Insulinoma-associated Protein 1 (INSM1) in Thoracic Tumors is Less Sensitive but More Specific Compared With Synaptophysin, Chromogranin A, and CD56. Issue 3 (March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kriegsmann, Katharina; Zgorzelski, Christiane; Kazdal, Daniel; Cremer, Martin; Muley, Thomas; Winter, Hauke; Longuespée, Rémi; Kriegsmann, Jörg; Warth, Arne; Kriegsmann, Mark
• Is Part Of: Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology. Volume 28:Issue 3(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-03
• Subjects: NSCLC -- thoracic tumors -- INSM1 -- neuroendocrine tumors; Diagnostic immunohistochemistry -- Periodicals; Immunohistochemistry -- Periodicals; Cells -- Morphology -- Periodicals; Molecular diagnosis -- Periodicals; 616.079
• DOI: 10.1097/PAI.0000000000000715
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1541-2016

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: Recognition of neuroendocrine differentiation is important for tumor classification and treatment stratification. To detect and confirm neuroendocrine differentiation, a combination of morphology and immunohistochemistry is often required. In this regard, synaptophysin, chromogranin A, and CD56 are established immunohistochemical markers. Insulinoma-associated protein 1 (INSM1) has been suggested as a novel stand-alone marker with the potential to replace the current standard panel. In this study, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of INSM1 and established markers. Materials and Methods: A cohort of 493 lung tumors including 112 typical, 39 atypical carcinoids, 77 large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas, 144 small cell lung cancers, 30 thoracic paragangliomas, 47 adenocarcinomas, and 44 squamous cell carcinomas were selected and tissue microarrays were constructed. Synaptophysin, chromogranin A, CD56, and INSM1 were stained on all cases and evaluated manually as well as with an analysis software. Positivity was defined as ≥1% stained tumor cells in at least 1 of 2 cores per patient. Results: INSM1 was positive in 305 of 402 tumors with expected neuroendocrine differentiation (typical and atypical carcinoids, large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas, small cell lung cancers, and paraganglioma; sensitivity: 76%). INSM1 was negative in all but 1 of 91 analyzed non-neuroendocrine tumors (adenocarcinomas, squamous cell carcinomas; specificity: 99%). All conventional markers, as well as their combination, had a higher sensitivity (97%) and a lower specificity (78%) for neuroendocrine differentiation compared with INSM1. Conclusions: Although INSM1 might be a meaningful adjunct in the differential diagnosis of neuroendocrine neoplasias, a general uncritical vote for replacing the traditional markers by INSM1 may not be justified.