Printer Friendly

Practical Immunohistochemistry in Neoplastic Pathology of the Gastrointestinal Tract, Liver, Biliary Tract, and Pancreas.

Malignant neoplasms of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, liver, biliary tract, and pancreas are the most common cancers of the body, with an estimated 304 930 new cases and an estimated 153 030 deaths in the year 2016 in the United States. (1) Most of these neoplasms are aggressive malignancies with high mortality rates. In 2012, cancers of the colorectum and pancreas were the third and fourth leading cancer deaths, respectively, in both male and female patients. Liver cancer was also the fifth leading cancer death in male patients. The prognosis of pancreatic and hepato biliary cancers is extremely poor, with adjusted 5-year relative survival rates of 8% and 18%, respectively. In fact, the death rates are increasing for cancers of the liver and pancreas despite a significant drop of 23% in the overall cancer death rate since 1991. (1) One of the major obstacles in improving patient survival for these cancers is the failure of early diagnosis.

Despite the rapid advances in molecular and genetic testing in the past decade, immunohistochemistry remains a major ancillary tool for pathologists to make critical contributions to patient care. This is particularly true when immunomarkers can be used to help make the distinction between malignant and benign conditions so that an accurate diagnosis can be made on small biopsies obtained from lesions that are detected at early stages with advanced imaging and endoscopic technologies. Immunomarkers are also available to help predict the biologic behavior of diseases to guide treatment and surveillance decisions, which are also critically important to the success of patient survival.

In this article, we attempt to provide a comprehensive review on immunomarkers that are commonly used in surgical pathology practice for neoplasms of the digestive system, and to summarize the clinical usefulness of immunomarkers that have been discovered in recent years in these fields. Given the similarity of the topics, the content of this article may have some overlap with that of several review articles that were published recently in this journal. (2-4)


General Immunophenotypes

The most commonly used immunomarkers for adenocarcinomas of the GI tract are cytokeratin 7 (CK7), CK20, and CDX2. Special AT-rich sequence-binding protein 2 (SATB2) and cadherin-17 (CDH17) are new markers that have been increasingly used recently (Table 1). Mucins (MUCs) appear to have limited utility in the workup of carcinomas of the digestive system.

CK7 and CK20.--The differential expression patterns of CK7 and CK20 are routinely used in the workup for adenocarcinomas of unknown primary. The [CK7.sup.-]/[CK20.sup.+] phenotype is relatively restricted to colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRC) and appears to be more specific than CDX2. (5,6) In a recent study, the [CK7.sup.-]/[CK20.sup.+] phenotype showed a specificity of 98% to 99% for CRC. (7) However, the sensitivity of the [CK7.sup.-]/[CK20.sup.+] phenotype in CRC is lower than that of CDX2, because at least 10% of CRCs also express CK7. (8) The frequency of CK7 expression in rectal adenocarcinomas can be much higher. (9) In addition, CK20 expression may be lost in a significant subset of CRCs of the right colon, (10) and in most cases of colorectal medullary carcinoma. (11) In CRC, CK20 positivity is typically diffuse, whereas CK7 immunoreactivity, if present, is often focal or patchy. CK7 expression in CRC may also be less intense than that seen in non-CRC adenocarcinomas that typically express CK7. (10,12,13)

Other predominantly [CK20.sup.+] cancers include adenocarcinomas of the appendix, adenocarcinomas of the urachus, and a subset of adenocarcinomas of the small intestine and urinary bladder. Merkel cell carcinoma and small cell carcinoma of the salivary glands are also [CK7.sup.-]/[CK20.sup.+], with a paranuclear dotlike CK20 staining pattern. (14)

Most gastroesophageal and pancreaticobiliary adenocarcinomas are [CK7.sup.+]/[CK20.sup.-], but a small fraction of cases are [CK7.sup.+]/[CK20.sup.+] or even [CK7.sup.-]/[CK20.sup.+].5A5 CK20 expression in these tumors is typically focal, if present, which is in contrast to that seen for CRC. Using the CK7/CK20 staining pattern as well as other immunomarkers to separate adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction into origins of the distal esophagus and proximal stomach is difficult in practice because of substantial immunophenotypic overlap. Adenocarcinoma of the anal glands, which may be confused with rectal adenocarcinoma histologically, is also typically [CK7.sup.+]/[CK20.sup.-] This tumor is also negative for CDX2 and may show loss of expression of both p63 and CK5/6 proteins. (16) CDX2.--CDX2 is a homeobox transcription factor essential for the maintenance of intestinal phenotype and is a highly sensitive immunomarker for CRC. However, its specificity for CRC is low because its expression may also be detected in a variety of adenocarcinomas, such as those of the upper GI tract, pancreaticobiliary tract, urinary bladder, uterus, ovary, and lung. (6, 17-22) Enteric-type sinonasal adenocarcinomas consistently express enteric immunomarkers CDX2, CK20, and villin. (23,24) Mucinous adenocarcinomas of the lung frequently express CDX2 and CK20, with loss of expression of TTF-1 and napsin A. (25) Studies have shown a greater intratumoral heterogeneity of CDX2 expression in extraintestinal adenocarcinomas compared with the strong and diffuse staining pattern observed for CRC. (12) In general, CDX2-expressing adenocarcinomas are of intestinal type histologically or show enteric differentiation, as seen in the stomach. (5) Loss of expression of CDX2 and CK20 occurs in 15% to 20% of CRCs with microsatellite instability, (26-28) and is more frequently seen in poorly differentiated or undifferentiated carcinomas, such as medullary carcinoma. (11, 28-30) BRAF-mutated, microsatellitestable CRCs may also have reduced CDX2 expression accompanied by increased CK7 expression. (31) These tumors have been shown to behave more aggressively, with frequent lymph node metastasis and worse patient survival compared with garden variety CRCs. Loss of CDX2 expression may also help identify a high-risk subgroup of patients with stage II CRCs who may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. (32)

MUC Proteins.--Mucins, or mucus glycoproteins, are widely expressed in normal epithelial cells and their derived neoplasms. Their diagnostic and prognostic significance has been extensively studied in GI and pancreaticobiliary neoplasms. In general, MUC1 is preferentially expressed in pancreaticobiliary adenocarcinomas, whereas MUC2 is preferentially expressed in intestinal-type adenocarcinomas, such as CRC. (33,34) However, there is substantial immunophenotypic overlap among various carcinomas, with a wide range of staining heterogeneity, which markedly limits their diagnostic value in the workup for carcinomas of unknown primary. (35-37)

SATB2.--SATB2 is a nuclear matrix-associated transcriptional regulator that is involved in a wide spectrum of biologic functions, such as neuron specification, osteoblastic differentiation, skeletal development, and immunoglobulin [mu] gene expression. (38-41) By immunohistochemistry, SATB2 is expressed in normal tissues in a tissue-specific manner, with strong nuclear staining restricted to epithelial cells lining the colorectum and appendix, and a subset of neurons in the brain. Weak to moderate immunoreactivity is also observed in some lymphocytes and epithelial cells lining the seminal vesicles, seminiferous ducts, and epididymis. (11,42) SATB2 expression is not detected in epithelial cells lining the normal small intestine, stomach, or pancreaticobiliary tract. Studies have shown that SATB2 is a relatively sensitive and specific marker for CRC, with retained expression in most (85%-97%) primary and metastatic CRCs. In non-CRC digestive system cancers, SATB2 expression was seen in 0% of gastric, 6.7% of esophageal, 0% to 4.2% of pancreatic, and 6.7% of biliary adenocarcinomas. (11,42)

As a diagnostic marker for CRC, SATB2 offers similar to slightly lower sensitivity to traditional markers CDX2 and CK20 but shows promising utility because of its relatively high specificity. (42) Recently, Dragomir et al (7) demonstrated that when SATB2 was added, the positive predictive power for CRC improved from 93% to 99% when a tumor was [CK7.sup.-]/[CK20.sup.+] SATB2 can also label poorly differentiated or undifferentiated CRCs, which may lack the expression of conventional intestinal markers CK20 and CDX2. In the study by Lin et al, (11) SATB2 and CDH17 were each expressed in 16 of 18 medullary carcinomas of the colon (89%), although most of these cases did not express CK20 and CDX2. Interestingly, the 2 [CDH17.sup.-] cases were both positive for SATB2, and vice versa. Nearly all positive cases showed a strong and diffuse staining pattern for SATB2.

Most studies have noted the diffuse and strong staining pattern to be highly characteristic of, although not entirely exclusive to, CRC (Figure 1, A). On the contrary, focal and/ or weak SATB2 expression appears to be much less specific. In the study by Dragomir et al, (7) 102 of 458 non-CRC tumors (22%) showed detectable SATB2 immunoreactivity, with most showing scant positive cells. Only 16 non-CRC cases (3.5%) exhibited nuclear staining in more than 75% of tumor cells. These cases included neuroendocrine tumors, renal/urothelial cancers, Merkel cell carcinomas, tumors of the small intestine, lung cancer, and gynecologic cancer. In the study by Lin et al, (11) 60 of 1671 non-CRC cases (3.6%) showed SATB2 expression. Diffuse positivity was noted in only 3 of 121 pulmonary squamous cell carcinomas and 2 of 43 urothelial carcinomas. Of 145 adenocarcinomas from the esophagus, stomach, and pancreas, only 1 case from the pancreas showed the diffuse and strong staining pattern.

It is interesting to note that SATB2 is also a highly sensitive biomarker for osteoblastic differentiation in benign and malignant mesenchymal tumors, such as osteosarcoma. (43,44) The other type of tumor that shows a high frequency of SATB2 expression is sinonasal carcinoma, seen in 5 of 9 cases (56%) in 1 study. (42)

CDH17.--CDH17 is a member of the cadherin superfamily but is distinguished from classic cadherins by its unique structural and functional features. (45,46) Also known as liver-intestine cadherin, CDH17 was initially discovered to be a novel calcium-dependent cell adhesion molecule expressed in the liver and intestine of rats. (45,47) In humans the distribution of CDH17 is essentially limited to epithelial cells lining the small and large intestines. (11,46,48) Epithelial cells of the esophagus and stomach as well as hepatocytes are [CDH17.sup.-] Only occasionally is its immunoreactivity detected in epithelial cells lining the intrahepatic bile ducts and small pancreatic ducts. (11,48)

A few studies have demonstrated the clinical utility of CDH17 as an immunomarker of GI adenocarcinomas. (11,48-50) CDH17 is highly sensitive for primary and metastatic CRCs and is positive in up to 96% to 99% of examined cases. However, CDH17 positivity is also seen at a high frequency in adenocarcinomas of the esophagus (67%-82%), stomach (25%-90%), pancreas (18%-52%), and bile duct (27%-53%). (11,48,50) Interestingly, CDH17 labels adenocarcinomas of the digestive system with higher sensitivity and specificity than CDX2, although CDH17 is thought to be transcriptionally regulated by CDX2. Like SATB2, CDH17 can be positive in CRCs with poorly differentiated or undifferentiated morphology, such as medullary carcinoma. (11) Furthermore, CDH17 appears to show a lower frequency of expression in nondigestive tumors than CDX2. The available data have shown that CDH17 expression can be detected at a low frequency in adenocarcinomas of the endocervix, endometrium, and lung, and rarely in hepatocellular carcinoma and prostatic adenocarcinoma. (11,48)

Distinction Between CRC and Adenocarcinoma of the Urinary Bladder

The distinction between primary adenocarcinoma of the urinary bladder and CRC secondarily involving the bladder is a known diagnostic challenge because of their morphologic similarities. A number of immunomarkers have been tested in this regard, which include CK7, CK20, CDX2, villin, thrombomodulin, [alpha]-methylacyl coenzyme-A racemase, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), GATA3, p63, CDH17, bcatenin, and many others. (51-56) Among all tested markers, [beta]-catenin is the only one that can be reliably used to aid in the distinction. Specifically, nuclear [beta]-catenin expression is detected in more than 80% of CRCs but has never been seen in primary adenocarcinoma of the bladder. (51,55,56) Instead, bladder adenocarcinomas show only membranous staining. Thus, membranous [beta]-catenin staining will not help, but nuclear staining indicates a colorectal origin. Our data also demonstrate SATB2 expression in 46% of primary adenocarcinomas of the bladder (H.L.W., unpublished data, 2016), which limits its utility in the distinction.

Distinction Between CRC and Adenocarcinoma of the Small Intestine

Primary adenocarcinoma of the small intestine is morphologically similar to or indistinguishable from CRC, but it differs from CRC tumorigenetically. (57) Immunohistochemically, small intestinal adenocarcinomas more frequently express CK7, and less frequently express CK20, CDX2, and [alpha]-methylacyl coenzyme-A racemase, in comparison with CRCs. (58-62) Interestingly, a [CK7.sup.+]/[CK20.sup.-] pattern is much more commonly seen in Crohn-associated small intestinal adenocarcinomas than in sporadic cases. (62,63)

Although SATB2 is not expressed in normal small intestinal epithelium, it was expressed in 46% of small intestinal adenocarcinomas we examined. (62) However, SATB2 expression is typically patchy and weak in these tumors (Figure 1, B). Less than 10% of small intestinal adenocarcinomas exhibit a strong and diffuse staining pattern, in contrast to CRCs, where the strong and diffuse staining pattern is observed in 76% of cases.

Distinction Between Appendiceal and Ovarian Neoplasms

Recent studies have shown that SATB2 is of diagnostic value in distinguishing primary ovarian tumors from appendiceal metastasis. SATB2 expression is virtually absent in primary ovarian mucinous tumors (Figure 2, A and B) unless a component of mature teratoma is present. (64-66) In contrast, SATB2 is frequently expressed in low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (Figure 2, C and D). SATB2 also appears to be a reliable marker that can be used to distinguish metastatic adenocarcinoma of appendiceal origin from primary ovarian adenocarcinoma. In the study by Moh et al, (64) for example, SATB2 expression was observed in 8 of 10 low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms and 4 of 4 high-grade appendiceal adenocarcinomas that metastasized to the ovaries. In primary ovarian tumors, SATB2 was detected in 0 of 22 mucinous cystadenomas, 4 of 12 mucinous cystadenomas with mature teratomatous components (33%), 1 of 60 mucinous borderline tumors (1.6%), 0 of 17 mucinous adenocarcinomas, 0 of 3 endometrioid borderline tumors, and 0 of 72 endometrioid adenocarcinomas. Ovarian mucinous neoplasms also show a predominant [CK7.sup.+]/[CK20.sup.+] pattern followed by a [CK7.sup.+]/[CK.sup.20-] pattern. In contrast, low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms frequently show a [CK7.sup.-]/[CK20.sup.+] pattern followed by a [CK7.sup.+]/[CK20.sup.+] pattern. (13) PAX8 is positive in 70% of ovarian tumors but negative in appendiceal neoplasms. (66)

Interpretation of HER2 Immunostain for Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinomas

Human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2, also referred to as ERBB2) is amplified and/or overexpressed in 9% to 27% of gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. (67) This occurs more often in tumors with intestinaltype than diffuse-type morphology, and more often in well to moderately differentiated than poorly differentiated tumors. The Trastuzumab for Gastric Cancer (ToGA) trial demonstrated an increase in median overall survival in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas when treated with a humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody trastuzumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone. (68) Thus, testing gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas for HER2 by immunohistochemistry on biopsy or resection specimens has become a routine practice for pathologists. (69) The HER2 immunohistochemistry scoring criteria as defined by the ToGA trial are summarized in Table 2.

HER2 expression in gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas can be complete, basolateral, or lateral membranous staining, (70) which differs from HER2 expression in breast carcinoma cells, where only complete membranous staining counts. Biopsies are scored differently from resection specimens because of tumor heterogeneity, with biopsy specimens requiring assessment of a tumor cell cluster (consisting of at least 5 tumor cells) regardless of the overall percentage of tumor cells involved. In contrast, a positivity cutoff of at least 10% of tumor cells is used for resection specimens. In general, strong (3+) positivity is visible to the naked eye or at low magnification (X2/X4). Weak to moderate (2+) positivity is visible at medium magnification (starting at X10). Faint or barely perceptible (1+) positivity is only appreciated at high magnification (X40). (71) Examples of HER2 expression by immunohistochemistry are shown in Figure 3.

Care must be taken to assess only areas of adenocarcinoma, because epithelial cells with intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, or reactive changes may also show membranous staining with HER2. Other potential sources of falsepositive staining may include cytoplasmic staining with or without nuclear staining, and nonspecific pericellular and granular staining (particularly at tissue edges) instead of distinct intercellular membranous staining. (71)

Current guidelines recommend treatment with trastuzumab for tumors with an HER2 score of 3+, or a score of 2+ with evidence of HER2 amplification by in situ hybridization (ISH). Trastuzumab is not recommended for tumors with a score of 0 or 1+. (72) Thus, fluorescent ISH testing (FISH) or other ISH methods should be performed for tumors that are 2+ by immunohistochemistry, (69) although both immunohistochemistry and FISH may be routinely performed on all cases in some institutions. When ISH is performed, it is important to evaluate the signals at the area that shows HER2 immunoreactivity.

Interpretation of Mismatch Repair Protein Immunostains

Because the clinical criteria used to identify patients with Lynch syndrome suffer from low sensitivity, recent guidelines recommend universal testing of all newly diagnosed CRCs by either microsatellite instability (MSI) analysis or immunohistochemistry for the expression of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) proteins MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.73 Although the sensitivities and specificities of these 2 methods for Lynch syndrome are similar, (73) the advantages of immunohistochemistry include that it is more readily available, can be easily performed on small biopsy specimens, has faster turnaround time, and allows gene-specific sequencing analysis based on the staining pattern. The other clinical utility of MSI or MMR testing is to help guide patient management because MSI tumors tend to resist treatment with 5-fluorouracil but have a better stage-adjusted prognosis when compared with microsatellitestable tumors. (74)

Functionally, MMR proteins act as heterodimers, with MLH1 pairing with PMS2, and MSH2 pairing with MSH6. MLH1 and MSH2 are obligate binding partners, such that abnormalities in either one of these proteins will result in loss of its respective secondary partner. As a result, loss of MLH1 protein is almost always accompanied by loss of PMS2; loss of MSH2 protein is almost always accompanied by loss of MSH6. In contrast, loss of PMS2 or MSH6 protein alone usually results from isolated mutations of the PMS2 or MSH6 gene, which does not affect MLH1 or MSH2 protein expression. In general, MMR immunostains are most useful in screening for mutations that result in protein truncation or degradation, which lead to absent expression of the protein. On the other hand, point mutations that result in nonfunctional but fully transcribed proteins with retained antigenicity may give rise to a false-normal staining pattern by immunohistochemistry. (75)

When MMR proteins are examined by immunohistochemistry, background inflammatory cells, stromal cells, and nonneoplastic epithelial cells should show positive nuclear staining, which serves as an internal control. Current understanding is that any positive staining in the nuclei of tumor cells should be considered intact (normal) expression. Patchy distribution of positive nuclear staining is not an uncommon finding in CRCs, (76) and thus patchy loss of nuclear expression in tumor cells is still considered intact expression. An interpretation of loss of expression should be made only if no nuclear staining is seen in all tumor cells and a positive reaction is present in internal control cells. It should be noted that immunohistochemical results can be affected by both biologic and technical factors. As mentioned above, staining variation within a tumor is common and may be attributable to tissue preservation affected by fixation time and/or the presence of regional ischemia/ hypoxia in the tumor. (75) A few studies have also reported a nucleolar-only staining pattern, which should still be interpreted as loss of expression, or complete loss of MSH6 expression in tumors that have been treated with chemotherapy or radiation therapy. (77,78) In those situations, evaluation of pretreatment biopsy specimens should be helpful before proceeding to further genetic workup. Microsatellite instability analysis by polymerase chain reaction is another helpful option.

Loss of MLH1 expression can occur due to either germ line mutation of the MLH1 gene, as seen for Lynch syndrome, or epigenetic inactivation of the MLH1 gene promoter by hypermethylation, which results in MSI and is seen in approximately 12% of sporadic CRCs. (76) The V600E mutation of the BRAF gene is present in up to 70% of the sporadic MSI tumors with hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter but is not seen in Lynch-associated tumors. The presence of the V600E mutation is thus indicative of a sporadic MSI tumor and essentially excludes Lynch syndrome. Therefore, loss of MLH1 expression by immunohistochemistry should be followed by BRAF mutation analysis or MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing.

Vastly diminished or heterogeneous staining with MSH6 has been seen in association with loss of MLH1 expression (secondary to either MLH1 germ line mutation or promoter hypermethylation). This is usually caused by somatic mutations of the MSH6 gene and is not associated with germ line MSH6 mutation. (79,80) A case of "null pattern" has also been reported, where loss of expression is observed in all 4 MMR proteins due to germ line MSH2 mutation and concurrent MLH1 promoter hypermethylation. (81) Furthermore, rare cases of MLH1 promoter hypermethylation with simultaneous MLH1 or MSH2 germ line mutation have been described. (82) These rare phenomena should be considered if unusual staining patterns are encountered, and the addition of MSI testing may be helpful to confirm the immunohistochemical findings. Interpretations of various MMR protein immunostaining patterns and recommendations for further workup are summarized in Table 3.

BRAF Analysis

As mentioned earlier, BRAF mutation analysis is a useful test to separate sporadic MSI tumors from Lynch-associated tumors. The test also has therapeutic implications because the presence of mutation is associated with limited response to EGFR-targeted therapies in CRC patients. Recently, a V600E mutant-specific antibody (clone VE1) has become available, which shows cytoplasmic staining in tumor cells harboring this specific mutation. However, a number of studies have shown that the antibody suffers from suboptimal sensitivity and specificity, with significant discordances with molecular results in CRCs. (83-85) Standardization of multiple technical factors, such as specimen fixation time, antigen retrieval methods, antibody optimization, and scoring criteria, appears necessary to make this antibody useful in clinical practice. (83,86,87) Overall, the currently available data suggest that the VE1 antibody should not be used as a substitute for molecular testing for the detection of BRAF V600E mutation in CRC specimens.


An 87-year-old woman presented with a 12-cm mass in the right colon, which adhered to the right ovary and abdominal sidewall as shown by imaging studies. Serum CEA and CA125 were both elevated. Colonoscopy showed a partially obstructing mass in the proximal ascending colon with ulceration. Biopsy of the mass showed sheets of neoplastic cells involving the mucosa and submucosa. The neoplastic cells exhibited large round or oval nuclei, vesicular chromatin, prominent nucleoli, moderate amounts of amphophilic cytoplasm, indistinct cell borders, and frequent mitoses (Figure 4, A). Occasional intratumoral lymphocytes were noted. Histologic differentials included large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, medullary carcinoma of colonic primary, metastatic undifferentiated carcinoma/ sarcoma, lymphoma, and metastatic melanoma. Initial immunohistochemical workup demonstrated the tumor cells to be diffusely positive for AE1/AE3; patchy positive for calretinin; and negative for CK7, CK20, CDX2, villin, CD45, S100, PAX8, and synaptophysin. Additional immunostains showed diffuse positivity for SATB2 (Figure 4, B) and CDH17 (Figure 4, C), and loss of MLH1 and PMS2 immunoreactivity. The resection specimen showed poorly differentiated carcinoma with pushing borders and peritumoral inflammatory response (Figure 4, D), consistent with medullary carcinoma of the colon. In this case, SATB2 and CDH17 were very helpful in confirming the colonic origin of the tumor. Further workup showed the presence of BRAF V600E mutation in tumor cells, indicating a sporadic nature.


Pathologists often face the challenge of distinguishing well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from benign hepatocellular masses or nodular lesions, such as hepatocellular adenoma, and poorly differentiated HCC from nonhepatocellular neoplasms, such as metastatic adenocarcinoma. Immunomarkers thus play an indispensable role when difficult cases are encountered (Table 4). (88-90)

Hepatocellular Markers

CEA and CD10.--Polyclonal anti-CEA antibodies (pCEAs) cross-react with a biliary glycoprotein, giving rise to a characteristic canalicular staining pattern in normal liver. This canalicular pattern is preserved in most HCC cases (Figure 5), with a sensitivity of 70% to more than 90% in some studies. (91,92) In contrast, adenocarcinomas, including cholangiocarcinoma, typically exhibit a diffuse cytoplasmic staining pattern. However, poorly differentiated HCC may also show cytoplasmic positivity and lack canalicular immunoreactivity, which significantly limits its use in the distinction between poorly differentiated HCC and adenocarcinoma. Using monoclonal anti-CEA antibodies (mCEAs) may help in this regard because mCEAs may be positive in adenocarcinoma but are less likely to be positive in HCC. (93,94) Caution should also be exercised not to interpret membranous staining as the canalicular pattern, which can be seen in adenocarcinomas.

Similar to pCEA, CD10 also shows a canalicular pattern in neoplastic and nonneoplastic liver tissues, but it appears to be less sensitive for HCC in comparison with pCEA. (91,92,95-97)

Unlike pCEA, however, CD10 appears less likely to show 1162 Arch Pathol Lab Med--Vol 141, September 2017 cytoplasmic positivity, which gives a cleaner background for easier interpretation.

Hepatocyte Antigen.--Hepatocyte antigen (Hep Par 1) stains both neoplastic and nonneoplastic liver tissues, with a sensitivity of more than 70% for HCC. (91,92,97-100) Hep Par 1negative HCCs tend to be poorly differentiated. Some positive cases may show patchy staining, which reduces its diagnostic value on biopsy specimens and fine-needle aspirations. Although uncommon, a small fraction of adenocarcinomas can also express Hep Par 1, which may create diagnostic dilemmas when poorly differentiated intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas or metastatic adenocarcinomas are encountered. (91,97,101) Of note, Hep Par 1 antigen is a urea cycle enzyme carbamoyl phosphate synthetase 1 in the mitochondria. (102)

Arginase-1.--Arginase-1 (Arg-1) is also a urea cycle enzyme expressed in neoplastic and nonneoplastic liver tissues. In the initial study, Yan et al (103) reported a sensitivity of 96% for HCC. Even for poorly differentiated HCC, the sensitivity was as high as 86%. Only rare cases of adenocarcinoma were found to be positive for this marker. Indeed, subsequent studies have confirmed that Arg-1 is currently the best available hepatocellular marker, with a sensitivity around 90%. (104-106) In comparison with Hep Par 1, Arg-1 is much less frequently positive in adenocarcinomas. (103-107) Like Hep Par 1, positive Arg-1 staining can also be patchy.

Albumin RNA ISH.--No diagnostic immunomarkers for albumin are currently available. However, recent investigations have shown that branched-chain RNA ISH for albumin is a promising diagnostic tool for HCC. (108) According to the authors, the sensitivity for HCC (including poorly differentiated HCC) is 99%. The only non-HCC carcinoma that is also positive for albumin with a similarly high frequency is intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, (109) but this should be easily distinguished from HCC if Arg-1 is also included in the workup panel. (108) Otherwise, only rare cases of pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma (including mixed acinar ductal carcinoma and mixed acinar neuroendocrine carcinoma) have been found to show albumin positivity. (110) The test can thus be very useful in the distinction between intrahepatic carcinomas and metastatic carcinomas to the liver. Of note, nonneoplastic hepatocytes and bile ducts are also positive for albumin RNA. (111)

Malignant Hepatocellular Markers

Glypican-3.--Glypican-3 (GPC3) is an oncofetal protein that can be detected in 70% to 80% of HCCs but not in benign hepatocellular lesions, such as hepatocellular adenoma. (112-114) Positive stains can be cytoplasmic, membranous, canalicular, and/or cytoplasmic dotlike. Immunoreactivity is often heterogeneous within the tumor and is frequently focal/patchy and weak in well-differentiated HCC. It has been shown that GPC3 sensitivity can be as high as 80% to 90% for moderately and poorly differentiated HCC, but as low as 50% to 67% for well-differentiated HCC. It is thus conceivable that these staining characteristics have a considerable effect when GPC3 is used to distinguish a well-differentiated HCC from a benign hepatocellular lesion on a core biopsy. In fact, the detection rate is usually below 50% when studies are performed on biopsy or fine-needle aspiration specimens. (105, 115) Another pitfall is that focal GPC3 expression can be detected in a small fraction of cirrhotic nodules, (112, 116) and thus the diagnosis of HCC should not be based on GPC3 positivity Immunohistochemistry of Digestive System Neoplasms--Wang et al alone. Finally, GPC3 expression is not HCC specific. Frequent expression has been documented in a number of neoplasms, such as hepatoblastoma, (117) undifferentiated embryonal sarcoma of the liver, (118) yolk sac tumor, (119, 120) choriocarcinoma, (121) pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma, (110, 121) Merkel cell carcinoma, (122) and lung squamous cell carcinoma. (123) Positive staining has also been reported in a small fraction of adenocarcinomas of the esophagus, stomach, small bowel, and colon. (121) GPC3 expression is seen in only rare cases of cholangiocarcinoma, which is typically focal and weak. In fact, all published studies have shown negative GPC3 expression in cholangiocarcinomas except for one that showed positive staining in up to 13% of cases. (124) Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas are also negative, but only a limited number of cases have been examined.

Glutamine Synthetase.--In normal liver, glutamine synthetase (GS) expression is restricted to centrilobular (zone 3) hepatocytes, (125) positive in only one to a few hepatic plates around central veins (Figure 6, A, inset). This characteristic pattern is not maintained in cirrhotic livers. Recent studies have demonstrated that GS is a useful immunomarker for both benign and malignant hepatocellular neoplasms. Strong GS expression in the cytoplasm of hepatocytes, with positive cells forming large sheets arranged in an anastomosed geographic or "maplike" pattern, is essentially diagnostic of focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH). (126, 127) Glutamine synthetase is usually not expressed in hepatocytes around fibrous scars containing arteries and bile ductules. This unique "maplike" pattern is seen in virtually all FNH cases, including those that are morphologically uncharacteristic (Figure 6, A). Hepatocellular adenomas are either negative or positive around veins, or show patchy staining with no distinctive patterns. Patchy staining may sometimes be confused with the "maplike" pattern, but positively stained hepatocytes are usually present at the periphery of adenomas. In addition, the staining may not be as strong or uniform as that seen for FNH. An exception is [beta]-catenin-activated adenomas, which usually show strong and diffuse (defined as >50% of tumor cells positively stained) GS expression. This may or may not be accompanied by nuclear [beta]-catenin staining. Glutamine synthetase is positive in 70% of HCC cases, but only approximately 50% of positive cases show a strong and diffuse staining pattern (Figure 6, B). (128) Despite the general belief that upregulation of GS expression is the result of b catenin nuclear translocation, there is a lack of direct correlation between strong and diffuse GS immunostaining and [beta]-catenin exon 3 mutations in more than 50% of hepatocellular adenomas and HCCs. (129) Glutamine synthetase does not appear to be a good marker to distinguish hepatocellular from nonhepatocellular neoplasms because its expression has been demonstrated in 76% of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas and 71% of hepatic metastatic tumors, (130) as well as 100% of solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas. (131)

Heat Shock Protein 70.--Heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) was the most abundantly upregulated gene in early HCC in one of the gene expression profiling studies. (132) Nuclear and cytoplasmic HSP70 immunoreactivity has been reported in 70% of HCCs (Figure 7, A); it is usually patchy, with an intermediate staining intensity. Diffuse positivity is seen in only one-third of cases. (128) As expected, the frequency of positivity is less than 50% on biopsy specimens. (133) HSP70 expression in HCC does not appear to correlate with tumor differentiation, which is a useful feature when the differential diagnosis involves well or poorly differentiated HCC. It is normally expressed in biliary epithelium, which can be used as an internal control. In our experience, HSP70 is a less ideal marker, not only because of its low sensitivity on biopsies, but also for the difficulty of interpretation, because benign hepatocytes, particularly those in cirrhotic nodules, can also be positively stained in some cases (Figure 7, B). Stronger staining is thus required when compared with nonneoplastic hepatocytes if they are also present in the same biopsy. Similar to GS, HSP70 is frequently expressed in cholangiocarcinomas (88%) and metastatic tumors, such as CRCs, (130) which limits its utility in the distinction between hepatocellular and nonhepatocellular neoplasms.

CD34.--CD34 is diagnostically useful because it shows different staining patterns in neoplastic and nonneoplastic liver tissues. In normal and cirrhotic livers, it stains endothelial cells lining blood vessels in the portal tracts and fibrous septa. Sinusoidal spaces are largely negative, except for those immediately adjacent to portal tracts or fibrous septa that may show positive staining (Figure 8, A). In contrast, a diffuse sinusoidal staining pattern is characteristic of HCC (Figure 8, B), seen in 95% of cases. (114, 134) Hepatocellular adenomas predominantly show patchy sinusoidal staining (Figure 8, C), but diffuse staining can be seen in approximately 20% of cases. Patchy staining with periseptal accentuation is also common for FNH. (89, 114)

[alpha]-Fetoprotein.--Although serum [alpha]-fetoprotein (AFP) levels are frequently elevated in patients with HCC, its detection rate on tissue sections is only around 30%.91,97 It is frequently positive in hepatoblastomas and yolk sac tumors. Expression of AFP is uncommon in cholangiocarcinomas and metastatic carcinomas to the liver, but this has been well documented. (97, 135)

Clusterin.--Clusterin is a multifunctional glycoprotein implicated in numerous biologic processes, such as programmed cell death, lipid transport, cell adhesion, membrane recycling, complement regulation, senescence, tumorigenesis, and cancer chemoresistance. (136) A few studies have demonstrated a canalicular clusterin staining pattern in 54% to 75% of HCCs. (137-139) Strong clusterin expression is also seen on the luminal surface of pseudoacini in HCC cases. (139, 140) This canalicular pattern appears unique to HCC because it is much enhanced (Figure 9, A) in comparison with benign hepatocellular nodular lesions, such as hepa to cellular adenoma, FNH, and large regenerative nodules, and has not been observed in nonhepatocellular neoplasms examined thus far. (141) Cytoplasmic immunoreactivity is seen in both malignant and benign hepatocytes. Benign hepatocytes may also show canalicular staining, but it is always delicate, granular, and with a "railroad track"-like pattern (Figure 9, B). Our preliminary data have shown that clusterin is superior to pCEA and CD10 in that it may help distinguish not only hepatocellular from nonhepatocellular origins, but also malignant from benign hepatocellular nodular lesions (H.L.W., unpublished data, 2016). The enhanced canalicular pattern is less frequently observed in poorly differentiated HCCs in comparison with well-differentiated or moderately differentiated ones.

Immunomarkers for Fibrolamellar HCC

In comparison with conventional HCC, fibrolamellar variant is usually negative for AFP, less frequently positive for GPC3, and more frequently positive for CK7.142,143 One study also showed CD68 expression in 31 of 33 fibrolamellar samples (97%) from 24 patients, in contrast to 10 of 39 conventional HCCs (27%) arising in noncirrhotic livers and 3 of 27 HCCs (11%) arising in cirrhotic livers. (144) The staining is cytoplasmic, typically with a granular or stippled pattern. This marker may be useful to help separate fibrolamellar from scirrhous HCCs that may cause diagnostic confusion on core biopsies. (145)

Immunophenotypic Classification of Hepatocellular Adenoma

Advances in molecular studies have subdivided hepatocellular adenoma into 4 different types: HNF1[alpha] inactivated, [beta]-catenin activated, inflammatory, and unclassified. This topic has been reviewed extensively in previous publications. (146-149) Briefly, HNF1[alpha]-inactivated adenoma is characterized by diffuse steatosis histologically, somatic or germ line mutations of the HNF1[alpha] gene encoding hepatocyte nuclear factor-1[alpha], and loss of expression of liver-fatty acid binding protein by immunohistochemistry. [beta]-Catenin-activated variant frequently shows nuclear atypia and harbors mutations of the CTNNB1 gene. Immunophenotypically, this variant shows strong and diffuse GS expression, with or without nuclear [beta]-catenin staining. Identification of this variant is important because of its strong association with the development of HCC. Inflammatory adenoma was previously termed "telangiectatic FNH." It is characterized by focal or diffuse inflammatory cell infiltration, sinusoidal dilatation, and ductular reaction. Approximately 80% of inflammatory adenomas have mutations of the IL6ST, JAK1, STAT3, FRK, or GNAS genes. Up to 10% of cases also have concomitant CTNNB1 mutations. The diagnostic immunomarkers for this variant are serum amyloid A and/or C-reactive protein, which typically show diffuse cytoplasmic immunoreactivity. The adjacent nonneoplastic hepatocytes may also show positive staining for these 2 markers, but the staining is usually patchy and less intense.

Distinction Between Inflammatory Hepatocellular Adenoma and FNH

As mentioned above, ductular reaction may be present in inflammatory adenoma, which can be confused with FNH on core biopsies. Immunomarkers that are most useful for the distinction are GS and serum amyloid A. As shown in Figure 6, A, GS shows a characteristic "maplike" pattern for FNH. In contrast, adenomas are either negative or positive around veins, or show patchy staining with no distinctive patterns. Strong and diffuse GS staining with or without nuclear [beta]-catenin localization may be seen in inflammatory adenomas with concomitant CTNNB1 mutations. Serum amyloid A is positive in adenomas but usually negative in FNH. C-reactive protein appears to be less specific according to 1 study, which demonstrated positivity in 78% of FNHs, with diffuse staining in 15% of cases. (126) This study also showed positive serum amyloid A staining in 7 of 40 FNHs, 5 of which were diffusely stained. The "maplike" GS pattern is thus most useful for the distinction. (127, 150)

Distinction Between Well-Differentiated HCC and Hepatocellular Adenoma

Histologic distinction between HCC and hepatocellular adenoma is a well-known diagnostic challenge. (138, 146) This is particularly true when HCC is well differentiated and when diagnostic material is limited, as in a core biopsy. In addition to reticulin stain, a number of immunomarkers have been shown to be of value in aiding in the distinction (Table 5). Among these, GPC3 appears to have been better investigated; it has never been found to be positive in adenomas. (112-114, 151) HSP70 has also been reported to be negative in adenomas in 2 small series. (151, 152) Despite their low sensitivity to detect HCC on core biopsies, both GPC3 and HSP70 appear to be useful in the distinction between HCC and hepatocellular adenoma, given their high specificity. The unique staining patterns of CD34 and clusterin may also be useful. Interestingly, in our experience the enhanced canalicular clusterin pattern has never been observed in hepatocellular adenomas. (138, 139) Other immunomarkers, such as proliferating cell nuclear antigen and insulin-like growth factor 2, are also potentially useful, but both neoplastic and nonneoplastic hepatocytes need to be present for their interpretation. (138, 139) Glutamine synthetase does not appear to be a good marker for this distinction because the strong and diffuse staining patterns can be seen in both HCC and adenoma.

Distinction Between Early HCC and Dysplastic Nodule

Dysplastic nodules (DNs) are believed to be precursor lesions for HCC. These nodular lesions are typically detected in cirrhotic livers, usually are approximately 1 cm in size, and are distinctive from surrounding cirrhotic nodules grossly in terms of color and/or texture. (153) High-grade DNs (HGDNs) show at least moderate cytologic or architectural atypia, but the abnormalities are insufficient for the diagnosis of HCC. It is thus histologically challenging to differentiate HGDN from early HCC. One of the useful immunomarkers is CK7, which helps highlight the areas of stromal invasion in early HCC by the absence of ductular reaction at tumor borders. In contrast, ductules are present circumferentially around the HGDN because it lacks invasive growth. (154) CK19 is similarly useful in this regard.

Di Tommaso et al (128) compared 22 HGDNs with 32 early or well-differentiated HCCs, and found GPC3, GS, and HSP70 expression in 69%, 59% and 78% of HCCs, in contrast to 9%, 14% and 5% of HGDNs, respectively. The expression of these markers in HGDNs was focal (positive in <50% of cells). Interestingly, up to 72% of HCC cases showed positivity for at least 2 of the 3 markers. This was in marked contrast to HGDNs, which were never positive for 2 markers simultaneously. (128,133) The authors thus recommend using these 3 markers as a panel because it provides a very high specificity (100%) for HCC if a liver lesion is positive for 2 of the markers. These observations have been validated subsequently by similar studies. (152, 155)

The value of CD34 immunostaining in the distinction between early HCC and HGDN has been investigated in a few early studies. It appears that the extent of sinusoidal capillarization in DNs varies between those in cirrhotic nodules and those in HCCs. (156-158) Therefore, DNs may exhibit a diffuse sinusoidal pattern, albeit less frequently than HCCs. On the other hand, early HCCs may show a patchy pattern because they are still at the early stage as a carcinoma.

Distinction Between Hepatoid Carcinoma and HCC

Hepatoid carcinoma is a unique type of extrahepatic adenocarcinoma with a significant component or entire tumor showing hepatocellular differentiation. It can originate from various organs, such as the stomach, pancreas, gallbladder, esophagus, and colon. In comparison with HCCs, hepatoid carcinomas are more frequently positive for AFP (92%) by immunohistochemistry (most of these patients have elevated serum AFP levels), more frequently positive for CK19 (100%), and less frequently positive for Hep Par 1 (38%). (159) A high proportion of hepatoid carcinomas are also positive for pancytokeratin AE1/AE3 (92%) and GPC3 (100%). Canalicular pCEA and CD10 stains are seen in two-thirds of cases. Of note, only approximately 30% and approximately 10% of HCCs are positive for AE1/AE3 and CK19, respectively, and CK19 expression has been regarded as a predictive marker for poor prognosis in patients with HCC. Hepatoid carcinomas may also express MOC31 and mCEA, which are infrequently expressed in HCCs. (160)

In a recent study on 8 hepatoid carcinomas, Chandan et al (161) demonstrated positive stains for Hep Par 1, Arg-1, GPC3, and AFP in 8 (100%), 5 (62.5%), 4 (50%), and 4 (50%) cases, respectively. Canalicular pCEA pattern was observed in 3 cases (37.5%). Albumin ISH was performed on 4 cases, and 3 (75%) showed positivity. These additional findings indicate that hepatoid carcinoma is essentially indistinguishable from HCC not only histologically but also immunophenotypically. The distinction can only be made reliably based on their locations of origin.


A 56-year-old woman presented with diffuse lymphadenopathy throughout the neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis, and innumerable sclerotic osseous metastases of uncertain primary. Ultrasound-guided biopsy of the right inguinal lymph node was performed. Sections showed neoplastic epithelial cells arranged in trabeculae or clusters, with frequent acinar structures. Occasional isolated arterioles were noted, but there was no significant intervening stroma present. Tumor cells had round nuclei, prominent nucleoli, and abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm containing variably sized fat vacuoles (Figure 10, A and B). No bile production was appreciated. Although the histologic features highly resembled those of HCC, immunostains were negative for hepatocellular markers Hep Par 1, Arg-1, pCEA, and CD10. AFP was also negative. Tumor cells were positive for pancytokeratin, CK7, GATA3 (Figure 10, C), and GCDFP15, suggesting a breast primary. Further imaging workup showed in the left breast an ill-defined hypoechoic region with increased vascularity and architectural distortion. A core biopsy of the breast lesion confirmed the diagnosis of mammary carcinoma with apocrine features. No liver lesions were detected by imaging.


A major challenge in diagnostic pancreaticobiliary pathology is to distinguish adenocarcinomas of the pancreas and bile duct from benign/reactive ductal epithelium on biopsy or cytology specimens. The diagnostic materials from these locations are typically limited because of the difficulty of endoscopic sampling and may show crush artifacts. Bile duct specimens also often show epithelial reactive changes, fibrosis, and compounding inflammation after stent placement, which make the histologic evaluation even more difficult. Several emerging immunomarkers are available, which can be of help. (3) Immunomarkers may also be used to help distinguish intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from hepatic metastasis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, distinguish pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma from other solid pancreatic neoplasms, and subclassify ampullary adenocarcinoma.

Immunomarkers to Distinguish Pancreaticobiliary Adenocarcinoma From Benign/Reactive Epithelium

Numerous immunomarkers have been evaluated in this area, as extensively reviewed in a recent publication. (3) To our knowledge, S100P, insulin-like growth factor 2 messenger RNA-binding protein-3 (IMP3), maspin, von HippelLindau gene product (pVHL), SMAD4, CK17, and MUC5AC appear to be better investigated (Table 6), and will be briefly discussed here. Practically, these markers are less than ideal because of their suboptimal sensitivity and/or specificity. Using a panel consisting of a few selected markers (such as IMP3, S100P, maspin, and pVHL) is thus recommended. (162) Ideally, benign epithelial cells show an [S100P.sup.-]/[IMP3.sup.-]/[maspin.sup.-]/[pVHL.sup.+] staining pattern, but malignant cells exhibit an S100P+/IMP3+/maspin+/pVHL~ staining pattern.

S100P.--S100P belongs to the S100 protein family originally purified from the human placenta. Its over-expression has been observed in more than 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, (162-167) 76% of gallbladder adeno carcinomas, (168) and 76% to 92% of adenocarcinomas of extrahepatic bile ducts. (165,169,170) Interestingly, the frequency of S100P overexpression is much lower in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, seen in only 27% in one study (167) and 48% in another study. (165) Malignant cells typically show strong nuclear or strong nuclear and cytoplasmic immunoreactivity, whereas benign epithelial cells are either completely nonreactive or show focal/patchy nuclear staining that is weaker in intensity compared with malignant cells (Figure 11, A). Benign epithelial cells do not show as strong cytoplasmic staining as that seen in malignant cells. (171)

IMP3.--A number of human cancers have been shown to overexpress IMP3, which is also known as KOC (K homology domain-containing protein overexpressed in cancers). Cytoplasmic positivity has been demonstrated in 71% to 97% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas in various studies including cytology specimens, (162, 167, 172-177) 82% of gallbladder adenocarcinomas, (168, 178) and 50% to 92% of adenocarcinomas of extrahepatic bile ducts. (169, 170, 178-180) Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas also overexpress IMP3 at a high frequency (82%-90%), (167, 181) but lower frequencies (37%-41%) are also reported. (178, 182) In our experience, the greatest advantage of IMP3 is its high specificity for malignancy (Figure 11, B). Nonneoplastic pancreaticobiliary epithelial cells are always negative. However, IMP3 does not discriminate invasive adenocarci noma from dysplasia, (169, 171, 178) and thus careful histologic evaluation is still essential. Another disadvantage is that approximately 50% of malignant cases show only focal positivity, which significantly reduces its sensitivity because there may be only rare malignant cells present in a given biopsy.

Maspin.--Maspin is a tumor suppressor that is over-expressed in more than 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocar cinomas, (162, 167, 183, 184) 59% to 100% of gallbladder adenocarcinomas, (168, 185) 57% to 91% of adenocarcinomas of extrahepatic bile ducts, (186, 187) and more than 70% of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. (167, 188) Malignant cells typically show strong and diffuse nuclear and cytoplasmic immunoreactivity. Benign pancreatic ducts are usually negative for maspin expression, but benign epithelial cells lining the gallbladder and extrahepatic bile ducts have been shown to be positive at a high frequency. (186, 187, 189) The staining can thus be difficult to interpret despite the observations that positive staining in benign biliary epithelial cells is usually focal/patchy and weaker in intensity in comparison with that seen in malignant cells.

pVHL.--pVHL is normally expressed in benign pancreaticobiliary epithelial cells. (190) Loss of its membranous and cytoplasmic immunoreactivity is seen in more than 95% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, (162, 163, 167) 52% to 94% of gallbladder adenocarcinomas, (168, 191) and 92.5% of adenocarcinomas of extrahepatic bile ducts, (169) but in only 29% of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. (167) pVHL immunostaining on bile duct biopsies can be difficult to interpret. In one of our studies, (171) reduced immunoreactivity, instead of completely negative staining, was observed in suspicious cells in one-half of malignant cases. The reduction occurs primarily on cell membranes. Therefore, cytoplasmic pVHL staining may be preserved in malignant cells, but the distinctive membranous staining observed in benign biliary epithelium becomes inconspicuous in malignant cells. Comparing suspicious cells with histologically clear-cut benign epithelial cells in the same specimen may help the interpretation. Another problem lies in the lack of homogeneity of immunoreactivity in benign biliary epithelial cells. The staining in these cells is frequently patchy and seldom shows 100% uniformity. It can thus be difficult to determine whether the lack of staining in suspicious cells represents a true loss of immunoreactivity.

SMAD4.--SMAD4, also known as DPC4, is universally expressed in benign pancreatic and bile ducts. Loss of expression is seen in approximately 60% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, which is associated with poor prognosis. (162, 192) SMAD4 loss is also reported in 9.5% of gallbladder adenocarcinomas, (193) 50% to 55% adenocarcinomas of extrahepatic bile ducts, (193, 194) and 12.5% to 45% intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. (193-195)

CK17.--Cytoplasmic CK17 positivity has been reported in 60% to 88% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcino mas, (162, 167, 196, 197) 53% of gallbladder adenocarcinomas, (198) and 59% of adenocarcinomas of extrahepatic bile ducts. (196) The frequency of CK17 expression in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas varies widely, from 12% to 71% in 2 different studies. (167, 197) Positive staining can be diffuse or focal, with focal staining seen in up to 40% of cases. (197) Benign epithelial cells lining the pancreatic and bile ducts are typically negative for CK17 expression.

MUC5AC.--Cytoplasmic MUC5AC positivity has been reported in 67% to 85% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcino mas, (36, 162, 167, 197, 199) 25% to 82% of gallbladder adenocarcino mas, (199, 200) 60% to 71% of adenocarcinomas of extrahepatic bile ducts, (36, 199) and 12% to 50% of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. (36, 167, 197, 199) Benign pancreatic and bile ducts are typically negative for MUC5AC expression.

Distinction Between Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma and Hepatic Metastasis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

The distinction between these 2 types of carcinoma on liver biopsies is essentially impossible histologically but has important clinical implications. Albumin RNA ISH appears to have the greatest potential in this regard. According to a recent study, 82 of 83 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas (99%) were positive for albumin RNA. Most of these cases (79%) showed positive staining in more than 50% of tumor cells. (109) All 210 pancreatic adenocarcinomas included in the study were negative for albumin.

We also found a 4-marker panel consisting of S100P, pVHL, CK17, and MUC5AC to be useful. (167) In our study, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas less frequently overexpressed S100P, CK17, and MUC5AC, and less frequently showed loss of pVHL expression in comparison with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas. An [S100P.sup.-]/[pVHL.sup.+]/ [MUC5AC.sup.-]/[CK17.sup.-] staining pattern is essentially indicative of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, whereas the [S100P.sup.+]/ [pVHL.sup.-]/[MUC5AC.sup.+]/[CK17.sup.+] and [S100P.sup.+]/[pVHL.sup.-]/[MUC5AC.sup.-]/ [CK17.sup.+] staining patterns are suggestive of metastatic pancreatic carcinoma.

Distinction Between Acinar Cell Carcinoma and Other Solid Pancreatic Neoplasms

The diagnosis of acinar cell carcinoma of the pancreas usually needs consideration of differentials from pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor, solid pseudopapillary tumor, and pancreatoblastoma. This is particularly true when diagnostic materials are small biopsies. This topic has been reviewed in detail in a recent publication, (3) and will be only briefly discussed here.

Immunohistochemically, acinar cell carcinomas are positive, with different frequencies, for trypsin, chymotrypsin, BCL10, and lipase. Among these, trypsin and BCL10 appear to be the most sensitive and reliable markers according to a recent study--positive in 95% and 86% of cases, respectively. (201) However, the specificity of BCL10 needs further investigation because weak staining can be rarely seen in neuroendocrine and solid pseudopapillary tumors. (202) Strong staining is also observed in squamous component of adenosquamous carcinomas of the pancreas, although this usually does not create a diagnostic dilemma morphologically. Like trypsin, chymotrypsin is also a specific marker, positive in two-thirds of acinar cell carcinomas. Another specific marker is lipase, but it is positive in only approximately 30% of cases. As mentioned earlier, GPC3 expression has been reported in 25% to 58% of acinar cell carcinomas. (110, 121)

In contrast, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are positive for the conventional neuroendocrine markers chromogranin, synaptophysin, and CD56. Solid pseudopapillary tumors are typically positive for CD10 and nuclear [beta]-catenin. Therefore, a panel consisting of trypsin, chymotrypsin, chromogranin, synaptophysin, CD10, and [beta]-catenin should be sufficient for the distinction if differential diagnoses include all 3 neoplasms. It is well known, however, that up to 25% of acinar cell carcinomas may also express neuroendocrine markers. Positively stained cells are usually scattered and account for less than 30% of the population. If more than 30% of tumor cells are positive, a diagnosis of mixed acinar-neuroendocrine carcinoma should be considered. Approximately 15% of acinar cell carcinomas may also show positive nuclear staining for bcatenin, (201) which should not be confused with solid pseudopapillary tumor in the presence of positive trypsin staining.

Acinar cell carcinoma accounts for 15% of all exocrine pancreatic neoplasms in children, and thus it needs to be differentiated from pancreatoblastoma. This distinction can be very challenging on biopsy and fine-needle aspiration specimens if the acinar component is prominent. Hopefully, other components, particularly the squamoid nests (or corpuscles), are also present, which will help in the differential diagnosis. Interestingly, the squamoid nests usually stain for CK19 but usually do not stain for CK7 or squamous marker CK5/6. (203)

Immunomarkers to Help Subclassify Ampullary Adenocarcinoma

Histologic subclassification of ampullary adenocarcinomas into intestinal and pancreaticobiliary types has therapeutic and prognostic significance. Helpful immunomarkers include CDX2, CK17, CK20, MUC1, and MUC2. In an early study, Chu et al197 demonstrated that a [MUC1.sup.-]/[CK17.sup.-]/ [MUC2.sup.+]/[CDX2.sup.+] staining pattern helped identify intestinal type, whereas [MUC1.sup.+]/[CK17.sup.+]/[MUC2.sup.-]/[CDX2.sup.-] pattern helped identify pancreaticobiliary type. A recent study by Ang et al204 divided ampullary adenocarcinomas into 3 groups based on immunostaining patterns. The intestinal group included those showing positive staining for CK20 or CDX2 or MUC2 and negative staining for MUC1; and those positive for CK20, CDX2, and MUC2 irrespective of MUC1 immunoreactivity. The pancreaticobiliary group included those showing positive staining for MUC1 and negative staining for CDX2 and MUC2 irrespective of CK20. The ambiguous group included those with other combinations of stains, including negative stains for all markers. These observations are further substantiated by more recent studies. (205, 206)


A 65-year-old man with a history of hepatitis B presented with multiple liver lesions. The largest lesion measured 5.4 cm. There was also a nodular lesion in the pancreatic tail, measuring 1.1 cm. A biopsy of the largest liver lesion was performed, which showed an area of tumor cells with acinar formation (Figure 12, A and B). The tumor cells had relatively uniform, round, medium-sized nuclei and moderate amounts of amphophilic cytoplasm. Nucleoli were small but recognizable. Occasional mitotic figures were seen. The nonneoplastic liver parenchyma showed no significant steatosis or fibrosis. No ground-glass hepatocytes were identified. The histologic differentials included metastatic acinar cell carcinoma and neuroendocrine tumor. A panel of immunostains was performed, which demonstrated tumor cells to be positive for trypsin (Figure 12, C), chymotrypsin, and CAM5.2. Tumor cells were negative for chromogranin, Arg-1, and AE1/AE3. Only rare tumor cells were positive for synaptophysin. The findings were supportive of the diagnosis of metastatic acinar cell carcinoma from the pancreas.


Neuroendocrine neoplasms encompass both well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), both of which can present as a metastasis before the primary tumor is detected. When histologic features suggestive of neuroendocrine differentiation are recognized, immunohistochemical confirmation is almost always sought. Chromogranin is the most specific marker, but its expression frequency varies based on anatomic location: up to 80% in NETs of the pancreas and GI tract proximal to the colon, but only 40% to 60% in those of the colorectum. (207-209) Synaptophysin is less specific but has a higher sensitivity that approaches 95% to 100%. (209) Although CD56 is also highly sensitive for NETs, it suffers from low specificity because it is widely expressed in a variety of tumors without neuroendocrine differentiation. In the setting of NEC, the sensitivity of chromogranin and synaptophysin is much lower.

Grading Neuroendocrine Neoplasms by Ki-67

Gastrointestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms are graded based on mitotic count and Ki-67 proliferation index (Table 7). For mitotic count, it is recommended to count 50 high-power fields (X40) in areas with the highest mitotic activity and express the value as number of mitoses per 10 high-power fields. For Ki-67 index, it is recommended to count 500 to 2000 tumor cells in areas with the highest nuclear labeling ("hot spot") and express the value as percentage. When discordance occurs, the higher grade should be assigned. According to the current classification, both low-grade (grade 1) and intermediate-grade (grade 2) neoplasms are in the same category of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor. The high-grade (grade 3) category includes poorly differentiated NECs, such as small cell carcinoma and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, as well as tumors that show well-differentiated morphology with grade 2 mitotic count but with grade 3 Ki-67 index (>20%). Whether this latter group should be lumped together with poorly differentiated NEC is a topic of debate. Recent studies have shown a significantly longer survival for these patients in comparison with patients with true poorly differentiated NEC, although their clinical outcome is slightly worse than those with grade 2 NET. (210,211) These data thus suggest that grade 3 neuroendocrine neoplasms are heterogeneous. Tumors with well-differentiated morphology but with grade 3 Ki-67 proliferation index should be separated from true poorly differentiated NECs, and they may be more appropriately designated as "well-differentiated NET with an elevated proliferation rate." (210) Nevertheless, Ki-67 proliferation index has important therapeutic and prognostic implications. Data from a study on a large number of patients with GI NEC (grade 3) have shown less responsiveness to platinum-based chemotherapy but longer survival in patients with Ki67 index less than 55%. (212)

Immunomarkers to Help Distinguish Among GI, Pancreatic, and Pulmonary NETs

In the setting of metastatic well-differentiated NET of unknown primary, identification of tumor origin has therapeutic implications due to differing response rates to cytotoxic chemotherapy agents and targeted biologic agents. This effort is less important for poorly differentiated NECs because they are all treated with platinum-based chemotherapy regardless of site of origin. A number of immunomarkers have been investigated for their value in the distinction among GI, pancreatic, and pulmonary NETs, which have been comprehensively reviewed in recent publications. (3,213,214) Only the ones that we believe to have potential value to help identify the site of origin are briefly discussed here (Table 8).

TTF-1.--TTF-1 is entirely specific for pulmonary origin, as has been demonstrated by numerous studies. Its sensitivity for pulmonary NETs (typical and atypical carcinoids) ranges from 28% to 77%. (215-221) It essentially excludes other sites of origin if positive in a well-differentiated NET. It should be mentioned here, however, that some small cell carcinomas of nonpulmonary origin can be positive for TTF-1.

CDX2.--CDX2 is a highly sensitive marker for ileal and appendiceal NETs (midgut origin), expressed in 83% to 100% of cases in most studies. (216-219,221-223) It is also expressed in gastric, duodenal, and colonic NETs at lower frequencies. (216,221-223) Interestingly, rectal NETs appear to show CDX2 positivity less frequently than their colonic counterparts. (217,222,223) CDX2 is infrequently expressed in pancreatic NETs, seen in 0% to 30% of cases in various studies. (216-218,221-224) It is negative in pulmonary NETs in most studies, (218,221,224) but a low frequency of expression (20%) has also been observed. (223) Overall, CDX2 is regarded as a relatively specific marker for GI NETs, particularly those of midgut origin.

SATB2.--A recent study has examined SATB2 expression in well-differentiated NETs, which demonstrated its expression in 90% of hindgut (rectal and sigmoid) NETs. (225) It was detected in 12% of midgut-derived tumors (jejunum, 0%; ileum, 8%; appendix, 25%; cecum and ascending colon, 20%) and in 17% of foregut-derived tumors (stomach, 9%; duodenum, 8%; pancreas, 15%; lung, 23%; thymus, 50%). Data from Geisinger Medical Center have also shown positive SATB2 immunostaining in most NETs from the appendix, colon, and rectum, but rarely seen in NETs from the stomach, duodenum, pancreas, and lung. (2) These observations suggest that SATB2 may serve as a useful immunomarker for hindgut- and midgut-derived NETs.

CDH17.--Two studies have shown CDH17 expression in 92% to 100% of small intestinal NETs and 100% of appendiceal and rectal NETs, respectively. (48,221) The respective frequencies of CDH17 expression were 40% and 12% in pancreatic NETs, and 8% and 24% in pulmonary NETs. Another study showed an overall frequency of 51% in pancreatic NETs, but positively stained cases were of predominantly sclerosing variant (93% versus 36% in nonsclerosing variant). (226) A very limited number of gastric, duodenal, and colonic NETs were also examined in one study, (221) which showed low frequencies of expression ranging from 20% to 50%.

Islet-1.--Islet-1 is a transcription factor involved in the embryogenesis of islets of Langerhans. Studies have shown a high frequency of nuclear expression in pancreatic NETs, seen in 69% to 90% of cases. (223,224,227,228) However, Islet-1 is also detected in 78% to 89% of duodenal and 78% to 100% of rectal NETs. (223,224,228,229) In addition, Islet-1 expression is observed in gastric, ileal, appendiceal, and colonic NETs, but with much lower frequencies. Positive staining is uncommon in pulmonary NETs, seen in 0% to 16% of cases.

PAX8.--Using polyclonal anti-PAX8 antibodies, nuclear immunoreactivity is demonstrated in 67% to 88% of pancreatic, 67% to 100% of duodenal, and 79% to 85% of rectal NETs. (223,224,229-231) It is positive in 7% to 22% of gastric, appendiceal, and colonic NETs, and has been consistently negative in jejunoileal NETs. The reported frequency of positivity in pulmonary NETs ranges from 0% to 23%. Interestingly, positive staining is believed to result from cross-reaction to PAX6 antigen. (232) Therefore, polyclonal antibodies should be used if PAX8 is included in the workup panel and monoclonal anti-PAX8 antibodies will not work. In fact, Lai et al (231) have shown similarly high detection rates for pancreatic, duodenal and rectal NETs when a monoclonal anti-PAX6 antibody is used.


Relative to epithelial neoplasms, benign and malignant mesenchymal tumors are uncommon in the GI tract. (233,234) Examples include lipoma, leiomyoma, granular cell tumor, schwannoma, gangliocytic paraganglioma, glomus tumor, inflammatory myofibroblasts tumor, plexiform fibromyxoma (plexiform angiomyxoid myofibroblasts tumor), leiomyosarcoma, angiosarcoma, Kaposi sarcoma, and synovial sarcoma, which are immunophenotypically similar to their counterparts in other locations. Undoubtedly, GI stromal tumor (GIST) is the most common mesenchymal tumor in the GI tract (235); it occurs almost exclusively in this location.

Gastrointestinal clear cell sarcoma-like tumor is a very rare aggressive sarcoma that shares the same translocation involving EWSR1 in most cases with clear cell sarcoma of soft tissue (formerly known as malignant melanoma of soft parts). However, this malignancy appears to be histologically and immunophenotypically different from clear cell sarcoma, and a new name "malignant GI neuroectodermal tumor (GNET)" is thus recommended. (236)

General Immunomarkers for GIST

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor is immunophenotypically related to interstitial cells of Cajal, the pacemaker cells of the GI tract. The most useful diagnostic immunomarkers are CD117 (c-kit) and DOG1 (discovered on GIST 1), which are both positive in more than 90% of cases. (237) Positive stains are typically strong, diffuse, and cytoplasmic. Membranous, perinuclear dotlike, focal, or weak immunoreactivity has also been observed in some cases, particularly those with an epithelioid morphology. Approximately half or more than half of [CD117.sup.-] GISTs are positive for DOG1, and vice versa. (237,238)

It is well known that CD117 is not GIST specific and can be detected in a wide range of neoplastic and nonneoplastic processes. DOG1 is relatively more specific, but its expression is also observed in some non-GIST neoplasms. (237,239) The vast majority of [CD117.sup.+] or [DOG1.sup.+] neoplasms would not cause diagnostic problems because they can be easily separated from GIST histologically. One of the spindle cell neoplasms, intra-abdominal fibromatosis (desmoid tumor), may occasionally enter the differential diagnosis, (240) although CD117 positivity in these lesions is generally believed to be nonspecific, caused by using different antibodies and/or inappropriate antibody dilution. (241) However, desmoid tumors typically show nuclear [beta]-catenin staining, which is absent in GISTs, and negative staining for DOG1. (242) It is interesting to note that both CD117 and DOG1 are expressed in solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas at high frequencies, which is not associated with KIT or PDGFRA mutations. (243,244)

A diagnostic pitfall is that [CD117.sup.+] and [DOG1.sup.+] cells are frequently present in leiomyomas of the GI tract (Figure 13, A and B). This is thought to result from colonization and hyperplasia of nonneoplastic interstitial cells of Cajal, which should not be mistaken for GISTs. (237,245,246) The correct diagnosis of leiomyoma relies on typical histologic features, strong and diffuse desmin immunoreactivity (Figure 13, C), and lack of CD117 and DOG1 stains in most spindle cells.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors are known to be positive for CD34 in approximately 70% of cases. Up to 30% of GISTs may show positivity for smooth muscle actin, but less than 10% express desmin. Positive S100 staining is seen in less than 10% of cases. Another potentially useful marker is protein kinase C-0 (PKC0), which is positive in more than 80% of GISTs. In comparison with DOG1, PKC0 appears less specific for GISTs, but it may be useful when both CD117 and DOG1 are negative. (238,247,248)

Succinate Dehydrogenase-Deficient GIST

Succinate dehydrogenase (SDH)-deficient GIST is a distinctive clinical and molecular variant arising in the setting of loss of function of the SDH enzyme complex secondary to gene mutations or epigenetic silencing. (249) It is not driven by KIT or PDGFRA mutations, and it is exclusively seen in the stomach, accounting for 7.5% of gastric GISTs. Most pediatric GISTs and all GISTs associated with Carney-Stratakis syndrome and Carney triad belong to this variant. SDH-deficient GISTs tend to be multinodular, with a plexiform growth pattern and an epithelioid morphology. (249,250) Loss of SDH subunit B (SDHB) expression, as assessed by immunohistochemistry, is the hallmark of this variant. These tumors are also positive for CD117, DOG1, and CD34. Compared with conventional GISTs, SDH-deficient GISTs are more likely to metastasize to lymph nodes and be insensitive to tyrosine kinase inhibitors, but they often follow an indolent or slowly progressive clinical course.

Immunomarkers for GNET

GNET is more frequently seen in the small intestine. Histologically, tumor cells are epithelioid-appearing, with round, ovoid, or spindled nuclei; vesicular chromatin; indistinct to prominent nucleoli; and variable amounts of eosinophilic cytoplasm, which may form diffuse sheets or display nested, alveolar, and microcystic growth patterns (Figure 14, A). Focal areas with cytoplasmic clearing may be seen. Oncocytic cytoplasm has also been reported in 1 case, which can be confused with granular cell tumor on biopsy. (251) Mitoses are frequent, and necrosis is common. Scattered osteoclast-like giant cells can be seen in some cases. Immunohistochemically, tumor cells are consistently positive for S100 (Figure 14, B), SOX10, and vimentin, but negative for melanocytic markers HMB-45, Melan-A, tyrosinase, and MITF (microphthalmia transcription factor). (236,252) Tumor cells are also negative for CD117, DOG1, CD34, smooth muscle actin, desmin, CD99, GFAP, and epithelial markers. Neuroendocrine markers, such as synaptophysin, chromogranin, CD56, and neuron-specific enolase, are variably expressed, seen in 45% to 70% of cases. The Ki-67 proliferation index ranges 22% to 34%.


Programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) is an immune-inhibitory receptor expressed on the surface of lymphocytes, natural killer cells, dendritic cells, and macrophages. It interacts with two ligands, programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) and PD-L2, to function as a key immune checkpoint by inhibiting T-cell activation and cytokine production. PD-L1, also known as cluster of differentiation 274 (CD274) or B7 homolog 1 (B7-H1), is expressed in various types of tumor cells, and blockage of PD-1/PD-L1 interaction may subject tumor cells to attack by cytotoxic T cells. (253,254) Several PD-1/PD-L1-based immune-checkpoint inhibitors (humanized antibodies), such as atezolizumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab, were recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of advanced melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and urothelial carcinoma. (255)

PD-1/PD-L1-based immunotherapies have not been well investigated for tumors of the GI tract, liver, and pancreaticobiliary tract, (256,257) but phase 1 trials have shown no objective responses in patients with CRCs and pancreatic cancers. (258,259) However, a more recent phase II trial that included 41 patients with progressive metastatic carcinomas (11 MMR-deficient CRCs, 21 MMR-proficient CRCs, and 9 MMR-deficient non-CRC carcinomas) showed that MMR-deficient CRCs were more responsive to PD-1 blockage induced by pembrolizumab than MMR-proficient malignancies. (260) Based on data from 149 patients, the US Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval on May 23, 2017, to pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA, Merck & Co, Kenilworth, New Jersey) for adult and pediatric patients with unresectable or metastatic MSI-high or MMR-deficient solid tumors that have progressed following prior treatment and who have no satisfactory alternative treatment options, or those with MSI-high or MMR-deficient CRC that has progressed following treatment with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan. (261) Oncologists may occasionally request immunohistochemical testing for PD-L1 expression to determine whether a patient would be likely to benefit from these therapies as the last options. Currently, most institutions send unstained slides to reference laboratories for the staining, and the results are interpreted by pathologists in the laboratories. There is no universally accepted standard for quantitating PD-L1 expression. (253,254) In general, the expression level is measured by the percentage of tumor cells (and/or tumor-infiltrating immune cells) that are positively stained for PD-L1, but different scoring criteria are designed for different inhibitors. For example, the staining results are interpreted as no expression in tumor cells (<1%), any expression (1%-100%), and high expression (50%-100%) for pembrolizumab therapy.


With continuous discoveries, a large volume of knowledge has been accumulated in the field of immunohistochemistry for neoplastic diseases of the GI tract, liver, biliary tract, and pancreas. Useful immunomarkers are available not only to help practicing pathologists make accurate diagnoses on a daily basis, but also to help guide clinical management of patients. Pathologists will continue to play a critical role in the discovery, validation, and application of new biomarkers, which will ultimately improve patient care.

Please Note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright restrictions.


(1.) Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016; 66(1):7-30.

(2.) Chen ZE, Lin F. Application of immunohistochemistry in gastrointestinal and liver neoplasms: new markers and evolving practice. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015; 139(1):14-23.

(3.) Lin F, Chen ZE, Wang HL. Utility of immunohistochemistry in the pancreatobiliary tract. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015; 139(1):24-38.

(4.) Bartley AN, Hamilton SR. Select biomarkers for tumors of the gastrointestinal tract: present and future. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015; 139(4):457-468.

(5.) Bayrak R, Haltas H, Yenidunya S. The value of CDX2 and cytokeratins 7 and 20 expression in differentiating colorectal adenocarcinomas from extraintestinal gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas: cytokeratin 7-/20+ phenotype is more specific than CDX2 antibody. Diagn Pathol. 2012; 7:9.

(6.) Werling RW, Yaziji H, Bacchi CE, Gown AM. CDX2, a highly sensitive and specific marker of adenocarcinomas of intestinal origin: an immunohistochemical survey of 476 primary and metastatic carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003; 27(3):303-310.

(7.) Dragomir A, de Wit M, Johansson C, Uhlen M, Ponten F. The role of SATB2 as a diagnostic marker for tumors of colorectal origin: results of a pathology-based clinical prospective study. Am J Clin Pathol. 2014; 141(5):630-638.

(8.) Hernandez BY, Frierson HF, Moskaluk CA, et al. CK20 and CK7 protein expression in colorectal cancer: demonstration of the utility of a population-based tissue microarray. Hum Pathol. 2005; 36(3):275-281.

(9.) Zhang PJ, Shah M, Spiegel GW, Brooks JJ. Cytokeratin 7 immunoreactivity in rectal adenocarcinomas. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2003; 11(4): 306-310.

(10.) Bayrak R, Yenidunya S, Haltas H. Cytokeratin 7 and cytokeratin 20 expression in colorectal adenocarcinomas. Pathol Res Pract. 2011; 207(3):156-160.

(11.) Lin F, Shi J, Zhu S, et al. Cadherin-17 and SATB2 are sensitive and specific immunomarkers for medullary carcinoma of the large intestine. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014; 138(8):1015-1026.

(12.) Taliano RJ, LeGolvan M, Resnick MB. Immunohistochemistry of colorectal carcinoma: current practice and evolving applications. Hum Pathol. 2013; 44(2):151-163.

(13.) Vang R, Gown AM, Barry TS, et al. Cytokeratins 7 and 20 in primary and secondary mucinous tumors of the ovary: analysis of coordinate immunohistochemical expression profiles and staining distribution in 179 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006; 30(9):1130-1139.

(14.) Chan JK, Suster S, Wenig BM, Tsang WY, Chan JB, Lau AL. Cytokeratin 20 immunoreactivity distinguishes Merkel cell (primary cutaneous neuroendocrine) carcinomas and salivary gland small cell carcinomas from small cell carcinomas of various sites. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997; 21(2):226-234.

(15.) Chu P, Wu E, Weiss LM. Cytokeratin 7 and cytokeratin 20 expression in epithelial neoplasms: a survey of 435 cases. Mod Pathol. 2000; 13(9):962-972.

(16.) Lisovsky M, Patel K, Cymes K, Chase D, Bhuiya T, Morgenstern N. Immunophenotypic characterization of anal gland carcinoma: loss of p63 and cytokeratin 5/6. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007; 131(8):1304-1311.

(17.) Silberg DG, Swain GP, Suh ER, Traber PG. Cdx1 and cdx2 expression during intestinal development. Gastroenterology. 2000; 119(4):961-971.

(18.) Barbareschi M, Murer B, Colby TV, et al. CDX-2 homeobox gene expression is a reliable marker of colorectal adenocarcinoma metastases to the lungs. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003; 27(2):141-149.

(19.) Moskaluk CA, Zhang H, Powell SM, Cerilli LA, Hampton GM, Frierson HF. Cdx2 protein expression in normal and malignant human tissues: an immunohistochemical survey using tissue microarrays. Mod Pathol. 2003; 16(9): 913-919.

(20.) Raspollini MR, Baroni G, Taddei A, Taddei GL. Primary cervical adenocarcinoma with intestinal differentiation and colonic carcinoma metastatic to cervix: an investigation using Cdx-2 and a limited immunohistochemical panel. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003; 127(12):1586-1590.

(21.) Kaimaktchiev V, Terracciano L, Tornillo L, et al. The homeobox intestinal differentiation factor CDX2 is selectively expressed in gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas. Mod Pathol. 2004; 17(11):1392-1399.

(22.) Houghton O, Connolly LE, McCluggage WG. Morules in endometrioid proliferations of the uterus and ovary consistently express the intestinal transcription factor CDX2. Histopathology. 2008; 53(2):156-165.

(23.) Choi HR, Sturgis EM, Rashid A, et al. Sinonasal adenocarcinoma: evidence for histogenetic divergence of the enteric and nonenteric phenotypes. Hum Pathol. 2003; 34(11):1101-1107.

(24.) Kennedy MT, Jordan RCK, Berean KW, Perez-Ordonez B. Expression pattern of CK7, CK20, CDX-2, and villin in intestinal-type sinonasal adenocarcinoma. J Clin Pathol. 2004; 57(9):932-937.

(25.) Yatabe Y, Koga T, Mitsudomi T, Takahashi T. CK20 expression, CDX2 expression, K-ras mutation, and goblet cell morphology in a subset of lung adenocarcinomas. J Pathol. 2004; 203(2):645-652.

(26.) Lugli A, Tzankov A, Zlobec I, Terracciano LM. Differential diagnostic and functional role of the multi-marker phenotype CDX2/CK20/CK7 in colorectal cancer stratified bymismatch repair status. Mod Pathol. 2008; 21(11):1403-1412.

(27.) Kim JH, Rhee YY, Bae JM, Cho NY, Kang GH. Loss of CDX2/CK20 expression is associated with poorly differentiated carcinoma, the CpG island methylator phenotype, and adverse prognosis in microsatellite-unstable colorectal cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013; 37(10):1532-1541.

(28.) McGregor DK, Wu TT, Rashid A, Luthra R, Hamilton SR. Reduced expression of cytokeratin 20 in colorectal carcinomas with high levels of microsatellite instability. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004; 28(6):712-718.

(29.) Hinoi T, Tani M, Lucas PC, et al. Loss of CDX2 expression and microsatellite instability are prominent features of large cell minimally differentiated carcinomas of the colon. Am J Pathol. 2001; 159(6):2239-2248.

(30.) Winn B, Tavares R, Fanion J, et al. Differentiating the undifferentiated: immunohistochemical profile of medullary carcinoma of the colon with an emphasis on intestinal differentiation. Hum Pathol. 2009; 40(3):398-404.

(31.) Landau MS, Kuan SF, Chiosea S, Pai RK. BRAF-mutated microsatellite stable colorectal carcinoma: an aggressive adenocarcinoma with reduced CDX2 and increased cytokeratin 7 immunohistochemical expression. Hum Pathol. 2014; 45(8):1704-1712.

(32.) Dalerba P, Sahoo D, Paik S, et al. CDX2 as a prognostic biomarker in stage II and stage III colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374(3):211-222.

(33.) Corfield AP, Carroll D, Myerscough N, Probert CS. Mucins in the gastrointestinal tract in health and disease. Front Biosci. 2001; 6:D1321-D1357.

(34.) Levi E, Klimstra DS, Andea A, Basturk O, Adsay NV. MUC1 and MUC2 in pancreatic neoplasia. J Clin Pathol. 2004; 57(5):456-462.

(35.) Lau SK, Weiss LM, Chu PG. Differential expression of MUC1, MUC2, and MUC5AC in carcinomas of various sites: an immunohistochemical study. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004; 122(1):61-69.

(36.) Lee MJ, Lee HS, Kim WH, Choi Y, Yang M. Expression of mucins and cytokeratins in primary carcinomas of the digestive system. Mod Pathol. 2003; 16(5):403-410.

(37.) Corfield AP, Myerscough N, Longman R, Sylvester P, Arul S, Pignatelli M. Mucins and mucosal protection in the gastrointestinal tract: new prospects for mucins in the pathology of gastrointestinal disease. Gut. 2000; 47(4):589-594.

(38.) Dobreva G, Chahrour M, Dautzenberg M, et al. SATB2 is a multifunctional determinant of craniofacial patterning and osteoblast differentiation. Cell. 2006; 125(5):971-986.

(39.) Dobreva G, Dambacher J, Grosschedl R. SUMO modification of a novel MAR-binding protein, SATB2, modulates immunoglobulin mu gene expression. Genes Dev. 2003; 17(24):3048-3061.

(40.) Britanova O, de Juan Romero C, Cheung A, et al. Satb2 is a postmitotic determinant for upper-layer neuron specification in the neocortex. Neuron. 2008; 57(3):378-392.

(41.) Britanova O, Depew MJ, Schwark M, et al. Satb2 haploinsufficiency phenocopies 2q32-q33 deletions, whereas loss suggests a fundamental role in the coordination of jaw development. Am J Hum Genet. 2006; 79(4):668-678.

(42.) Magnusson K, de Wit M, Brennan DJ, et al. SATB2 in combination with cytokeratin 20 identifies over 95% of all colorectal carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011; 35(7):937-948.

(43.) Conner JR, Hornick JL. SATB2 is a novel marker of osteoblastic differentiation in bone and soft tissue tumours. Histopathology. 2013; 63(1):36-49.

(44.) Davis JL, Horvai AE. Special AT-rich sequence-binding protein 2 (SATB2) expression is sensitive but may not be specific for osteosarcoma as compared with other high-grade primary bone sarcomas. Histopathology. 2016; 69(1):84-90.

(45.) Dantzig AH, Hoskins JA, Tabas LB, et al. Association of intestinal peptide transport with a protein related to the cadherin superfamily. Science. 1994; 264(5157):430-433.

(46.) Gessner R, Tauber R. Intestinal cell adhesion molecules: liver-intestine cadherin. Ann N YAcad Sci. 2000; 915:136-143.

(47.) Berndorff D, Gessner R, Kreft B, et al. Liver-intestine cadherin: molecular cloning and characterization of a novel Ca(2+)-dependent cell adhesion molecule expressed in liver and intestine. J Cell Biol. 1994; 125(6):1353-1369.

(48.) Panarelli NC, Yantiss RK, Yeh MM, Liu Y, Chen YT. Tissue-specific cadherin CDH17 is a useful marker of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas with higher sensitivity than CDX2. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012; 138(2):211-222.

(49.) Park JH, Seol J, Choi HJ, et al. Comparison of cadherin-17 expression between primary colorectal adenocarcinomas and their corresponding metastases: the possibility of a diagnostic marker for detecting the primary site of metastatic tumour. Histopathology. 2011; 58(2):31 5-318.

(50.) Su MC, Yuan RH, Lin CY, Jeng YM. Cadherin-17 is a useful diagnostic marker for adenocarcinomas of the digestive system. Mod Pathol. 2008; 21(11): 1379-1386.

(51.) Wang HL, Lu DW, Yerian LM, et al. Immunohistochemical distinction between primary adenocarcinoma of the bladder and secondary colorectal adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001; 25(11):1380-1387.

(52.) Tamboli P, Mohsin SK, Hailemariam S, Amin MB. Colonic adenocarcinoma metastatic to the urinary tract versus primary tumors of the urinary tract with glandular differentiation: a report of 7 cases and investigation using a limited immunohistochemical panel. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002; 126(9):1057-1063.

(53.) Suh N, Yang XJ, Tretiakova MS, Humphrey PA, Wang HL. Value of CDX2, villin, and alpha-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase immunostains in the distinction between primary adenocarcinoma of the bladder and secondary colorectal adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2005; 18(9):1217-1222.

(54.) Raspollini MR, Nesi G, Baroni G, Girardi LR, Taddei GL. Immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis between primary and secondary intestinal adenocarcinoma of the urinary bladder. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2005; 13(4):358-362.

(55.) Rao Q, Williamson SR, Lopez-Beltran A, et al. Distinguishing primary adenocarcinoma of the urinary bladder from secondary involvement by colorectal adenocarcinoma: extended immunohistochemical profiles emphasizing novel markers. Mod Pathol. 2013; 26(5):725-732.

(56.) Broede A, Oll M, Maurer A, et al. Differential diagnosis of bladder versus colorectal adenocarcinoma: keratin 7 and GATA3 positivity in nuclear-catenin-negative glandular tumours defines adenocarcinoma of the bladder. J Clin Pathol. 2016; 69(4):307-312.

(57.) Zhang MQ, Chen ZM, Wang HL. Immunohistochemical investigation of tumorigenic pathways in small intestinal adenocarcinoma: a comparison with colorectal adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2006; 19(4):573-580.

(58.) Chen ZM, Wang HL. Alteration of cytokeratin 7 and cytokeratin 20 expression profile is uniquely associated with tumorigenesis of primary adenocarcinoma of the small intestine. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004; 28(10):1352-1359.

(59.) Chen ZM, Ritter JH, Wang HL. Differential expression of [alpha]-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase in adenocarcinomas of the small and large intestines. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29(7):890-896.

(60.) Zhang MQ, Lin F, Hui P, Chen ZM, Ritter JH, Wang HL. Expression of mucins, SIMA, villin, and CDX2 in small-intestinal adenocarcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007; 128(5):808-816.

(61.) Overman MJ, Pozadzides J, Kopetz S, et al. Immunophenotype and molecular characterisation of adenocarcinoma of the small intestine. Br J Cancer. 2010; 102(1):144-150.

(62.) Kim CJ, Baruch-Oren T, Lin F, Fan XS, Yang XJ, Wang HL. Value of SATB2 immunostaining in the distinction between small intestinal and colorectal adenocarcinomas. J Clin Pathol. 2016; 69(12):1046-1050.

(63.) Whitcomb E, Liu X, Xiao SY. Crohn enteritis-associated small bowel adenocarcinomas exhibit gastric differentiation. Hum Pathol. 2014; 45(2):359-367.

(64.) Moh M, Krings G, Ates D, Aysal A, Kim GE, Rabban JT. SATB2 expression distinguishes ovarian metastases of colorectal and appendiceal origin from primary ovarian tumors of mucinous or endometrioid type. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40(3):419-432.

(65.) Perez Montiel D, Arispe Angulo K, Cantu-de Leon D, Bornstein Quevedo L, Chanona Vilchis J, Herrera Montalvo L. The value of SATB2 in the differential diagnosis of intestinal-type mucinous tumors of the ovary: primary vs metastatic. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2015; 19(4):249-252.

(66.) Strickland S, Parra-Herran C. Immunohistochemical characterization of appendiceal mucinous neoplasms and the value of special AT-rich sequence-binding protein 2 in their distinction from primary ovarian mucinous tumours. Histopathology. 2016; 68(7):977-987.

(67.) Bartley AN, Christ J, Fitzgibbons PL, et al. Template for reporting results of HER2 (ERBB2) biomarker testing of specimens from patients with adenocarcinoma of the stomach or esophagogastric junction. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015; 139(5):618-620.

(68.) Bang YJ, Van Cutsem E, Feyereislova A, et al. Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010; 376(9742):687-697.

(69.) Bartley AN, Washington MK, Ventura CB, et al. HER2 testing and clinical decision making in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: guideline from the College of American Pathologists, American Society for Clinical Pathology, and American Society of Clinical Oncology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016; 140(12): 1345-1363.

(70.) Bang YJ. Advances in the management of HER2-positive advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012; 46(8):637-648.

(71.) Ruschoff J, Dietel M, Baretton G, et al. HER2 diagnostics in gastric cancer-guideline validation and development of standardized immunohistochemical testing. Virchows Arch. 2010; 457(3):299-307.

(72.) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines): gastric cancer: version 1. gastric.pdf. 2016. Accessed December 2, 2016.

(73.) Giardiello FM, Allen JI, Axilbund JE, et al. Guidelines on genetic evaluation and management of Lynch syndrome: a consensus statement by the US Multi-society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014; 109(8):1159-1179.

(74.) Fleming M, Ravula S, Tatishchev SF, Wang HL. Colorectal carcinoma: pathologic aspects. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2012; 3(3):153-173.

(75.) Shia J. Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing for screening colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: part I: the utility of immunohistochemistry. J Mol Diagn. 2008; 10(4):293-300.

(76.) Bartley AN, Hamilton SR, Alsabeh R, et al. Template for reporting results of biomarker testing of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014; 138(2):166-170.

(77.) Radu OM, Nikiforova MN, Farkas LM, Krasinskas AM. Challenging cases encountered in colorectal cancer screening for Lynch syndrome reveal novel findings: nucleolar MSH6 staining and impact of prior chemoradiation therapy. Hum Pathol. 2011; 42(9):1247-1258.

(78.) Bao F, Panarelli NC, Rennert H, Sherr DL, Yantiss RK. Neoadjuvant therapy induces loss of MSH6 expression in colorectal carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010; 34(12):1798-1804.

(79.) Shia J, Zhang L, Shike M, et al. Secondary mutation in a coding mononucleotide tract in MSH6 causes loss of immunoexpression of MSH6 in colorectal carcinomas with MLH1/PMS2 deficiency. Mod Pathol. 2013; 26(1): 131-138.

(80.) Graham RP, Kerr SE, Butz ML, et al. Heterogenous MSH6 loss is a result of microsatellite instability within MSH6 and occurs in sporadic and hereditary colorectal and endometrial carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015; 39(10):1370-1376.

(81.) Hagen CE, Lefferts J, Hornick JL, Srivastava A. "Null pattern" of immunoreactivity in a Lynch syndrome-associated colon cancer due to germline MSH2 mutation and somatic MLH1 hypermethylation. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011; 35(12):1902-1905.

(82.) Rahner N, Friedrichs N, Steinke V, et al. Coexisting somatic promoter hypermethylation and pathogenic MLH1 germline mutation in Lynch syndrome. J Pathol. 2008; 214(1):10-16.

(83.) Estrella JS, Tetzlaff MT, Bassett RL Jr, et al. Assessment of BRAF V600E status in colorectal carcinoma: tissue-specific discordances between immuno-histochemistry and sequencing. Mol Cancer Ther. 2015; 14(12):2887-2895.

(84.) Adackapara CA, Sholl LM, Barletta JA, Hornick JL. Immunohistochemistry using the BRAF V600E mutation-specific monoclonal antibody VE1 is not a useful surrogate for genotyping in colorectal adenocarcinoma. Histopathology. 2013; 63(2):187-193.

(85.) Lasota J, Kowalik A, Wasag B, et al. Detection of the BRAF V600E mutation in colon carcinoma: critical evaluation of the immunohistochemical approach. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014; 38(9):1235-1241.

(86.) Kuan SF, Navina S, Cressman KL, Pai RK. Immunohistochemical detection of BRAF V600E mutant protein using the VE1 antibody in colorectal carcinoma is highly concordant with molecular testing but requires rigorous antibody optimization. Hum Pathol. 2014; 45(3):464-472.

(87.) Schafroth C, Galvan JA, Centeno I, et al. VE1 immunohistochemistry predicts BRAF V600E mutation status and clinical outcome in colorectal cancer. Oncotarget. 2015; 6(39):41453-41463.

(88.) Varma V, Cohen C. Immunohistochemical and molecular markers in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Adv Anat Pathol. 2004; 11(5):239-249.

(89.) Goodman ZD. Neoplasms of the liver. Mod Pathol. 2007; 20(suppl 1): S49-S60.

(90.) Shafizadeh N, Kakar S. Diagnosis of well-differentiated hepatocellular lesions: role of immunohistochemistry and other ancillary techniques. Adv Anat Pathol. 2011; 18(6):438-445.

(91.) Lau SK, Prakash S, Geller SA, Alsabeh R. Comparative immunohistochemical profile of hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, and metastatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2002; 33(12):1175-1181.

(92.) Morrison C, Marsh W, Frankel WL. A comparison of CD10 to pCEA, MOC-31, and hepatocyte for the distinction of malignant tumors in the liver. Mod Pathol. 2002; 15(12):1279-1287.

(93.) Kakar S, Gown AM, Goodman ZD, Ferrell LD. Best practices in diagnostic immunohistochemistry: hepatocellular carcinoma versus metastatic neoplasms. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007; 131(11):1648-1654.

(94.) Ma CK, Zarbo RJ, Frierson HF Jr, Lee MW. Comparative immunohistochemical study of primary and metastatic carcinomas of the liver. Am J Clin Pathol. 1993; 99(5):551-557.

(95.) Xiao SY, Wang HL, Hart J, Fleming D, Beard MR. cDNA arrays and immunohistochemistry identification of CD10/CALLA expression in hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Pathol. 2001; 159(4):1415-1421.

(96.) Borscheri N, Roessner A, Rocken C. Canalicular immunostaining of neprilysin (CD10) as a diagnostic marker for hepatocellular carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001; 25(10):1297-1303.

(97.) Chu PG, Ishizawa S, Wu E, Weiss LM. Hepatocyte antigen as a marker of hepatocellular carcinoma: an immunohistochemical comparison to carcinoembryonic antigen, CD10, and alpha-fetoprotein. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002; 26(8): 978-988.

(98.) Lugli A, Tornillo L, Mirlacher M, Bundi M, Sauter G, Terracciano LM. Hepatocyte paraffin 1 expression in human normal and neoplastic tissues: tissue microarray analysis on 3,940 tissue samples. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004; 122(5):721-727.

(99.) Minervini MI, Demetris AJ, Lee RG, Carr BI, Madariaga J, Nalesnik MA. Utilization of hepatocyte-specific antibody in the immunocytochemical evaluation of liver tumors. Mod Pathol. 1997; 10(7):686-692.

(100.) Zimmerman RL, Burke MA, Young NA, Solomides CC, Bibbo M. Diagnostic value of hepatocyte paraffin 1 antibody to discriminate hepatocellular carcinoma from metastatic carcinoma in fine-needle aspiration biopsies of the liver. Cancer. 2001; 93(4):288-291.

(101.) Mac MT, Chung F, Lin F, Hui P, Balzer BL, Wang HL. Expression of hepatocyte antigen in small intestinal epithelium and adenocarcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009; 132(1):80-85.

(102.) Butler SL, Dong H, Cardona D, et al. The antigen for Hep Par 1 antibody is the urea cycle enzyme carbamoyl phosphate synthetase 1. Lab Invest. 2008; 88(1):78-88.

(103.) Yan BC, Gong C, Song J, et al. Arginase-1: a new immunohistochemical marker of hepatocytes and hepatocellular neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010; 34(8):1147-1154.

(104.) Timek DT, Shi J, Liu H, Lin F. Arginase-1, HepPar-1, and glypican-3 are the most effective panel of markers in distinguishing hepatocellular carcinoma from metastatic tumor on fine-needle aspiration specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012; 138(2):203-210.

(105.) Fujiwara M, Kwok S, Yano H, Pai RK. Arginase-1 is a more sensitive marker of hepatic differentiation than HepPar-1 and glypican-3 in fine-needle aspiration biopsies. Cancer Cytopathol. 2012; 120(4):230-237.

(106.) Radwan NA, Ahmed NS. The diagnostic value of arginase-1 immunostaining in differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma from metastatic carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma as compared to HepPar-1. Diagn Pathol. 2012; 7(1): 149.

(107.) Lagana S, Hsiao S, Bao F, et al. HepPar-1 and Arginase-1 immunohistochemistry in adenocarcinoma of the small intestine and ampullary region. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015; 139(6):791-795.

(108.) Shahid M, Mubeen A, Tse J, et al. Branched chain in situ hybridization for albumin as a marker of hepatocellular differentiation: evaluation of manual and automated in situ hybridization platforms. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015; 39(1):25-34.

(109.) Ferrone CR, Ting DT, Shahid M, et al. The ability to diagnose intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma definitively using novel branched DNA-enhanced albumin RNA in situ hybridization technology. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23(1):290-296.

(110.) Askan G, Deshpande V, Klimstra DS, et al. Expression of markers of hepatocellular differentiation in pancreatic acinar cell neoplasms: a potential diagnostic pitfall. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016; 146(2):163-169.

(111.) Moy AP, Arora K, Deshpande V. Albumin expression distinguishes bile duct adenomas from metastatic adenocarcinoma. Histopathology. 2016; 69(3): 423-430.

(112.) Wang HL, Anatelli F, Zhai Q, Adley B, Chuang ST, Yang XJ. Glypican-3 as a useful diagnostic marker that distinguishes hepatocellular carcinoma from benign hepatocellular mass lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008; 132(11):1723-1728.

(113.) Shafizadeh N, Ferrell LD, Kakar S. Utility and limitations of glypican-3 expression for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma at both ends of the differentiation spectrum. Mod Pathol. 2008; 21(8):1011-1018.

(114.) Coston WM, Loera S, Lau SK, et al. Distinction of hepatocellular carcinoma from benign hepatic mimickers using glypican-3 and CD34 immunohistochemistry. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008; 32(3):433-444.

(115.) Anatelli F, Chuang ST, Yang XJ, Wang HL. Value of glypican 3 immunostaining in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma on needle biopsy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008; 130(2):219-223.

(116.) Liu X, Wang SK, Zhang K, et al. Expression of glypican 3 enriches hepatocellular carcinoma development-related genes and associates with carcinogenesis in cirrhotic livers. Carcinogenesis. 2015; 36(2):232-242.

(117.) Zynger DL, Gupta A, Luan C, Chou PM, Yang GY, Yang XJ. Expression of glypican 3 in hepatoblastoma: an immunohistochemical study of 65 cases. Hum Pathol. 2008; 39(2):224-230.

(118.) Levy M, Trivedi A, Zhang J, et al. Expression of glypican-3 in undifferentiated embryonal sarcoma and mesenchymal hamartoma of the liver. Hum Pathol. 2012; 43(5):695-701.

(119.) Zynger DL, McCallum JC, Luan C, Chou PM, Yang XJ. Glypican 3 has a higher sensitivity than alpha-fetoprotein for testicular and ovarian yolk sac tumour: immunohistochemical investigation with analysis of histological growth patterns. Histopathology. 2010; 56(6):750-757.

(120.) Zynger DL, Dimov ND, Luan C, Teh BT, Yang XJ. Glypican 3: a novel marker in testicular germ cell tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006; 30(12):1570-1575.

(121.) Mounajjed T, Zhang L, Wu TT. Glypican-3 expression in gastrointestinal and pancreatic epithelial neoplasms. Hum Pathol. 2013; 44(4):542-550.

(122.) He H, Fang W, Liu X, Weiss LM, Chu PG. Frequent expression of glypican-3 in Merkel cell carcinoma: an immunohistochemical study of 55 cases. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2009; 17(1):40-46.

(123.) Yu X, Li Y, Chen SW, Shi Y, Xu F. Differential expression of glypican-3 (GPC3) in lung squamous cell carcinoma and lung adenocarcinoma and its clinical significance. Genet Mol Res. 2015; 14(3):10185-10192.

(124.) Baumhoer D, Tornillo L, Stadlmann S, Roncalli M, Diamantis EK, Terracciano LM. Glypican 3 expression in human nonneoplastic, preneoplastic, and neoplastic tissues: a tissue microarray analysis of 4,387 tissue samples. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008; 129(6):899-906.

(125.) Moorman AF, Vermeulen JL, Charles R, Lamers WH. Localization of ammonia-metabolizing enzymes in human liver: ontogenesis of heterogeneity. Hepatology. 1989; 9(3):367-72.

(126.) Bioulac-Sage P, Laumonier H, Rullier A, et al. Over-expression of glutamine synthetase in focal nodular hyperplasia: a novel easy diagnostic tool in surgical pathology. Liver Int. 2009; 29(3):459-465.

(127.) Joseph NM, Ferrell LD, Jain D, et al. Diagnostic utility and limitations of glutamine synthetase and serum amyloid-associated protein immunohistochemistry in the distinction of focal nodular hyperplasia and inflammatory hepatocellular adenoma. Mod Pathol. 2014; 27(1):62-72.

(128.) Di Tommaso L, Franchi G, Young NP, et al. Diagnostic value of HSP70, glypican 3, and glutamine synthetase in hepatocellular nodules in cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2007; 45(3):725-734.

(129.) Hale G, Liu X, Hu J, et al. Correlation of exon 3 ([beta]-catenin mutations with glutamine synthetase staining patterns in hepatocellular adenoma and hepato-cellular carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2016; 29(11):1370-1380.

(130.) Lagana SM, Moreira RK, Remotti HE, Bao F. Glutamine synthetase, heat shock protein-70, and glypican-3 in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and tumors metastatic to liver. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2013; 21(3):254-257.

(131.) Audard V, Cavard C, Richa H, et al. Impaired E-cadherin expression and glutamine synthetase overexpression in solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas. Pancreas. 2008; 36(1):80-83.

(132.) Chuma M, Sakamoto M, Yamazaki K, et al. Expression profiling in multistage hepatocarcinogenesis: identification of HSP70 as a molecular marker of early hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2003; 37(1):198-207.

(133.) Di Tommaso L, Destro A, Seok JY, et al. The application of markers (HSP70 GPC3 and GS) in liver biopsies is useful for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2009; 50(4):746-754.

(134.) Enan ET, El-Hawary AK, El-Tantawy DA, Abu-Hashim MM, Helal NM. Diagnostic role of glypican 3 and CD34 for differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma from nonmalignant hepatocellular lesions. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2013; 17(6):490-493.

(135.) Iida H, Hata M, Kakuno A, et al. Expression of hepatocyte markers in mass-forming peripheral and periductal-infiltrating hilar intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. Oncol Lett. 2011; 2(6):1041-1046.

(136.) Koltai T. Clusterin: a key player in cancer chemoresistance and its inhibition. Onco Targets Ther. 2014; 7:447-456.

(137.) Kang YK, Hong SW, Lee H, Kim WH. Overexpression of clusterin in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2004; 35(11):1340-1346.

(138.) Chen ZM, Crone KG, Watson MA, Pfeifer JD, Wang HL. Identification of a unique gene expression signature that differentiates hepatocellular adenoma from well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29(12): 1600-1608.

(139.) Lai JP, Chen ZM, Lok T, et al. Immunohistochemical stains of proliferating cell nuclear antigen, insulin-like growth factor 2 and clusterin help distinguish malignant from benign liver nodular lesions. J Clin Pathol. 2014; 67(6):464-469.

(140.) Aigelsreiter A, Janig E, Sostaric J, et al. Clusterin expression in cholestasis, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver fibrosis. Histopathology. 2009; 54(5):561-570.

(141.) Zhou W, Koo J, Wang HL, Liu H, Chen ZM, Lin F. Diagnostic utility of clusterin immunostaining in differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma from tumors of other origins [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2016; 29(S2):428A-29A.

(142.) Ward SC, Huang J, Tickoo SK, Thung SN, Ladanyi M, Klimstra DS. Fibrolamellar carcinoma of the liver exhibits immunohistochemical evidence of both hepatocyte and bile duct differentiation. Mod Pathol. 2010; 23(9):1180-1190.

(143.) Abdul-Al HM, Wang G, Makhlouf HR, Goodman ZD. Fibrolamellar hepatocellular carcinoma: an immunohistochemical comparison with conventional hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Surg Pathol. 2010; 18(5):313-318.

(144.) Ross HM, Daniel HD, Vivekanandan P, et al. Fibrolamellar carcinomas are positive for CD68. Mod Pathol. 2011; 24(3):390-395.

(145.) Limaiem F, Bouraoui S, Sboui M, Bouslama S, Lahmar A, Mzabi S. Fibrolamellar carcinoma versus scirrhous hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnostic usefulness of CD68. Acta Gastroenterol Belg. 2015; 78(4):393-398.

(146.) Kahn ME, French S, Wang HL. Hepatocellular adenoma: morphological and molecular variants and distinction from well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma. Pathol Case Rev. 2009; 14:13-20.

(147.) Bioulac-Sage P, Balabaud C, Zucman-Rossi J. Subtype classification of hepatocellular adenoma. Dig Surg. 2010; 27(1):39-45.

(148.) Dhingra S, Fiel MI. Update on the new classification of hepatic adenomas: clinical, molecular, and pathologic characteristics. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014; 138(8):1090-1097.

(149.) Raft MB, Jrgensen EN, Vainer B. Gene mutations in hepatocellular adenomas. Histopathology. 2015; 66(7):910-921.

(150.) Bioulac-Sage P, Cubel G, Taouji S, et al. Immunohistochemical markers on needle biopsies are helpful for the diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma subtypes. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012; 36(11):1691-1699.

(151.) Lagana SM, Salomao M, Bao F, Moreira RK, Lefkowitch JH, Remotti HE. Utility of an immunohistochemical panel consisting of glypican-3, heat-shock protein-70, and glutamine synthetase in the distinction of low-grade hepatocellular carcinoma from hepatocellular adenoma. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2013; 21(2):170-176.

(152.) Nguyen TB, Roncalli M, Di Tommaso L, Kakar S. Combined use of heat-shock protein 70 and glutamine synthetase is useful in the distinction of typical hepatocellular adenoma from atypical hepatocellular neoplasms and well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2016; 29(3):283-292.

(153.) Park YN. Update on precursor and early lesions of hepatocellular carcinomas. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011; 135(6):704-715.

(154.) Park YN, Kojiro M, Di Tommaso L, et al. Ductular reaction is helpful in defining early stromal invasion, small hepatocellular carcinomas, and dysplastic nodules. Cancer. 2007; 109(5):915-923.

(155.) Tremosini S, Forner A, Boix L, et al. Prospective validation of an immunohistochemical panel (glypican 3, heat shock protein 70 and glutamine synthetase) in liver biopsies for diagnosis of very early hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut. 2012; 61(10):1481-1487.

(156.) Park YN, Yang CP, Fernandez GJ, Cubukcu O, Thung SN, Theise ND. Neoangiogenesis and sinusoidal "capillarization" in dysplastic nodules of the liver. Am J Surg Pathol. 1998; 22(6):656-662.

(157.) Nascimento C, Caroli-Bottino A, Paschoal J, Pannain VL. Vascular immunohistochemical markers: contributions to hepatocellular nodule diagnosis in explanted livers. Transplant Proc. 2009; 41(10):4211-4213.

(158.) Frachon S, Gouysse G, Dumortier J, et al. Endothelial cell marker expression in dysplastic lesions of the liver: an immunohistochemical study. J Hepatol. 2001; 34(6):850-857.

(159.) Su JS, Chen YT, Wang RC, Wu CY, Lee SW, Lee TY. Clinicopathological characteristics in the differential diagnosis of hepatoid adenocarcinoma: a literature review. World J Gastroenterol. 2013; 19(3):321-327.

(160.) Haninger DM, Kloecker GH, Bousamra Ii M, Nowacki MR, Slone SP. Hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the lung: report of five cases and review of the literature. Mod Pathol. 2014; 27(4):535-542.

(161.) Chandan VS, Shah SS, Torbenson MS, Wu TT. Arginase-1 is frequently positive in hepatoid adenocarcinomas. Hum Pathol. 2016; 55(9):11-16.

(162.) Liu H, Shi J, Anandan V, et al. Reevaluation and identification of the best immunohistochemical panel (pVHL, Maspin, S100P, IMP-3) for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012; 136(6):601-609.

(163.) Lin F, Shi J, Liu H, et al. Diagnostic utility of S100Pand von Hippel-Lindau gene product (pVHL) in pancreatic adenocarcinoma-with implication of their roles in early tumorigenesis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008; 32(1):78-91.

(164.) Deng H, Shi J, Wilkerson M, Meschter S, Dupree W, Lin F. Usefulness of S100P in diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of pancreas on fine-needle aspiration biopsy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008; 129(1):81-88.

(165.) Gandou C, Harada K, Sato Y, et al. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma share similar histopathologies, immuno-phenotypes, and development-related molecules. Hum Pathol. 2013; 44(5): 811-821.

(166.) Dim DC, Jiang F, Qiu Q, et al. The usefulness of S100P, mesothelin, fascin, prostate stem cell antigen, and 14-3-3 sigma in diagnosing pancreatic adenocarcinoma in cytological specimens obtained by endoscopic ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014; 42(3):193-199.

(167.) Lok T, Chen L, Lin F, Wang HL. Immunohistochemical distinction between intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2014; 45(2):394-400.

(168.) Shi J, Liu H, Wang HL, Prichard JW, Lin F. Diagnostic utility of von Hippel-Lindau gene product, maspin, IMP3, and S100P in adenocarcinoma of the gallbladder. Hum Pathol. 2013; 44(4):503-511.

(169.) Levy M, Lin F, Xu H, Dhall D, Spaulding BO, Wang HL. S100P, von Hippel-Lindau gene product, and IMP3 serve as a useful immunohistochemical panel in the diagnosis of adenocarcinoma on endoscopic bile duct biopsy. Hum Pathol. 2010; 41(9):1210-1219.

(170.) Kawashima H, Itoh A, Ohno E, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of immunohistochemical expression of S100P and IMP3 in transpapillary biliary forceps biopsy samples of extrahepatic bile duct carcinoma. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2013; 20(4):441-447.

(171.) Schmidt MT, Himmelfarb EA, Shafi H, Lin F, Xu H, Wang HL. Use of IMP3, S100P, and pVHL immunopanel to aid in the interpretation of bile duct biopsies with atypical histology or suspicious for malignancy. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2012; 20(5):478-487.

(172.) Yantiss RK, Woda BA, Fanger GR, et al. KOC (K homology domain containing protein overexpressed in cancer): a novel molecular marker that distinguishes between benign and malignant lesions of the pancreas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29(2):188-195.

(173.) Zhao H, Mandich D, Cartun RW, Ligato S. Expression of K homology domain containing protein overexpressed in cancer in pancreatic FNA for diagnosing adenocarcinoma of pancreas. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007; 35(11):700-704.

(174.) Yantiss RK, Cosar E, Fischer AH. Use of IMP3 in identification of carcinoma in fine needle aspiration biopsies of pancreas. Acta Cytol. 2008; 52(2): 133-138.

(175.) Toll AD, Witkiewicz AK, Bibbo M. Expression of K homology domain containing protein (KOC) in pancreatic cytology with corresponding histology. Acta Cytol. 2009; 53(2):123-129.

(176.) Wachter DL, Schlabrakowski A, Hoegel J, Kristiansen G, Hartmann A, Riener MO. Diagnostic value of immunohistochemical IMP3 expression in core needle biopsies of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011; 35(6):873-877.

(177.) Ibrahim DA, Abouhashem NS. Diagnostic value of IMP3 and mesothelin in differentiating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from chronic pancreatitis. Pathol Res Pract. 2016; 212(4):288-293.

(178.) Riener MO, Fritzsche FR, Clavien PA, et al. IMP3 expression in lesions of the biliary tract: a marker for high-grade dysplasia and an independent prognostic factor in bile duct carcinomas. Hum Pathol. 2009; 40(10):1377-1383.

(179.) Ligato S, Zhao H, Mandich D, Cartun RW. KOC (K homology domain containing protein overexpressed in cancer) and S100A4-protein immunoreactivity improves the diagnostic sensitivity of biliary brushing cytology for diagnosing pancreaticobiliary malignancies. Diagn Cytopathol. 2008; 36(8): 561-567.

(180.) Hart J, Parab M, Mandich D, Cartun RW, Ligato S. IMP3 immunocytochemical staining increases sensitivity in the routine cytologic evaluation of biliary brush specimens. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012; 40(4):321-326.

(181.) Gao Y, Yang M, Jiang Z, et al. IMP3 expression is associated with poor outcome and epigenetic deregulation in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2014; 45(6):1184-1191.

(182.) Chen YL, Jeng YM, Hsu HC, et al. Expression of insulin-like growth factor II mRNA-binding protein 3 predicts early recurrence and poor prognosis in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Int J Surg. 2013; 11(1):85-91.

(183.) Ohike N, Maass N, Mundhenke C, et al. Clinicopathological significance and molecular regulation of maspin expression in ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Cancer Lett. 2003; 199(2):193-200.

(184.) Cao D, Zhang Q, Wu LS, et al. Prognostic significance of maspin in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: tissue microarray analysis of 223 surgically resected cases. Mod Pathol. 2007; 20(5):570-578.

(185.) Kim J, Jang KT, Kim KH, et al. Aberrant maspin expression is involved in early carcinogenesis of gallbladder cancer. Tumour Biol. 2010; 31(5):471-476.

(186.) Chen L, Huang K, Himmelfarb EA, et al. Diagnostic value of maspin in distinguishing adenocarcinoma from benign biliary epithelium on endoscopic bile duct biopsy. Hum Pathol. 2015; 46(11):1647-1654.

(187.) Tokumitsu T, Sato Y, Yamashita A, et al. Immunocytochemistry for Claudin-18 and Maspin in biliary brushing cytology increases the accuracy of diagnosing pancreatobiliary malignancies. Cytopathology. 2017; 28(2):116-121.

(188.) Romani AA, Soliani P, Desenzani S, Borghetti AF, Crafa P. The associated expression of maspin and Bax proteins as a potential prognostic factor in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2006; 6:255.

(189.) Maesawa C, Ogasawara S, Yashima-Abo A, et al. Aberrant maspin expression in gallbladder epithelium is associated with intestinal metaplasia in patients with cholelithiasis. J Clin Pathol. 2006; 59(3):328-330.

(190.) Lin F, Shi J, Liu H, et al. Immunohistochemical detection of the von Hippel-Lindau gene product (pVHL) in human tissues and tumors: a useful marker for metastatic renal cell carcinoma and clear cell carcinoma of the ovary and uterus. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008; 129(4):592-605.

(191.) Yang Z, Yang Z, Xiong L, et al. Expression of VHL and HIF-1[alpha] and their clinicopathologic significance in benign and malignant lesions of the gallbladder. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2011; 19(6):534-539.

(192.) Reid MD, Saka B, Balci S, Goldblum AS, Adsay NV. Molecular genetics of pancreatic neoplasms and their morphologic correlates: an update on recent advances and potential diagnostic applications. Am J Clin Pathol. 2014; 141(2): 168-180.

(193.) Chuang SC, Lee KT, Tsai KB, et al. Immunohistochemical study of DPC4 and p53 proteins in gallbladder and bile duct cancers. World J Surg. 2004; 28(10): 995-1000.

(194.) Argani P, Shaukat A, Kaushal M, et al. Differing rates of loss of DPC4 expression and of p53 overexpression among carcinomas of the proximal and distal bile ducts. Cancer. 2001; 91(7):1332-1341.

(195.) Kang YK, Kim WH, Jang JJ. Expression of G1-S modulators (p53, p16, p27, cyclin D1, Rb) and Smad4/Dpc4 in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2002; 33(9):877-883.

(196.) Sarbia M, Fritze F, Geddert H, von Weyhern C, Rosenberg R, Gellert K. Differentiation between pancreaticobiliary and upper gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas: is analysis of cytokeratin 17 expression helpful? Am J Clin Pathol. 2007; 128(2):255-259.

(197.) Chu PG, Schwarz RE, Lau SK, Yen Y, Weiss LM. Immunohistochemical staining in the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary and ampulla of Vater adenocarcinoma: application of CDX2, CK17, MUC1, and MUC2. Am I Surg Pathol. 2005; 29(3):359-367.

(198.) Kim K, Lee HW, Chae SW, et al. Cytokeratin 17 expression is associated with poor prognosis in gallbladder adenocarcinoma. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2017; 25(5):346-350.

(199.) Park SY, Roh SJ, Kim YN, et al. Expression of MUC1, MUC2, MUC5AC and MUC6 in cholangiocarcinoma: prognostic impact. Oncol Rep. 2009; 22(3): 649-657.

(200.) Xiong L, Yang Z, Yang L, Liu J, Miao X. Expressive levels of MUC1 and MUC5AC and their clinicopathologic significances in the benign and malignant lesions of gallbladder. J Surg Oncol. 2012; 105(1):97-103.

(201.) La Rosa S, Adsay V, Albarello L, et al. Clinicopathologic study of 62 acinar cell carcinomas of the pancreas: insights into the morphology and immunophenotype and search for prognostic markers. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012; 36(12):1782-1795.

(202.) Hosoda W, Sasaki E, Murakami Y, Yamao K, Shimizu Y, Yatabe Y. BCL10 as a useful marker for pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma, especially using endoscopic ultrasound cytology specimens. Pathol Int. 2013; 63(3):176-182.

(203.) Nishimata S, Kato K, Tanaka M, et al. Expression pattern of keratin subclasses in pancreatoblastoma with special emphasis on squamoid corpuscles. Pathol Int. 2005; 55(6):297-302.

(204.) Ang DC, Shia J, Tang LH, Katabi N, Klimstra DS. The utility of immunohistochemistry in subtyping adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of vater. Am I Surg Pathol. 2014; 38(10):1371-1379.

(205.) Perysinakis I, Minaidou E, Leontara V, et al. Differential expression of [beta]-catenin, EGFR, CK7, CK20, MUC1, MUC2, and CDX2 in intestinal and pancreatobiliary-type ampullary carcinomas. Int J Surg Pathol. 2017; 25(1):31-40.

(206.) Leo JM, Kalloger SE, Peixoto RD, et al. Immunophenotyping of ampullary carcinomata allows for stratification of treatment specific subgroups. J Clin Pathol. 2016; 69(5):431-439.

(207.) Burke AP, Thomas RM, Elsayed AM, Sobin LH. Carcinoids of the jejunum and ileum: an immunohistochemical and clinicopathologic study of 167 cases. Cancer. 1997; 79(6):1086-1093.

(208.) Kimura N, Pilichowska M, Okamoto H, Kimura I, Aunis D. Immunohistochemical expression of chromogranins A and B, prohormone convertases 2 and 3, and amidating enzyme in carcinoid tumors and pancreatic endocrine tumors. Mod Pathol. 2000; 13(2):140-146.

(209.) Chejfec G, Falkmer S, Grimelius L, et al. Synaptophysin: a new marker for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 1987; 11(4):241-247.

(210.) Basturk O, Yang Z, Tang LH, et al. The high-grade (WHO G3) pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor category is morphologically and biologically heterogenous and includes both well differentiated and poorly differentiated neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015; 39(5):683-690.

(211.) Tang LH, Basturk O, Sue JJ, Klimstra DS. A practical approach to the classification of WHO Grade 3 (G3) well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (WD-NET) and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (PD-NEC) of the pancreas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40(9):1192-1202.

(212.) Sorbye H, Welin S, Langer SW, et al. Predictive and prognostic factors for treatment and survival in 305 patients with advanced gastrointestinal neuroendocrine carcinoma (WHO G3): the NORDIC NEC study. Ann Oncol. 2013; 24(1): 152-160.

(213.) Koo J, Dhall D. Problems with the diagnosis of metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: which diagnostic criteria should we use to determine tumor origin and help guide therapy? Semin Diagn Pathol. 2015; 32(6):456-468.

(214.) Bellizzi AM. Assigning site of origin in metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: a clinically significant application of diagnostic immunohistochemistry. AdvAnat Pathol. 2013; 20(5):285-314.

(215.) Du EZ, Goldstraw P, Zacharias J, et al. TTF-1 expression is specific for lung primary in typical and atypical carcinoids: TTF-1-positive carcinoids are predominantly in peripheral location. Hum Pathol. 2004; 35(7):825-831.

(216.) Saqi A, Alexis D, Remotti F, Bhagat G. Usefulness of CDX2 and TTF-1 in differentiating gastrointestinal from pulmonary carcinoids. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005; 123(3):394-404.

(217.) Lin X, Saad RS, Luckasevic TM, Silverman JF, Liu Y. Diagnostic value of CDX-2 and TTF-1 expressions in separating metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms of unknown origin. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2007; 15(4): 407-414.

(218.) Srivastava A, Hornick JL. Immunohistochemical staining for CDX-2, PDX1, NESP-55, and TTF-1 can help distinguish gastrointestinal carcinoid tumors from pancreatic endocrine and pulmonary carcinoid tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009; 33(4):626-632.

(219.) Chan ES, Alexander J, Swanson PE, Jain D, Yeh MM. PDX-1, CDX-2, TTF1, and CK7: a reliable immunohistochemical panel for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012; 36(5):737-743.

(220.) Zhang C, Schmidt LA, Hatanaka K, Thomas D, Lagstein A, Myers JL. Evaluation of napsin A, TTF-1, p63, p40, and CK5/6 immunohistochemical stains in pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors. Am J Clin Pathol. 2014; 142(3): 320-324.

(221.) Snow AN, Mangray S, Lu S, et al. Expression of cadherin 17 in well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours. Histopathology. 2015; 66(7):1010-1021.

(222.) Zimmermann N, Lazar-Karsten P, Keck T, et al. Expression pattern of CDX2, estrogen and progesterone receptors in primary gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and metastases. Anticancer Res. 2016; 36(3):921-924.

(223.) Tseng IC, Yeh MM, Yang CY, Jeng YM. NKX6-1 is a novel immunohistochemical marker for pancreatic and duodenal neuroendocrine tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015; 39(6):850-857.

(224.) Koo J, Mertens RB, Mirocha JM, Wang HL, Dhall D. Value of Islet 1 and PAX8 in identifying metastatic neuroendocrine tumors of pancreatic origin. Mod Pathol. 2012; 25(6):893-901.

(225.) Li Z, Yuan J, Wei L, et al. SATB2 is a sensitive marker for lower gastrointestinal well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015; 8(6):7072-7082.

(226.) Johnson A, Wright JP, Zhao Z, et al. Cadherin 17 is frequently expressed by 'sclerosing variant' pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour. Histopathology. 2015; 66(2):225-233.

(227.) Schmitt AM, Riniker F, Anlauf M, et al. Islet 1 (Isl1) expression is a reliable marker for pancreatic endocrine tumors and their metastases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008; 32(3):420-425.

(228.) Graham RP, Shrestha B, Caron BL, et al. Islet-1 is a sensitive but not entirely specific marker for pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms and their metastases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013; 37(3):399-405.

(229.) Koo J, Zhou X, Moschiano E, De Peralta-Venturina M, Mertens RB, Dhall D. The immunohistochemical expression of islet 1 and PAX8 by rectal neuroendocrine tumors should betaken into account in the differential diagnosis of metastatic neuroendocrine tumors of unknown primary origin. Endocr Pathol. 2013; 24(4):184-190.

(230.) Long KB, Srivastava A, Hirsch MS, Hornick JL. PAX8 Expression in well-differentiated pancreatic endocrine tumors: correlation with clinicopathologic features and comparison with gastrointestinal and pulmonary carcinoid tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010; 34(5):723-729.

(231.) Lai JP, Mertens RB, Mirocha J, et al. Comparison of PAX6 and PAX8 as immunohistochemical markers for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Endocr Pathol. 2015; 26(1):54-62.

(232.) Moreno CM, Lorenzo PI, Delgado I, et al. Pax8 detection in well-differentiated pancreatic endocrine tumors: how reliable is it? Am J Surg Pathol. 2011; 35(12):1906-1908.

(233.) Plesec TP. Gastrointestinal mesenchymal neoplasms other than gastrointestinal stromal tumors: focusing on their molecular aspects. Patholog Res Int. 2011; 2011:952569.

(234.) Kang HC, Menias CO, Gaballah AH, et al. Beyond the GIST: mesenchymal tumors of the stomach. Radiographics. 2013; 33(6):1673-1690.

(235.) Miettinen M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2013; 42(2):399-415.

(236.) Stockman DL, Miettinen M, Suster S, et al. Malignant gastrointestinal neuroectodermal tumor: clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, ultrastructural, and molecular analysis of 16 cases with a reappraisal of clear cell sarcoma-like tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012; 36(6):857-868.

(237.) Miettinen M, Wang ZF, Lasota J. DOG1 antibody in the differential diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a study of 1840 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009; 33(9):1401-1408.

(238.) Kang GH, Srivastava A, Kim YE, et al. DOG1 and PKC-9 are useful in the diagnosis of KIT-negative gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Mod Pathol. 2011; 24(6):866-875.

(239.) Swalchick W, Shamekh R, Bui MM. Is DOG1 immunoreactivity specific to gastrointestinal stromal tumor? Cancer Control. 2015; 22(4):498-504.

(240.) Ogawa N, Iseki H, Tsunozaki H, et al. Intra-abdominal desmoid tumor difficult to distinguish from a gastrointestinal stromal tumor: report of two cases. Surg Today. 2014; 44(11):2174-2179.

(241.) Lucas DR, al-Abbadi M, Tabaczka P, Hamre MR, Weaver DW, Mott MJ. c-Kit expression in desmoid fibromatosis: comparative immunohistochemical evaluation of two commercial antibodies. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003; 119(3):339-345.

(242.) West RB, Corless CL, Chen X, et al. The novel marker, DOG1, is expressed ubiquitously in gastrointestinal stromal tumors irrespective of KIT or PDGFRA mutation status. Am J Pathol. 2004; 165(1):107-113.

(243.) Bergmann F, Andrulis M, Hartwig W, et al. Discovered on gastrointestinal stromal tumor 1 (DOG1) is expressed in pancreatic centroacinar cells and in solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms: novel evidence for a histogenetic relationship. Hum Pathol. 2011; 42(6):817-823.

(244.) Cao D, Antonescu C, Wong G, et al. Positive immunohistochemical staining of KIT in solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas is not associated with KIT/PDGFRA mutations. Mod Pathol. 2006; 19(9):1157-1163.

(245.) Deshpande A, Nelson D, Corless CL, Deshpande V, O'Brien MJ. Leiomyoma of the gastrointestinal tract with interstitial cells of Cajal: a mimic of gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014; 38(1):72-77.

(246.) Lee SJ, Hwang CS, Kim A, Kim K, Choi KU. Gastrointestinal tract spindle cell tumors with interstitial cells of Cajal: prevalence excluding gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Oncol Lett. 2016; 12(2):1287-1292.

(247.) Wang C, Jin MS, Zou YB, et al. Diagnostic significance of DOG-1 and PKC-[theta] expression and c-Kit/PDGFRA mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumours. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2013; 48(9):1055-1065.

(248.) Rlos-Moreno MJ, Jaramillo S, Pereira Gallardo S, et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs): CD117, DOG-1 and PKCh expression: is there any advantage in using several markers? Pathol Res Pract. 2012; 208(2):74-81.

(249.) Miettinen M, Lasota J. Succinate dehydrogenase deficient gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs): a review. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2014; 53:514-519.

(250.) Doyle LA, Hornick JL. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: from KIT to succinate dehydrogenase. Histopathology. 2014; 64(1):53-67.

(251.) Boland JM, Folpe AL. Oncocytic variant of malignant gastrointestinal neuroectodermal tumor: a potential diagnostic pitfall. Hum Pathol. 2016; 57(11): 13-16.

(252.) Wang J, Thway K. Clear cell sarcoma-like tumor of the gastrointestinal tract: an evolving entity. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015; 139(3):407-412.

(253.) Kim JW, Eder JP. Prospects for targeting PD-1 and PD-L1 in various tumor types. Oncology. 2014; 28(suppl 3):15-28.

(254.) Sholl LM, Aisner DL, Allen TC, et al. Programmed death ligand-1 immunohistochemistry: a new challenge for pathologists: a perspective from members of the Pulmonary Pathology Society. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016; 140(4):341-344.

(255.) US Food and Drug Administration. Hematology/oncology (cancer) approvals & safety notifications. InformationOnDrugs/ApprovedDrugs/ucm279174.htm. Last updated November 22, 2016. Accessed December 2, 2016.

(256.) Huang L, Ding X, Zhang L. Immunotherapy for colorectal cancer. Am J Dig Dis. 2015; 2(1):11-28.

(257.) Huang L. Immunotherapy with immunomodulatory antibody for hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Dig Dis. 2015; 2(2):76-89.

(258.) Brahmer JR, Tykodi SS, Chow LQ, et al. Safety and activity of anti-PD-L1 antibody in patients with advanced cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(26):2455-2465.

(259.) Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR, et al. Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(26):2443-2454.

(260.) Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch repair deficiency. N Engl I Med. 2015; 372(26):2509-2520.

(261.) US Food and Drug Administration. FDA grants accelerated approval to pembrolizumab for first tissue/site agnostic indication. Drugs/InformationOnDrugs/ApprovedDrugs/ucm560040.htm. Last updated May 23, 2017. Accessed May 27, 201 7.

Hanlin L. Wang, MD, PhD; Christopher J. Kim, MD; Jamie Koo, MD; Wendi Zhou, MD, PhD; Eunice K. Choi, MD; Ramir Arcega, MD; Zongming Eric Chen, MD, PhD; Huamin Wang, MD, PhD; Lanjing Zhang, MD; Fan Lin, MD, PhD

Accepted for publication February 3, 2017.

From the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles (Drs H. L. Wang, Kim, Zhou, Choi, and Arcega); the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California (Dr Koo); the Department of Laboratory Medicine, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, Pennsylvania (Drs Chen and Lin); the Department of Pathology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (Dr H. Wang); and the Department of Pathology, University Medical Center of Princeton, Plainsboro, New Jersey (Dr Zhang).

Presented at the First Chinese American Pathologists Association (CAPA) Diagnostic Pathology Course: Best Practices in Immunohistochemistry in Surgical Pathology and Cytology; August 22-24, 2015; Flushing, New York.

The authors have no relevant financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.

Reprints: Hanlin L.Wang, MD, PhD, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, 10833 Le Conte Ave, 27-061-C8 CHS, Los Angeles, CA 90095 (email:

Caption: Figure 1. Strong and diffuse SATB2 expression in colorectal adenocarcinoma (A), but patchy and weak expression in small intestinal adenocarcinoma (B). Note positive staining in nonneoplastic colonic mucosa (A) but negative staining in nonneoplastic small intestinal mucosa (B; original magnifications X40 [A] and X100 [B]).

Caption: Figure 2. Mucinous cystadenoma of the ovary (A) shows negative SATB2 staining (B), but low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm/adenoma (C) shows diffuse SATB2 positivity (D; hematoxylin-eosin, original magnification X200 [A and C]; original magnification X200 [B and D]).

Caption: Figure 3. Immunohistochemical assessment of HER2 expression on biopsy specimens: scores 0 (A), 1+ (B), 2+ (C), and 3+ (D; original magnification X400).

Caption: Figure 4. A biopsy of a right colon mass shows poorly differentiated carcinoma on histologic examination (A). By immunohistochemistry, tumor cells are positive for SATB2 (B) and CDH17 (C). The subsequent resection specimen shows features of medullary carcinoma of the colon (D; hematoxylin-eosin, original magnifications X400 [A] and X20 [D]; original magnification X400 [B and C]).

Caption: Figure 5. A case of moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma showing characteristic canalicular staining pattern for polyclonal carcinoembryonic antigen (pCEA; A), which may show a luminal pattern when there is pseudoacinar formation (B; original magnification X400).

Caption: Figure 6. Immunostaining for glutamine synthetase shows a characteristic "maplike" pattern for focal nodular hyperplasia on a liver core biopsy (A). Normal liver shows immunoreactivity in only one to a few layers of hepatocytes around central veins (inset). Diffuse strong cytoplasmic staining is typically seen in hepatocellular carcinoma (B), as shown in this case, and a subset of hepatocellular adenoma (original magnifications X20 [A] and X200 [A inset, and B]).

Caption: Figure 7. Positive nuclear and cytoplasmic HSP70 immunostaining seen in a case of well-differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma (A). Positive staining is also observed in hepatocytes in this cirrhotic nodule (B), which may be weaker in comparison with hepatocellular carcinoma if both components are present in the same biopsy. Note stronger immunoreactivity in benign bile ducts and ductules (original magnification X400).

Caption: Figure 8. CD34 highlights portal vasculature and sinusoids immediately adjacent to portal tract in nonneoplastic liver (A), but it shows a diffuse (also termed "complete") sinusoidal staining pattern (B) in hepatocellular carcinoma because of capillarization associated with hepatotumorigenesis, or patchy (also termed "incomplete") sinusoidal pattern (C) seen in most hepatocellular adenomas (original magnifications X400 [A and B] and X200 [C]).

Caption: Figure 9. Clusterin shows an enhanced canalicular staining pattern in a hepatocellular carcinoma (A) but a delicate, granular canalicular pattern in adjacent nonneoplastic (cirrhotic) liver (B). Note that cytoplasmic staining is seen in both malignant and benign hepatocytes (original magnification X400).

Caption: Figure 10. Metastatic carcinoma in an inguinal lymph node shows a trabecular growth pattern with frequent acinar structures and no intervening stroma (A). Tumor cells have abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm containing fat vacuoles, highly resembling hepatocellular carcinoma (B). Tumor cells are diffusely positive for GATA3 (C; hematoxylin-eosin, original magnifications X100 [A] and X400 [B]; original magnification X200 [C].

Caption: Figure 11. A bile duct biopsy shows strong nuclear and cytoplasmic positivity for S100P (A) and cytoplasmic staining for IMP3 (B) in suspicious cells, whereas benign biliary epithelium is negative for both markers. Follow-up showed adenocarcinoma of the common bile duct (original magnification X400).

Caption: Figure 12. A liver biopsy shows an area of tumor cells with acinar formation (A). Tumor cells have round, uniform nuclei, small nucleoli, and amphophilic cytoplasm (B). Tumor cells are strongly positive for trypsin (C; hematoxylin-eosin, original magnifications X100 [A] and X400 [B]; original magnification X400 [C]).

Caption: Figure 13. An esophageal leiomyoma removed by endoscopic resection (A) shows numerous colonized interstitial cells of Cajal within the tumor, as demonstrated by immunostaining for CD117 (B). Similar findings are also seen for DOG1. Note the negative staining in spindle cells. The diagnosis is confirmed by diffuse positive immunostaining for desmin (C; hematoxylin-eosin, original magnification X200 [A]; original magnification X200 [B and C]).

Caption: Figure 14. A case of malignant gastrointestinal neuroectodermal tumor resected from the terminal ileum shows sheets of epithelioid cells with round or ovoid nuclei, indistinct or small nucleoli, and eosinophilic cytoplasm (A). Tumor cells are diffusely positive for S100 (B). Melanocytic markers are negative in this case (hematoxylin-eosin, original magnification X200 [A]; original magnification X200 [B]).
Table 1. Commonly Used Diagnostic Immunomarkers for
Adenocarcinomas of the Digestive System

Adenocarcinoma       CK20, %   CDX2, %   SATB2, %   CK7, %   CDH17, %

Colorectal             90        95       90         18        98
Small intestinal       60        70       46 (a)     60        ND
Gastric                45        55        0         80        60
Esophageal             40        45        7         85        75
Pancreaticobiliary     35        20        5         95        30

Abbreviations: CK, cytokeratin; ND, not done.

(a) Patchy and weak staining in most cases; strong and diffuse
staining seen in <10% of cases.

Table 2. Scoring Criteria Used in Trastuzumab for Gastric Cancer
(ToGA) Trial for Assessment of HER2 Expression in Gastric and
Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinomas by Immunohistochemistry

Score    Staining Pattern in Biopsy Specimen

0        No reactivity or no membranous
         reactivity in any tumor cell

1 +      Tumor cell cluster (a) with a faint or
         barely perceptible membranous reactivity
         irrespective of percentage of tumor
         cells positive

2+       Tumor cell cluster (a) with a weak to
         moderate complete, basolateral, or
         lateral membranous reactivity
         irrespective of percentage of tumor
         cells positive

3+       Tumor cell cluster (a) with a strong
         complete, basolateral, or lateral
         membranous reactivity irrespective of

Score    Staining Pattern in Resection Specimen     Interpretation for
                                                    HER2 Expression

0        No reactivity or membranous reactivity     Negative
         in <10% of tumor cells

1 +      Faint or barely perceptible membranous     Negative
         reactivity in [greater than or equal to]
         10% of tumor cells;cells are reactive
         only in part of their membrane

2+       Weak to moderate complete, basolateral,    Equivocal (b)
         or lateral membranous reactivity in >10%
         of tumor cells

3+       Strong complete, basolateral, or lateral   Positive
         membranous reactivity in [greater than
         or equal to] 10% of tumor cells
         percentage of tumor cells positive

(a) Tumor cell cluster consisting of [greater than or equal to] 5
neoplastic cells.

(b) Fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis for HER2 gene
amplification should be performed.

Table 3. Immunostaining Patterns of Mismatch Repair (MMR) Proteins,
Interpretation, and Recommendations for Additional Workup

Staining Pattern

MLH1   PMS2   MSH2   DS   Interpretation

+      +      +      +    1. Sporadic CRC
                          2. Non-Lynch hereditary CRC

-      -      +      +    1. Sporadic CRC with MLH1 promoter
                          2. LS with MLH1 germ line mutation
                          3. Rarely, LS with PMS2 germ line mutation

+      +      -      -    1. LS with MSH2 germ line mutation
                          2. LS with EPCAM germ line mutation (a)
                          3. Rarely, LS with MSH6 germ line mutation
                          4. Sporadic CRC

+      -      +      +    1. LS with PMS2 germ line mutation
                          2. Rarely, LS with MLH1 germ line mutation

+      +      +      -    1. LS with MSH6 germ line mutation
                          2. Rarely, LS with MSH2 germ line mutation
                          3. Sporadic CRC, treatment effects

-      +      +      +    1. LS with MLH1 germ line mutation
                          2. Rarely, LS with PMS2 germ line mutation
                          3. Sporadic CRC

+      +      -      +    1. LS with MSH2 germ line mutation
                          2. LS with EPCAM germ line mutation
                          3. Sporadic CRC

-      -      -      -    1. Germ line mutation in any MMR gene
                          2. MSH2 germ line mutation with concurrent
                          MLH1 promoter hypermethylation
                          3. Sporadic CRC

MLH1   PMS2   MSH2   DS   Recommendation

+      +      +      +    1. None

                          2. MSI or other genetic testing if
                          indicated by clinical and/or family history

-      -      +      +    1. BRAF mutation testing

                          2. MLH1 methylation testing

                          3. Germ line testing for MLH1 and/or PMS2
                          if above test results are both negative

                          4. May consider somatic genetic testing if
                          the above test results are all negative

+      +      -      -    1. Germ line testing for MSH2

                          2. Germ line testing for EPCAM, if the
                          above test result is negative

                          3. Germ line testing for MSH6, if the above
                          test results are negative

                          4. May consider somatic genetic testing if
                          germ line test result is negative

+      -      +      +    1. Germ line testing for PMS2

                          2. Germ line testing for MLH1 if the above
                          test result is negative

                          3. May consider somatic genetic testing if
                          germ line test result is negative

+      +      +      -    1. Germ line testing for MSH6

                          2. Germ line testing for MSH2 if the above
                          test result is negative

                          3. May consider somatic genetic testing if
                          germ line test result is negative

-      +      +      +    1. Germ line testing for MLH1

                          2. BRAF mutation or MLH1 methylation if the
                          above test result is negative

                          3. May consider somatic genetic testing if
                          the above test results are all negative

+      +      -      +    1. Germ line testing for MSH2

                          2. Germ line testing for EPCAM, if the
                          above test result is negative

                          3. May consider somatic genetic testing if
                          germ line test result is negative

-      -      -      -    1. Germ line testing for all 4 MMR genes

                          2. BRAF mutation or MLH1 methylation if
                          germ line test result for MLH1 gene is

                          3. May consider somatic genetic testing if
                          germ line test result is negative

Abbreviations: CRC, colorectal cancer; LS, Lynch syndrome;MSI,
microsatellite instability; +, intact nuclear expression; - loss of
nuclear expression.

(a) EPCAM (epithelial cell adhesion molecule) is a gene located just
upstream from the MSH2 gene. Deletions of the terminal codon of the
EPCAM gene result in silencing of the MSH2 gene, leading to a
phenotype very similar to LS.

Table 4. Diagnostic Markers for Hepatocellular

Staining Pattern

Hepatocellular markers
  Polyclonal CEA                    Canalicular
  CD10                              Canalicular
  Hepatocyte antigen                Cytoplasmic
  Arginase-1                        Cytoplasmic, with
                                      or without
                                      nuclear staining
  Albumin (in situ hybridization)   Cytoplasmic
Malignant hepatocellular markers
  Glypican-3                        Cytoplasmic
  Glutamine synthetase              Cytoplasmic
  Heat shock protein 70             Cytoplasmic and nuclear
  CD34                              Sinusoidal
  [alpha]-Fetoprotein               Cytoplasmic
  Clusterin                         Canalicular (enhanced)

Abbreviation: CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

Table 5. Useful Immunomarkers for Distinguishing Well-Differentiated
Hepatocellular Carcinoma (WDHCC) From Hepatocellular Adenoma (HCA)
and High-Grade Dysplastic Nodule (HGDN)

Marker            WDHCC, %      HCA, %     HGDN, %

Glypican-3        50-69         0          <10

Glutamine         35-60         10-15      <15
(strong and

Heat shock        40-78         0          <10
protein 70

Positive in at    50-72         0          0
least 2 of the
above 3 markers

CD34 (diffuse     95 (a)        20         +/-

Clusterin         75            0          No data

CK7               Absence of    No value   Presence of
                  ductules at              ductules at
                  border                   border
                  (invasive                (noninvasive
                  growth)                  growth)

Abbreviations: CK, cytokeratin;+/-, may or may not.

(a) This number is based on all hepatocellular carcinomas. The %
appears lower for early hepatocellular carcinoma.

Table 6. Useful Immunomarkers for Pancreaticobiliary Adenocarcinomas

Marker                  Adenocarcinoma

            Pancreas,   Gallbladder,   Extrahepatic
                %            %         Bile Duct, %

S100P       90-100      76             76-92
IMP3        71-97       82             50-92
Maspin      90-100      59-100         57-91
Pvhl (a)    95-100      52-94          93
SMAD4 (a)   60          10             50-55
CK17        60-88       53             59
MUC5AC      67-85       25-82          60-71

Marker         Adenocarcinoma

                Intrahepatic               Benign Pancreatic
            Cholangiocarcinoma, %          and Bile Ducts, %

S100P       27-48                   Negative or focal weak staining
IMP3        37-90                   Negative
Maspin      73-77                   Negative or focal weak staining
Pvhl (a)    29                      0
SMAD4 (a)   13-45                   0
CK17        12-71                   0
MUC5AC      12-50                   0

(a) Loss of expression.

Table 7. Grading of Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic
Neuroendocrine Neoplasms
                                      Mitotic        Ki-67
                                     Count per   Proliferation
Grade                                  10 HPF      Index, %

Low grade (grade 1 or G1)                <2           <3
Intermediate grade (grade 2 or G2)      2-20         3-20
High grade (grade 3 or G3)              >20           >20

Abbreviation: HPF, high-power field.

Table 8. Useful Immunomarkers for Site of Origin of Metastatic
Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumors (NETs)

Marker            Likely Site of               Comment

TTF-1          Lung                  Relatively low sensitivity.
                                     No expression in NETs
                                     derived from the GI tract or

CDX2           Small intestine,      Also expressed at lower
               appendix              frequencies in NETs derived
                                     from other parts of the GI
                                     tract, infrequently
                                     expressed in pancreatic
                                     NETs, only rarely expressed
                                     in pulmonary NETs

SATB2          Rectum, colon,        Limited data. Also expressed
               appendix              at lower frequencies in NETs
                                     derived from other parts of
                                     the GI tract, pancreas, and

CDH17          Small intestine,      Limited data. Also expressed
               appendix, rectum      at lower frequencies in NETs
                                     derived from other parts of
                                     the GI tract, pancreas, and

Islet-1        Pancreas, duodenum,   Also expressed at low
               rectum                frequencies in NETs derived
                                     from other parts of the GI
                                     tract, uncommon in pulmonary

PAX8           Pancreas, duodenum,   Also expressed at low
(polyclonal)   rectum                frequencies in NETs derived
                                     from other parts of GI tract
                                     except the jejunum and
                                     ileum, uncommon in pulmonary

Abbreviation: GI, gastrointestinal.
COPYRIGHT 2017 College of American Pathologists
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Special Section-First Chinese American Pathologists Association Diagnostic Pathology Course, Part II
Author:Wang, Hanlin L.; Kim, Christopher J.; Koo, Jamie; Zhou, Wendi; Choi, Eunice K.; Arcega, Ramir; Chen,
Publication:Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
Article Type:Report
Date:Sep 1, 2017
Previous Article:Comparison of Clinical Diagnoses and Autopsy Findings: Six-Year Retrospective Study.
Next Article:Diagnostic Algorithm of Common Mature B-Cell Lymphomas by Immunohistochemistry.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |