Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

IFITM1, CD10, SMA, and h-caldesmon as a helpful combination in differential diagnosis between endometrial stromal tumor and cellular leiomyoma

BMC Cancer volume 21, Article number: 1047 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The differential diagnosis of endometrial stromal tumor (EST) and uterine cellular leiomyoma (CL) remains a challenge in clinical practice, especially low grade endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS) and CL, suggesting the need for novel immunomarkers panels for differential diagnosis. Interferon-induced transmembrane protein 1 (IFITM1) is a novel immunomarker for endometrial stromal cells, h-caldesmon is an immunomarker for smooth muscle cells and has a higher specificity than smooth muscle actin (SMA). So this study aimed to evaluate whether IFITM1, cluster of differentiation 10(CD10), SMA, and h-caldesmon are useful biomarker combinations for the differential diagnosis of EST and CL.

Methods

Tissue microarrays were used to detect IFITM1, CD10, SMA, and h-caldesmon immunohistochemical staining in 30 EST and 33 CL cases.

Results

The expressions of IFITM1 and CD10 were high in EST (86.7 and 63.3%, respectively) but low in CL (18.2 and 21.2%), whereas those of h-caldesmon and SMA were high in CL (87.9 and 100%) and low in EST (6.9 and 40%). In diagnosing EST, IFITM1 shows better sensitivity and specificity (86.7 and 81.8%, respectively) than CD10 (63.3 and 78.8%). The specificity of h-caldesmon in diagnosing CL was significantly higher (93.1%) than that of SMA (60%). When all four antibodies were combined for the differential diagnosis, the area-under-the-curve (AUC) predictive value was 0.995. The best combination for diagnosing EST was IFITM1 (+) or CD10 (+) and h-caldesmon (−) (sensitivity 86.7%, specificity 93.9%).

Conclusion

The best combination for diagnosing CL were h-caldesmon (+) and SMA (+) (sensitivity 87.9%, specificity 100%). IFITM1, CD10, SMA, and h-caldesmon are a good combination for the differential diagnosis of EST and CL.

Peer Review reports

Highlights

  1. 1.

    IFITM1 is a novel immunomarker for endometrial stromal cells and tumors

  2. 2.

    It is the first time to combine the four markers for differential diagnosis

  3. 3.

    Our research showed a very helpful and promising result

Background

Endometrial stromal tumor (EST) is a rare malignant mesenchymal tumor of the uterus. In 2014, the World Health Organization classified EST as endometrial stromal nodule (ESN), low grade endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS), high grade ESS, and undifferentiated endometrial sarcoma [1]. However, there is an overlap in morphology and immunohistochemistry between EST and leiomyoma, especially for the low grade ESS from cellular leiomyoma (CL). If EST and CL are misdiagnosed, it may lead to overtreatment or undertreatment of the patient, which will affect the survival and prognosis of the patient. Currently, cluster of differentiation 10 (CD10) has been considered as the best immunomarker for endometrial stromal cells [2,3,4,5,6], but it not expressed in all mesenchymal tumors [7,8,9]. Rather, CD10 is sometimes expressed in leiomyoma [10, 11]. Smooth muscle actin (SMA) is a common biomarker for smooth muscle, however, SMA is sometimes expressed in EST [12,13,14,15], suggesting the need for novel immunomarkers and immunohistochemical panels for differentiating between EST and CL.

Interferon-induced transmembrane protein 1 (IFITM1), also called CD225, is a novel immunomarker for endometrial stromal cells and tumors [16, 17] and outperforms CD10 in distinguishing low grade ESS from CL [18, 19]. Meanwhile, h-caldesmon is another immunomarker for smooth muscle cells and has a higher specificity than SMA. Therefore, we suspect that the combined application of IFITM1, CD10, which are mainly expressed in endometrial stromal cells, and the antibodies SMA, and h-caldesmon, which are mainly expressed in smooth muscle, may better help the differential diagnosis of EST and CL. However, there has been no study on the combined use of IFITM1, CD10, SMA, and h-caldesmon in distinguishing between EST and CL. The purpose of this work is to investigate whether IFITM1, CD10, SMA, and h-caldesmon are useful biomarker combinations for the differential diagnosis of EST and CL.

Methods

Clinical data

This study enrolled 30 patients with EST (5 with ESNs, 16 with low-grade ESSs, 5 with high-grade ESSs, and 4 with undifferentiated endometrial sarcoma) and 33 patients with CL. Data were collected from 2012 to 2017 from the Department of Pathology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Shihezi University School of Medicine and the Department of Pathology of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region People’s Hospital. All pertinent clinical information was obtained from the hospital electronic medical records. All patients had complete medical history and clinicopathologic data, and all cases were confirmed by surgery and pathology.

Tissue microarray building

For tumor microarray construction, paraffin-embedded tissues of 63 cases were included as mentioned above [20]. Paraffin blocks and corresponding hematoxylin and eosin (HE)-stained sections were collected, and the HE-stained sections were evaluated by two senior pathologists. Morphologically representative regions were carefully selected on each individual paraffin-embedded block, and a hollow needle (1.0 mm diameter) was used to puncture the selected area to a new small wax block. Considering the specificity of the tumor and the tendency of the paraffin tissue to flake off, two punctures were performed in different areas of each tumor wax block. One section was stained with H&E to evaluate the presence of the tumour by light microscopy.

Immunohistochemistry

For immunohistochemical analysis, biopsy specimens were fixed in 10% neutral-buffered formalin and routinely processed. The paraffin-embedded blocks were sectioned (4 μm thickness), stained with HE, and observed by microscopy. The two-step immunohistochemical EnVision method was applied. The primary antibodies used were ITIFM1 (Sigma, 1:400), CD10 (ZSGB-BIO, 1:50), SMA (ZSGB-BIO, 1:100) and h-caldesmon (ZSGB-BIO, 1:100). CD10 uses EDTA for antigen retrieval, and all other antibodies use citrate. The staining of IFITM1 and CD10 is located in the cytoplasm and membrane, h-caldesmon and SMA are positive in the cytoplasm. The evaluation of the four biomarkers was assessed twice by two gynecological pathologists with intermediate professional title or above, separated by one-month period. The extent of staining was evaluated as 0%, 0–25%, 26–50%, 51–75%, and 76–100%, and the intensity of staining as absent (0), weak (1+), moderate (2+), and strong (3+). When a different staining evaluation was used, the higher intensity score was used as the final score. The staining score was obtained by multiplying percentage with intensity and this score was used for our statistics analysis. The results were interpreted as described above.

Statistical analysis

The major purpose of statistical comparison was to seek helpful antibodies to differential diagnosis between EST and CL. First, composition scores for the 4 antibodies tested were determined based on immunohistochemical grades (range 0–12) as intensity (range 0–3) multiplied by percent expression (range 0–4). Then, the expression patterns of the four antibodies were checked, the chi-square test was used to compare the differences between the two groups, and Fisher’s exact test was performed on each marker. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) were calculated from the screening and diagnostic EST. Among the statistically significant biomarkers, we perform receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in descending order, add each biomarker one by one, and use the area under the curve (AUC) to indicate statistical significance [21]. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 17.0. A p-value of < 0.05 (all, two-tailed test) was considered as statistically significant.

Results

Clinical features

The median age of 30 EST patients was 49.5 (27–73) years, and the main clinical symptoms were irregular vaginal bleeding, abdominal pain, postmenopausal vaginal bleeding, and uterine fibroids. The 33 CL patients had an median age of 41 (26–60) years and mainly showed clinical manifestations of dysmenorrhea, prolonged menstrual period, and increased menstrual volume.

The immunohistochemical results are summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in Fig. 1. The ROC values, sensitivity, specificity, PPVs, and NPVs are summarized in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 and shown in Fig. 2.

Table 1 Intensity of immunohistochemical staining of IFITM1, CD10, h-caldesmon and SMA in endometrial stromal tumor and cellular leiomyoma
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Immunohistochemical results. a Endometrial stromal Tumors (hematoxylin and eosin stains, magnification 200). b Cellular leiomyomas (hematoxylin and eosin stains, magnification ×200). c Endometrial stromal tumors showing strong positive results for IFITM1. d Cellular leiomyomas showing a negative or weak expression of IFITM1. e Endometrial stromal tumors exhibiting a positive expression of CD10. f Cellular leiomyomas exhibiting a weekly CD10 positivity. g Endometrial stromal tumors demonstrating SMA reactivity. h Cellular leiomyomas showing strong positive results for SMA. i Endometrial stromal tumors showing a negative or weak expression of h-caldesmon. j Cellular leiomyomas demonstrating strong positive results for h-caldesmon

Full size image
Table 2 Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value and Negative Predictive Value of IFITM1 and CD10 for endometrial stromal tumor and h-caldesmon and SMA for cellular leiomyoma
Full size table
Table 3 Using receiver operating characteristic curves to evaluate the area-under-the-curve predictive value for prediction of endometrial stromal tumor and cellular leiomyoma
Full size table
Table 4 The sensitivity and specificity of combined IFITM1, CD10, h-caldesmon and SMA immunostaining in the diagnosis of endometrial stromal tumor
Full size table
Table 5 The sensitivity and specificity of combined IFITM1,CD10, h-caldesmon and SMA immunostaining in the diagnosis of cellular leiomyoma
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Receiver operating characteristic curve for prediction of endometrial stromal tumors and cellular leiomyoma. Comparison of EST (n = 30) and uterine cellular leiomyomas (CL) (n = 33). All 4 markers include IFITM1, CD10, SMA and h-caldesmon

Full size image

IFITM1 and CD10

Both EST (Fig. 1a) and CL cases (Fig. 1b) showed a dense spindle-cell braid-like arrangement. Among the 30 EST cases, 26 (86.7%) demonstrated IFITM1 cytoplasmic positivity (Fig. 1c). The staining intensity was strong (3+) in 8 cases, moderate (2+) in 8 cases, and weak (1+) in 10 cases. Of the 33 CL cases, only 6 (18.2%) demonstrated IFITM1 nuclear positivity (Fig. 1d), all of which scored weak (1+) in intensity. CD10 was expressed in 19 (63.3%) of the 30 EST cases (Fig. 1e). The staining in these cases occurred in the cell cytoplasm and was strong (3+) in 6 cases, moderate (2+) in 7 cases, and weak (1+) in 6 cases. Only 7 (21.2%) of the 33 CL cases were CD10(+), and all positive cases had a weak (1+) intensity (Fig. 1f).

SMA and h-caldesmon

SMA was positive in 12 (40%) of the 30 EST cases (Fig. 1g). The staining in these cases was expressed in the cytoplasm and was moderate to strong (2+ to 3+) in 8 cases and weak (1+) in 4 cases. All 33 (100%) CL cases expressed SMA (Fig. 1h), and among them, the staining was moderate to strong (2+ to 3+) in 11 cases and weak (1+) in the remaining cases. Meanwhile, h-caldesmon was expressed in the cell cytoplasm of only 2 (6.7%) of the 30 EST cases (Fig. 1i), and the staining in these positive cases were weak (1+). However, 29 (87.9%) of the 33 CL cases exhibited h-caldesmon positivity (Fig. 1j). In these 33 CL cases, the staining was strong (3+) in 4 cases, moderate (2+) in 10 cases, and weak (1+) in 15 cases.

Comparison of the expression of IFITM1, CD10, h-caldesmon, and SMA in endometrial stromal tumor and cellular leiomyoma between pre- and post-menopausal women

In order to avoid the influence of hormones on tumor expression, combined with clinical information, we divided the patients into two groups of pre- and post-menopausal women, and compared the expression of IFITM1, CD10, h-caldesmon, and SMA in EST and CL between pre- and post-menopausal women (Table 6). The results showed that in the same tumor, the expressions of IFITM1, CD10, h-caldesmon, and SMA were not statistically different between pre- and post-menopausal groups. In the two groups of pre- and post-menopausal, the expressions of IFITM1, SMA, and h-caldesmon were significantly different in EST and leiomyomas and showed the same trend. CD10 was slightly different, and its expression was significant difference in premenopausal EST and CL, but there was no statistical difference in post-menopausal group. From the above results, we believe that hormones have no significant effect on the expression of tumor antibodies.

Table 6 Comparison of the expression of IFITM1, CD10, h-caldesmon, and SMA in endometrial stromal tumor and cellular leiomyoma between pre- and post-menopausal women
Full size table

Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of IFITM1, CD10, h-caldesmon, and SMA

In the diagnosis of EST, IFITM1 showed a sensitivity of 86.7%, a specificity of 81.8%, a PPV of 81.3%, and an NPV of 87.1%. For CD10, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 63.3, 78.8, 73.1, and 70.3%, respectively. h-caldesmon positivity may support a diagnosis of CL, showing a sensitivity of 87.9%, a specificity of 93.3%, a PPV of 93.5%, and an NPV of 87.5%. SMA had the highest sensitivity (100%), but its specificity was 60%, significantly lower than that of h-caldesmon. SMA had a PPV and an NPV of 73.3 and 100%, respectively (Table 2).

IFITM1, CD10, h-caldesmon, and SMA as a useful combination for differential diagnosis

Based on the expressions of the four antibodies and their ROC curve, the combination of IFITM1, CD10, SMA, and h-caldesmon four antibodies showed the highest predictive value of AUC, and the ROC values of other combinations are lower than this type of combination (Table 3, Fig. 2), we speculate that their combinations could be helpful in the differential diagnosis of EST and CL.

When all four antibodies were combined for the EST diagnosis (Table 4), The three most sensitive combinations in descending order were IFITM1 (+) or CD10 (+), IFITM1 (+) or CD10 (+) and h-caldesmon (−), IFITM1 (+) and h-caldesmon (−), with their sensitivity of 93.3, 86.7, 80%, respectively. The combination of antibodies greatly increased the specificity of EST diagnosis, the specificity of combinations of IFITM1 (+) and h-caldesmon (−), IFITM1 (+) and CD10 (+) and h-caldesmon (−) and SMA (−), and IFITM1 (+) or CD10 (+) and h-caldesmon (−) and SMA (−) were 100%. Considering both sensitivity and specificity, the combination with the best diagnostic value for EST was IFITM1 (+) or CD10 (+) and h-caldesmon(−), with a sensitivity and a specificity of 86.7 and 93.9%, respectively.

In diagnosing CL (Table 5), the three most sensitive combinations in descending order were h-caldesmon (+) or SMA (+), h-caldesmon (+) and SMA (+), and h-caldesmon (+) or SMA (+) and IFITM1 (−), with sensitivity values of 100, 87.9, and 81.8%, respectively. On the other hand, h-caldesmon (+) and IFITM1 (−), h-caldesmon (+) and SMA (+), h-caldesmon (+) and SMA(+) and IFITM1 (−) showed better specificity for predicting CL from EST with all specificity were 100%. Taking into account sensitivity and specificity, h-caldesmon (+) and SMA (+) was the best combination for distinguishing CL from EST, with a sensitivity of 87.9% and a specificity of 100%. The second-best combination for distinguishing CL from EST was h-caldesmon (+) or SMA (+) and IFITM1 (−), with a sensitivity of 81.8% and a specificity of 93.1%.

Discussion

Distinguishing EST from CL, especially low grade ESS from CL is always a problem. Finding an effective combination of immunohistochemistry can provide help for the differential diagnosis of EST and CL. The standard convention immunomarker panel used by most pathologists to distinguish EST from CL consists of CD10, h-caldesmon, and SMA [10, 22,23,24], and an immunoprofile of CD10 (+), h-caldesmon (−), and SMA (−) supports the diagnosis of EST [15]. However, the current combination of immunohistochemical antibodies has been shown to be inaccurate, especially when diagnosing EST using CD10 alone [3, 10]. CD10 is not merely expressed in EST but is also positively expressed in 20–30% of smooth muscle tumors [13, 15]. SMA is a common muscle marker for EST and therefore has a very low specificity. Although h-caldesmon has a higher specificity that of SMA, its sensitivity is worse [10, 13, 15, 25]. Thus, the need for a novel biomarker or a new immunohistochemical combination is imperative.

IFITM1 is a novel biomarker for endometrium stromal cells and is reported to be more valuable than CD10 [19, 26]. According to Busca et al. [19], IFITM1 and CD10 were expressed in 14 ESS cases, and although their sensitivities were 83 and 91%, respectively, IFITM1 showed a higher specificity than CD10, that is, 70% vs 45%. These findings are consistent with our findings, which state that IFITM1 was more specific and sensitive than CD10 in EST (sensitivity 86.7% vs. 63.3%, specificity 81.8% vs. 78.8%). However, the author only compared the expression of CD10 and IFITM1, moreover, they merely collected 14 cases. Rush et al. [13] compared the expressions of SMA and h-caldesmon between EST and CL and found that SMA was more sensitive than h-caldesmon (90.9% vs. 72.7%); but, h-caldesmon was more specific than SMA (100% vs. 91.7%). However, the author did not study CD10 and focused on myogenic markers only. In our study, h-caldesmon showed a lower sensitivity than SMA (87.9% vs. 100%), but its specificity was significantly higher (93.3% vs. 60%).

In general, no one immunomarker is sensitive and specific enough to make an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, surgical pathologists usually run an immunohistochemical antibody panel to help them diagnose challenging cases. Based on the expressions of the four antibodies and their ROC curve (the AUC predictive value was 0.995), we speculate that their combination could be useful in the clinical and differential diagnosis of EST and CL. We found that the best panel for diagnosing EST was IFITM1 (+) or CD10 (+) and h-caldesmon (−) (sensitivity 86.7%, specificity 93.9%). Though the combination of IFITM1(+) or CD10(+) had higher sensitivity (93.3% VS 86.7%) and the specificity of many other combinations reached 100%. The best combination for diagnosing CL were h-caldesmon (+) and SMA (+) (sensitivity 87.9%, specificity 100%), nevertheless the combination of h-caldesmon(+) or SMA(+) had the highest sensitivity (100% VS 87.9%), with its specificity only 57.1%.

However, there are certain limitations in that the ROC curve cannot completely show the positive and negative expressions of the antibodies. Because high grade ESS is rare and the number of samples is not enough, we could not compare low grade ESS with high grade ESS, so we focused on the differential diagnosis between low grade ESS and CL. No literature had reported the combination of these four biomarkers. In short, our research provides a useful combination of immunological markers for the differential diagnosis of ESTs and CLs with similar morphology, and helps pathologists make accurate diagnoses to guide treatment.

Conclusion

This study revealed that the combination of IFITM1, CD10, SMA, and h-caldesmon comprised the best immunohistochemical panel for differentiating between EST and CL, especially when the clinical history and histological morphology cannot be differentiated totally. Considering the costs, we also recommend the combinations IFITM1 and h-caldesmon for the same purpose. Furthermore, future validation in distinguishing ESS from CL, particularly low grade ESS and CL, as this is a more difficult differentiation for pathologists.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

EST:

Endometrial stromal tumor

CL:

Cellular leiomyoma

ESN:

Endometrial stromal nodule

ESS:

Endometrial stromal sarcoma

IFITM:

Interferon-induced transmembrane protein 1

CD10:

Cluster of differentiation 10

SMA:

Smooth muscle actin

HE:

Hematoxylin-eosin staining

PPV:

Positive predictive value

NPV:

Negative predictive value

ROC curve:

Receiver operating characteristic curve

AUC:

Area-under-the-curve

“/”:

No P value

References

  1. Conklin CM, Longacre TA. Endometrial stromal tumors: the new WHO classification. Adv Anat Pathol. 2014;21(6):383–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAP.0000000000000046.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Toki T, Shimizu M, Takagi Y, Ashi Da T, Konishi I. CD10 is a marker for normal and neoplastic endometrial stromal cells. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2002;21(1):41–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004347-200201000-00008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chu PG, Arber DA, Weiss LM, Chang KL. Utility of CD10 in distinguishing between endometrial stromal sarcoma and uterine smooth muscle tumors: an immunohistochemical comparison of 34 cases. Mod Pathol. 2001;14(5):465–71. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3880335.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McCluggage WG, Sumathi VP, Maxwell P. CD10 is a sensitive and diagnostically useful immunohistochemical marker of normal endometrial stroma and of endometrial stromal neoplasms. Histopathology. 2001;39(3):273–8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2559.2001.01215.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vera AA, Guadarrama MB. Endometrial stromal sarcoma: clinicopathological and immunophenotype study of 18 cases. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2011;15(5):312–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2011.01.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Oliva E. CD10 expression in the female genital tract: does it have useful diagnostic applications? Adv Anat Pathol. 2004;11(6):310–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pap.0000138140.81139.46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Groisman GM, Meir A. CD10 is helpful in detecting occult or inconspicuous endometrial stromal cells in cases of presumptive endometriosis. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127(8):1003–6. https://doi.org/10.5858/2003-127-1003-CIHIDO.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Potlog-Nahari C, Feldman AL, Stratton P, Koziol DE, Segars J, Merino MJ, et al. CD10 immunohistochemical staining enhances the histological detection of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(1):86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.11.059.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sumathi VP, Mccluggage WG, Sumathi VP, Mccluggage WG. CD10 is useful in demonstrating endometrial stroma at ectopic sites and in confirming a diagnosis of endometriosis. J Clin Pathol. 55:391–2. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.55.5.391.

  10. Abeler VM, Nenodovic M. Diagnostic immunohistochemistry in uterine sarcomas: a study of 397 cases. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2011;30(3):236–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0b013e318200caff.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Buonaccorsi JN, Plaza JA. Role of CD10, wide-Spectrum keratin, p63, and Podoplanin in the distinction of epithelioid and spindle cell tumors of the skin. Am J Dermatopathol. 2012;34(4):404–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/DAD.0b013e318236b17f.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Oliva E, Young RH, Amin MB, Clement PB. An Immunohistochemical analysis of endometrial stromal and smooth muscle tumors of the gUterus: a study of 54 cases emphasizing the importance of using a panel because of overlap in immunoreactivity for individual antibodies. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26(4):403–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-200204000-00001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rush DS, Tan JY, Baergen RN, Soslow RA. H-Caldesmon, a novel smooth muscle-specific antibody, distinguishes between cellular leiomyoma and endometrial stromal sarcoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25(2):253–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-200102000-00014.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhu XQ, Shi YF, Cheng XD, Zhao CL, Wu YZ. Immunohistochemical markers in differential diagnosis of endometrial stromal sarcoma and cellular leiomyoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;92(1):71–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2003.08.038.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Khush Mittal RS. W G McCluggage: application of immunohistochemistry to gynecologic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(3):402–23. https://doi.org/10.5858/2008-132-402-AOITGP.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sun H, Fukuda S, Hirata T, et al. IFITM1 is a Novel, Highly Sensitive Marker for Endometriotic Stromal Cells in Ovarian and Extragenital Endometriosis [published online ahead of print, 2019 Feb 21]. Reprod Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719119831782.

  17. Parra-Herran CE, Yuan L, Nucci MR, Quade BJ. Targeted development of specific biomarkers of endometrial stromal cell differentiation using bioinformatics: the IFITM1 model. Mod Pathol. 2014;27(4):569–79. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2013.123.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Park HJ, Kuk IS, Jin HK, Kim JH, Song SJ, Choi BC, et al. Characterisation of mouse interferon-induced transmembrane protein-1 gene expression in the mouse uterus during the oestrous cycle and pregnancy. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2011;23(6):798. https://doi.org/10.1071/RD10086.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Busca A, Gulavita P, Parra-Herran C, Islam S. IFITM1 outperforms CD10 in differentiating low-grade endometrial stromal sarcomas from smooth muscle neoplasms of the uterus. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2018;37(4):372–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000424.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Braunschweig T, Chung JY, Hewitt SM. Tissue microarrays: bridging the gap between research and the clinic. Expert Rev Proteomics. 2005;2(3):325–36. https://doi.org/10.1586/14789450.2.3.325.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cao R, López-de-Ullibarri I. ROC curves for the statistical analysis of microarray data. Methods Mol Biol. 1986;2019:245–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9442-7_11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kurihara S, Oda Y, Ohishi Y, Kaneki E, Kobayashi H, Wake N, et al. Coincident expression of beta-catenin and cyclin D1 in endometrial stromal tumors and related high-grade sarcomas. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(2):225–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2009.162.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Leval LD, Waltregny D, Boniver J, Young RH, Castronovo V, Oliva E. Use of histone deacetylase 8 (HDAC8), a new marker of smooth muscle differentiation, in the classification of mesenchymal tumors of the uterus. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30(3):319–27. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000188029.63706.31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hwang H, Matsuo K, Duncan K, Pakzamir E, Pham HQ, Correa A, et al. Immunohistochemical panel to differentiate endometrial stromal sarcoma, uterine leiomyosarcoma and leiomyoma: something old and something new. J Clin Pathol. 2015;68(9):710–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2015-202915.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Franquemont DW, Frierson HF, Mills SE. An immunohistochemical study of normal endometrial stroma and endometrial stromal neoplasms. Evidence for smooth muscle differentiation. Am J Surg Pathol. 1991;15(9):861.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sun H, Fukuda S, Hirata T, et al. IFITM1 is a Novel, Highly Sensitive Marker for Endometriotic Stromal Cells in Ovarian and Extragenital Endometriosis. Reprod Sci. 2020;27(8):1595–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-020-00189-4.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant numbers 81660411, 81460383], the International Cooperation Project of Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps of China [grant number 2019 BC001], the Key Areas Innovation Team Project of Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps of China [grant number 2018CB002], the Non-profit Central Research Institute Fund of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences [grant number 2020-PT330–003]. The funding bodies played no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Weilin Zhao and Mei Cui are co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Shihezi University School of Medicine, Key Laboratory of Xinjiang Endemic and Ethnic Diseases of the Ministry of Education of China, NHC Key Laboratory of Prevention and Treatment of Central Asia High Incidence Diseases, Xinjiang, 832002, China

    Weilin Zhao, Ruiqi Zhang, Xihua Shen, Xin Xiong, Xinhua Ji, Lin Tao, Wei Jia, Lijuan Pang & Hong Zou

  2. Department of Pathology, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, 442000, Hubei, China

    Weilin Zhao

  3. Department of Pathology, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region People’s Hospital, Xinjiang, 830001, China

    Mei Cui, Zhenzhu Sun & Chun Wang

  4. Department of Pathology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang, 310009, China

    Hong Zou

Authors
  1. Weilin Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mei Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruiqi Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xihua Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xin Xiong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xinhua Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lin Tao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wei Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Lijuan Pang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Zhenzhu Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Chun Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Hong Zou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors conceived this research. WZ, MC, CW and ZS collected and analyzed clinical samples and data. XS completed the construction of the tissue microarray and the production of HE slices. The HE and immunohistochemical stained sections were evaluated by three senior pathologists, CW, LT and WJ. WZ, XJ, XX and RZ completed the immunohistochemistry experiment and data analysis. HZ designed and supervised the entire project scientifically. WZ and HZ are major contributor in writing the manuscript, RZ participated in the manuscript writing and submission, LP and ZS reviewed and edited the paper. HZ had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Chun Wang or Hong Zou.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Review Board (IERB) of the First Affiliated Hospital of School of Medicine, Shihezi University. Research was conducted according to all ethical standards, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. In addition, our research were approved by the IERB of the First Affiliated Hospital of Shihezi University School of Medicine and Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region People’s Hospital before we can access the raw data in the hospital’s electronic medical records.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, W., Cui, M., Zhang, R. et al. IFITM1, CD10, SMA, and h-caldesmon as a helpful combination in differential diagnosis between endometrial stromal tumor and cellular leiomyoma. BMC Cancer 21, 1047 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08781-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08781-w

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us