Premium
Differential SALL 4 immunoexpression in malignant rhabdoid tumours and epithelioid sarcomas
Author(s) -
Yoshida Akihiko,
Asano Naofumi,
Kawai Akira,
Kawamoto Hiroshi,
Nakazawa Atsuko,
Kishimoto Hiroshi,
Kushima Ryoji
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
histopathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.626
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1365-2559
pISSN - 0309-0167
DOI - 10.1111/his.12460
Subject(s) - immunohistochemistry , pathology , staining , differential diagnosis , biology , medicine
Aims Malignant rhabdoid tumours ( MRT s) and epithelioid sarcomas ( ES s) are distinctive malignant neoplasms with characteristic clinicopathological features. However, these two tumour types share some phenotypic features, such as epithelioid/rhabdoid cytology, expression of epithelial markers, and immunohistochemical loss of INI 1. The distinction can be problematic in atypical clinical settings, and ancillary diagnostic tools are needed. The expression of CD 34 is widely cited as favouring the diagnosis of ES , but no formal comparative study has been performed in the post‐ INI 1 era. Here, we evaluated the utility of SALL 4 for differentiating MRT s from ES s, and compared its performance with that of CD 34. Methods and results Fifteen MRT s and 36 ES s were retrieved. All MRT s and ES s lacked INI 1 reactivity, except for one MRT that lacked BRG 1. A representative slide from each case was stained using antibodies against SALL 4 and CD 34. Ten (67%) of the 15 MRT s expressed SALL 4. In contrast, only one (3%) of the 36 ES s expressed SALL 4. CD 34 staining was observed in nine (60%) of the MRT s and 29 (81%) of the ES s. Conclusions Despite moderate sensitivity, SALL 4 expression may aid in distinguishing MRT s from ES s. CD 34 was found to have questionable utility in making such distinctions.