International Journal of
Reproductive Biomedicine
Thu, Dec 26, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 22, Issue 9 (September 2024)
IJRM 2024, 22(9): 727-738 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.SUMS.MED.REC.1396.S184
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Akbarzadeh-Jahromi M, Taheri T, Sari Aslani F, Safaei A, Pouraminaee F, Zare M. Diagnosis of hydatidiform moles using p57 immunohistochemistry and chromogenic insitu hybridization: A retrospective study. IJRM 2024; 22 (9) :727-738
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-3282-en.html
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-3282-en.html
Mojgan Akbarzadeh-Jahromi1 
, Tara Taheri2 , Fatemeh Sari Aslani1 , Akbar Safaei2 , Fatemeh Pouraminaee2 , Marjan Zare * 3
, Tara Taheri2 , Fatemeh Sari Aslani1 , Akbar Safaei2 , Fatemeh Pouraminaee2 , Marjan Zare * 3
1- Pathology Department, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. & Maternal-Fetal Medicine Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
2- Pathology Department, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
3- Maternal-Fetal Medicine Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. ,marjan.zare@gmail.com
2- Pathology Department, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
3- Maternal-Fetal Medicine Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. ,
Abstract: (183 Views)
Background: Chromogenic insitu hybridization (CISH) and immunohistochemistry analysis for p57 are ancillary studies discriminating partial hydatidiform mole (PHM), complete hydatidiform mole (CHM), and non-molar hydropic abortion (HA).
Objective: It aimed to study CISH with a probe to chromosome 17 (CISH17) and chromosome 2 (CISH2) discriminating chromosomal ploidy of PHM, CHM, and HA; in addition, their surrogacy value in the evaluation of triploid and diploid in product of conception specimens (POCs) was evaluated.
Materials and Methods: 44 statistically significant POCs were selected retrospectively. The Kappa agreement coefficients, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were reported.
Results: PHM, CHM, and HA were diagnosed to be 23, 17, and 3 cases based on both CISH2 and CISH17 resulting in their complete discrimination between PHM and HA (23 vs. 3). The Kappa agreement coefficient was 95.4% (p < 0.001) when diagnosing the PHM (23), CHM (20), and HA (1). In addition, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 95.26% (95% CI: 84.25-99.38), 100% (95% CI: 85.18-100), and 95% (95% CI: 76.18-99.88), respectively. The power analysis on CISH2 and CISH17 tests discriminating between triploid and diploid in POCs was estimated to be 100%.
Conclusion: Based on the current finding, CISH2 and CISH17 enjoyed perfect agreement in diagnosing chromosomal ploidy; in addition, their absolute power discriminating between triploid and diploid revealed that they could be used as surrogate markers for ploidy. Prospective studies on fresh specimens are suggested comparing the CISH method's accuracy with flow cytometry karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization.
Objective: It aimed to study CISH with a probe to chromosome 17 (CISH17) and chromosome 2 (CISH2) discriminating chromosomal ploidy of PHM, CHM, and HA; in addition, their surrogacy value in the evaluation of triploid and diploid in product of conception specimens (POCs) was evaluated.
Materials and Methods: 44 statistically significant POCs were selected retrospectively. The Kappa agreement coefficients, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were reported.
Results: PHM, CHM, and HA were diagnosed to be 23, 17, and 3 cases based on both CISH2 and CISH17 resulting in their complete discrimination between PHM and HA (23 vs. 3). The Kappa agreement coefficient was 95.4% (p < 0.001) when diagnosing the PHM (23), CHM (20), and HA (1). In addition, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 95.26% (95% CI: 84.25-99.38), 100% (95% CI: 85.18-100), and 95% (95% CI: 76.18-99.88), respectively. The power analysis on CISH2 and CISH17 tests discriminating between triploid and diploid in POCs was estimated to be 100%.
Conclusion: Based on the current finding, CISH2 and CISH17 enjoyed perfect agreement in diagnosing chromosomal ploidy; in addition, their absolute power discriminating between triploid and diploid revealed that they could be used as surrogate markers for ploidy. Prospective studies on fresh specimens are suggested comparing the CISH method's accuracy with flow cytometry karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization.
This article has been extracted from M.D. Thesis. (Tara Taheri)
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Reproductive Pattology
References
1. Bartosch C, Nadal A, Braga AC, Salerno A, Rougemont A-L, Van Rompuy A-S, et al. Practical guidelines of the EOTTD for pathological and genetic diagnosis of hydatidiform moles. Virchows Arch 2024; 484: 401-422.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-023-03658-8 [DOI:10.1007/s00428-023-03715-2] [PMID]
2. Priyadarshini S, Sharma R. Disorders of sex development in office practice. Indian J Pediatr 2023; 90: 1030-1037. [DOI:10.1007/s12098-023-04640-7] [PMID]
3. Kasraeian M, Asadi N, Vafaei H, Tazang M, Faraji A, Rahimirad N, et al. The effect of 150 and 80 mg doses of aspirin on preventing preterm birth in high-risk pregnant women. J Perinat Med 2022; 50: 1264-1270. [DOI:10.1515/jpm-2021-0668] [PMID]
4. Joneborg U, Folkvaljon Y, Papadogiannakis N, Lambe M, Marions LJAO. Temporal trends in incidence and outcome of hydatidiform mole: A retrospective cohort study. Acta Oncol 2018; 57: 1094-1099. [DOI:10.1080/0284186X.2018.1438653] [PMID]
5. Kerr SE, Shahi M. Molecular testing in gynecologic cancer. In: Coleman WB, Tsongalis GJ. Diagnostic molecular pathology. 2nd Ed. Netherlands: Elsevier; 2024. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-822824-1.00004-3]
6. Kavimani M, Prema RR. Pathology-II and genetics. India: Thakur Publication Pvt LTD; 2023.
7. Lund H, Nielsen S, Grove A, Vyberg M, Sunde L. p57 in hydatidiform moles: Evaluation of antibodies and expression in various cell types. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2020; 28: 694-701. [DOI:10.1097/PAI.0000000000000807] [PMID] [PMCID]
8. Mazur M, Kurman RJ. Diagnosis of endometrial biopsies and curettings: A practical approach. 2nd Ed. Switzerland: Springer Science & Business Media; 2005. [DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-26321-2]
9. He M, Pasquariello T, Steinhoff M. Application of HER2 CISH pharmDX for DNA ploidy determination. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2016; 24: 465-469. [DOI:10.1097/PAI.0000000000000220] [PMID]
10. Wilson Y, Bharat C, Crook ML, Kee AR, Peverall J, Ruba S, et al. Histological comparison of partial hydatidiform mole and trisomy gestation specimens. Pathology 2016; 48: 550-554. [DOI:10.1016/j.pathol.2016.06.006] [PMID]
11. Khashaba M, Arafa M, Elsalkh E, Hemida R, Kandil W. Morphological features and immunohistochemical expression of p57Kip2 in early molar pregnancies and their relations to the progression to persistent trophoblastic disease. J Pathol Transl Med 2017; 51: 381-387. [DOI:10.4132/jptm.2017.04.28] [PMID] [PMCID]
12. McMahon L, Maher GJ, Joyce C, Niemann I, Fisher R, Sunde L. When to consult a geneticist specialising in gestational trophoblastic disease. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2024; 89: 198-213. [DOI:10.1159/000531218] [PMID]
13. Ronnett BM. Hydatidiform moles: Ancillary techniques to refine diagnosis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2018; 142: 1485-1502. [DOI:10.5858/arpa.2018-0226-RA] [PMID]
14. Lloyd RV. Pathology: Historical and contemporary aspects. Switzerland: Springer; 2023. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-39554-3]
15. Kerkar AN, Chinnam D, Verma A, Peters NJ, Kakkar N, Trehan A, et al. MYCN amplification, TERT rearrangements and ATRX mutations in neuroblastoma: Clinicopathological correlates-an Indian perspective. Virchows Arch 2023; 483: 477-486. [DOI:10.1007/s00428-023-03604-8] [PMID]
16. Vitale SG, Buzzaccarini G, Riemma G, Pacheco LA, Sardo ADS, Carugno J, et al. Endometrial biopsy: Indications, techniques and recommendations. An evidence-based guideline for clinical practice. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2023; 52: 102588. [DOI:10.1016/j.jogoh.2023.102588] [PMID]
17. Usui H. Auxiliary and experimental diagnostic techniques for hydatidiform moles. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2022; 48: 3077-3086. [DOI:10.1111/jog.15422] [PMID]
18. Kunesh JP, Kunesh JG, Jorgensen RJ, Corral CD, Blakey JD. Utilization of chromogenic in situ hybridization to assess ploidy in the diagnosis of hydatidiform mole. Am J Clin Pathol 2016; 146: 125-131. [DOI:10.1093/ajcp/aqw095] [PMID]
19. Priyadarshini S, Sharma R. Disorders of sex development in office practice. Indian J Pediatr 2023; 90: 1030-1037. [DOI:10.1007/s12098-023-04640-7] [PMID]
20. Han LM, Grenert JP, Wiita AP, Quinn M, Fujimoto VY, Rabban JT. Prevalence of partial hydatidiform mole in products of conception from gestations with fetal triploidy merits reflex genotype testing independent of the morphologic appearance of the chorionic villi. Am J Surg Pathol 2020; 44: 849-858. [DOI:10.1097/PAS.0000000000001466] [PMID]
21. Lai CY, Chan KY, Khoo U-S, Ngan HY, Xue W-C, Chiu PM, et al. Analysis of gestational trophoblastic disease by genotyping and chromosome in situ hybridization. Mod Pathol 2004; 17: 40-48. [DOI:10.1038/modpathol.3800010] [PMID]
22. Wong YP, Chia WK, Selimin A, Chia PY, Mustangin M, Shuib S, et al. Diagnostic utility of p57 immunohistochemistry and DNA ploidy analysis by fluorescence in situ hybridisation in hydatidiform moles. Malays J Pathol 2021; 43: 341-351.
23. Rosa FE, Santos RM, Rogatto SR, Domingues MAC. Chromogenic in situ hybridization compared with other approaches to evaluate HER2/neu status in breast carcinomas. Braz J Med Biol Res 2013; 46: 207-216. [DOI:10.1590/1414-431X20132483] [PMID] [PMCID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
