSPCs (p = 0.017), yet none of the studied parameters were significantly correlated with survival within the PPSPC and OSPC groups. The significantly different immunohistochemical expression of ER, PR, Ki-67, and HER-2 in PPSPCs compared with OSPCs suggests that different molecular events may lead to tumorigenesis in these two cancers.

Comparative immunohistochemical study of endometrioid and serous papillary carcinoma of endometrium.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether immunohistochemical analysis of molecular parameters can provide an alternative method for classification of endometrial cancer cases according to their aggressiveness. METHODS: Sixty-four cases of endometrial carcinoma were assigned to three groups: group I--28 cases of endometrioid well and moderately differentiated (G1-G2) carcinoma; group II--14 cases of endometrioid poorly differentiated (G3) carcinoma; group III--22 cases of serous papillary endometrial cancer. Immunohistochemistry was used to determine the existence of estrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors (PR), and the expression of bcl-2, p53, HER-2/neu and Ki-67. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the immunohistochemical profile of the studied molecular parameters comparing the three study groups. The endometrioid G1-G2 cases (group I) were characterized by increased immunoreactivity for ER and PR (85.7% and 78.6%, respectively), increased immunoreactivity for bcl-2 (42.8%) and low expression of p53 (14.3%) and HER-2/neu (14.3%). In contrast to group I cases, the serous papillary endometrial cancer cases (group III) were characterized by immunonegativity for ER, PR and bcl-2 and high immunoreactivity for p53 (81.8%) and HER-2/neu (45.4%). The endometrioid G3 cases (group II) demonstrated an intermediate immunoprofile, characterized by immunonegativity for ER, PR and HER-2/neu, low immunoreactivity for bcl-2 (7.1%) and high expression of p53 (57.1%). The expression of Ki-67 did not differ significantly comparing the different cases of endometrial cancer. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that the immunohistochemical analysis of endometrial carcinoma differentiates between different grades and histological types, thus being useful in the distinction of high risk cases.

Induction of the chemokine stromal-derived factor-1 following DNA damage improves human stem cell function.

The chemokine stromal-derived factor-1 (SDF-1) controls many aspects of stem cell function. Details of its regulation and sites of production are currently unknown. We report that in the bone marrow, SDF-1 is produced mainly by immature osteoblasts and endothelial cells. Conditioning with DNA-damaging agents (ionizing irradiation, cyclophosphamide, and 5-fluorouracil) caused an increase in SDF-1 expression and in CXCR4-dependent homing and repopulation by human stem cells transplanted into NOD/SCID mice. Our findings suggest that immature osteoblasts and endothelial cells control stem cell homing, retention, and repopulation by secreting SDF-1, which also participates in host defense responses to DNA damage.

The chemokine SDF-1 stimulates integrin-mediated arrest of CD34(+) cells on vascular endothelium under shear flow.

The chemokine SDF-1 plays a central role in the repopulation of the bone marrow (BM) by circulating CD34(+) progenitors, but the mechanisms of its action remain obscure. To extravasate to target tissue, a blood-borne cell must arrest firmly on vascular endothelium. Murine hematopoietic progenitors were recently shown in vivo to roll along BM microvessels that display selectins and integrins. We now show that SDF-1 is constitutively expressed by human BM endothelium. In vitro, human CD34(+) cells establish efficient rolling on P-selectin, E-selectin, and the CD44 ligand hyaluronic acid under physiological shear flow. ICAM-1 alone did not tether CD34(+) cells under flow, but, in the presence of surface-bound SDF-1, CD34(+) progenitors rolling on endothelial selectin rapidly developed firm adhesion to the endothelial surface, mediated by an interaction between ICAM-1 and its integrin ligand, which coimmobilized with SDF-1. Human CD34(+) cells accumulated efficiently on TNF-activated human umbilical cord endothelial cells in the absence of SDF-1, but they required immobilized SDF-1 to develop firm integrin-mediated adhesion and spreading. In the absence of selectins, SDF-1 also promoted VLA-4-mediated, Gi protein-dependent tethering and firm adhesion to VCAM-1 under shear flow. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration that SDF-1 expressed on vascular endothelium is crucial for translating rolling adhesion of CD34(+) progenitors into firm adhesion by increasing the adhesiveness of the integrins VLA-4 and LFA-1 to their respective endothelial ligands, VCAM-1 and ICAM-1.