Abstract

AIM: Our aim is to predict the position of the proto-oncogen c erbB2 and the epithelial markers EM A and B72.3 to differenciate hyperplastic endometriuın from neoplastic one. METHODS: Endometrial biopsy is perfonned to patients with menometroragy between September 2003-March 2004 at TCSB Tepecik Obstetrics and Gynecology Teaching Hospital. 21 cases (group-I) of histopathologically diognosed as endometrial cancer, 10 cases (group-IÎ) of complex endometrial hyperplasia without atypia and resting 17 cases (group-III) of endometrium project proliferative and secretory changes are comperatively evaluated for immunohistochemical expression of c erbB2, EM A, B72.3. Positive cases are semiquantitatively interpreted for positivity pattem and staining intensity. Kruskal- Wallis and Mann Whitney U tests are used in comparison and statistical evaluation of the groups. RESULTS: While ali cases in group II (n=10) and group III (n=17) were negative for c erbB2 protooncogen; 2 cases in neoplasia group I (n=21) were focally positive on cytoplasmic membrane. The only statistical difference was detected on staining intensity of EMA in neoplasia group (group I) versus the other groups (group Il+group III) through staining pattem, staining intensity and pattern+intensity (p=0,018). B72.3 expression displayed high statistical signifıcance (p=0,001) in discriminating n eop I astic/nonn eopl asti c endometrium and hyperplastic (complex endometrial lıyperp 1 asia)/n eop 1 asti c endometrium for both staining pattern and intensity variables. CONCLUSION: Although seems to be useful at fırst sight, immunohistochemical staining with c erbB2 oncogen was not statistically signifîcantin diserimination of hyperplastic versus neoplastic endometrium.EMA seems to be useful to differentiate neoplasia from the other nonneoplastic processes depending on the staining intensity. B72.3 may be concerned as a spesifıc marker for differentiation of neoplastic endometrium versus nonneoplastic endometrial processes.