Best practices recommendations in the application of immunohistochemistry in the bladder lesions

Report from the International Society of Urologic Pathology Consensus Conference

ISUP Immunohistochemistry in Diagnostic Urologic Pathology Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

68 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The bladder working group of the 2013 International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) Conference on Best Practices Recommendation in the Application of Immunohistochemistry (IHC) in Urologic Pathology discussed 5 settings in which IHC is commonly used in clinical practice. With regard to markers for urothelial differentiation, the committee found that there is no ideal marker or established panel to confirm urothelial differentiation. On the basis of the differential diagnostic consideration, positivity for GATA3, CK20, p63, and either high-molecular weight cytokeratin (HMWCK) or cytokeratin (CK)5/6 is of value in proving urothelial differentiation in the appropriate morphologic and clinical context. With regard to the role of IHC in the distinction of reactive atypia from urothelial carcinoma in situ, the committee recommended that morphology remains the gold standard in this differential diagnosis and that, at best, the IHC panel of CK20/p53/CD44(s) has potential utility but is variably used and has limitations. The immunostaining pattern must be interpreted with strict morphologic correlation, because overreliance on IHC may be misleading, particularly in the posttreatment setting. IHC has no role in the distinction of dysplasia versus carcinoma in situ and in the grading of papillary urothelial carcinoma. IHC may have a limited but distinct role in staging of bladder cancer. In a subset of cases, depending on the clinical and histologic context, broad-spectrum cytokeratins (to identify early or obscured invasion) and desmin (distinction of muscle from desmoplasia and to highlight muscle contours for subclassification) may be helpful. Limited experience and conflicting data preclude smoothelin or vimentin to be recommended routinely for subclassifying muscle type at this time. In the workup of a spindled cell proliferation of the bladder and in limited specimens, we recommend an immunohistochemical panel of 6 markers including ALK1, SMA, desmin, cytokeratin (AE1/AE3), and p63 with either of HMWCK or CK5/6. Currently, there are no prognostic immunohistochemical or molecular studies that are recommended to be routinely performed on biopsy or resection specimens.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAmerican Journal of Surgical Pathology
Volume38
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Practice Guidelines
Urinary Bladder
Immunohistochemistry
Pathology
Keratins
Desmin
Carcinoma in Situ
Muscles
Molecular Weight
Keratin-6
Keratin-5
Papillary Carcinoma
Differentiation Antigens
Vimentin
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
Differential Diagnosis
Cell Proliferation
Biopsy

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Anatomy
  • Surgery
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Best practices recommendations in the application of immunohistochemistry in the bladder lesions : Report from the International Society of Urologic Pathology Consensus Conference. / ISUP Immunohistochemistry in Diagnostic Urologic Pathology Group.

In: American Journal of Surgical Pathology, Vol. 38, No. 8, 01.07.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{dd670227be7c4aa492bb283a1910c0e0,
title = "Best practices recommendations in the application of immunohistochemistry in the bladder lesions: Report from the International Society of Urologic Pathology Consensus Conference",
abstract = "The bladder working group of the 2013 International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) Conference on Best Practices Recommendation in the Application of Immunohistochemistry (IHC) in Urologic Pathology discussed 5 settings in which IHC is commonly used in clinical practice. With regard to markers for urothelial differentiation, the committee found that there is no ideal marker or established panel to confirm urothelial differentiation. On the basis of the differential diagnostic consideration, positivity for GATA3, CK20, p63, and either high-molecular weight cytokeratin (HMWCK) or cytokeratin (CK)5/6 is of value in proving urothelial differentiation in the appropriate morphologic and clinical context. With regard to the role of IHC in the distinction of reactive atypia from urothelial carcinoma in situ, the committee recommended that morphology remains the gold standard in this differential diagnosis and that, at best, the IHC panel of CK20/p53/CD44(s) has potential utility but is variably used and has limitations. The immunostaining pattern must be interpreted with strict morphologic correlation, because overreliance on IHC may be misleading, particularly in the posttreatment setting. IHC has no role in the distinction of dysplasia versus carcinoma in situ and in the grading of papillary urothelial carcinoma. IHC may have a limited but distinct role in staging of bladder cancer. In a subset of cases, depending on the clinical and histologic context, broad-spectrum cytokeratins (to identify early or obscured invasion) and desmin (distinction of muscle from desmoplasia and to highlight muscle contours for subclassification) may be helpful. Limited experience and conflicting data preclude smoothelin or vimentin to be recommended routinely for subclassifying muscle type at this time. In the workup of a spindled cell proliferation of the bladder and in limited specimens, we recommend an immunohistochemical panel of 6 markers including ALK1, SMA, desmin, cytokeratin (AE1/AE3), and p63 with either of HMWCK or CK5/6. Currently, there are no prognostic immunohistochemical or molecular studies that are recommended to be routinely performed on biopsy or resection specimens.",
author = "{ISUP Immunohistochemistry in Diagnostic Urologic Pathology Group} and Mahul Amin and Kiril Trpkov and Antonio Lopez-Beltran and David Grignon and Epstein, {Jonathan I.} and Ulbright, {Thomas M.} and Humphrey, {Peter A.} and Lars Egevad and Rodolfo Montironi and Ming Zhou and Pedram Argani and Brett Delahunt and Berney, {Daniel M.} and Srigley, {John R.} and Satish Tickoo and Reuter, {Victor E.}",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/PAS.0000000000000240",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
journal = "American Journal of Surgical Pathology",
issn = "0147-5185",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Best practices recommendations in the application of immunohistochemistry in the bladder lesions

T2 - Report from the International Society of Urologic Pathology Consensus Conference

AU - ISUP Immunohistochemistry in Diagnostic Urologic Pathology Group

AU - Amin, Mahul

AU - Trpkov, Kiril

AU - Lopez-Beltran, Antonio

AU - Grignon, David

AU - Epstein, Jonathan I.

AU - Ulbright, Thomas M.

AU - Humphrey, Peter A.

AU - Egevad, Lars

AU - Montironi, Rodolfo

AU - Zhou, Ming

AU - Argani, Pedram

AU - Delahunt, Brett

AU - Berney, Daniel M.

AU - Srigley, John R.

AU - Tickoo, Satish

AU - Reuter, Victor E.

PY - 2015/7/1

Y1 - 2015/7/1

N2 - The bladder working group of the 2013 International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) Conference on Best Practices Recommendation in the Application of Immunohistochemistry (IHC) in Urologic Pathology discussed 5 settings in which IHC is commonly used in clinical practice. With regard to markers for urothelial differentiation, the committee found that there is no ideal marker or established panel to confirm urothelial differentiation. On the basis of the differential diagnostic consideration, positivity for GATA3, CK20, p63, and either high-molecular weight cytokeratin (HMWCK) or cytokeratin (CK)5/6 is of value in proving urothelial differentiation in the appropriate morphologic and clinical context. With regard to the role of IHC in the distinction of reactive atypia from urothelial carcinoma in situ, the committee recommended that morphology remains the gold standard in this differential diagnosis and that, at best, the IHC panel of CK20/p53/CD44(s) has potential utility but is variably used and has limitations. The immunostaining pattern must be interpreted with strict morphologic correlation, because overreliance on IHC may be misleading, particularly in the posttreatment setting. IHC has no role in the distinction of dysplasia versus carcinoma in situ and in the grading of papillary urothelial carcinoma. IHC may have a limited but distinct role in staging of bladder cancer. In a subset of cases, depending on the clinical and histologic context, broad-spectrum cytokeratins (to identify early or obscured invasion) and desmin (distinction of muscle from desmoplasia and to highlight muscle contours for subclassification) may be helpful. Limited experience and conflicting data preclude smoothelin or vimentin to be recommended routinely for subclassifying muscle type at this time. In the workup of a spindled cell proliferation of the bladder and in limited specimens, we recommend an immunohistochemical panel of 6 markers including ALK1, SMA, desmin, cytokeratin (AE1/AE3), and p63 with either of HMWCK or CK5/6. Currently, there are no prognostic immunohistochemical or molecular studies that are recommended to be routinely performed on biopsy or resection specimens.

AB - The bladder working group of the 2013 International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) Conference on Best Practices Recommendation in the Application of Immunohistochemistry (IHC) in Urologic Pathology discussed 5 settings in which IHC is commonly used in clinical practice. With regard to markers for urothelial differentiation, the committee found that there is no ideal marker or established panel to confirm urothelial differentiation. On the basis of the differential diagnostic consideration, positivity for GATA3, CK20, p63, and either high-molecular weight cytokeratin (HMWCK) or cytokeratin (CK)5/6 is of value in proving urothelial differentiation in the appropriate morphologic and clinical context. With regard to the role of IHC in the distinction of reactive atypia from urothelial carcinoma in situ, the committee recommended that morphology remains the gold standard in this differential diagnosis and that, at best, the IHC panel of CK20/p53/CD44(s) has potential utility but is variably used and has limitations. The immunostaining pattern must be interpreted with strict morphologic correlation, because overreliance on IHC may be misleading, particularly in the posttreatment setting. IHC has no role in the distinction of dysplasia versus carcinoma in situ and in the grading of papillary urothelial carcinoma. IHC may have a limited but distinct role in staging of bladder cancer. In a subset of cases, depending on the clinical and histologic context, broad-spectrum cytokeratins (to identify early or obscured invasion) and desmin (distinction of muscle from desmoplasia and to highlight muscle contours for subclassification) may be helpful. Limited experience and conflicting data preclude smoothelin or vimentin to be recommended routinely for subclassifying muscle type at this time. In the workup of a spindled cell proliferation of the bladder and in limited specimens, we recommend an immunohistochemical panel of 6 markers including ALK1, SMA, desmin, cytokeratin (AE1/AE3), and p63 with either of HMWCK or CK5/6. Currently, there are no prognostic immunohistochemical or molecular studies that are recommended to be routinely performed on biopsy or resection specimens.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84904465371&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84904465371&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000240

DO - 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000240

M3 - Article

VL - 38

JO - American Journal of Surgical Pathology

JF - American Journal of Surgical Pathology

SN - 0147-5185

IS - 8

ER -