Evaluation of p40 as a Myoepithelial Marker in Different Breast Lesions

• Published in: Pathobiology (Basel) Vol. 82; no. 3-4; p. 166
• Main Authors: Kővári, Bence, Szász, A Marcell, Kulka, Janina, Marušić, Zlatko, Šarčević, Bozena, Tiszlavicz, László, Cserni, Gábor
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland 01-09-2015
• Subjects: Adenomyoepithelioma - metabolism; Adult; Aged; Biomarkers, Tumor - genetics; Biomarkers, Tumor - metabolism; Breast - metabolism; Breast Diseases - metabolism; Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis; Breast Neoplasms - metabolism; Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating - metabolism; Diagnosis, Differential; Epithelial Cells - metabolism; Female; Humans; Immunohistochemistry; Middle Aged; Transcription Factors - metabolism; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms - genetics; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms - metabolism; Tumor Suppressor Proteins - metabolism
• ISSN: 1423-0291
• DOI: 10.1159/000375127

The identification of myoepithelial cells (MEC) is a valuable clue in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. A series of breast lesions with occasional absence of or decrease in the staining for some MEC markers was analyzed for the expression of a novel marker, p40, and results were compared to the p63 staining profile.
Samples (n = 34) from patients with benign sclerosing lesions (n = 11), ductal carcinoma in situ (n = 13) and adenomyoepithelial lesions (n = 10) and associated normal breast tissues (n = 31) were selected to evaluate the differential expression of p40 and p63 using immunohistochemistry. Triple-negative, cytokeratin 5 (CK5)-expressing invasive breast carcinomas (n = 19) were also assessed for p40 expression.
Normal structures showed similar diffuse and strong MEC positivity using p40 and p63 in all 31 cases. The two antibodies performed similarly in all 34 breast lesions acknowledged to present altered expression of MEC markers; focal losses of expression occurred in a parallel fashion. CK5-positive carcinomas expressed p40 more frequently than p63 (18/19 vs. 8/19) and the staining was more marked.
It seems that both antibodies can be used interchangeably for MEC identification, but show differences in the labeling at least in a subset of tumor cells in triple-negative carcinomas.