Differences between gastric signet‐ring cell carcinoma and poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma: A comparison of histopathologic features determined by mucin core protein and trefoil factor family peptide immunohistochemistry

We investigated differences between the pathological features of gastric signet‐ring cell carcinoma (sig) and poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (por) by examining the expressions of the trefoil factor family peptides (TFFs) and mucin core proteins (MUCs). Ninety‐seven tissues of 97 gastric cancer...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Pathology international 2017-08, Vol.67 (8), p.398-403
Main Authors: Fujimoto, Ai, Ishikawa, Yukio, Ishii, Toshiharu, Yamada, Akihiro, Igarashi, Yoshinori, Ohmoto, Yasukazu, Kaise, Mitsuru
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adenocarcinoma
Adenocarcinoma - pathology
Adult
Aged
Biomarkers, Tumor - analysis
Carcinoma, Signet Ring Cell - pathology
Core protein
Correlation
Female
Gastrectomy
Gastric cancer
Humans
Immunohistochemistry
Male
Middle Aged
Mucin
Mucin 5AC - biosynthesis
mucin core proteins
Mucin-2 - biosynthesis
Peptides
poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma
Proteins
signet‐ring cell carcinoma
Staining
Stomach Neoplasms - pathology
Tissues
Trefoil factor
trefoil factor family peptides
Trefoil Factor-1 - biosynthesis
Trefoil Factor-3 - biosynthesis
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!
Description
Summary:We investigated differences between the pathological features of gastric signet‐ring cell carcinoma (sig) and poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (por) by examining the expressions of the trefoil factor family peptides (TFFs) and mucin core proteins (MUCs). Ninety‐seven tissues of 97 gastric cancer patients were selected for this study. After gastrectomy, the major histopathologic types were determined to be sig, solid‐type poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (por1), non‐solid type poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (por2), and well‐differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma (tub1). We evaluated the prevalence of positive staining for MUCs (MUC5AC and MUC2) and TFFs (TFF1 and TFF3) and assessed the correlation between MUCs and TFFs in each histopathological type. The rate of MUC2 expression significantly differed between sig and por2 (50.0% vs 11.7%, P = 0.011). TFF3 expression in sig significantly differed from TFF3 expression in both por2 (100% vs 17.6%, P 
ISSN:1320-5463
1440-1827
DOI:10.1111/pin.12559