Comparative study of immunohistochemical expression of ERG and MAGI2 in prostatic carcinoma.
Ann Diagn Pathol 2021;
52:151727. [PMID:
33713943 DOI:
10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2021.151727]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2020] [Revised: 01/26/2021] [Accepted: 02/26/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
Diagnosis of Prostatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) is still a problematic issue. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic value of ERG immunohistochemical (IHC) expression compared to MAGI2.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study was conducted on 56 cases of PAC and 29 cases of nodular prostatic hyperplasia (NPH). IHC staining for ERG and MAGI2 was applied to archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded blocks. Semi-quantitative scoring was compared and correlated with clinicopathologic parameters and the Ki-67 index.
RESULTS
Revealed positive ERG in 51.8% of PAC while all NPH cases were negative. On the other hand, MAGI2 was detected in 91.1% of PAC versus 17.2% of NPH. Using ROC curve, the ERG showed 53.6% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 76.5% diagnostic accuracy (DA) and area under the ROC curve 0.768 in comparison to MAGI2 that showed (91.1%, 86.2%, 88.25% and 0.948 respectively). Analysis of the combined use of the two markers revealed 95% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 94% DA when tested synchronously. Moreover, a statistically significant inverse relationship could be detected between ERG expression and the Gleason grading group (P = 0.01) and Ki-67 index (P < 0.001). In addition, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) adjacent to carcinoma; showed positive expressions in (1/11 cases, 9.11%) for ERG and (6/11 cases, 54%) for MAGI2.
CONCLUSION
This study recommends using both ERG and MAGI2 in a cocktail for better diagnostic validity of PAC. Only ERG expression could be a good prognostic indicator.
Collapse