Next Article in Journal
Physiotherapeutic Strategies and Their Current Evidence for Canine Osteoarthritis
Next Article in Special Issue
Intracranial Subdural Fluid Accumulation Associated with a Choroid Plexus Carcinoma in a Dog
Previous Article in Journal
The Role and Application of Exosomes and Their Cargos in Reproductive Diseases: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
A High Grade Astrocytoma with Pilocytic Morphology in a 5-Month-Old American Bulldog
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Veterinary Sciences
Volume 10
Issue 1
10.3390/vetsci10010001
vetsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Nerve Fiber Immunohistochemical Panel Discriminates between Nerve Sheath and Perivascular Wall Tumors

by
Sílvia Sisó
1,2,*,
Paola Marco-Salazar
3,
Paola Roccabianca
4,
Giancarlo Avallone
5,
Robert J. Higgins
1,† and
Verena K. Affolter
1
1
Departments of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA
2
Pathology, Immunology Discovery, AbbVie, 100 Research Dr, Worcester, MA 01605, USA
3
Department of Medicina i Cirurgia Animals, School of Veterinary Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
4
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, University of Milan, 26900 Lodi, Italy
5
Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, 40064 Ozzano dell’Emilia, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Prof. Robert J. Higgins passed away on 27 December 2021. You can read his ‘in memoriam’ in this link: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/vetsci/special_issues/canine_nervous_tumors.
Vet. Sci. 2023, 10(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10010001
Submission received: 21 October 2022 / Revised: 14 December 2022 / Accepted: 16 December 2022 / Published: 21 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Canine Nervous System Tumors—Honorary Special Issue Commemorating the Work of Veterinary Neuropathologist Prof. Robert J. Higgins)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Soft-tissue sarcomas are classified as nerve sheath tumors if originating within nerves. However, tumors of the nerves still pose a frequent challenge for diagnostic veterinary pathologists since identifying nerve histomorphology based only on the examination of hematoxylin-and-eosin-stained sections is often insufficient. In addition, there are no robust tumor-related biomarkers for a reliable diagnosis of nerve sheath tumors. Improving the anatomo-pathological diagnosis of nerve sheath tumors will contribute to a more accurate classification of soft-tissue sarcomas and their prognosis, ultimately aiding clinicians in making informed decisions for their patients. This current immunohistochemical study explores a combined panel of laminin, Sox-10 and periaxin-1 as an ancillary diagnostic approach to confirm the diagnosis of suspect nerve sheath tumors. The study demonstrates that this panel discriminates reliably between soft-tissue subtypes such as nerve sheath tumors and perivascular wall tumors.

Abstract

Benign and malignant nerve sheath tumors (NST) pose a major challenge in routine diagnostic anatomic pathology because of shared histomorphological features with other soft-tissue tumors (STT). As a result, NST are often diagnosed as STT, a broad category that encompasses various entities including perivascular wall tumors (PWT) and that represents approximately 15% of all skin tumors in dogs. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) can assist the identification of histologic subtypes of STT. This IHC pilot study applies various markers largely expressed by peripheral nerves to twelve benign and six malignant NST and determines the intratumoral protein expression of laminin, periaxin-1, Sox-10 and S-100 in the NST subtypes. Furthermore, this study assesses the usefulness of peripheral nerve markers applied to diagnostic work cases and demonstrates the relevance of laminin expression patterns, periaxin-1 and Sox-10 in assisting the differentiation of NST from other STT, in particular from PWT.

1. Introduction

Soft-tissue tumors (STT) represent approximately 15% of all skin tumors in dogs [1] and comprise a diverse group of benign and malignant variants of nerve sheath tumors (NST) and perivascular wall tumors (PWT) amongst many other types [2]. While NST arise within nerves, PWT arise from the vascular wall. Benign NST (bNST) in domestic animals, similarly to their human counterparts [3,4,5], can be sub-classified into Schwannomas, perineuriomas or neurofibromas based on the prevalence of the specific nerve component that suffers neoplastic transformation (Schwann cells, perineurial cells or fibroblasts, respectively) [2,6,7,8,9]. Each bNST sub-type typically has morphological and ultrastructural features, including basal lamina of Schwann cells and pseudo-onion bulb formation of perineurial cells, which are crucial for a definitive diagnosis [7,8]. In contrast, malignant NST (mNST) are embodied in a single category due a general lack of distinctive growth patterns and cellular characteristics [2,7,8].
The proposed sub-classification of canine PWT comprises a mixed group of tumor sub-types that include hemangiopericytomas, angioleiomyosarcomas, angiofibromas, angioleiomyomas, angiomyofibroblastomas and myopericytomas [2,7]. Like mNST, some PWT sub-types, such as hemangiopericytomas, are rare and likely more aggressive [10].
At present, despite their distinctive cellular derivation, the microscopic distinction of STT into NST and PWT on routinely examined sections may be challenging in some cases because of several shared histological features. Transmission electron microscopy allows for confirmation of the tumor type but is not readily available or practical [11,12,13]. Immunohistochemistry assists in the definition of tumor cell origin by identification of the neoplastic cell phenotype. However, rarely one marker is informative enough because expression can be shared by different neoplasms, and thus a panel of antibodies is often required, such as, for example, laminin or collagen IV, which both can be expressed by NST and PWT [9,14]. For practical reasons, the goal of an optimal diagnostic panel would be to minimize costs while ensuring that the reduced number of markers is informative enough.
This retrospective study documents that a panel including anti-laminin, anti-Sox-10 and anti-periaxin-1 antibodies can assist in the confirmation of the diagnosis of NST and hence the differentiation from other STT, such as PWT.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Case Selection

In the first phase for marker optimization, a total of four NST, including one Schwannoma, one perineurioma, one neurofibroma and one mNST and one healthy peripheral nerve were evaluated. Those selected tumor samples contained both normal nerves and neoplastic growth, thus allowing for the robust assessment of Schwann cell IHC markers in components of residual healthy nerve fibers entrapped within the tumor as well as in tumor cells and/or stroma.
In the second phase the database at the William Pritschard School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis was searched for cases of NST. In addition, three PWT, fully characterized at the University of Milan, including an angioleiomyoma, a myopericytoma and an undifferentiated PWT, were evaluated for comparison.
In a third phase, the database at the William Pritschard School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis was searched for diagnosis of STT and the panel of Schwann cell IHC markers was evaluated in five STT to reach a definitive diagnosis.

2.2. Markers to Interrogate NST in Comparison to PWT

The selected antibody panel is detailed in Table 1. The panel targeted antibodies that recognize mostly nerve components, such as laminin (LAM), S-100, GFAP, Sox-10, periaxin-1 (PXN) and smooth muscle actin (SMA), but also proliferation markers including Ki-67 and phosphorylated histone H3 (PHH3) that could inform on the biologic behavior of neoplastic cells.
The markers were selected based on their expression within nerves and NST. Laminin is an important component of the basement membrane zone, and therefore is used in tumors of endothelial, smooth muscle, Schwann cell or perineurial cell origin [2,8]. Anti-S-100 and GFAP, recognizing Schwann cells, have been reported to be expressed by mNST [8,15]. Anti-periaxin-1 was included as a reliable marker for Schwann cell cytoplasm as it identifies the peripheral myelin sheath, and anti-Sox-10 was chosen as a nuclear marker of neural crest origin [8,16,17]. Smooth muscle actin (SMA) was included to detect vascular mural cells of PWT [2,16]. In addition, mitotic index (MI) was registered using anti-phosphorylated histone H3 (PHH3) and anti-Ki-67 (MIB-1 clone) labeling was used to document the proliferative index (PI).

2.3. Immunohistochemistry

Briefly, 4–5 µm thick sections were mounted on positive-charged glass slides and air-dried overnight at 37 °C. After deparaffinization and rehydration, the endogenous peroxidase activity was blocked with 0.3% hydrogen peroxide in methanol. Antigen retrieval procedures included either steam- or heat-induced epitope retrieval (HIER) with Target Retrieval Solution (DAKO, Carpinteria, CA, USA; S1699), or where appropriate, enzymatic digestion with Proteinase K (DAKO Carpinteria, CA, USA; S3020) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The antibody and blocking diluents and all the subsequent rinses were performed with PBS-Tween 20 (0.02%). Sections were blocked with 10% normal horse serum for 20 min. Then primary antibodies (Table 1) were applied for 1 h at room temperature. After rinsing, 4 + Detection System with anti-mouse link or anti-rabbit link and Streptavidin-HRP label (Biocare Medical, Pacheco, CA, USA; HM606, GR 608, respectively) was applied for all antibodies for 10 min with each reagent. Double rinsing was performed between each reagent application. Antigen detection was visualized using Vector NovaRed for peroxidase (SK-4800, Vector Laboratories, Newark, CA, USA), following the manufacturer’s instructions. Sections were counterstained with Mayer’s hematoxylin. Sections in which either diluent or normal serum substituted the respective primary antibody were included as negative controls. A brain lymphoma and a glioma tissue microarray were included as positive control tissue for GFAP, Ki-67 and PHH3. Peripheral nerve was the positive control tissue for all other markers.

2.4. Criteria for Evaluating the Immunoreactivity of Each Nerve Marker in NST

After testing the specificity of the nerve panel in nerve fibers, we qualitatively assessed the degree and extent of intratumoral immunoreactivity to each nerve fiber marker in all available NST. Evaluation of LAM, S-100, GFAP and SMA IHCs followed a binary read-out based on presence (positive) or lack (negative) of immunoreactivity in the whole tumor. For PXN, total counts of intratumoral nerve sheath profiles as well as cell immunoreactivity were evaluated in 10 HPF (one HPF equals a microscopic field at 40×, corresponding to 0.237 mm2) or whole tumor in small samples. Individual counts found in each HPF were recorded as a range of positive myelin profiles (denoted as X in Table 2) or cell counts (denoted as Y in Table 2). For Sox-10 positive cells, immunopositive nuclei were counted in 10HPF (2.37mm2) and again tabulated as a range of positive cells counted in one HPF. Immunoreactivity scores were interpreted as follows: low (0–5 Sox-10+ nuclei/HPF), intermediate (0–50 Sox-10+ nuclei/HPF) and high (above 50/HPF) scores of immunoreactivity. The PI or MI were generated as a percentage of immunoreactive cells to ki-67 and PHH3, respectively, from 2000 examined cells in tumor areas with the highest immunoreactivity.

3. Results

3.1. Intranerve NST

All markers included in the nerve panel immunoreacted with components of healthy nerve fibers or with intratumoral nerve fibers (internal positive controls) (Figure 1A–D). Laminin outlined nerve fibers (Figure 1B), PXN identified the myelin sheath (Figure 1C) and Sox-10 reliably recognized nuclei (Figure 1D). Similarly, neoplastic Schwann cells strongly immunoreacted to LAM in Schwannomas (Figure 1G), perineuriomas (Figure 1K), neurofibromas and mNST (Figure 1R,S).
In NST, LAM consistently outlined the peripheral membrane of individual neoplastic Schwann cells and perineurial cells as a continuum, as well as the perimeter of intratumoral blood vessels. The pattern of LAM recapitulated the fasciculate growth pattern of NST that was observed on H&E serially stained sections. PXN detected peripheral myelin and not myelin from nerve fibers of the CNS (Figure 1C). It strongly immunostained all nerve sheaths entrapped in NST (Figure 1L,O,Q). Occasionally, the cytoplasm of neoplastic Schwann cells can display focal, weak to strong, PXN immunopositive (Figure 1Q). Nuclear Sox-10 immunoreactivity, which was consistently visualized in healthy nerves (Figure 1D), was present in many neoplastic cells with a diffuse or patchy distribution in all NST tumors including neurofibromas (Figure 1P).
Other nerve panel markers such as S-100 and GFAP labeled the cytoskeleton of nerve fibers but were less robust markers if compared with LAM, PXN and Sox-10. S-100 was not specific to neoplastic cells since endothelial and inflammatory cells were weakly stained. GFAP inconsistently labeled nerve fiber components in healthy nerves, blood vessels and in NST. Last, SMA positivity was observed variably in the epineurium and perineurium, the tumor pseudocapsule and the surrounding blood vessels.

3.2. Comparison of Immunoreactivity of NST and PWT

This study includes a total of 18 tumors diagnosed as NST based on morphological features. The 18 NST included 12 bNST, previously diagnosed as Schwannomas (7/12), neurofibromas (2/12) and perineuriomas (3/12) and 6 mNST. Results of the nerve IHC panel applied to 12 bNST and 6 mNST are summarized in Table 2. Laminin, Sox-10 and PXN were tested in 18/18 NST, S-100 in 14/18 and GFAP in 15/18 cases due to limited tissue availability. Reactivity in bNST was as follows: 12/12 (100%) with LAM, 11/12 (92%) with PXN, 10/12 (83%) with Sox-10, 8/9 (89%) with S-100 and, 5/9 (55%) with GFAP. In mNST LAM, Sox-10 and PXN were positive in all 6 (100%) of the cases. Positivity for other markers, GFAP (4/6; 67%) and S-100 (4/5; 80%), was lower. Figure 2 illustrates the immunostaining pattern of LAM, Sox-10, PXN and S-100 in a representative NST. In all NST, LAM displayed variable positive intensity across the tumor but a consistent linear pattern outlining the cytoplasm of neoplastic cells and occasional entrapped nerve fibers (Figure 2E–H). Similarly, Sox-10+ counts varied between tumors and within a tumor. Benign NST showed a range of scores. In 4/12 cases (Table 2), Sox-10 protein expression was low with high variation among fields of view (FOV) as several FOVs had a 0 score of Sox-10-positive cells and the highest count in a single FOV was five positive cells. Instead, an FOV from a high expressor (3/12) such as bNST cases 3, 6, and 7 had Sox-10 protein expression in most neoplastic cells. All malignant NST showed low to intermediate Sox-10 scores. Cases 5 and 10 had high tissue background staining with Sox-10 and cells exhibited cytoplasmic rather than nuclear staining; these cases were not considered positive for Sox-10. Examples of a high (Case 3), intermediate (Cases 11 and 16) and low expression (Case 9) are illustrated in Figure 2I–L. For PXN, all 18 NST except two Schwannomas (Cases 2 and 5) had intratumoral PXN positive nerve fibers. The quantity of PXN+ nerve fibers varied across tumors. In general, tumors contained multiple short fragments of nerve fibers with myelin expressing PXN. Numbers of PXN-positive myelin profiles varied markedly between FOVs, ranging from 0 to 100. The range of PXN+ myelin profiles counted in a HPF are displayed in Table 2 and in Figure 2M–P. In addition, in a few NST (5/18; 28%), the cytoplasmic processes of neoplastic cells immunoreacted with PXN (Cases 1, 2, 4, 9 and 13). Additional primary antibodies included widely used markers like S-100 and GFAP, that were included for comparative purposes. Like PXN+ myelin profiles, S-100 immunoreacted with residual fragmented nerve fibers enclosed in the tumor (Figure 2Q–T) and was able to detect the majority of NST (12/14; 86%). S-100 marker was expressed by 89% of benign NST and 80% of mNST. Assessment of intracellular immunoreactivity to S-100 was challenging because in many cases it was difficult to interpret or was regarded as inconclusive due to high background. GFAP immunoreacted to parts of nerve fibers in 60% of the NST cases (9/15).
The expression of LAM, Sox-10 and PXN was investigated in PWT (Figure 3 and Table 2). LAM expression was observed in all three PWT, with a patchy distribution and a characteristically granular/punctate expression pattern in the cytoplasm of neoplastic cells (Figure 3D–F). No PWT immunoreacted with Sox-10 and PXN (Figure 3G–L). On the contrary, S-100 marker was expressed in one-third of the PWT (Figure 3M–O). SMA was not detected in NST neoplastic cells but was present in two-thirds of PWT. Expression of LAM, Sox-10 and PXN in NST and PWT is illustrated and compared in Figure 4.
All NST tumors, except one neurofibroma (Case 9), displayed similar indices or percentages of Ki-67+ proliferating cells and of PHH3+ mitotic cells (Table 2). Immunohistochemistry for PHH3 resulted in a strong and sharp immunolabeling and detected nuclei with no mitotic morphology on H&E. Overall, the intragroup averaged PI and MI were highest in mNST (30 and 24, respectively) compared to benign NST (10 and 16, respectively) and to PWT (2 and 1, respectively). Neurofibromas and PWT had the lowest PI and MI.

3.3. Routine Laboratorial IHC Approach to the Diagnosis of NST: 4 Cases

Five cases listed as STT in the database of the William Pritschard School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis, were evaluated with the abovementioned panel. Detailed results are listed in Table 3. Examples of the IHC panel for two cases are shown in Figure 5.

4. Discussion

This pilot study demonstrated that the combined evaluation of LAM, Sox-10 and PXN in the current NST and PWT case series helped differentiate between these two entities and has a diagnostic value in the specific identification of NST. In addition, immunohistochemical detection of these cell-specific antigens proved effective in accurately differentiating NST from PWT.
Previous studies have similarly focused on the differential diagnosis between NST and PWT using immunohistochemical panels [16,18,19]. Our study agrees with these published data by confirming that NST, different than PWT, are not immunoreactive to muscle markers such as SMA. In terms of NST immunohistochemical diagnosis, laminin (LAM) has been described as a useful marker [8,12,20] but has not been regularly included in the panel for NST diagnosis. As previously noted, S-100 and LAM are not exclusively expressed in NST, but one important result of this current study is that LAM was consistently positive in NST and that its distinct staining pattern assisted in its differentiation from PWT. Ideally, prospective studies on NST and PWT case series should include LAM to confirm the consistency of our result.
The selection of neural markers targeting Schwann cells, perineurial cells and neural crest derived cells commonly includes S-100, Claudin-1, PXN and NGFR, which have been variably observed in mNST [19]. However, the selection of the best individual markers continues to be a difficult task because each single marker used alone is not specific enough, further stressing the necessity of a better panel and possibly a multistep approach in conditions of economic constraints. For example, S-100 and Claudin-1 might not be the first-choice markers because they are expressed in a highly variable and heterogeneous fashion and do not seem specific enough to diagnose mNST since they can be expressed also in PWT [16]. A recent comprehensive study assessed Sox-10, Claudin-1, CNPase and GFAP in 79 canine NST [15]. The authors observed that, except for CNPase, the combination of markers detected more than 90% of bNST, concluding that 67% and 71% of mNST had retained Sox-10 and Claudin-1 immunoreactivity, respectively. Our data parallel the observations that GFAP, which is expressed in a subset of myoepithelial cells [2] and Schwann cells [15], was less expressed in this case load compared to other markers and was dramatically reduced in mNST compared to bNST [15]. Therefore, our results agree with these previous observations, adding that Sox-10 immunoreactivity was more sensitive than GFAP’s for mNST diagnosis. Additionally, and in contrast to their results [15], we did not observe decreased Sox-10 expression in mNST when compared to bNST. Based on our findings, GFAP seemed to co-localize with S-100 in serial sections but detected fewer numbers of myelinated fibers.
Additionally, S-100 and PXN performed similarly, overall detecting 86% and 94%, respectively, of all examined NST. While CNPase was negative in NST [15], PXN was expressed by most NST, highlighting it as a useful marker to consider. The recent literature regarding people and Tasmanian devils further supports the usefulness of neural-crest-cell-associated-markers such as Sox-10 and PXN for a more reliable diagnosis of NST [5,21]. In a small fraction of our NST, PXN was focally present in the cytoplasm of neoplastic Schwann cells, a finding already described in a cat Schwannoma [22]. Supporting our findings, the human WHO classification recommends the use of S-100 and Sox-10 as Schwann cell markers that can aid the diagnosis of NST [5]. However, confirming further observations made for human STS [23], in our study Sox-10 represented a more robust and overall better marker than S-100 for NST diagnosis based on its distinct nuclear labeling, a low background, and the more consistent immunostaining reproducibility. Moreover, because S-100 is expressed not only by Schwann cells but also by chondrocytes, adipocytes, and melanocytes [2] it is not specific as previously believed. Confirming this observation, S-100 was expressed in one PWT of this case series. Moreover, Sox-10 should be considered a better marker for Schwann cells than GFAP when detecting malignant NST due to a decreased expression of GFAP. Importantly, Sox-10 and PXN were useful for the discrimination between NST and PWT since Sox-10 and PXN detected 83% and 92% of benign NST, respectively, and 100% of mNST (Table 2) while PWT were negative. Taking our IHC data, we can conclude that LAM, Sox-10 and PXN used in combination improved the accuracy of NST diagnosis and assisted in their distinction from PWT. However, we believe that these results should be confirmed by assessing a larger number of PWT and a larger caseload of STT in general.
Despite their usefulness, there are some considerations regarding PXN and Sox-10 expression in NST that should be made. Tumor distribution of PXN and Sox-10 were variable across the fields of view (FOV) within the same tumor and between normal nerve fibers. Sox-10 immunoreactivity in one FOV could be 0 and as high as 50 positive cells in the adjacent FOV. As a result, evaluating the whole tumor sample or at least 2.37 mm2 of tumor is critical when assessing PXN and Sox-10 reactivity. More so, examination of a small biopsy sample could equivocally report a false negative. For PXN, it is important to assess the presence of myelin sheath profiles from healthy nerve fiber entrapped within the tumor as well as the presence of positive cells. Almost all examined NST had entrapped PXN+ myelin profiles and in addition, 5 out of 20 NST displayed the cellular PXN immunostaining pattern. A single case was negative for both patterns of PXN immunolabeling, which represented 5% of the NST caseload. Our results contrast with the study of Suzuki et al. [16], where PXN protein expression was scarcely detected in 10% of mNST. As for Sox-10, sample size can limit the effectiveness of PXN to detect NST. Additionally, it remains to be determined if sample processing protocols or autolysis may affect the presence of antigenic PXN epitopes and its subsequent detection. An alternative marker highly expressed by nerves, PNP9.5, has been reported to be expressed in 90% of canine NST [20], and might represent a second option in those NST cases where PXN is not expressed.
Thoughtful consideration of which markers need to be included during the study design, ensuring optimization of IHC and quality of samples, and providing a careful examination with standardized evaluation metrics are a few of the pre-requisites for driving progress in the challenging diagnostic field of STT. Our approach using LAM, Sox-10 and PXN with the conventional marker SMA was useful in diagnosing NST. Specifically, LAM and Sox-10 are expressed by different cell types. Laminin detects basement membranes present in endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells and Schwann cells and their corresponding tumors [2]. Just to complicate it further, despite Sox-10 being a good marker for tumors that originate from neural-crest-derived cells [24], myoepithelial cells and alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma can also have Sox-10 expression [25]. Moreover, neural crest tumors of melanocytic or nerve sheath origin may express Sox-10, alpha-SMA and S-100 [25,26]. Thus, it remains unknown if Sox-10 and PXN are expressed in other non-PWT STT, and this should be addressed in further studies to confirm or contrast their role in specifically identify NST. Unfortunately, the usefulness of NGFR was not assessed in the current study, but it has been suggested also as a potential marker to distinguish mNST from PWT and may represent a good addition to a panel for the differentiation of STT [16].
An example of a complex case was Case 26, where a definitive diagnosis was not achieved. For this case, a NST diagnosis was excluded based on lack of LAM and PXN; however, the tumor expressed Sox-10 and SMA. SMA, which was consistently negative in our NST caseload, is expressed in myofilaments of smooth muscle cells, myofibroblasts and pericytes and has been reported in PWT, leiomyosarcomas, chondrogenic tumors, rhabdomyosarcomas, melanomas, basal cell carcinomas and other tumor types [2,26]. However, one of our examined PWT had no SMA protein expression. Cautiously selecting more than one conventional marker expressed by tumor types and their cell counterparts [2] might be a good practice. For example, we could have selected a conventional skeletal muscle protein instead of, or in addition to, SMA in Case 26 to confirm a rhabdomyosarcoma or Sox-9 to confirm chondrocytes as the cell of origin [25,27].
Following resection, local recurrence rates in STSs are low in general but vary according to histologic grade and completeness of surgical margins [28]. It seems then appropriate that prospective studies on STT should include markers that could inform on tumor biological behavior. Since high mitotic index is prognostic for reduced survival time in STS, mNST, which had the highest PI and MI scores should bear a worse prognosis. PHH3 was an objective and sensitive method to detect mitotic figures in our STT subpopulations. Additionally, MI were higher than PI in a few cases. The potential unreliability of Ki-67 IHC readouts [29] and the suitability of PHH3 as an ancillary marker have been addressed in oncology [30,31,32]. Moreover, PHH3 expression in human astrocytomas and meningiomas have provided a relevant, simple, and exact method to accurately grade such tumors [30,31]. One would hope that future veterinary studies that integrate objective and more accurate quantitative measures to improve morphological subjective scoring systems in STT will help standardize their grading and make better informed decisions.

5. Conclusions

Canine soft-tissue tumors (STT) represent a broad category of tumors that can arise from various tissue components, including peripheral nerves for NST or various components of blood vessel walls for PWT. Morphologically these tumors may share similar growth patterns such as arrangement in short fascicles, whorls, or storiform areas composed of spindle to fusiform to plump cells with variable amounts of a fibrillar collagenous stroma. When specific patterns and tissue components are not visible their distinction may be challenging, and for this reason, the usefulness of their differentiation, despite its importance, has not been investigated yet. Moreover, currently available routine immunohistochemical panels of antibodies for differentiating these two tumor groups in dogs are very limited and often not specific enough. For all the above listed reasons, despite the cell of origin tends to dictate the behavior of a particular tumor type, most STS are classified and graded according to common histological features, mitotic index, and completeness of surgical margins rather than by their histogenetic origin. This deficiency has generated much diagnostic confusion in the veterinary literature regarding their histological classification. Such confusion also has major implications for an accurate prognosis and therefore limiting clinicians in making informed decisions for their patients. This current study favors a combined panel of LAM and Sox-10 and possibly PXN, for improving the diagnosis of STT of suspect neural origin, aiding in the proper diagnosis and grading of NST.
Because of this pilot IHC study, we suggest the introduction of LAM, periaxin-1 and Sox-10 in the diagnostic IHC to identify NST. If costs are a factor to consider, it is recommended to use LAM and Sox-10 as a first, paired IHC panel; PXN and SMA as a second step may be used in conjunction with NGFR and PNP9.5. Future studies that investigate expression of these markers in a larger number of STT and also including other tumor types will help confirm our findings and aid the molecular diagnosis of STT.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S. and R.J.H.; methodology, S.S., P.M.-S., R.J.H. and V.K.A.; validation, S.S. and R.J.H.; formal analysis, S.S. and P.M.-S.; investigation, S.S. and R.J.H.; resources, S.S., P.R. and G.A.; data curation, S.S., R.J.H. and V.K.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.S.; writing—review and editing, S.S., P.M.-S., P.R., G.A. and V.K.A.; visualization, P.R., G.A. and V.K.A.; supervision, R.J.H. and V.K.A.; project administration, S.S.; funding acquisition, S.S., R.J.H. and V.K.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Center for Companion Animal Health (CCAH) at UC Davis. Grant number 2013-35-R siso.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research was conducted in accordance with the approved guidelines and regulation of the School of Veterinary Medicine of University California in Davis. Ethical review and approval were waived for this study since it uses diagnostic samples from the anatomic-pathology archive.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article. There is no Supplementary Material.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the Center for Companion Animal Health and to the PMI Department at UC Davis for funding this study during the fellowship in neuropathology awarded to Sílvia Sisó i Llonch, University of California, Davis. Marco-Salazar was supported by an AGAUR PhD grant [2012 BE100584] from the Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona, Catalunya. We are grateful to Martí Pumarola, DVM, PhD, for his help with this grant. We would like to thank the VMTH residents and faculty as well as the histology laboratory for their contribution of cases and superb diagnostic support. Additionally, thanks to Danielle D. Nelson from the Veterinary School at Washing University and James Lavely (VCA Animal Care Center of Sonoma County) for submitting cases 10 and 25, respectively, and to Irene Wilson for performing the immunofluorescent IHC in Case 25.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Withrow, S.J.; Vail, D.M.; Page, R. Soft Tissue Sarcomas. In Small Animal Clinical Oncology, 3rd ed.; Withrow, S.J., Mac Ewen, E.G., Eds.; WB Saunders Company: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  2. Roccabianca, P.; Schulman, F.Y.; Avallone, G.; Foster, R.A.; Scruggs, J.L.; Dittmer, K.; Kiupel, M. Tumors of Soft Tissue. In Surgical Pathology of Tumors of Domestic Animals; Davis Thompson Foundation: Gurnee, IL, USA, 2020; Volume 3, pp. 49–63. [Google Scholar]
  3. Louis, D.N.; Ohgaki, H.; Wiestler, O.D.; Cavenee, W.K.; Burger, P.C.; Jouvet, A.; Scheithauer, B.W.; Kleihues, P. The 2007 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System. Acta Neuropathol. 2007, 114, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Perry, A.; Brat, D.J. Peripheral nerve sheath tumors. In Practical Surgical Neuropathology: A Diagnostic Approach: A Volume in the Pattern Recognition Series; Expert Consult, Churchill Livingston-Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  5. Louis, D.N.; Perry, A.; Wesseling, P.; Brat, D.J.; Cree, I.A.; Figarella-Branger, D.; Hawkins, C.; Ng, H.K.; Pfister, S.M.; Reifenberger, G.; et al. The 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: A summary. Neuro. Oncol. 2021, 23, 1231–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Koestner, A.; Bilzer, T.; Fatzer, R.; Schulman, F.Y.; Summers, B.A.; Van Winkle, T.J. Histological Classification of Tumors of the Nervous System of Domestic Animals; Schulman, F.Y., Ed.; WHO, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, American Registry of Pathology: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  7. Vandevelde, M.; Higgins, R.J.; Oevermann, A. Manual of Veterinary Neuropathology: Essentials of Theory and Practice, 1st ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: West Sussex, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  8. Higgins, R.J.; Bollen, A.W.; Dickinson, P.J.; Sisó-Llonch, S. Tumors in Domestic Animals. In Tumors of the Nervous System; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 834–891. [Google Scholar]
  9. Avallone, G.; Helmbold, P.; Caniatti, M.; Stefanello, D.; Nayak, R.C.; Roccabianca, P. The spectrum of canine cutaneous perivascular wall tumors: Morphologic, phenotypic and clinical characterization. Vet. Pathol. 2007, 44, 607–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Avallone, G.; Boracchi, P.; Stefanello, D.; Ferrari, R.; Rebughini, A.; Roccabianca, P. Canine perivascular wall tumors: High prognostic impact of site, depth, and completeness of margins. Vet. Pathol. 2014, 51, 713–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Erlandson, R.A.; Woodruff, J.M. Peripheral nerve sheath tumors: An electron microscopic study of 43 cases. Cancer 1982, 49, 273–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Higgins, R.J.; Dickinson, P.J.; Jimenez, D.F.; Bollen, A.W.; Lecouteur, R.A. Canine intraneural perineurioma. Vet. Pathol. 2006, 43, 50–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Palmieri, C.; Avallone, G.; Cimini, M.; Roccabianca, P.; Stefanello, D.; Della Salda, L. Use of electron microscopy to classify canine perivascular wall tumors. Vet. Pathol. 2013, 50, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. d’Ardenne, A.J.; Kirkpatrick, P.; Sykes, B.C. Distribution of laminin, fibronectin, and interstitial collagen type III in soft tissue tumours. J. Clin. Pathol. 1984, 37, 895–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Tekavec, K.; Švara, T.; Knific, T.; Gombač, M.; Cantile, C. Histopathological and immunohistochemical evaluation of canine nerve sheath tumors and proposal for an updated classification. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Suzuki, S.; Uchida, K.; Nakayama, H. The effects of tumor location on diagnostic criteria for canine malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MNSTs) and the markers for distinction between canine MNSTs and canine perivascular wall tumors. Vet. Pathol. 2014, 51, 722–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wilson, I.; Vitelli, C.; Yu, G.K.; Pacheco, G.; Vincelette, J.; Bunting, S.; Sisó, S. Quantitative assessment of neuroinflammation, myelinogenesis, demyelination, and nerve fiber regeneration in immunostained sciatic nerves from twitcher mice with a tissue image analysis platform. Toxicol. Pathol. 2021, 49, 950–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Loures, F.H.; Conceição, L.G.; Lauffer-Amorim, R.; Nóbrega, J.; Costa, E.P.; Torres Neto, R.; Clemente, J.T.; Vilória, M.I.V.; Silva, J.C.P. Histopathology and immunohistochemistry of peripheral neural sheath tumor and perivascular wall tumor in dog. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 2019, 71, 100–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chijiwa, K.; Uchida, K.; Tateyama, S. Immunohistochemical evaluation of canine peripheral nerve sheath tumors and other soft tissue sarcomas. Vet. Pathol. 2004, 41, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gaitero, L.; Añor, S.; Fondevila, D.; Pumarola, M. Canine cutaneous spindle cell tumours with features of peripheral nerve sheath tumours: A histopathological and immunohistochemical study. J. Comp. Pathol. 2008, 139, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Tovar, C.; Obendorf, D.; Murchison, E.P.; Papenfuss, A.T.; Kreiss, A.; Woods, G.M. Tumor-specific diagnostic marker for transmissible facial tumors of Tasmanian devils: Immunohistochemistry studies. Vet. Pathol. 2011, 48, 1195–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Chen, V.S.; Bollen, A.W.; Marco-Salazar, P.; Higgins, R.J.; Sisó, S. Case report: Neuroblastoma-like schwannoma in a domestic short-haired cat. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 905302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Karamchandani, J.R.; Nielsen, T.O.; van de Rijn, M.; West, R.B. Sox10 and S100 in the diagnosis of soft-tissue neoplasms. Appl. Immunohistochem. Mol. Morphol. 2012, 20, 445–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Nonaka, D.; Chiriboga, L.; Rubin, B.P. Sox10: A pan-schwannian and melanocytic marker. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2008, 32, 1291–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Miettinen, M.; McCue, P.A.; Sarlomo-Rikala, M.; Biernat, W.; Czapiewski, P.; Kopczynski, J.; Thompson, L.D.; Lasota, J.; Wang, Z.; Fetsch, J.F. Sox10—A marker for not only schwannian and melanocytic neoplasms but also myoepithelial cell tumors of soft tissue: A systematic analysis of 5134 tumors. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2015, 39, 826–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Dundr, P.; Povýsil, C.; Tvrdík, D. Actin expression in neural crest cell-derived tumors including schwannomas, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, neurofibromas and melanocytic tumors. Pathol. Int. 2009, 59, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hodgkiss-Geere, H.M.; Argyle, D.J.; Corcoran, B.M.; Whitelaw, B.; Milne, E.; Bennett, D.; Argyle, S.A. Characterisation and differentiation potential of bone marrow derived canine mesenchymal stem cells. Vet. J. 2012, 194, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Dennis, M.M.; McSporran, K.D.; Bacon, N.J.; Schulman, F.Y.; Foster, R.A.; Powers, B.E. Prognostic factors for cutaneous and subcutaneous soft tissue sarcomas in dogs. Vet. Pathol. 2011, 48, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Miller, I.; Min, M.; Yang, C.; Tian, C.; Gookin, S.; Carter, D.; Spencer, S.L. Ki67 is a graded rather than a binary marker of proliferation versus quiescence. Cell Rep. 2018, 24, 1105–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Ribalta, T.; McCutcheon, I.E.; Kenneth, D.A.; Bruner, J.M.; Fuller, G.N. The mitosis-specific antibody anti-phosphohistone-H3 (PHH3) facilitates rapid reliable grading of meningiomas according to WHO 2000 criteria. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2004, 28, 1532–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Colman, H.; Giannini, C.; Huang, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Hess, K.; Bruner, J.; Fuller, G.; Langford, L.; Pelloski, C.; Aaron, J.; et al. Assessment and prognostic significance of mitotic index using the mitosis marker phospho-histone H3 in low and intermediate-grade infiltrating astrocytomas. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2006, 30, 657–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Pang, S.J.; Li, C.C.; Shen, Y.; Liu, Y.Z.; Shi, Y.Q.; Liu, Y.X. Value of counting positive PHH3 cells in the diagnosis of uterine smooth muscle tumors. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 2015, 8, 4418–4426. [Google Scholar]
Vetsci 10 00001 g001 550
Figure 1. Optimization of peripheral nerve markers in positive control tissue. (A,E,F,I,J,M): The distinct morphology of a healthy nerve and the cells and tumor histogenesis of NST can be appreciated on H&E-stained tissue sections. (B,R) Laminin (LAM) immunoreactivity highlights the cytoplasmic Schwann cell membranes outlining the myelin sheath of healthy peripheral nerves (HPN). Confirmation by laminin (LAM) of basal lamina of cytoplasmic membranes in a Schwannoma (G), perineurioma (J,K) and mNST (R,S). Periaxin (PXN) detects peripheral myelin only. Note that the spinal cord (SC) is negative, while the spinal nerve root is strongly positive in healthy nerves (C) and in NST (L,Q). In the case of neurofibromas, Masson’s trichrome (MT) identifies the collagenous tumor stroma in blue (N) and PXN identifies nerve fibers entrapped within the tumor (O). (E,M–O) Arrows point at retained nerve fibers within NST. (Q–S) Neoplastic areas of a mNST have weak PXN and robust LAM immunoreactivity. Sox-10 directed to nuclei of Schwann cells identifies peripheral nerves (D) and neoplastic Schwann cells (P). Ki-67 immunolabels nuclei of neoplastic cells that are actively proliferating (H,T).
Figure 1. Optimization of peripheral nerve markers in positive control tissue. (A,E,F,I,J,M): The distinct morphology of a healthy nerve and the cells and tumor histogenesis of NST can be appreciated on H&E-stained tissue sections. (B,R) Laminin (LAM) immunoreactivity highlights the cytoplasmic Schwann cell membranes outlining the myelin sheath of healthy peripheral nerves (HPN). Confirmation by laminin (LAM) of basal lamina of cytoplasmic membranes in a Schwannoma (G), perineurioma (J,K) and mNST (R,S). Periaxin (PXN) detects peripheral myelin only. Note that the spinal cord (SC) is negative, while the spinal nerve root is strongly positive in healthy nerves (C) and in NST (L,Q). In the case of neurofibromas, Masson’s trichrome (MT) identifies the collagenous tumor stroma in blue (N) and PXN identifies nerve fibers entrapped within the tumor (O). (E,M–O) Arrows point at retained nerve fibers within NST. (Q–S) Neoplastic areas of a mNST have weak PXN and robust LAM immunoreactivity. Sox-10 directed to nuclei of Schwann cells identifies peripheral nerves (D) and neoplastic Schwann cells (P). Ki-67 immunolabels nuclei of neoplastic cells that are actively proliferating (H,T).
Vetsci 10 00001 g001
Vetsci 10 00001 g002 550
Figure 2. Peripheral nerve IHC panel phenotype benign and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (NST). The nerve markers to be tested in NST included laminin (LAM), Sox-10, periaxin-1 (PXN) and S-100. (A–D) H&E of each NST sub-type is given for histomorphological context. In all NST, LAM provided robust results by variably highlighting the cytoplasmic membrane of Schwann cells and of perineurial cells (E–H). Sox-10 was consistent in identifying nuclei from neoplastic Schwann cells and those entrapped within nerve fibers. (I,J) Schwannoma and pe- rineurioma tumors had the highest scores for Sox-10, whereas neurofibromas (K) and mNST (L) show intermediate and low scores. (M–T) PXN, like S-100, strongly labeled fragmented myelinated fibers entrapped within tumors. In perineuriomas, they labeled myelin surrounding intact axons.
Figure 2. Peripheral nerve IHC panel phenotype benign and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (NST). The nerve markers to be tested in NST included laminin (LAM), Sox-10, periaxin-1 (PXN) and S-100. (A–D) H&E of each NST sub-type is given for histomorphological context. In all NST, LAM provided robust results by variably highlighting the cytoplasmic membrane of Schwann cells and of perineurial cells (E–H). Sox-10 was consistent in identifying nuclei from neoplastic Schwann cells and those entrapped within nerve fibers. (I,J) Schwannoma and pe- rineurioma tumors had the highest scores for Sox-10, whereas neurofibromas (K) and mNST (L) show intermediate and low scores. (M–T) PXN, like S-100, strongly labeled fragmented myelinated fibers entrapped within tumors. In perineuriomas, they labeled myelin surrounding intact axons.
Vetsci 10 00001 g002
Vetsci 10 00001 g003 550
Figure 3. Peripheral nerve IHC panel phenotype of perivascular wall tumors (PWT). The nerve markers to be tested in PWT included laminin (LAM), Sox-10, periaxin-1 (PXN) and S-100. (A–C) H&E of each NST sub-type is given for histomorphological context. (D–F) All PWT display patchy areas of LAM immunoreactivity. Laminin variably decorated the cytoplasm of some neoplastic cells in a discontinuous stippled dotting pattern (insets in E and F). None of the PWT immunoreacted to Sox-10 (G–I) or PXN (J–L). S-100 immunopositivity was not detected in two PWT cases (M,N). In the third PWT case, Case 21, S-100 decorated the cytoplasm of some cells (O, inset).
Figure 3. Peripheral nerve IHC panel phenotype of perivascular wall tumors (PWT). The nerve markers to be tested in PWT included laminin (LAM), Sox-10, periaxin-1 (PXN) and S-100. (A–C) H&E of each NST sub-type is given for histomorphological context. (D–F) All PWT display patchy areas of LAM immunoreactivity. Laminin variably decorated the cytoplasm of some neoplastic cells in a discontinuous stippled dotting pattern (insets in E and F). None of the PWT immunoreacted to Sox-10 (G–I) or PXN (J–L). S-100 immunopositivity was not detected in two PWT cases (M,N). In the third PWT case, Case 21, S-100 decorated the cytoplasm of some cells (O, inset).
Vetsci 10 00001 g003
Vetsci 10 00001 g004 550
Figure 4. Discriminatory IHC panel between NST and PWT. The selected PNS panel including laminin (LAM), Sox-10 and periaxin-1 (PXN) was compared between NST and PWT. Laminin was detected in all tumors but the LAM immunolabeling pattern of PWT was different than in NST (A,B). NST retained Sox-10 and PXN immunoreactivity, whereas PWT did not (C,D). Note that PXN immunoreactivity can be observed in the cytoplasm of neoplastic cells (E, left) and/or in nerve sheaths retained within the tumor (E, right) in NST, but no PXN was detected in PWT (E,F).
Figure 4. Discriminatory IHC panel between NST and PWT. The selected PNS panel including laminin (LAM), Sox-10 and periaxin-1 (PXN) was compared between NST and PWT. Laminin was detected in all tumors but the LAM immunolabeling pattern of PWT was different than in NST (A,B). NST retained Sox-10 and PXN immunoreactivity, whereas PWT did not (C,D). Note that PXN immunoreactivity can be observed in the cytoplasm of neoplastic cells (E, left) and/or in nerve sheaths retained within the tumor (E, right) in NST, but no PXN was detected in PWT (E,F).
Vetsci 10 00001 g004
Vetsci 10 00001 g005 550
Figure 5. Examples of diagnostic IHC work in STT. Cases 25 (A–C) and 26 (D–G). A multiplex immunoflurorescence IHC for laminin (LAM), Sox-10 and periaxin-1 (PXN) on a benign NST (A–C) demonstrates frequent Sox-10+ nuclei (in red) of Schwann cells with no detected PXN+ axons (A). Note that LAM+ myelin sheaths (in green) with Schwann cells in red (white arrows) can be distinguished from blood vessels (yellow arrow) in the merge image with LAM on (B). (C) Merge immunofluorecent IHC image confirming that approximately 40% of nuclei are Sox-10+ (magenta) due to the superimposition of DAPI (in blue) and Sox-10 (in red). A tentative diagnosis of PWT (D–G) was rejected based on a negative result to LAM and PXN with strong immunostaining for SMA and Sox-10.
Figure 5. Examples of diagnostic IHC work in STT. Cases 25 (A–C) and 26 (D–G). A multiplex immunoflurorescence IHC for laminin (LAM), Sox-10 and periaxin-1 (PXN) on a benign NST (A–C) demonstrates frequent Sox-10+ nuclei (in red) of Schwann cells with no detected PXN+ axons (A). Note that LAM+ myelin sheaths (in green) with Schwann cells in red (white arrows) can be distinguished from blood vessels (yellow arrow) in the merge image with LAM on (B). (C) Merge immunofluorecent IHC image confirming that approximately 40% of nuclei are Sox-10+ (magenta) due to the superimposition of DAPI (in blue) and Sox-10 (in red). A tentative diagnosis of PWT (D–G) was rejected based on a negative result to LAM and PXN with strong immunostaining for SMA and Sox-10.
Vetsci 10 00001 g005
Table
Table 1. Detailed information of antibodies included in the study.
Table 1. Detailed information of antibodies included in the study.
Primary Antibody
(Abbreviation)		Provider
(Catalog Number)		Pre-
Treatment		Primary
Antibody
Dilution		Targeted
Antigen
Glial fibrillary
acidic protein
(GFAP)		Dako
(Z0334)		Proteinase K, RT, 5 min.1:600Nerve fiber skeleton
Laminin
(LAM)		BioGenex
(PU078-UP)		0.2% protease, 37 °C, 10 min.1:40Basement membrane
Periaxin-1
(PXN)		Sigma-Aldrich (57716)HIER 11:1000Peripheral
myelin
Sox-10Santa Cruz
(SC-17342)		HIER1:100Neural crest cells
S-100Vector
(VP-S276)		HIER1:600Neural crest cells /myelin
Smooth muscle
actin
(SMA)		BioGenex
(MU128-UC)		SIER 21:300Smooth
muscle cells
Marker of
proliferation
(Ki-67)		Dako
(M7240)		HIER1:40Proliferating cells
Phosphorylated
histone H3
(PHH3)		Chemicon
(06-570)		HIER1:4000Mitotic cells
RT, room temperature; min., minutes; 1 Heat-induced epitope retrieval with citrate pH 6.1, 95 °C, 30 min; 2 Steam-induced epitope retrieval with EDTA pH 9, RT, cool down for 20 min.
Table
Table 2. Immunohistochemical assessment of NST and PWT.
Table 2. Immunohistochemical assessment of NST and PWT.
STTAge (Years)Anatomical LocationH&E DxGFAPLAMPIMIPXNSox-10S-100SMA
15Trigeminal n.SchwannomaNegLinear2020<25/<55–50PosNeg
26C5-C6 spinal n. rootsSchwannomaNegLinear25600/<10000–20PosNeg+
36L5-S1 n. rootsSchwannomaPosLinear13<200/0>500PosNeg
48L1-L2 spinal n. rootSchwannomaNegLinear1510<100/<1000–5PosNeg
53C1-C2 spinal n. root SchwannomaNegLinear5200/0InconclusiveNegNeg
68Trigeminal n.Schwannoman/aLinearn/an/a0-20/0>500n/an/a
712Radial n.Schwannoman/aLinear30n/a200/050–200n/aNeg
1/57/716236/76/74/50/6
83ShoulderNeurofibromaPosLinear100–20/00–5PosNeg+
99Cranial n.NeurofibromaPosLinear1203–100/<50–5PosNeg
2/22/21102/22/22/20/2
10not knownCervical n. rootPerineuriomaPosLinear20200–100/0InconclusivePosNeg +
119C2 spinal n. rootPerineuriomaPosLinear510100/05-50PosNeg
125Cervical n. rootPerineurioman/aLinearn/an/a100/00-20n/an/a
2/23/313153/32/32/20/2
Benign NST5/912/12101611/1210/128/90/10
134L brachial plexusmNSTPosLinear30500–200/50 0–20NegNeg
144Cauda equinamNSTPosLinear2540–100/0 5–50PosNeg
1510L brachial plexusmNSTPosLinear25155–50/0 0–20PosNeg+
1612L brachial plexusmNSTPosLinear40100–100/05–50PosNeg+
177L4 spinal mNSTNegLinear30600–100/100 0–5PosNeg
184Suprascap n.mNSTNegLinearn/a70–100/0 5–50n/aNeg
Malignant NST4/66/630246/66/64/50/6
NSTs9/1518/18202017/1816/1812/140/16
199AntebrachiumPWTn/aPunctate100/00NegNeg
2012ScrotumPWTn/aPunctate030/00NegPos
2111ScapulaPWTn/aPunctate500/00PosPos
PWTsn/a3/3120/30/31/32/3
n., nerve; spinal, intramedullary; Neg+ denotes cases that show SMA immunoreactivity in the pseudocapsule of the tumor. PI (proliferative index) and MI (mitotic index) denote percentages of ki-67+ proliferative cells and PHH3+ mitotic figures, respectively. For PXN (X/Y), X denotes counts of positive myelin sheath profiles in one HPF, and Y denotes counts of positive cells in 1HPF. For Sox-10, a range of positive nuclei counts is given per one HPF.
Table
Table 3. Evaluation of five STT with antibody panel to achieve a more specific diagnosis.
Table 3. Evaluation of five STT with antibody panel to achieve a more specific diagnosis.
CaseAge (Years)Tumor LocationPrevious DiagnosisLAMSox-10PXNSMAOthersFinal
Diagnosis
2212Oral Mass MaxillaSTT Grade III80% linear positivity100% positiveNeg.NegDesmin neg. PNL-2 neg.mNST
231Pelvic limbSTT Grade IIPunct CytoNeg.Neg.NdNdPWT
249Pelvic limbSTT Grade IIPunct CytoNeg.<5 MShNdNdPWT
255Cervical areaSTT Grade ILinear positivity20–200 counts positiveNdNdNdbNST
267Rib, vertebraSTT; PWT?Neg.100% positiveNeg.Neg.Desmin neg.neural crest tumor?
Punct Cyto, minimal punctate/stippled cytoplasmic; MSh, myelin sheath; Nd, not done.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sisó, S.; Marco-Salazar, P.; Roccabianca, P.; Avallone, G.; Higgins, R.J.; Affolter, V.K. Nerve Fiber Immunohistochemical Panel Discriminates between Nerve Sheath and Perivascular Wall Tumors. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10010001

AMA Style

Sisó S, Marco-Salazar P, Roccabianca P, Avallone G, Higgins RJ, Affolter VK. Nerve Fiber Immunohistochemical Panel Discriminates between Nerve Sheath and Perivascular Wall Tumors. Veterinary Sciences. 2023; 10(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10010001

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sisó, Sílvia, Paola Marco-Salazar, Paola Roccabianca, Giancarlo Avallone, Robert J. Higgins, and Verena K. Affolter. 2023. "Nerve Fiber Immunohistochemical Panel Discriminates between Nerve Sheath and Perivascular Wall Tumors" Veterinary Sciences 10, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10010001

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop