Combined immunohistochemical panel improves diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing benign prostatic hyperplasia from prostatic adenocarcinoma.
Objectives: Diagnosing prostate cancer is difficult because its histological traits often overlap with those of benign conditions. Alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR), tumor protein 63 (P63), and erythroblast transformation-specific-related gene (ERG) are commonly utilized immunohistochemical markers. The triple-marker panel showed a marginal incremental diagnostic benefit over AMACR alone and may improve diagnostic confidence in selected difficult cases. Methods: The specimens were immuno-stained with antibodies targeting AMACR, P63, and ERG. Sensitivity and specificity for AMACR, P63, and ERG were determined. Hematoxylin and eosin staining is the reference standard as it is a rapid, cost-effective diagnostic tool offering excellent morphological detail, allowing accurate identification of architectural and cellular features for diagnosis, grading, and prognosis. Results: Among the evaluated specimens, 128 (66%) showed benign prostatic hyperplasia, while 66 (34%) showed prostatic adenocarcinoma on histopathological examination (HPE). Perineural invasion occurred in 32 (48.5%) of malignant cases. AMACR immunohistochemical expression was found in 54 (82%) of malignant cases and 24 (18.7%) of benign cases. P63 expression was present in 122 (95.3%) benign lesions. ERG expression was observed in 23 (34.8%) of malignant cases. The diagnostic accuracy of AMACR, P63, and ERG was 98.3%, 89.7%, and 86%, respectively. The triple-marker panel (AMACR + P63 + ERG) achieved 97% sensitivity, 99.2% specificity, and 98.5% diagnostic accuracy, indicating an incremental diagnostic gain in prostate biopsy specimens. Conclusion: The triple-marker panel yielded a diagnostic accuracy rate of 98.5%, despite ERG’s comparatively lower sensitivity. The combined use of AMACR, P63, and ERG may be considered in selected diagnostically challenging cases.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: