Loading…
SDHB/SDHA immunohistochemistry in pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas: a multicenter interobserver variation analysis using virtual microscopy: a Multinational Study of the European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumors (ENS@T)
Despite the established role of SDHB/SDHA immunohistochemistry as a valuable tool to identify patients at risk for familial succinate dehydrogenase-related pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma syndromes, the reproducibility of the assessment methods has not as yet been determined. The aim of this study wa...
Saved in:
Published in: | Modern pathology 2015-06, Vol.28 (6), p.807-821 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Despite the established role of SDHB/SDHA immunohistochemistry as a valuable tool to identify patients at risk for familial succinate dehydrogenase-related pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma syndromes, the reproducibility of the assessment methods has not as yet been determined. The aim of this study was to investigate interobserver variability among seven expert endocrine pathologists using a web-based virtual microscopy approach in a large multicenter pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma cohort (
n
=351): (1) 73
SDH
mutated, (2) 105 non-
SDH
mutated, (3) 128 samples without identified
SDH-x
mutations, and (4) 45 with incomplete
SDH
molecular genetic analysis. Substantial agreement among all the reviewers was observed either with a two-tiered classification (SDHB
κ
=0.7338; SDHA
κ
=0.6707) or a three-tiered classification approach (SDHB
κ
=0.6543; SDHA
κ
=0.7516). Consensus was achieved in 315 cases (89.74%) for SDHB immunohistochemistry and in 348 cases (99.15%) for SDHA immunohistochemistry. Among the concordant cases, 62 of 69 (~90%)
SDHB-/C-/D-/AF2-
mutated cases displayed SDHB immunonegativity and SDHA immunopositivity, 3 of 4 (75%) with
SDHA
mutations showed loss of SDHA/SDHB protein expression, whereas 98 of 105 (93%) non-
SDH
-x-mutated counterparts demonstrated retention of SDHA/SDHB protein expression. Two
SDHD
-mutated extra-adrenal paragangliomas were scored as SDHB immunopositive, whereas 9 of 128 (7%) tumors without identified
SDH-x
mutations, 6 of 37 (~16%)
VHL
-mutated, as well as 1 of 21 (~5%)
NF1
-mutated tumors were evaluated as SDHB immunonegative. Although 14 out of those 16 SDHB-immunonegative cases were nonmetastatic, an overall significant correlation between SDHB immunonegativity and malignancy was observed (
P
=0.00019). We conclude that SDHB/SDHA immunohistochemistry is a reliable tool to identify patients with
SDH-x
mutations with an additional value in the assessment of genetic variants of unknown significance. If
SDH
molecular genetic analysis fails to detect a mutation in SDHB-immunonegative tumor,
SDHC
promoter methylation and/or
VHL/NF1
testing with the use of targeted next-generation sequencing is advisable. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0893-3952 1530-0285 |
DOI: | 10.1038/modpathol.2015.41 |