Premium
Ets‐1 immunohistochemical expression in non‐melanoma skin carcinoma
Author(s) -
Keehn Connie A.,
Smoller Bruce R.,
Morgan Michael B.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
journal of cutaneous pathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.597
H-Index - 75
eISSN - 1600-0560
pISSN - 0303-6987
DOI - 10.1046/j.0303-6987.2004.0158.x
Subject(s) - pathology , immunostaining , immunohistochemistry , staining , biology , carcinoma , carcinoma in situ , basal cell carcinoma , melanoma , medicine , cancer research , basal cell
Background: Ets‐1 oncoprotein is a transcription factor known to regulate the expression of numerous genes important in extracellular matrix remodeling and angiogenesis. Up‐regulation of Ets‐1 has been shown to be important in a variety of human malignancies and to correlate with prognosis. To our knowledge, this oncoprotein has not been examined in non‐melanoma skin carcinomas. Design: A series of 26 primary cutaneous skin lesions with patient records were independently examined for diagnosis confirmation and immunohistochemical expression by two dermatopathologists. The immunohistochemical expression for Ets‐1 (Novocastra, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England, UK) was scored by an average of the mean labeling intensity (MLI), where no nuclear staining = 0, weak nuclear staining = 1, moderate nuclear staining = 2, and strong nuclear staining = 3. Results: All basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) cases exhibited negative nuclear staining, for an average MLI of 0. Keratoacanthomas, squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SIS), and well‐differentiated squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) exhibited negative to weak nuclear staining, for an average MLI of 0.4 ± 0.3. Moderately differentiated SCCs exhibited moderate nuclear staining, for an average MLI of 1.8 ± 0.6. Poorly differentiated SCCs and metastatic SCCs exhibited very strong nuclear staining, with an average MLI of 2.8 ± 0.2. Conclusions: Ets‐1 is not expressed in cutaneous BCC or MCC and is weakly expressed in SIS and forms of well‐differentiated SCC. Although the intensity of Ets‐1 immunostaining distinguished between well‐differentiated and poorly differentiated SCC (p < 0.0001), it failed to discriminate between in situ and well‐differentiated SCCs. The preliminary data suggests Ets‐1 may be important in the pathogenesis of invasive SCC.