HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jcp.2007.053793v1 61/5/652    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Miller, K Articles by McCluggage, W G PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Miller, K Articles by McCluggage, W G Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Ovarian Cancer

An immunohistochemical and morphological analysis of post-chemotherapy ovarian carcinoma

¹ Department of Pathology, Belfast City Hospital Trust, Belfast, UK
² Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Belfast City Hospital Trust, Belfast, UK
³ Department of Pathology, Royal Group of Hospitals Trust, Belfast, UK

Correspondence to:
Professor W Glenn McCluggage, Department of Pathology, Royal Group of Hospitals Trust, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6BL, Northern Ireland, UK; glenn.mccluggage{at}belfasttrust.hscni.net

Aims: Traditional management of advanced ovarian carcinoma is surgical debulking followed by chemotherapy; however, there is an increasing tendency for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. The morphology of ovarian carcinoma following chemotherapy often differs markedly from native tumour. This study aimed to compare the immunophenotype of post-chemotherapy ovarian carcinomas with that of untreated tumour.

Methods: Post-chemotherapy ovarian carcinomas (n = 16) were stained with a range of antibodies. In six cases, pre-chemotherapy core biopsies were also stained; all were high-grade serous carcinomas. Antibodies used in the study were CK7, CA125, WT1, ER, PR, p53, p16, p63 and MIB1.

Results: In eight post-treatment cases, there was minimal or no morphological response to chemotherapy, and in eight there was a significant response (in two additional cases, no residual tumour was identified). All pre-chemotherapy biopsies showed diffuse positivity of the tumour cells with CK7, CA125 and WT1. ER, p53 and p16 were diffusely positive in five, four and three cases respectively. One case was focally PR positive, and all were p63 negative. MIB1 staining was high; all but one case exhibited a proliferation index of >60%. Post-chemotherapy tumours exhibited a similar immunophenotype: diffuse positivity with CK7 in all cases and with CA125, WT1, ER, p53 and p16 in the majority, an immunophenotype in keeping with a serous carcinoma. All were negative with p63, and all but two with PR. The MIB1 proliferation index was lower in those cases exhibiting a significant morphological response, and p53 was less likely to be positive in cases with minimal or no response.

Conclusions: The immunophenotype of post-chemotherapy ovarian carcinomas is very similar to that of native untreated tumours, illustrating that CK7, CA125, WT1, ER, p53 and p16 may be of value in identifying residual tumour cells and in subtyping the neoplasm if a pre-chemotherapy biopsy has not been obtained.