Attenuated podoplanin staining in breast myoepithelial cells: A potential caveat in the diagnosis of lymphatic invasion

Zhaohai Yang, Amy L. Adams, Omar Hameed

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Although podoplanin expression in breast myoepithelial (ME) cells has been reported to be readily distinguishable from that of lymphatic endothelium (LE), we recently encountered a case in which attenuated expression led to an incorrect interpretation of lymphatic invasion. This prompted us to further analyze the pattern and intensity of podoplanin expression in LE and in ME cells surrounding both non-neoplastic and neoplastic breast epithelium in 42 cases of breast carcinoma. In addition, cases with presumed lymphatic invasion (tumor cells within podoplanin-positive lymphatic-like structures) were further characterized on the basis of histologic review and results of additional endothelial (CD31 and/or CD34) and ME (p63±calponin) immunostains. Normal LE always displayed a strong (3+) linear podoplanin expression pattern, whereas ME cells surrounding non-neoplastic breast epithelium had a granular, branching membranous staining pattern that was either moderate (2+) or strong (3+) in 13 (34%) and 25 (66%) foci, respectively. ME cells surrounding ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) displayed weaker (1+ to 2+) podoplanin expression with 26 (72%) foci showing only a residual thin/discontinuous pattern of expression, whereas the other 10 (28%) foci showed a pattern similar to that around non-neoplastic epithelium. Further evaluation of 10 foci of presumed lymphatic invasion confirmed the presence of lymphatic invasion in 6 (60%) cases, whereas 4 displayed surrounding ME cells and were thus interpreted as DCIS. One case, in which both DCIS and lymphatic invasion were unequivocally present, displayed a few nests of tumor cells surrounded by both podoplanin-positive and p63-positive cells in different areas of the periphery and could not be readily classified. These findings represent an important caveat in the diagnosis of lymphatic invasion and, accordingly, one should always interpret results of podoplanin staining in the context of the histologic appearance and/or consider evaluation of additional endothelial or ME immunostains, especially when the characteristically strong linear pattern of expression of LE is not evident.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)425-430
Number of pages6
JournalApplied Immunohistochemistry and Molecular Morphology
Volume17
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2009

Fingerprint

Breast
Lymphatic Endothelium
Staining and Labeling
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
Epithelium
Neoplasms
Breast Neoplasms

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Histology
  • Medical Laboratory Technology

Cite this

@article{495c047185934b8291e8bd660c23fc85,
title = "Attenuated podoplanin staining in breast myoepithelial cells: A potential caveat in the diagnosis of lymphatic invasion",
abstract = "Although podoplanin expression in breast myoepithelial (ME) cells has been reported to be readily distinguishable from that of lymphatic endothelium (LE), we recently encountered a case in which attenuated expression led to an incorrect interpretation of lymphatic invasion. This prompted us to further analyze the pattern and intensity of podoplanin expression in LE and in ME cells surrounding both non-neoplastic and neoplastic breast epithelium in 42 cases of breast carcinoma. In addition, cases with presumed lymphatic invasion (tumor cells within podoplanin-positive lymphatic-like structures) were further characterized on the basis of histologic review and results of additional endothelial (CD31 and/or CD34) and ME (p63±calponin) immunostains. Normal LE always displayed a strong (3+) linear podoplanin expression pattern, whereas ME cells surrounding non-neoplastic breast epithelium had a granular, branching membranous staining pattern that was either moderate (2+) or strong (3+) in 13 (34{\%}) and 25 (66{\%}) foci, respectively. ME cells surrounding ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) displayed weaker (1+ to 2+) podoplanin expression with 26 (72{\%}) foci showing only a residual thin/discontinuous pattern of expression, whereas the other 10 (28{\%}) foci showed a pattern similar to that around non-neoplastic epithelium. Further evaluation of 10 foci of presumed lymphatic invasion confirmed the presence of lymphatic invasion in 6 (60{\%}) cases, whereas 4 displayed surrounding ME cells and were thus interpreted as DCIS. One case, in which both DCIS and lymphatic invasion were unequivocally present, displayed a few nests of tumor cells surrounded by both podoplanin-positive and p63-positive cells in different areas of the periphery and could not be readily classified. These findings represent an important caveat in the diagnosis of lymphatic invasion and, accordingly, one should always interpret results of podoplanin staining in the context of the histologic appearance and/or consider evaluation of additional endothelial or ME immunostains, especially when the characteristically strong linear pattern of expression of LE is not evident.",
author = "Zhaohai Yang and Adams, {Amy L.} and Omar Hameed",
year = "2009",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/PAI.0b013e31819d2281",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "425--430",
journal = "Applied Immunohistochemistry and Molecular Morphology",
issn = "1541-2016",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

Attenuated podoplanin staining in breast myoepithelial cells : A potential caveat in the diagnosis of lymphatic invasion. / Yang, Zhaohai; Adams, Amy L.; Hameed, Omar.

In: Applied Immunohistochemistry and Molecular Morphology, Vol. 17, No. 5, 01.10.2009, p. 425-430.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Attenuated podoplanin staining in breast myoepithelial cells

T2 - A potential caveat in the diagnosis of lymphatic invasion

AU - Yang, Zhaohai

AU - Adams, Amy L.

AU - Hameed, Omar

PY - 2009/10/1

Y1 - 2009/10/1

N2 - Although podoplanin expression in breast myoepithelial (ME) cells has been reported to be readily distinguishable from that of lymphatic endothelium (LE), we recently encountered a case in which attenuated expression led to an incorrect interpretation of lymphatic invasion. This prompted us to further analyze the pattern and intensity of podoplanin expression in LE and in ME cells surrounding both non-neoplastic and neoplastic breast epithelium in 42 cases of breast carcinoma. In addition, cases with presumed lymphatic invasion (tumor cells within podoplanin-positive lymphatic-like structures) were further characterized on the basis of histologic review and results of additional endothelial (CD31 and/or CD34) and ME (p63±calponin) immunostains. Normal LE always displayed a strong (3+) linear podoplanin expression pattern, whereas ME cells surrounding non-neoplastic breast epithelium had a granular, branching membranous staining pattern that was either moderate (2+) or strong (3+) in 13 (34%) and 25 (66%) foci, respectively. ME cells surrounding ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) displayed weaker (1+ to 2+) podoplanin expression with 26 (72%) foci showing only a residual thin/discontinuous pattern of expression, whereas the other 10 (28%) foci showed a pattern similar to that around non-neoplastic epithelium. Further evaluation of 10 foci of presumed lymphatic invasion confirmed the presence of lymphatic invasion in 6 (60%) cases, whereas 4 displayed surrounding ME cells and were thus interpreted as DCIS. One case, in which both DCIS and lymphatic invasion were unequivocally present, displayed a few nests of tumor cells surrounded by both podoplanin-positive and p63-positive cells in different areas of the periphery and could not be readily classified. These findings represent an important caveat in the diagnosis of lymphatic invasion and, accordingly, one should always interpret results of podoplanin staining in the context of the histologic appearance and/or consider evaluation of additional endothelial or ME immunostains, especially when the characteristically strong linear pattern of expression of LE is not evident.

AB - Although podoplanin expression in breast myoepithelial (ME) cells has been reported to be readily distinguishable from that of lymphatic endothelium (LE), we recently encountered a case in which attenuated expression led to an incorrect interpretation of lymphatic invasion. This prompted us to further analyze the pattern and intensity of podoplanin expression in LE and in ME cells surrounding both non-neoplastic and neoplastic breast epithelium in 42 cases of breast carcinoma. In addition, cases with presumed lymphatic invasion (tumor cells within podoplanin-positive lymphatic-like structures) were further characterized on the basis of histologic review and results of additional endothelial (CD31 and/or CD34) and ME (p63±calponin) immunostains. Normal LE always displayed a strong (3+) linear podoplanin expression pattern, whereas ME cells surrounding non-neoplastic breast epithelium had a granular, branching membranous staining pattern that was either moderate (2+) or strong (3+) in 13 (34%) and 25 (66%) foci, respectively. ME cells surrounding ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) displayed weaker (1+ to 2+) podoplanin expression with 26 (72%) foci showing only a residual thin/discontinuous pattern of expression, whereas the other 10 (28%) foci showed a pattern similar to that around non-neoplastic epithelium. Further evaluation of 10 foci of presumed lymphatic invasion confirmed the presence of lymphatic invasion in 6 (60%) cases, whereas 4 displayed surrounding ME cells and were thus interpreted as DCIS. One case, in which both DCIS and lymphatic invasion were unequivocally present, displayed a few nests of tumor cells surrounded by both podoplanin-positive and p63-positive cells in different areas of the periphery and could not be readily classified. These findings represent an important caveat in the diagnosis of lymphatic invasion and, accordingly, one should always interpret results of podoplanin staining in the context of the histologic appearance and/or consider evaluation of additional endothelial or ME immunostains, especially when the characteristically strong linear pattern of expression of LE is not evident.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349736279&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70349736279&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PAI.0b013e31819d2281

DO - 10.1097/PAI.0b013e31819d2281

M3 - Article

C2 - 19363443

AN - SCOPUS:70349736279

VL - 17

SP - 425

EP - 430

JO - Applied Immunohistochemistry and Molecular Morphology

JF - Applied Immunohistochemistry and Molecular Morphology

SN - 1541-2016

IS - 5

ER -