Biomedical subjects

Robert C Burrows

Publications and source records attributed to Robert C Burrows.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2002

Immunophenotype of conjunctival melanomas: comparisons with uveal and cutaneous melanomas.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the immunophenotypic expression pattern of conjunctival melanomas, with the use of standard melanoma markers as well as microphthalmia transcription factor and p75 neurotrophin receptor. DESIGN: Eleven conjunctival melanomas, including 1 caruncular melanoma, were immunolabeled with a panel of antibodies that included S100, tyrosinase, melan-A, HMB-45 and HMB-50 combination, microphthalmia transcription factor, and p75 neurotrophin receptor. The results were tabulated on the basis of intensity and pervasiveness of labeling and compared with a previous study of uveal melanomas. RESULTS: Immunolabeling with S100 was at significantly higher levels in conjunctival melanomas than in uveal melanomas. Tyrosinase, HMB-45 and HMB-50 combination, melan-A, and microphthalmia transcription factor were expressed at high levels in conjunctival melanomas, whereas p75 neurotrophin receptor was not expressed. CONCLUSIONS: Melanomas of the conjunctiva, including the caruncle, expressed S100, tyrosinase, melan-A, HMB-45 and HMB-50 combination, and microphthalmia transcription factor at high levels, suggesting that these are good markers for this melanoma subtype. Expression of S100 was significantly higher in conjunctival melanomas than in uveal melanomas. The immunophenotypic pattern of conjunctival melanomas is most similar to the epithelioid subtype of cutaneous melanomas.

Biomarkers, Tumor↗

PubMed2002

Immunophenotypic differences between uveal and cutaneous melanomas.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the immunophenotypic differences between uveal and cutaneous melanomas, employing standard melanoma markers as well as p75 neurotrophin receptor (p75NTR) and microphthalmia transcription factor (MITF). DESIGN: Fifteen uveal melanomas (5 spindle, 5 epithelioid, and 5 mixed uveal subtypes) were immunolabeled with a panel of antibodies that included S100, tyrosinase, melan-A, HMB-45 and HMB-50 combination, MITF, and p75NTR. The results were tabulated on the basis of intensity and pervasiveness of the labeling and compared with a prior study on cutaneous spindle and epithelioid melanomas. RESULTS: In contrast to its strong labeling of cutaneous melanomas, S100 immunolabeling of uveal melanomas was weak and variable. p75NTR, known to differentiate spindle from epithelioid melanomas of the skin, did not immunolabel uveal melanomas. HMB-45, HMB-50, tyrosinase, melan-A, and MITF immunolabeled all uveal melanomas strongly, irrespective of the histologic subtype, but not cutaneous melanomas. Microphthalmia transcription factor was especially clear in its labeling of uveal melanomas. CONCLUSIONS: Although cutaneous and uveal melanomas share many molecular markers in common, there are differences between the 2 types of melanoma. First, the level of expression of S100 differs between cutaneous and uveal melanomas. Second, while cutaneous melanomas can be further subdivided into spindle and epithelioid types based on their immunophenotype, the uveal melanomas cannot.

Antigens, Neoplasm↗