Evidence Hub

PAX2 loss by immunohistochemistry occurs early and often in endometrial hyperplasia

Allison KH, Upson K, Reed SD, Jordan CD, Newton KM, Doherty J, Swisher EM, Garcia RL

International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists, 2012

83 participants · 26 citations

Abstract

Immunohistochemical markers to assist in the diagnosis and classification of hyperplastic endometrial epithelial proliferations would be of diagnostic use. To examine the possible use of PAX2 as a marker of hyperplastic endometrium, cases of normal endometrium, simple and complex hyperplasia without atypia, atypical hyperplasia, and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) grade 1 endometrioid carcinomas were stained for PAX2. Two hundred and six endometrial samples were available for interpretation of PAX2 staining. The percentage of cases with complete PAX2 loss (0% of cells staining) increased with increasing severity of hyperplasia: 0% of normal proliferative and secretory endometrium (n=28), 17.4% of simple hyperplasia (n=23), 59.0% of complex hyperplasia (n=83), 74.1% of atypical hyperplasia (n=54), and 73.3% of FIGO grade 1 endometrioid cancers (n=15). Partial loss of PAX2 expression did occur in normal endometrium (17.9%) but in smaller proportions of tissue and was less frequent than in simple hyperplasia (47.8% with partial loss), complex hyperplasia (32.5%), atypical hyperplasia (22.2%), and FIGO grade 1 carcinomas (20.0%). Uniform PAX2 expression was rare in complex (8.4%) and atypical hyperplasia (3.7%) and carcinoma (6.7%). When evaluating loss of PAX2 in histologically normal endometrium adjacent to lesional endometrium in a given case, statistically significant differences in staining were observed for simple hyperplasia (P=0.011), complex…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 83 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free