Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Immunostaining of ∆Np63 (using the p40 antibody) is equal to that of p63 and CK5/6 in high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As a result of breast cancer screening programs, high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is diagnosed more often. Frequently, a DCIS diagnosis can only be made using immunohistochemical stains to visualize the myoepithelial layer in order to assess microinvasion. Standard markers for myoepithelial cells are CK5/6 and p63. An isoform of the latter, ∆Np63, is recognized by a recently developed antibody, p40. Here, we compare the standard myoepithelial markers CK5/6 and p63 with p40. We immunostained full sections of tissue samples of 35 high-grade DCIS and compared the staining pattern of CK5/6, p63 and p40 in tumour tissue and in normal glands. Staining patterns of myoepithelial cells for p63 and p40 were similar in terms of the percentage of stained nuclei. In all cases, p63 was strongly expressed, while this was the case for p40 in 31 (89 %) and moderately in 4 (11 %) cases. All but one case (97 %) showed a similar percentage of stained myoepithelial cells in comparing CK5/6 and p40 staining. CK5/6 expression was heterogeneous and strong/moderate/weak in 60, 34 and 6 % respectively. Compared to surrounding normal glands, staining of myoepithelial cells for all three markers in the neoplastic lesion was attenuated. In high-grade DCIS, p40 staining is highly specific for myoepithelial cells. Its staining pattern and intensity are equal to p63, which opens up its use for daily practice. Staining with p40 is less heterogeneous than that for CK5/6.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bijker N, Donker M, Wesseling J, den Heeten GJ, Rutgers EJT (2013) Is DCIS breast cancer, and how do I treat it? Curr Treat Options in Oncol 14:75–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. M. Van Bockstal, K. Lambein, H. Denys, G. Braems, A. Nuyts, R. Van den Broecke, et al., “Histopathological characterization of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast according to HER2 amplification status and molecular subtype,” Virchows Arch, Jun 29 2014

  3. Dewar R, Fadare O, Gilmore H, Gown AM (2011) Best practices in diagnostic immunohistochemistry: myoepithelial markers in breast pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 135:422–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lambert K, Patani N, Mokbel K (2012) Ductal carcinoma in situ: recent advances and future prospects. Int J Surg Oncol 2012:347385

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. “The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review,” Lancet, vol. 380, pp. 1778–86, Nov 17 2012.

  6. Ellis IO, Lakhani SR, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ (2012) WHO classification of tumours of the breast. WHO Press, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rosen PP, Braun DW Jr, Kinne DE (1980) The clinical significance of pre-invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 46:919–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Landenberger M (1982) Intraductal carcinoma of the breast: follow-up after biopsy only. Cancer 49:751–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. “Treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: an uncertain harm-benefit balance,” Prescrire Int, vol. 22, pp. 298–303, Dec 2013.

  10. Souchon R, Sautter-Bihl ML, Sedlmayer F, Budach W, Dunst J, Feyer P et al (2014) DEGRO practical guidelines: radiotherapy of breast cancer II: radiotherapy of non-invasive neoplasia of the breast. Strahlenther Onkol 190:8–16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ding Y, Ruan Q (2006) The value of p63 and CK5/6 expression in the differential diagnosis of ductal lesions of breast. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technol Med Sci 26:405–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dabbs DJ, Chivukula M, Carter G, Bhargava R (2006) Basal phenotype of ductal carcinoma in situ: recognition and immunohistologic profile. Mod Pathol 19:1506–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee AH (2013) Use of immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of problematic breast lesions. J Clin Pathol 66:471–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sailer V, Stephan C, Wernert N, Perner S, Jung K, Dietel M et al (2013) Comparison of p40 (DeltaNp63) and p63 expression in prostate tissues–which one is the superior diagnostic marker for basal cells? Histopathology 63:50–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim SK, Jung WH, Koo JS (2014) p40 (DeltaNp63) expression in breast disease and its correlation with p63 immunohistochemistry. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 7:1032–41

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nonaka D (2012) A study of DeltaNp63 expression in lung non-small cell carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol 36:895–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kalof AN, Tam D, Beatty B, Cooper K (2004) Immunostaining patterns of myoepithelial cells in breast lesions: a comparison of CD10 and smooth muscle myosin heavy chain. J Clin Pathol 57:625–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nayar R, Breland C, Bedrossian U, Masood S, DeFrias D, Bedrossian CW (1999) Immunoreactivity of ductal cells with putative myoepithelial markers: a potential pitfall in breast carcinoma. Ann Diagn Pathol 3:165–73

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lacroix-Triki M, Mery E, Voigt JJ, Istier L, Rochaix P (2003) Value of cytokeratin 5/6 immunostaining using D5/16 B4 antibody in the spectrum of proliferative intraepithelial lesions of the breast. A comparative study with 34betaE12 antibody. Virchows Arch 442:548–54

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tse GM, Tan PH, Lui PC, Gilks CB, Poon CS, Ma TK et al (2007) The role of immunohistochemistry for smooth-muscle actin, p63, CD10 and cytokeratin 14 in the differential diagnosis of papillary lesions of the breast. J Clin Pathol 60:315–20

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang X, Mori I, Tang W, Nakamura M, Nakamura Y, Sato M et al (2002) p63 expression in normal, hyperplastic and malignant breast tissues. Breast Cancer 9:216–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Geddert H, Kiel S, Heep HJ, Gabbert HE, Sarbia M (2003) The role of p63 and deltaNp63 (p40) protein expression and gene amplification in esophageal carcinogenesis. Hum Pathol 34:850–6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hibi K, Trink B, Patturajan M, Westra WH, Caballero OL, Hill DE et al (2000) AIS is an oncogene amplified in squamous cell carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97:5462–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cowell CF, Weigelt B, Sakr RA, Ng CK, Hicks J, King TA et al (2013) Progression from ductal carcinoma in situ to invasive breast cancer: revisited. Mol Oncol 7:859–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Polyak K, Hu M (2005) Do myoepithelial cells hold the key for breast tumor progression? J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 10:231–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Barsky S, Karlin N (2005) Myoepithelial cells: autocrine and paracrine suppressors of breast cancer progression. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 10:249–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Aguiar FN, Mendes HN, Bacchi CE, Carvalho FM (2013) Comparison of nuclear grade and immunohistochemical features in situ and invasive components of ductal carcinoma of breast. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 35:97–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Susanne Steiner for her technical assistance.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Pathology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Strasse 25, 53127, Bonn, Germany

    Verena Sailer, Christine Lüders & Glen Kristiansen

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Integrated Oncology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Walther Kuhn

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GFO Kliniken Bonn, St. Marien-Hospital, Bonn, Germany

    Volker Pelzer

Authors
  1. Verena Sailer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Lüders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Walther Kuhn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Volker Pelzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Glen Kristiansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Verena Sailer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sailer, V., Lüders, C., Kuhn, W. et al. Immunostaining of ∆Np63 (using the p40 antibody) is equal to that of p63 and CK5/6 in high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Virchows Arch 467, 67–70 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1766-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1766-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation