Immunohistochemistry with a pan‐TRK antibody distinguishes secretory carcinoma of the salivary gland from acinic cell carcinoma. Issue 1 (16th May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hung, Yin P; Jo, Vickie Y; Hornick, Jason L
• Is Part Of: Histopathology. Volume 75:Issue 1(2019)
• Page Start: 54
• Page End: 62
• Publication Date: 2019-05-16
• Subjects: acinic cell carcinoma -- immunohistochemistry -- NTRK -- pan‐TRK -- secretory carcinoma; Histology, Pathological -- Periodicals; 611.018
• DOI: 10.1111/his.13845
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0309-0167

Abstract

Abstract : Aims: Secretory carcinoma (previously known as mammary analogue secretory carcinoma) is characterised by ETV6 rearrangements, most often ETV6 – NTRK3 fusion. Given its histological overlap with other salivary gland tumours, secretory carcinoma can be difficult to diagnose without genetic confirmation. A recently developed pan‐TRK antibody shows promise for identifying tumours with NTRK fusions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of pan‐TRK immunohistochemistry in distinguishing secretory carcinoma from mimics. Methods and results: We examined whole‐tissue sections from 86 tumours, including 14 secretory carcinomas (12 parotid primaries and one buccal primary, and one metastasis; five with ETV6 rearrangement confirmed by fluorescence in‐situ hybridisation, and one with ETV6 – NTRK3 fusion and one with ETV6 – RET fusion detected by targeted sequencing), 14 acinic cell carcinomas, 18 polymorphous adenocarcinomas, 20 low‐grade mucoepidermoid carcinomas, and 20 pleomorphic adenomas. Immunohistochemistry was performed with a pan‐TRK rabbit monoclonal antibody. Pan‐TRK staining was detected in nine (64%) secretory carcinomas, all with a nuclear pattern and four with diffuse staining (>50% of cells). Among other tumour types, pan‐TRK immunoreactivity was observed in all (100%) pleomorphic adenomas (particularly myoepithelial cell‐rich, myxoid areas), 15 (83%) polymorphous adenocarcinomas, and four (20%) low‐grade mucoepidermoid carcinomas, all with predominantly membranous/cytoplasmic immunoreactivity; only six cases showed focal (<10%) nuclear staining. All acinic cell carcinomas were entirely negative. Conclusions: Although pan‐TRK expression is not entirely sensitive or specific for secretory carcinoma, nuclear staining distinguishes secretory carcinoma from mimics. Acinic cell carcinomas are negative for pan‐TRK, though membranous expression of TRK is common in other salivary gland neoplasms. The lack of pan‐TRK immunoreactivity in a subset of secretory carcinomas may suggest non‐ NTRK fusion partners.