English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

To address the value of qRT-PCR and IHC in accurately detecting lymph node micrometastasis in gynecological cancer, we performed a systematic approach, using a set of dual molecular tumor-specific markers such as cytokeratin 19 (CK19) and carbonic anhydrase 9 (CA9), in a series of 46 patients (19 with cervical cancer, 18 with endometrial cancer, and 9 with vulvar cancer). A total of 1281 lymph nodes were analyzed and 28 were found positive by histopathology. Following this documentation, 82 lymph nodes, 11 positive and 71 negative, were randomly selected and further analyzed both by IHC and qRT-PCR for CK19 and CA9 expression. All 11 (100%) expressed CK19 by IHC, while only 6 (54.5%) expressed CA9. On the contrary, all the histologically negative for micrometastases lymph nodes were also negative by IHC analysis for both markers. The comparative diagnostic efficacy of the two markers using qRT-PCR, however, disclosed that the analysis of the same aliquots of the 82 lymph nodes led to 100% specificity for the CK19 biomarker, while, in contrast, CA9 failed to recapitulate a similar pattern. These data suggest that qRT-PCR exhibits a better diagnostic accuracy compared to IHC, while CK19 displays a consistent pattern of detection compared to CA9.

biomed research international

Comparative Assessment of Lymph Node Micrometastasis in Cervical, Endometrial and Vulvar Cancer: Insights on the Real Time qRT-PCR Approach versus Immunohistochemistry, Employing Dual Molecular Markers