Abstract
Background. The presence of vessel invasion is considered indicative of a poor prognosis in many malignant tumors. We aimed to compare the sensitivity of elastin stains (van Gieson’s and orcein methods) with 2 smooth muscle markers (h-caldesmon and desmin) in gastric, pancreatic, and colorectal adenocarcinoma specimens. Materials and Methods. We used 27 (29.3%) gastric, 35 (38.0%) pancreatic, and 30 (32.6%) colorectal resection specimens. We applied a provisional classification of vessel invasion patterns: type A, a focus with a nearby artery unaccompanied by a vein; type T, a focus at the invasive front without an unaccompanied artery; and type X, foci that only appeared by any of the 4 stains used. Results. There were 369 foci. The smooth muscle markers were more sensitive than the elastin stains, and h-caldesmon more sensitive than desmin, in all types. Among the 139 type A foci, 33 (23.7%) were positive by desmin and h-caldesmon, whereas the elastin stains were not (P = .001). h-Caldesmon was the only positive marker in 11 (7.9%; P = .011). Among the 78 type T foci, 21 (26.9%) were positive by desmin and h-caldesmon, when both elastin stains were negative (P = .000). In 16 (20.5%) foci, h-caldesmon was the only positive marker (P = .002). Among 152 type X foci, 91 (59.9%) were positive by all markers, 26 (17.1%) by both desmin and h-caldesmon, and 9 (5.9%) by only the 2 elastin stains (P = .001). Conclusion. We recommend these stains for suspect foci in gastric, pancreatic, and colorectal adenocarcinoma specimens. They might highlight both predictable and unpredictable foci.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.