Diagnostic Pathology (Feb 2024)

Neuroendocrine and squamous cell phenotypes of NUT carcinoma are potential diagnostic pitfalls that discriminating it from mimickers, such as small cell and squamous cell carcinoma

  • Hironori Ninomiya,
  • Yukiko Sato,
  • Kentaro Inamura,
  • Akito Dobashi,
  • Kengo Takeuchi,
  • Hiroki Mitani,
  • Mingyon Mun,
  • Makoto Nishio,
  • Yuichi Ishikawa

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13000-024-01448-7
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 19, no. 1
pp. 1 – 12

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Introduction NUT carcinoma is a rare cancer associated with a poor prognosis. Because of its rarity, its diagnosis is challenging and is usually made by excluding other diagnoses. Immunohistochemical analysis is a reliable technique that contributes to a correct diagnosis, but overestimating the expression of neuroendocrine (NE) markers may result in an incorrect diagnosis. In this study, we established the immunohistochemical phenotypes of NUT carcinoma compared with tumors that mimic its phenotype to identify potential diagnostic pitfalls. Methods Eight cases of NUT carcinoma were examined along with eight basaloid squamous cell carcinomas and thirteen cases of small cell carcinoma using an immunohistochemical panel consisting of various antibodies. Results Of the eight NUT carcinomas, three patients had a smoking history. All the cases examined for INSM1 were positive (6/6, 100%), although the staining was somewhat weak. Among the NE markers, synaptophysin was variably positive in two NUT carcinomas (2/6, 33%); however, all cases were negative for ASCL1, chromogranin A, and CD56. Moreover, the squamous cell markers, p40 and CK5/6, were weakly expressed in 4/6 (67%) and 3/6 (50%) of the NUT carcinomas, respectively. Conclusions For tumors with an ambiguous morphology, applying the neuroendocrine phenotype of NUT carcinoma may be misleading; particularly, when distinguishing it from small-cell carcinoma. Similarly, null or weak expression of squamous cell markers may be observed in NUT carcinoma, but this differs from squamous cell carcinoma, which consistently demonstrates strong positivity for squamous cell markers.

Keywords