**Simultaneous Changes in Expression of Bile Canalicular CD10 and Sinusoidal CD105 (Endoglin) in Chronic Hepatitis and Liver Cirrhosis**

Toshitsugu Nakamura

lar carcinoma growth and correlates with prognosis of patients with hepatocellular

[73] Augello C, Vaira V, Caruso L, Destro A, Maggioni M, Park YN, Montorsi M, Santam‐ brogio R, Roncalli M, Bosari S. MicroRNA profiling of hepatocarcino- genesis identi‐ fies C19MC cluster as a novel prognostic biomarker in hepato- cellular carcinoma.

[74] Wu J, Zhu AX. Targeting insulin-like growth factor axis in hepatocellular carcinoma.

[75] Wong VW, Chan HL. Prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma: a concise review of

contemporary issues. Ann Hepatol, 2012; 11: 284-93[PMID: 22481445]

carcinoma. J Biol Chem. 2011; 286: 36677-85 [PMID: 21878637]

Liver Int. 2012; 32: 772-82 [PMID: 22429613]

280 Hepatocellular Carcinoma - Future Outlook

J Hematol Oncol. 2011; 4: 30 [PMID: 21729319], 4, 30.

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56734

### **1. Introduction**

Liver tissue contains hepatic sinusoids and bile canaliculi among hepatocyte plates. Dynamic changes of these components during a sequence of chronic hepatitis (CH) to liver cirrhosis (LC) have been an interesting subject from a standpoint of cellular injury and regeneration. It is known that proliferative activity of hepatocytes is significantly correlated with the severity of CH [1-3]. On the other hand, the dynamic changes of proliferative sinusoidal cells have been analyzed in experimental liver injury [4,5], but not enough in human cases of CH/LC in relation to inflammatory activity or fibrosis stage. Similarly, bile canalicular changes in CH/LC have not been analyzed until recently, because the bile canaliculi are difficult to recognize morpho‐ logically.

Recent identification of markers for bile canaliculi or hepatic sinusoids facilitated the analysis of phenotypic changes in these components in CH/LC. Some markers for bile canaliculi, such as CD10, CD13 and biliary glycoprotein I, are known at present [6,7]. CD10, also called common acute lymphoblastic lymphoma antigen (CALLA) or neprilysin, is a 100kD type II cell-surface metalloproteinase [8] and modulates the enkephalin-mediated inflammatory response [9]. It is expressed in various tissues, including brush border of enterocytes, renal tubules/glomeruli, endometrial stroma, hepatic bile canaliculi and lymphoid precursor cells [10]. It is also a useful marker for neoplastic counterpart of these tissues such as some lymphoma/leukemia [11], renal cell carcinoma, endometrial stromal sarcoma [12] and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [6,7,13,14]. However, changes of expression pattern of CD10 in bile canaliculi (CD10(BC)) during a sequence of CH/LC have not been examined except for a report by Shousha *et al.* [15]

© 2013 Nakamura; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

CD105, also known as endoglin, is an 180kD homodimeric transmembrane glycoprotein forming part of transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) receptor complex [16,17]. It is expressed with marked tissue-specificity, predominantly in vascular endothelial cells of tissues under‐ going active angiogenesis such as regenerating or inflamed tissue and tumoral stroma [18,19]. In particular, its expression in the stromal vessels of various carcinomas is associated with unfavorable prognosis [19-22]. Thus, CD105 has been attracted considerable attention, not only as a biological marker of tumor growth but also as a target molecule for diagnostic and therapeutic application against cancer [23,24]. On the other hand, CD105 expression has also been examined in the active/proliferative vessels of stromal tissues other than carcinomas, such as hemorrhoids [25], inflammation and wound healing [26,27], endometrial tissue throughout the menstrual cycle [28], or CH/LC [29-32]. Although expression of CD105 along hepatic sinusoids (CD105(HS)) in CH/LC has been reported [29-32], a correlation between CD10 and CD105 expression has not been examined so far. We previously reported changes in expression of CD10 and CD105 in the hepatic tissue around tumors including HCC and metastatic carcinoma [33]. In the present study, we analyzed CH/LC in the same way as in the previous report.

enough from the tumor nodule in the cases of metastatic carcinoma or cystadenoma were used

Simultaneous Changes in Expression of Bile Canalicular CD10 and Sinusoidal CD105…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56734

283

The tissue sections were stained immunohistochemically using the streptavidin-biotinperoxidase method. Endogenous peroxidase activity in the sections was eliminated in 0.3% hydrogen peroxide in methanol for 30 min. Thereafter, the sections were treated with 0.2% trypsin for 40min. at 37 degrees C (for CD105) or were submerged in 0.01mol/l citrate buffer (pH6.0) and boiled for 15 minutes in a microwave oven (for CD10) to retrieve the antigenecity [36]. After cooling to room temperature, these sections were incubated with monoclonal antibodies against CD10 (clone 56C6, Medical & Biological Laboratories, Nagoya, Japan, 1:50 dilution) and CD105 (clone SN6h, Dako, Glostrup, Denmark, 1:5 dilution), followed by biotinylated antibody against mouse immunoglobulin (Dako, 1:50 dilution), and finally reacted with peroxidase-conjugated streptavidin (Dako). The labeled peroxidase was visual‐ ized by 3,3'-diaminobenzidine-hydrogen peroxide method and counterstained by hematoxy‐ lin. Negative control sections for immunostaining were treated with phosphate-buffered saline

for<\$%&?>40min.<\$%&?>at<\$%&?>37<\$%&?>degrees<\$%&?>C<\$%&?>(for<\$%&?>CD105)<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>were<\$%&?>submerg ed<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>0.01mol/l<\$%&?>citrate<\$%&?>buffer<\$%&?>(pH6.0)<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>boiled<\$%&?>for<\$%&?>15<\$%&?>m inutes<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>microwave<\$%&?>oven<\$%&?>(for<\$%&?>CD10)<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>retrieve<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>an tigenecity<\$%&?>[36].<\$%&?>After<\$%&?>cooling<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>room<\$%&?>temperature,<\$%&?>these<\$%&?>sections<\$%&? >were<\$%&?>incubated<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>monoclonal<\$%&?>antibodies<\$%&?>against<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>(clone<\$%&?>56C6 ,<\$%&?>Medical<\$%&?>&<\$%&?>Biological<\$%&?>Laboratories,<\$%&?>Nagoya,<\$%&?>Japan,<\$%&?>1:50<\$%&?>dilution)<\$%& ?>and<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>(clone<\$%&?>SN6h,<\$%&?>Dako,<\$%&?>Glostrup,<\$%&?>Denmark,<\$%&?>1:5<\$%&?>dilution),<\$% &?>followed<\$%&?>by<\$%&?>biotinylated<\$%&?>antibody<\$%&?>against<\$%&?>mouse<\$%&?>immunoglobulin<\$%&?>(Dako,<

conjugated<\$%&?>streptavidin<\$%&?>(Dako).<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>labeled<\$%&?>peroxidase<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>visualized<\$%&?>

hydrogen<\$%&?>peroxide<\$%&?>method<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>counterstained<\$%&?>by<\$%&?>hematoxylin.<\$%&?>Negative<\$% &?>control<\$%&?>sections<\$%&?>for<\$%&?>immunostaining<\$%&?>were<\$%&?>treated<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>phosphatebuffered<\$%&?>saline<\$%&?>instead<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>primary<\$%&?>antibodies<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>were<\$%&?>conf

01 23

*Figure 1.* Representative features of CD10 score in bile canaliculi and CD105

**Figure 1.** Representative features of CD10 score in bile canaliculi and CD105 score along hepativ sinusoids in lobular

A scoring system was introduced for evaluation of expression of CD10 or CD105 in the background hepatic tissue, apart more than 5mm. from the tumor nodule. The intensity of CD10- or CD105-reactivity in the peri-portal and lobular areas were evaluated separately as 0

Figure 1. Representative<\$%&?>features<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>canaliculi<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD105<\$

A<\$%&?>scoring<\$%&?>system<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>introduced<\$%&?>for<\$%&?>evaluation<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>o f<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>background<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissue,<\$%&?>apart<\$%&? >more<\$%&?>than<\$%&?>5mm.<\$%&?>from<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>tumor<\$%&?>nodule.<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>intensity<\$%&?>of<\$%&

portal<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>lobular<\$%&?>areas<\$%&?>were<\$%&?>evaluated<\$%&?>separately<\$%&?>as<\$%&?>0<\$%&?>(no<\$% &?>staining),<\$%&?>1<\$%&?>(weak),<\$%&?>2<\$%&?>(moderate)<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>3<\$%&?>(intense)<\$%&?>(Figure<\$%&?>1),<

portal<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>lobular<\$%&?>scores<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>defined<\$%&?>as<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>or<\$%&?> CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>respectively.<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>immunoreactivity<\$%&?>for<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>HCC<\$% &?>was<\$%&?>also<\$%&?>evaluated<\$%&?>as<\$%&?>0,<\$%&?>1,<\$%&?>2<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>3,<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>

T.<\$%&?>Statistical<\$%&?>analyses<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>scores<\$%&?>were<\$%&?>performed<\$%&?>mutually<\$%&?>or

Whitney's<\$%&?>test<\$%&?>using<\$%&?>Statmate<\$%&?>III<\$%&?>software<\$%&?>(Atoms,<\$%&?>Tokyo,<\$%&?>Japan).<\$%&

<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>severity<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?>by<\$%&?>Mann-

score along hepatic sinusoids in the lobular areas.

%&?>score<\$%&?>along<\$%&?>hepativ<\$%&?>sinusoids<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>lobular<\$%&?>areas.

?>CD10-<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>CD105-reactivity<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>peri-

\$%&?>and<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>sum<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>peri-

defined<\$%&?>as<\$%&?>CD10-

**2.3. Immunohistochemistry and evaluation of staining**

instead of the primary antibodies and were confirmed to be unstained.

\$%&?>1:50<\$%&?>dilution),<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>finally<\$%&?>reacted<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>peroxidase-

as controls.

by<\$%&?>3,3'-diaminobenzidine-

CD105

areas.

CD10

irmed<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>be<\$%&?>unstained.<\$%&?>

### **2. Materials and methods**

#### **2.1. Tissue samples**

Fifty-two cases of surgically resected liver specimens were retrieved from a pathological database file at Suwa Red Cross Hospital (Suwa, Japan). The cases showing fatty metamor‐ phosis or treated before operation by trans-arterial embolization or radiofrequency ablation for tumors were excluded. The resected livers had HCC with CH or LC (40 cases, consisted of 26 cases of type C, 4 of type B and 10 of non-B/non-C type), metastatic carcinoma (11 cases; 8 for colorectal origin and 1 for breast, stomach and Vater's papilla origin in each) and biliary cystadenoma (1 case). None of the cases of metastatic carcinoma and cystadenoma showed features of CH/LC clinically or histopathologically. All specimens had been fixed in 10% phosphate-buffered formalin immediately after resection and embedded in paraffin. In each case, representative paraffin blocks of the background hepatic tissue of tumors were selected and serial tissue sections were subjected to Azan-Mallory and immunohistochemical stainings. The sections contained part of the tumor nodule in 46 cases.

#### **2.2. Evaluation of chronic hepatitis/cirrhosis**

The inflammatory activity (A) and fibrosis stage (F) of CH/LC were evaluated by histological observation of sections with hematoxylin-eosin and Azan-Mallory stainings according to the new Inuyama Classification of Japan [34], which well corresponds to the International Classification of chronic hepatitis [35]. The inflammatory activity was classified as A0 (no inflammation or necrosis), A1 (mild), A2 (moderate) and A3 (severe), and the fibrosis stage as F0 (no fibrosis), F1 (fibrous extension of Glisson's sheathes), F2 (bridging fibrosis), F3 (distorted bridging fibrosis or pre-cirrhotic state) and F4 (LC). The background hepatic tissues apart enough from the tumor nodule in the cases of metastatic carcinoma or cystadenoma were used as controls.

#### **2.3. Immunohistochemistry and evaluation of staining**

CD105, also known as endoglin, is an 180kD homodimeric transmembrane glycoprotein forming part of transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) receptor complex [16,17]. It is expressed with marked tissue-specificity, predominantly in vascular endothelial cells of tissues under‐ going active angiogenesis such as regenerating or inflamed tissue and tumoral stroma [18,19]. In particular, its expression in the stromal vessels of various carcinomas is associated with unfavorable prognosis [19-22]. Thus, CD105 has been attracted considerable attention, not only as a biological marker of tumor growth but also as a target molecule for diagnostic and therapeutic application against cancer [23,24]. On the other hand, CD105 expression has also been examined in the active/proliferative vessels of stromal tissues other than carcinomas, such as hemorrhoids [25], inflammation and wound healing [26,27], endometrial tissue throughout the menstrual cycle [28], or CH/LC [29-32]. Although expression of CD105 along hepatic sinusoids (CD105(HS)) in CH/LC has been reported [29-32], a correlation between CD10 and CD105 expression has not been examined so far. We previously reported changes in expression of CD10 and CD105 in the hepatic tissue around tumors including HCC and metastatic carcinoma [33]. In the present study, we analyzed CH/LC in the same way as in the previous

Fifty-two cases of surgically resected liver specimens were retrieved from a pathological database file at Suwa Red Cross Hospital (Suwa, Japan). The cases showing fatty metamor‐ phosis or treated before operation by trans-arterial embolization or radiofrequency ablation for tumors were excluded. The resected livers had HCC with CH or LC (40 cases, consisted of 26 cases of type C, 4 of type B and 10 of non-B/non-C type), metastatic carcinoma (11 cases; 8 for colorectal origin and 1 for breast, stomach and Vater's papilla origin in each) and biliary cystadenoma (1 case). None of the cases of metastatic carcinoma and cystadenoma showed features of CH/LC clinically or histopathologically. All specimens had been fixed in 10% phosphate-buffered formalin immediately after resection and embedded in paraffin. In each case, representative paraffin blocks of the background hepatic tissue of tumors were selected and serial tissue sections were subjected to Azan-Mallory and immunohistochemical stainings.

The inflammatory activity (A) and fibrosis stage (F) of CH/LC were evaluated by histological observation of sections with hematoxylin-eosin and Azan-Mallory stainings according to the new Inuyama Classification of Japan [34], which well corresponds to the International Classification of chronic hepatitis [35]. The inflammatory activity was classified as A0 (no inflammation or necrosis), A1 (mild), A2 (moderate) and A3 (severe), and the fibrosis stage as F0 (no fibrosis), F1 (fibrous extension of Glisson's sheathes), F2 (bridging fibrosis), F3 (distorted bridging fibrosis or pre-cirrhotic state) and F4 (LC). The background hepatic tissues apart

report.

**2. Materials and methods**

282 Hepatocellular Carcinoma - Future Outlook

The sections contained part of the tumor nodule in 46 cases.

**2.2. Evaluation of chronic hepatitis/cirrhosis**

**2.1. Tissue samples**

The tissue sections were stained immunohistochemically using the streptavidin-biotinperoxidase method. Endogenous peroxidase activity in the sections was eliminated in 0.3% hydrogen peroxide in methanol for 30 min. Thereafter, the sections were treated with 0.2% trypsin for 40min. at 37 degrees C (for CD105) or were submerged in 0.01mol/l citrate buffer (pH6.0) and boiled for 15 minutes in a microwave oven (for CD10) to retrieve the antigenecity [36]. After cooling to room temperature, these sections were incubated with monoclonal antibodies against CD10 (clone 56C6, Medical & Biological Laboratories, Nagoya, Japan, 1:50 dilution) and CD105 (clone SN6h, Dako, Glostrup, Denmark, 1:5 dilution), followed by biotinylated antibody against mouse immunoglobulin (Dako, 1:50 dilution), and finally reacted with peroxidase-conjugated streptavidin (Dako). The labeled peroxidase was visual‐ ized by 3,3'-diaminobenzidine-hydrogen peroxide method and counterstained by hematoxy‐ lin. Negative control sections for immunostaining were treated with phosphate-buffered saline instead of the primary antibodies and were confirmed to be unstained. for<\$%&?>40min.<\$%&?>at<\$%&?>37<\$%&?>degrees<\$%&?>C<\$%&?>(for<\$%&?>CD105)<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>were<\$%&?>submerg ed<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>0.01mol/l<\$%&?>citrate<\$%&?>buffer<\$%&?>(pH6.0)<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>boiled<\$%&?>for<\$%&?>15<\$%&?>m inutes<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>microwave<\$%&?>oven<\$%&?>(for<\$%&?>CD10)<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>retrieve<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>an tigenecity<\$%&?>[36].<\$%&?>After<\$%&?>cooling<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>room<\$%&?>temperature,<\$%&?>these<\$%&?>sections<\$%&? >were<\$%&?>incubated<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>monoclonal<\$%&?>antibodies<\$%&?>against<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>(clone<\$%&?>56C6 ,<\$%&?>Medical<\$%&?>&<\$%&?>Biological<\$%&?>Laboratories,<\$%&?>Nagoya,<\$%&?>Japan,<\$%&?>1:50<\$%&?>dilution)<\$%& ?>and<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>(clone<\$%&?>SN6h,<\$%&?>Dako,<\$%&?>Glostrup,<\$%&?>Denmark,<\$%&?>1:5<\$%&?>dilution),<\$% &?>followed<\$%&?>by<\$%&?>biotinylated<\$%&?>antibody<\$%&?>against<\$%&?>mouse<\$%&?>immunoglobulin<\$%&?>(Dako,< \$%&?>1:50<\$%&?>dilution),<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>finally<\$%&?>reacted<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>peroxidaseconjugated<\$%&?>streptavidin<\$%&?>(Dako).<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>labeled<\$%&?>peroxidase<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>visualized<\$%&?> by<\$%&?>3,3'-diaminobenzidinehydrogen<\$%&?>peroxide<\$%&?>method<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>counterstained<\$%&?>by<\$%&?>hematoxylin.<\$%&?>Negative<\$% &?>control<\$%&?>sections<\$%&?>for<\$%&?>immunostaining<\$%&?>were<\$%&?>treated<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>phosphatebuffered<\$%&?>saline<\$%&?>instead<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>primary<\$%&?>antibodies<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>were<\$%&?>conf irmed<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>be<\$%&?>unstained.<\$%&?>

*Figure 1.* Representative features of CD10 score in bile canaliculi and CD105 score along hepatic sinusoids in the lobular areas. **Figure 1.** Representative features of CD10 score in bile canaliculi and CD105 score along hepativ sinusoids in lobular areas.

Figure 1. Representative<\$%&?>features<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>canaliculi<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD105<\$ %&?>score<\$%&?>along<\$%&?>hepativ<\$%&?>sinusoids<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>lobular<\$%&?>areas. A scoring system was introduced for evaluation of expression of CD10 or CD105 in the background hepatic tissue, apart more than 5mm. from the tumor nodule. The intensity of CD10- or CD105-reactivity in the peri-portal and lobular areas were evaluated separately as 0

?>CD10-<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>CD105-reactivity<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>peri-

\$%&?>and<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>sum<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>peri-

defined<\$%&?>as<\$%&?>CD10-

A<\$%&?>scoring<\$%&?>system<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>introduced<\$%&?>for<\$%&?>evaluation<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>o f<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>background<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissue,<\$%&?>apart<\$%&? >more<\$%&?>than<\$%&?>5mm.<\$%&?>from<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>tumor<\$%&?>nodule.<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>intensity<\$%&?>of<\$%&

portal<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>lobular<\$%&?>areas<\$%&?>were<\$%&?>evaluated<\$%&?>separately<\$%&?>as<\$%&?>0<\$%&?>(no<\$% &?>staining),<\$%&?>1<\$%&?>(weak),<\$%&?>2<\$%&?>(moderate)<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>3<\$%&?>(intense)<\$%&?>(Figure<\$%&?>1),<

portal<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>lobular<\$%&?>scores<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>defined<\$%&?>as<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>or<\$%&?> CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>respectively.<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>immunoreactivity<\$%&?>for<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>HCC<\$% &?>was<\$%&?>also<\$%&?>evaluated<\$%&?>as<\$%&?>0,<\$%&?>1,<\$%&?>2<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>3,<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>

T.<\$%&?>Statistical<\$%&?>analyses<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>scores<\$%&?>were<\$%&?>performed<\$%&?>mutually<\$%&?>or

Whitney's<\$%&?>test<\$%&?>using<\$%&?>Statmate<\$%&?>III<\$%&?>software<\$%&?>(Atoms,<\$%&?>Tokyo,<\$%&?>Japan).<\$%&

<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>severity<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?>by<\$%&?>Mann-

(no staining), 1 (weak), 2 (moderate) and 3 (intense) (Figure 1), and the sum of peri-portal and lobular scores was defined as CD10 score or CD105 score respectively. The immunoreactivity for CD10 in HCC was also evaluated as 0, 1, 2 and 3, and was defined as CD10-T. Statistical analyses of the scores were performed mutually or in relation to the severity of CH/LC by Mann-Whitney's test using Statmate III software (Atoms, Tokyo, Japan). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between CD10 score and CD105 score was calculated by Statmate III.

?>Spearman's<\$%&?>rank<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>coefficient<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD

cases (Figure 3B). In relation to inflammatory activity or fibrosis, a significant difference of CD10 score was demonstrated between the cases of A0 and A1-3 or between those of F0 and F1-4, but, among each group, only between A0 and A1 or F1-2 and F3 (Figures 4 B and 4E,

3<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>those<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>F0<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>F1-

?>demonstrated<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>A0<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>A1-

%&?>F1-2<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>F3<\$%&?>(Figures<\$%&?>4B<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>4E,<\$%&?>Table<\$%&?>1).<\$%&?>

%&?>in<\$%&?>some<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>(Figure<\$%&?>3B).<\$%&?>In<\$%&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>acti vity<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>fibrosis,<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>significant<\$%&?>difference<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>was<\$%&

Simultaneous Changes in Expression of Bile Canalicular CD10 and Sinusoidal CD105…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56734

285

4,<\$%&?>but,<\$%&?>among<\$%&?>each<\$%&?>group,<\$%&?>only<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>A0<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>A1<\$%&?>or<\$

positive<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>sinusoids<\$%&?>also<\$%&?>revealed<\$%&?>uneven<\$%&?>distribution<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$% &?>hepatic<\$%&?>lobules.<\$%&?>Although<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>variable<\$%&?>from<\$%&?>case<\$% &?>to<\$%&?>case<\$%&?>(Figures<\$%&?>4C<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>4F),<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>scores<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?>wer e<\$%&?>significantly<\$%&?>higher<\$%&?>than<\$%&?>those<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissue<\$ %&?>(Table<\$%&?>2).<\$%&?>They<\$%&?>also<\$%&?>showed<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>tendency<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>be<\$%&?>high<\$%&?> in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>prominent<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%&?>but<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>in<\$%&

CD105-positive hepatic sinusoids also revealed uneven distribution in the hepatic lobules. Although CD105 score was variable from case to case (Figures 4 C and 4F), the scores in CH/LC were significantly higher than those in the control hepatic tissue (Table 2). They also showed a tendency to be high in the cases of prominent inflammatory activity but not in those

?>those<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>advanced<\$%&?>fibrosis<\$%&?>stage<\$%&?>(Table<\$%&?>2).<\$%&?>

*Figure 3.* CD10 expression in a case of chronic hepatitis (A2/F2). (A) Decreased expression in the area of moderate inflammatory activity. (B) Intense expression in the area of mild inflammatory activity and

**Figure 3.** CD10 expression in a case of chronic hepatitis (A2/F2). (A) Decreased expression in the area of moderate inflammatory acitivity. (B) Intense expression in the area of mild inflammatory activity and well-preserved trabecular

Mallory<\$%&?>staining,<\$%&?>(B)<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>3,<\$%&?>(C)<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>0<\$%&?>(serial<\$%&?>secti on<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>(B)),<\$%&?>(E)<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>0,<\$%&?>(F)<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>4<\$%&?>(serial<\$%&?>secti

> Figure 3. CD10<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>case<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>chronic<\$%&?>hepatitis<\$%&?>(A2/F2).<\$%&?>(A)<\$%&?>Dec reased<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>area<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>moderate<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>acitivity.<\$%&?>(B)<\$%&?>Inte nse<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>area<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>mild<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>well-

> > control vs. CH/LC: p<0.05

A0 vs. A1-3: p<0.001 A0 vs. A1: p<0.01 A1 vs. A2: NS

F0 vs. F1-4: p<0.005 F1 vs. F1-2: NS F1-2 vs. F3: p<0.001 F3 vs. F4: NS NS: not significant

well-preserved trabecular arrangement of hepatocyte plates.

*Table 1.* CD10 score in bile canaliculi in control liver and CH/LC in relation to inflammatory activity and degree of fibrosis

Table 1. CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>canaliculi<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?>in<\$%

**Table 1.** CD10 score in bile canaliculi in control liver and CH/LC in relation to inflammatory acitivity and degree of

preserved<\$%&?>trabecular<\$%&?>arrangement<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>hepatocyte<\$%&?>plates.

CD10 score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Control (12) 1 1 3 2 2 3 CH/LC (40) 12 6 8 7 4 3 A0 (11) 1 3 2 2 3 A1 (20) 6 1 6 4 1 2 A2 (18) 5 4 2 3 3 1

F0 (13) 1 2 4 2 2 2 F1 (4) 2 1 1 F2 (5) 2 2 1 F3 (11) 5 2 3 1 F4 (19) 7 4 2 3 2 1

**A B**

Figure 4. Representative<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>chronic<\$%&?>hepatitis<\$%&?>(CH):<\$%&?>(A)- (C)<\$%&?>CH<\$%&?>(A1/F1),<\$%&?>(D)-(F)<\$%&?>CH<\$%&?>(A2/F3).<\$%&?>(A)(D)<\$%&?>Azan-

A3 (3) 1 1 1

( ): number of cases

&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>acitivity<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>degree<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>fibrosis

**D E F**

**ABC**

Table 1).

CD105-

of advanced fibrosis stage (Table 2).

arrangement of hepatocyte plates.

on<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>(E)).

fibrosis

#### **3. Results** 105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>calculated<\$%&?>by<\$%&?>Statmate<\$%&?>III.<\$%&?>

#### **3.1. Control hepatic tissues**

**3.<\$%&?>Results** 

Out of 12 cases of metastatic carcinoma or biliary cystadenoma, the background hepatic tissues in 10 cases were evaluated as A0/F0 and those in the remaining 2 as A1/F0 and A0/F1 respec‐ tively. CD10(BC) expression was not uniform, while a difference of immunoreactivity was not conspicuous between peri-portal and lobular areas. CD10 score was more than 4 (moderate to intense staining) in 7 out of these 12 cases (Figure 2A, Table 1), including a case of A0/F1. **3.1.<\$%&?>Control<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissues<\$%&?>**  Out<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>12<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>metastatic<\$%&?>carcinoma<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>biliary<\$%&?>cystadenoma, <\$%&?>the<\$%&?>background<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissues<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>10<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>were<\$%&?>evaluated<\$% &?>as<\$%&?>A0/F0<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>those<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>remaining<\$%&?>2<\$%&?>as<\$%&?>A1/F0<\$%&?>and< \$%&?>A0/F1<\$%&?>respectively.<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>uniform,<\$%&?>while<\$%&? >a<\$%&?>difference<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>immunoreactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>conspicuous<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>periportal<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>lobular<\$%&?>areas.<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>more<\$%&?>than<\$%&?>4<\$%&?>( moderate<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>intense<\$%&?>staining)<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>7<\$%&?>out<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>these<\$%&?>12<\$%&?>cases<\$

%&?>(Figure<\$%&?>2A,<\$%&?>Table<\$%&?>1),<\$%&?>including<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>case<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>A0/F1.<\$%&?>

*Figure 2.* Expression of CD10 (A) and CD105 (B) in the control hepatic tissue (serial sections). Bile canaliculi are moderately to intensely immunoreactive for CD10, whereas CD105 is not expressed in any regions. **Figure 2.** Expression of CD10 (A) and CD 105 (B) in the control hepatic tissue (serial sections). Bile canaliculi are mod‐ erately to intensely immunoreactive for CD10, whereas CD105 is not expressed in any regions.

Figure 2. Expression<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>(A)<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD<\$%&?>105<\$%&?>(B)<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>h epatic<\$%&?>tissue<\$%&?>(serial<\$%&?>sections).<\$%&?>Bile<\$%&?>canaliculi<\$%&?>are<\$%&?>moderately<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>intensely<\$%&?>i mmunoreactive<\$%&?>for<\$%&?>CD10,<\$%&?>whereas<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>is<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>expressed<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>any<\$%&?>region s As for CD105, 5 cases (including a case of A0/F1) showed no expression in any region of the background hepatic tissues (Figure 2B, Table 2). The other 7 cases did not reveal CD105(HS) immunoreactivity in peri-portal areas but showed focal/weak expression in the lobular areas.

#### As<\$%&?>for<\$%&?>CD105,<\$%&?>5<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>(including<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>case<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>A0/F1)<\$%&?>showe d<\$%&?>no<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>any<\$%&?>region<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>background<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&? **3.2. Chronic hepatitis/cirrhosis**

%&?>reveal<\$%&?>CD105(HS)-immunoreactivity<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>periportal<\$%&?>areas<\$%&?>but<\$%&?>showed<\$%&?>focal/weak<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>lobular<\$%&?>ar eas.<\$%&?> **3.2.<\$%&?>Chronic<\$%&?>hepatitis/cirrhosis<\$%&?>**  CD10(BC) expression in the cases with CH/LC was not uniform, as in the control hepatic tissue, while CD10 scores were, in general, significantly lower than those in the control hepatic tissue (Figure 3A, Table 1). However, CD10(BC)-immunoreactivity was well preserved in the areas that the hepatocyte plates were regularly arranged with distinct trabecular pattern in some

hepatic<\$%&?>tissue<\$%&?>(Figure<\$%&?>3A,<\$%&?>Table<\$%&?>1).<\$%&?>However,<\$%&?>CD10(BC)-

>tissues<\$%&?>(Figure<\$%&?>2B,<\$%&?>Table<\$%&?>2).<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>other<\$%&?>7<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>did<\$%&?>not<\$

CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>uniform, <\$%&?>as<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissue,<\$%&?>while<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>scores<\$%&?>were, <\$%&?>in<\$%&?>general,<\$%&?>significantly<\$%&?>lower<\$%&?>than<\$%&?>those<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>

immunoreactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>well<\$%&?>preserved<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>areas<\$%&?>that<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>hepa tocyte<\$%&?>plates<\$%&?>were<\$%&?>regularly<\$%&?>arranged<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>distinct<\$%&?>trabecular<\$%&?>pattern<\$ %&?>in<\$%&?>some<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>(Figure<\$%&?>3B).<\$%&?>In<\$%&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>acti

cases (Figure 3B). In relation to inflammatory activity or fibrosis, a significant difference of CD10 score was demonstrated between the cases of A0 and A1-3 or between those of F0 and F1-4, but, among each group, only between A0 and A1 or F1-2 and F3 (Figures 4 B and 4E, Table 1). vity<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>fibrosis,<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>significant<\$%&?>difference<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>was<\$%& ?>demonstrated<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>A0<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>A1- 3<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>those<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>F0<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>F1- 4,<\$%&?>but,<\$%&?>among<\$%&?>each<\$%&?>group,<\$%&?>only<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>A0<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>A1<\$%&?>or<\$ %&?>F1-2<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>F3<\$%&?>(Figures<\$%&?>4B<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>4E,<\$%&?>Table<\$%&?>1).<\$%&?> CD105-

(no staining), 1 (weak), 2 (moderate) and 3 (intense) (Figure 1), and the sum of peri-portal and lobular scores was defined as CD10 score or CD105 score respectively. The immunoreactivity for CD10 in HCC was also evaluated as 0, 1, 2 and 3, and was defined as CD10-T. Statistical analyses of the scores were performed mutually or in relation to the severity of CH/LC by Mann-Whitney's test using Statmate III software (Atoms, Tokyo, Japan). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between CD10 score and CD105 score was calculated by Statmate III.

Out of 12 cases of metastatic carcinoma or biliary cystadenoma, the background hepatic tissues in 10 cases were evaluated as A0/F0 and those in the remaining 2 as A1/F0 and A0/F1 respec‐ tively. CD10(BC) expression was not uniform, while a difference of immunoreactivity was not conspicuous between peri-portal and lobular areas. CD10 score was more than 4 (moderate to intense staining) in 7 out of these 12 cases (Figure 2A, Table 1), including a case of A0/F1.

105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>calculated<\$%&?>by<\$%&?>Statmate<\$%&?>III.<\$%&?>

**3.1.<\$%&?>Control<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissues<\$%&?>** 

**A B**

erately to intensely immunoreactive for CD10, whereas CD105 is not expressed in any regions.

%&?>reveal<\$%&?>CD105(HS)-immunoreactivity<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>peri-

**3.2.<\$%&?>Chronic<\$%&?>hepatitis/cirrhosis<\$%&?>** 

*Figure 2.* Expression of CD10 (A) and CD105 (B) in the control hepatic tissue (serial sections). Bile canaliculi are moderately to intensely immunoreactive for CD10, whereas CD105 is not expressed in any regions.

**Figure 2.** Expression of CD10 (A) and CD 105 (B) in the control hepatic tissue (serial sections). Bile canaliculi are mod‐

As for CD105, 5 cases (including a case of A0/F1) showed no expression in any region of the background hepatic tissues (Figure 2B, Table 2). The other 7 cases did not reveal CD105(HS) immunoreactivity in peri-portal areas but showed focal/weak expression in the lobular areas.

CD10(BC) expression in the cases with CH/LC was not uniform, as in the control hepatic tissue, while CD10 scores were, in general, significantly lower than those in the control hepatic tissue (Figure 3A, Table 1). However, CD10(BC)-immunoreactivity was well preserved in the areas that the hepatocyte plates were regularly arranged with distinct trabecular pattern in some

Figure 2. Expression<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>(A)<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD<\$%&?>105<\$%&?>(B)<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>h epatic<\$%&?>tissue<\$%&?>(serial<\$%&?>sections).<\$%&?>Bile<\$%&?>canaliculi<\$%&?>are<\$%&?>moderately<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>intensely<\$%&?>i mmunoreactive<\$%&?>for<\$%&?>CD10,<\$%&?>whereas<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>is<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>expressed<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>any<\$%&?>region

As<\$%&?>for<\$%&?>CD105,<\$%&?>5<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>(including<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>case<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>A0/F1)<\$%&?>showe d<\$%&?>no<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>any<\$%&?>region<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>background<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&? >tissues<\$%&?>(Figure<\$%&?>2B,<\$%&?>Table<\$%&?>2).<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>other<\$%&?>7<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>did<\$%&?>not<\$

portal<\$%&?>areas<\$%&?>but<\$%&?>showed<\$%&?>focal/weak<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>lobular<\$%&?>ar

CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>uniform, <\$%&?>as<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissue,<\$%&?>while<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>scores<\$%&?>were, <\$%&?>in<\$%&?>general,<\$%&?>significantly<\$%&?>lower<\$%&?>than<\$%&?>those<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>

immunoreactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>well<\$%&?>preserved<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>areas<\$%&?>that<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>hepa tocyte<\$%&?>plates<\$%&?>were<\$%&?>regularly<\$%&?>arranged<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>distinct<\$%&?>trabecular<\$%&?>pattern<\$

hepatic<\$%&?>tissue<\$%&?>(Figure<\$%&?>3A,<\$%&?>Table<\$%&?>1).<\$%&?>However,<\$%&?>CD10(BC)-

?>Spearman's<\$%&?>rank<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>coefficient<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD

Out<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>12<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>metastatic<\$%&?>carcinoma<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>biliary<\$%&?>cystadenoma, <\$%&?>the<\$%&?>background<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissues<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>10<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>were<\$%&?>evaluated<\$% &?>as<\$%&?>A0/F0<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>those<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>remaining<\$%&?>2<\$%&?>as<\$%&?>A1/F0<\$%&?>and< \$%&?>A0/F1<\$%&?>respectively.<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>uniform,<\$%&?>while<\$%&? >a<\$%&?>difference<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>immunoreactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>conspicuous<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>periportal<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>lobular<\$%&?>areas.<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>more<\$%&?>than<\$%&?>4<\$%&?>( moderate<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>intense<\$%&?>staining)<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>7<\$%&?>out<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>these<\$%&?>12<\$%&?>cases<\$ %&?>(Figure<\$%&?>2A,<\$%&?>Table<\$%&?>1),<\$%&?>including<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>case<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>A0/F1.<\$%&?>

**3. Results**

**3.1. Control hepatic tissues**

284 Hepatocellular Carcinoma - Future Outlook

s

eas.<\$%&?>

**3.2. Chronic hepatitis/cirrhosis**

**3.<\$%&?>Results** 

CD105-positive hepatic sinusoids also revealed uneven distribution in the hepatic lobules. Although CD105 score was variable from case to case (Figures 4 C and 4F), the scores in CH/LC were significantly higher than those in the control hepatic tissue (Table 2). They also showed a tendency to be high in the cases of prominent inflammatory activity but not in those of advanced fibrosis stage (Table 2). positive<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>sinusoids<\$%&?>also<\$%&?>revealed<\$%&?>uneven<\$%&?>distribution<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$% &?>hepatic<\$%&?>lobules.<\$%&?>Although<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>variable<\$%&?>from<\$%&?>case<\$% &?>to<\$%&?>case<\$%&?>(Figures<\$%&?>4C<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>4F),<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>scores<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?>wer e<\$%&?>significantly<\$%&?>higher<\$%&?>than<\$%&?>those<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissue<\$ %&?>(Table<\$%&?>2).<\$%&?>They<\$%&?>also<\$%&?>showed<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>tendency<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>be<\$%&?>high<\$%&?> in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>prominent<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%&?>but<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>in<\$%& ?>those<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>advanced<\$%&?>fibrosis<\$%&?>stage<\$%&?>(Table<\$%&?>2).<\$%&?> **ABC**

*Figure 3.* CD10 expression in a case of chronic hepatitis (A2/F2). (A) Decreased expression in the area of moderate inflammatory activity. (B) Intense expression in the area of mild inflammatory activity and well-preserved trabecular arrangement of hepatocyte plates. **Figure 3.** CD10 expression in a case of chronic hepatitis (A2/F2). (A) Decreased expression in the area of moderate inflammatory acitivity. (B) Intense expression in the area of mild inflammatory activity and well-preserved trabecular arrangement of hepatocyte plates. on<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>(B)),<\$%&?>(E)<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>0,<\$%&?>(F)<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>4<\$%&?>(serial<\$%&?>secti on<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>(E)).

Mallory<\$%&?>staining,<\$%&?>(B)<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>3,<\$%&?>(C)<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>0<\$%&?>(serial<\$%&?>secti

*Table 1.* CD10 score in bile canaliculi in control liver and CH/LC


Table 1. CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>canaliculi<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?>in<\$% &?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>acitivity<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>degree<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>fibrosis **Table 1.** CD10 score in bile canaliculi in control liver and CH/LC in relation to inflammatory acitivity and degree of fibrosis

10-

0

on<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>(E)).

2

3

4

5


*Table 2.* CD105 score along hepatic sinusoid in control liver and CH/LC in relation to inflammatory activity and degree of fibrosis

Figure 5 shows a correlation between CD10 score and CD105 score in all cases examined (including CL/LC and control hepatic tissues). There was a significant inverse correlation and

tumoral<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>(Table<\$%&?>3).

0 1 2 3 4

CD10 expression was observed, at least in part of HCC tissue, in 20 (58.8%) out of 34 cases examined (Figure 6). Although the immunoreactivity was variable, the cases with CD10 positive tumor tissues showed significantly higher CD10 score in the background hepatic

*Figure 6.* Expression of CD10 in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Figure 6. Expression<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>hepatocellular<\$%&?>carcinoma.

CD10 score in

<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>tissue

**Figure 6.** Expression of CD10 in hepatocellular carcinoma.

**4.<\$%&?>Discussion** 

on<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10-

background liver tissue 0 1 2 3 4 5

*Table 3.* CD10 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma

and CD10 score in background liver tissue

ocyte<\$%&?>plates<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>distinct<\$%&?>sinusoids<\$%&?>maintained<\$%&?>CD10-

CD10 in HCC (-) 6 2 2 2 1 1

Table 3. CD10<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>hepatocellular<\$%&?>carcinoma<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>back

In<\$%&?>normal<\$%&?>human<\$%&?>liver,<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>is<\$%&?>detected<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>cana liculi<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>interlobular<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>ducts<\$%&?>[6,7].<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>present<\$%&?>study<\$%&?>indicat ed<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>decrease<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>CH/LC,<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>similar<\$%& ?>finding<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>what<\$%&?>has<\$%&?>been<\$%&?>recently<\$%&?>reported<\$%&?>[15].<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>distributi

immunoreactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>uniform,<\$%&?>while<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>regularly<\$%&?>arranged<\$%&?>hepat

positive<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>canaliculi.<\$%&?>These<\$%&?>observations<\$%&?>may<\$%&?>indicate,<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>CH/LC,<\$ %&?>a<\$%&?>loss<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>differentiation<\$%&?>and/or<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>functional<\$%&?>impairment<\$%&?>of<\$%&?> bile<\$%&?>canaliculi<\$%&?>due<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>persistent<\$%&?>hepatocyte<\$%&?>injury.<\$%&?>According<\$%&?>to<\$%&?> Shousha<\$%&?>*et<\$%&?>al.*<\$%&?>[15],<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>loss<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>reactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>s ignificantly<\$%&?>correlated<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>fibrosis<\$%&?>stage,<\$%&?>but<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>necroinflammatory<\$%&?>grade.<\$%&?>In<\$%&?>our<\$%&?>study,<\$%&?>however,<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>significant<\$%&?>difference<\$% &?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>demonstrated<\$%&?>according<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>presen ce<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>absence<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>fibrosis,<\$%&?>but<\$%&?>not<\$%&? >necessarily<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>groups<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>different<\$%&?>grades<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>them.<\$%&?>Th ese<\$%&?>results<\$%&?>suggest<\$%&?>that<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>decrease<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>does <\$%&?>not<\$%&?>simply<\$%&?>depend<\$%&?>on<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>grade<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%& ?>or<\$%&?>fibrosis.<\$%&?>Concerning<\$%&?>other<\$%&?>factors<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>severity <\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CH/LC,<\$%&?>Shousha<\$%&?>*et<\$%&?>al.*<\$%&?>reported<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>decre ased<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>abnormalities<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>function<\$%&?>tests<\$ %&?>in<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?>[15].<\$%&?>Meanwhile,<\$%&?>our<\$%&?>preliminary<\$%&?>examination<\$%&?>on<\$%&?>alani ne<\$%&?>aminotransferase<\$%&?>(ALT),<\$%&?>aspartate<\$%&?>aminotransferase<\$%&?>(AST),<\$%&?>lactic<\$%&?>dehydrog

(+) <sup>4</sup> <sup>1</sup> <sup>6</sup> <sup>5</sup> <sup>2</sup> <sup>2</sup> p<0.05

tissue than those with no intra-tumoral CD10 expression (Table 3). Figure 5. Inverse<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>(rs=-0.533).

Spearman's<\$%&?>rank<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>coefficient<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>-0.533.<\$%&?>

CD105 score 0 1 2 3 4 5

*Table 2.* CD105 score along hepatic sinusoid in control liver and CH/LC in relation to inflammatory activity and degree of fibrosis

Table 2. CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>along<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>sinusoid<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?

Figure<\$%&?>5<\$%&?>shows<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD105<\$ %&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>all<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>examined<\$%&?>(including<\$%&?>CL/LC<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>control<\$%&?> hepatic<\$%&?>tissues).<\$%&?>There<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>significant<\$%&?>inverse<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>

**3.3.<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>HCC<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>background<\$%**

Simultaneous Changes in Expression of Bile Canalicular CD10 and Sinusoidal CD105…

CD10<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>observed,<\$%&?>at<\$%&?>least<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>part<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>HCC<\$%&?>t issue,<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>20<\$%&?>(58.8%)<\$%&?>out<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>34<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>examined<\$%&?>(Figure<\$%&?>6).< \$%&?>Although<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>immunoreactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>variable,<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>CD

positive<\$%&?>tumor<\$%&?>tissues<\$%&?>showed<\$%&?>significantly<\$%&?>higher<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&

nonB/nonC control

5 6 CD10

score

?>the<\$%&?>background<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissue<\$%&?>than<\$%&?>those<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>no<\$%&?>intra-

B C

CH/LC (40) 4 9 11 10 4 2

>in<\$%&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>degree<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>fibrosis

control vs. CH/LC: p<0.001

A0 vs. A1-3: p<0.01 A0 vs. A1: p<0.05 A1 vs. A2: p<0.05

F0 vs. F1-4: p<0.005 F0 vs. F1-2: NS F1-2 vs. F3: NS F3 vs. F4: NS NS: not significant

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56734

287

control (12) 5 5 2

A0 (11) 5 4 2 A1 (20) 3 8 5 3 1 A2 (18) 1 2 6 5 3 1 A3 (3) 2 1

F0 (13) 4 6 3 F1 (4) 2 1 1 F2 (5) 2 1 1 1 F3 (11) 1 4 4 1 1 F4 (19) 3 5 9 2

( ): number of cases

Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was -0.533.

CD105 score

0

**Figure 5.** Inverse correlation of CD10 score and CD105 score (rs=-0.533).

**3.3. CD10 expression in HCC and background hepatic tissue**

1

2

3

4

5

10-

**&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissue** 

Table 2. CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>along<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>sinusoid<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&? >in<\$%&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>degree<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>fibrosis **Table 2.** CD105 score along hepatic sinusoid in control liver and CH/LC in relation to inflammatory activity and degree of fibrosis

Figure<\$%&?>5<\$%&?>shows<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD105<\$

1 Figure 4. Representative<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>chronic<\$%&?>hepatitis<\$%&?>(CH):<\$%&?>(A)- (C)<\$%&?>CH<\$%&?>(A1/F1),<\$%&?>(D)-(F)<\$%&?>CH<\$%&?>(A2/F3).<\$%&?>(A)(D)<\$%&?>Azan-Mallory<\$%&?>staining,<\$%&?>(B)<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>3,<\$%&?>(C)<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>0<\$%&?>(serial<\$%&?>secti **Figure 4.** Representative cases of chronic hepatitis (CH): (A)-(C) CH (A1/F1), (D)-(F) CH (A2/F3). (A)(D) Azan-Mallory staining, (B) CD10 score 3, (C) CD105 score 0 (serial section of (B)), (E) CD10 score 0, (F) CD105 score 4 (serial section of (E)).

CD10 score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Control (12) 1 1 3 2 2 3 CH/LC (40) 12 6 8 7 4 3 A0 (11) 1 3 2 2 3 A1 (20) 6 1 6 4 1 2 A2 (18) 5 4 2 3 3 1

F0 (13) 1 2 4 2 2 2 F1 (4) 2 1 1 F2 (5) 2 2 1 F3 (11) 5 2 3 1 F4 (19) 7 4 2 3 2 1

A3 (3) 1 1 1

( ): number of cases

&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>acitivity<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>degree<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>fibrosis

on<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>(B)),<\$%&?>(E)<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>0,<\$%&?>(F)<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>4<\$%&?>(serial<\$%&?>secti

*Table 1.* CD10 score in bile canaliculi in control liver and CH/LC in relation to inflammatory activity and degree of fibrosis

Table 1. CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>canaliculi<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?>in<\$%

5 6 CD10

score

control vs. CH/LC: p<0.05

A0 vs. A1-3: p<0.001 A0 vs. A1: p<0.01 A1 vs. A2: NS

F0 vs. F1-4: p<0.005 F1 vs. F1-2: NS F1-2 vs. F3: p<0.001 F3 vs. F4: NS NS: not significant

0 1 2 3 4

CD10<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>observed,<\$%&?>at<\$%&?>least<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>part<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>HCC<\$%&?>t

Table 2. CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>along<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>sinusoid<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?

Figure<\$%&?>5<\$%&?>shows<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD105<\$ %&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>all<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>examined<\$%&?>(including<\$%&?>CL/LC<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>control<\$%&?> hepatic<\$%&?>tissues).<\$%&?>There<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>significant<\$%&?>inverse<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>

Figure 5 shows a correlation between CD10 score and CD105 score in all cases examined (including CL/LC and control hepatic tissues). There was a significant inverse correlation and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was -0.533. issue,<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>20<\$%&?>(58.8%)<\$%&?>out<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>34<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>examined<\$%&?>(Figure<\$%&?>6).< \$%&?>Although<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>immunoreactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>variable,<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>CD 10 positive<\$%&?>tumor<\$%&?>tissues<\$%&?>showed<\$%&?>significantly<\$%&?>higher<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%& ?>the<\$%&?>background<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissue<\$%&?>than<\$%&?>those<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>no<\$%&?>intra-

tumoral<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>(Table<\$%&?>3).

Spearman's<\$%&?>rank<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>coefficient<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>-0.533.<\$%&?>

CD105 score 0 1 2 3 4 5

*Table 2.* CD105 score along hepatic sinusoid in control liver and CH/LC in relation to inflammatory activity and degree of fibrosis

CH/LC (40) 4 9 11 10 4 2

>in<\$%&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>degree<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>fibrosis

control vs. CH/LC: p<0.001

A0 vs. A1-3: p<0.01 A0 vs. A1: p<0.05 A1 vs. A2: p<0.05

F0 vs. F1-4: p<0.005 F0 vs. F1-2: NS F1-2 vs. F3: NS F3 vs. F4: NS NS: not significant

control (12) 5 5 2

A0 (11) 5 4 2 A1 (20) 3 8 5 3 1 A2 (18) 1 2 6 5 3 1 A3 (3) 2 1

F0 (13) 4 6 3 F1 (4) 2 1 1 F2 (5) 2 1 1 1 F3 (11) 1 4 4 1 1 F4 (19) 3 5 9 2

( ): number of cases

**Figure 5.** Inverse correlation of CD10 score and CD105 score (rs=-0.533).

CD105 score 0 1 2 3 4 5

*Table 2.* CD105 score along hepatic sinusoid in control liver and CH/LC in relation to inflammatory activity and degree of fibrosis

Table 2. CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>along<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>sinusoid<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?

**Table 2.** CD105 score along hepatic sinusoid in control liver and CH/LC in relation to inflammatory activity and degree

Figure<\$%&?>5<\$%&?>shows<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD105<\$ %&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>all<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>examined<\$%&?>(including<\$%&?>CL/LC<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>control<\$%&?> hepatic<\$%&?>tissues).<\$%&?>There<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>significant<\$%&?>inverse<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>

**3.3.<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>HCC<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>background<\$%**

CD10<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>observed,<\$%&?>at<\$%&?>least<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>part<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>HCC<\$%&?>t issue,<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>20<\$%&?>(58.8%)<\$%&?>out<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>34<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>examined<\$%&?>(Figure<\$%&?>6).< \$%&?>Although<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>immunoreactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>variable,<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>CD

positive<\$%&?>tumor<\$%&?>tissues<\$%&?>showed<\$%&?>significantly<\$%&?>higher<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&

nonB/nonC control

5 6 CD10

Mallory<\$%&?>staining,<\$%&?>(B)<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>3,<\$%&?>(C)<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>0<\$%&?>(serial<\$%&?>secti on<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>(B)),<\$%&?>(E)<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>0,<\$%&?>(F)<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>4<\$%&?>(serial<\$%&?>secti

**Figure 4.** Representative cases of chronic hepatitis (CH): (A)-(C) CH (A1/F1), (D)-(F) CH (A2/F3). (A)(D) Azan-Mallory staining, (B) CD10 score 3, (C) CD105 score 0 (serial section of (B)), (E) CD10 score 0, (F) CD105 score 4 (serial section of

> *Table 1.* CD10 score in bile canaliculi in control liver and CH/LC in relation to inflammatory activity and degree of fibrosis

Table 1. CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>canaliculi<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>control<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?>in<\$%

score

control vs. CH/LC: p<0.05

A0 vs. A1-3: p<0.001 A0 vs. A1: p<0.01 A1 vs. A2: NS

F0 vs. F1-4: p<0.005 F1 vs. F1-2: NS F1-2 vs. F3: p<0.001 F3 vs. F4: NS NS: not significant

?>the<\$%&?>background<\$%&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissue<\$%&?>than<\$%&?>those<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>no<\$%&?>intra-

**ABC**

**D E F**

CD10 score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Control (12) 1 1 3 2 2 3 CH/LC (40) 12 6 8 7 4 3 A0 (11) 1 3 2 2 3 A1 (20) 6 1 6 4 1 2 A2 (18) 5 4 2 3 3 1

F0 (13) 1 2 4 2 2 2 F1 (4) 2 1 1 F2 (5) 2 2 1 F3 (11) 5 2 3 1 F4 (19) 7 4 2 3 2 1

Figure 4. Representative<\$%&?>cases<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>chronic<\$%&?>hepatitis<\$%&?>(CH):<\$%&?>(A)- (C)<\$%&?>CH<\$%&?>(A1/F1),<\$%&?>(D)-(F)<\$%&?>CH<\$%&?>(A2/F3).<\$%&?>(A)(D)<\$%&?>Azan-

A3 (3) 1 1 1

( ): number of cases

&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>acitivity<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>degree<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>fibrosis

B C

CH/LC (40) 4 9 11 10 4 2

>in<\$%&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>degree<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>fibrosis

Spearman's<\$%&?>rank<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>coefficient<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>-0.533.<\$%&?>

**&?>hepatic<\$%&?>tissue** 

286 Hepatocellular Carcinoma - Future Outlook

of fibrosis

CD105 score

0

on<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>(E)).

1

(E)).

2

3

4

5

tumoral<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>(Table<\$%&?>3).

0 1 2 3 4

10-

control vs. CH/LC: p<0.001

A0 vs. A1-3: p<0.01 A0 vs. A1: p<0.05 A1 vs. A2: p<0.05

F0 vs. F1-4: p<0.005 F0 vs. F1-2: NS F1-2 vs. F3: NS F3 vs. F4: NS NS: not significant

control (12) 5 5 2

A0 (11) 5 4 2 A1 (20) 3 8 5 3 1 A2 (18) 1 2 6 5 3 1 A3 (3) 2 1

F0 (13) 4 6 3 F1 (4) 2 1 1 F2 (5) 2 1 1 1 F3 (11) 1 4 4 1 1 F4 (19) 3 5 9 2

( ): number of cases

#### **3.3. CD10 expression in HCC and background hepatic tissue**

CD10 expression was observed, at least in part of HCC tissue, in 20 (58.8%) out of 34 cases examined (Figure 6). Although the immunoreactivity was variable, the cases with CD10 positive tumor tissues showed significantly higher CD10 score in the background hepatic tissue than those with no intra-tumoral CD10 expression (Table 3). Figure 5. Inverse<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>(rs=-0.533).

*Figure 6.* Expression of CD10 in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Figure 6. Expression<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>hepatocellular<\$%&?>carcinoma.

CD10 score in

background liver tissue 0 1 2 3 4 5

*Table 3.* CD10 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma

and CD10 score in background liver tissue

ocyte<\$%&?>plates<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>distinct<\$%&?>sinusoids<\$%&?>maintained<\$%&?>CD10-

CD10 in HCC (-) 6 2 2 2 1 1

Table 3. CD10<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>hepatocellular<\$%&?>carcinoma<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>back

In<\$%&?>normal<\$%&?>human<\$%&?>liver,<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>is<\$%&?>detected<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>cana liculi<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>interlobular<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>ducts<\$%&?>[6,7].<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>present<\$%&?>study<\$%&?>indicat ed<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>decrease<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>CH/LC,<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>similar<\$%& ?>finding<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>what<\$%&?>has<\$%&?>been<\$%&?>recently<\$%&?>reported<\$%&?>[15].<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>distributi

immunoreactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>uniform,<\$%&?>while<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>regularly<\$%&?>arranged<\$%&?>hepat

positive<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>canaliculi.<\$%&?>These<\$%&?>observations<\$%&?>may<\$%&?>indicate,<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>CH/LC,<\$ %&?>a<\$%&?>loss<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>differentiation<\$%&?>and/or<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>functional<\$%&?>impairment<\$%&?>of<\$%&?> bile<\$%&?>canaliculi<\$%&?>due<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>persistent<\$%&?>hepatocyte<\$%&?>injury.<\$%&?>According<\$%&?>to<\$%&?> Shousha<\$%&?>*et<\$%&?>al.*<\$%&?>[15],<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>loss<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>reactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>s ignificantly<\$%&?>correlated<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>fibrosis<\$%&?>stage,<\$%&?>but<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>necroinflammatory<\$%&?>grade.<\$%&?>In<\$%&?>our<\$%&?>study,<\$%&?>however,<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>significant<\$%&?>difference<\$% &?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>demonstrated<\$%&?>according<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>presen ce<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>absence<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>fibrosis,<\$%&?>but<\$%&?>not<\$%&? >necessarily<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>groups<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>different<\$%&?>grades<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>them.<\$%&?>Th ese<\$%&?>results<\$%&?>suggest<\$%&?>that<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>decrease<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>does <\$%&?>not<\$%&?>simply<\$%&?>depend<\$%&?>on<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>grade<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%& ?>or<\$%&?>fibrosis.<\$%&?>Concerning<\$%&?>other<\$%&?>factors<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>severity <\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CH/LC,<\$%&?>Shousha<\$%&?>*et<\$%&?>al.*<\$%&?>reported<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>decre ased<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>abnormalities<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>function<\$%&?>tests<\$ %&?>in<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?>[15].<\$%&?>Meanwhile,<\$%&?>our<\$%&?>preliminary<\$%&?>examination<\$%&?>on<\$%&?>alani ne<\$%&?>aminotransferase<\$%&?>(ALT),<\$%&?>aspartate<\$%&?>aminotransferase<\$%&?>(AST),<\$%&?>lactic<\$%&?>dehydrog

(+) <sup>4</sup> <sup>1</sup> <sup>6</sup> <sup>5</sup> <sup>2</sup> <sup>2</sup> p<0.05

**Figure 6.** Expression of CD10 in hepatocellular carcinoma.

<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>tissue

**4.<\$%&?>Discussion** 

on<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10-

*Figure 6.* Expression of CD10 in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Figure 6. Expression<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>hepatocellular<\$%&?>carcinoma.


alcoholic liver disease [39,40] and various benign nodular lesions [27]. Recently, it has been reported that increased CD105(HS) expression is significantly associated with progressive hepatic fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C virus infection [31]. The present study also showed upregulation of CD105(HS)-immunoreactivity in CH/LC, indicating neoangiogenesis of hepatic sinusoids [30], and it was significantly correlated with the degree of inflammatory activity but not with the degree of fibrosis. The discrepancy between the two reports may reflect differences of methods of grading and scoring system. As for the type of hepatitis virus, CD105 score in CH/LC caused by hepatitis B virus was 0 or 1 in all cases in the present study. A correlation between CD105 score and type of hepatitis virus, however, could not be clarified because the number of cases of type B CH/LC was too small. Further cases of hepatitis B virus-positive CH/LC should be analyzed, although its infectious rate has been recently decreased due to

Simultaneous Changes in Expression of Bile Canalicular CD10 and Sinusoidal CD105…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56734

289

In conclusion, the present study indicates simultaneous down-regulation of CD10(BC) and upregulation of CD105(HS) in CH/LC. Although the phenotypic changes of bile canaliculi and hepatic sinusoids may be caused by separate mechanisms, they seem to represent different

The present study was undertaken in order to examine expression of CD10 in bile canaliculi (CD10(BC)) in relation to that of CD105 (endoglin) along hepatic sinusoids (CD105(HS)) in chronic hepatitis and liver cirrhosis (CH/LC). Fifty-two cases of resected liver, bearing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), metastatic carcinoma or biliary cystadenoma, were immu‐ nostained for CD10 and CD105. The immunoreactivity for CD10(BC) and CD105(HS) in the background hepatic tissue of tumors was scored separately. In the background hepatic tissue of metastatic carcinoma or cystadenoma (as controls), CD10(BC) was moderately or markedly expressed in more than half of the cases, whereas CD105(HS) was not or minimally positive. Compared with the controls, CH/LC cases significantly showed a decrease of CD10 score and an increase of CD105 score, the latter indicating neoangiogenesis, with inverse correlation (rs = -0.533). The down-regulation of CD10 was not necessarily correlated with inflammatory activity or degree of fibrosis, whereas the up-regulation of CD105 was significantly correlated with inflammatory activity. These results indicate that the expression pattern of CD10(BC) and CD105(HS) changed simultaneously in CH/LC by persistent hepatic injury, although the

The author thanks Dr. S. Kajikawa for providing surgical specimens, and Ms. M. Morozumi, Mr. S. Hokibara, Mr. M. Shimomura and Mr. M. Yajima for their excellent technical assistance.

aspects induced by a common event, i.e., persistent hepatic injury.

mechanism of change of these markers may be different.

vaccination [41].

**5. Summary**

**Acknowledgements**

liculi<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>interlobular<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>ducts<\$%&?>[6,7].<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>present<\$%&?>study<\$%&?>indicat

*Table 3.* CD10 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma

Figure 5. Inverse<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>(rs=-0.533).

Table 3. CD10<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>hepatocellular<\$%&?>carcinoma<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>back <\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>tissue **Table 3.** CD10 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma and CD10 score in background liver tissue

#### **4.<\$%&?>Discussion**  In<\$%&?>normal<\$%&?>human<\$%&?>liver,<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>is<\$%&?>detected<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>cana **4. Discussion**

ed<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>decrease<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>CH/LC,<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>similar<\$%& ?>finding<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>what<\$%&?>has<\$%&?>been<\$%&?>recently<\$%&?>reported<\$%&?>[15].<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>distributi on<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10 immunoreactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>uniform,<\$%&?>while<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>regularly<\$%&?>arranged<\$%&?>hepat ocyte<\$%&?>plates<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>distinct<\$%&?>sinusoids<\$%&?>maintained<\$%&?>CD10 positive<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>canaliculi.<\$%&?>These<\$%&?>observations<\$%&?>may<\$%&?>indicate,<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>CH/LC,<\$ %&?>a<\$%&?>loss<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>differentiation<\$%&?>and/or<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>functional<\$%&?>impairment<\$%&?>of<\$%&?> bile<\$%&?>canaliculi<\$%&?>due<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>persistent<\$%&?>hepatocyte<\$%&?>injury.<\$%&?>According<\$%&?>to<\$%&?> Shousha<\$%&?>*et<\$%&?>al.*<\$%&?>[15],<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>loss<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>reactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>s ignificantly<\$%&?>correlated<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>fibrosis<\$%&?>stage,<\$%&?>but<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>necroinflammatory<\$%&?>grade.<\$%&?>In<\$%&?>our<\$%&?>study,<\$%&?>however,<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>significant<\$%&?>difference<\$% &?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>demonstrated<\$%&?>according<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>presen ce<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>absence<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>fibrosis,<\$%&?>but<\$%&?>not<\$%&? >necessarily<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>groups<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>different<\$%&?>grades<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>them.<\$%&?>Th ese<\$%&?>results<\$%&?>suggest<\$%&?>that<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>decrease<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>does <\$%&?>not<\$%&?>simply<\$%&?>depend<\$%&?>on<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>grade<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%& ?>or<\$%&?>fibrosis.<\$%&?>Concerning<\$%&?>other<\$%&?>factors<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>severity <\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CH/LC,<\$%&?>Shousha<\$%&?>*et<\$%&?>al.*<\$%&?>reported<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>decre ased<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>abnormalities<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>function<\$%&?>tests<\$ %&?>in<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?>[15].<\$%&?>Meanwhile,<\$%&?>our<\$%&?>preliminary<\$%&?>examination<\$%&?>on<\$%&?>alani ne<\$%&?>aminotransferase<\$%&?>(ALT),<\$%&?>aspartate<\$%&?>aminotransferase<\$%&?>(AST),<\$%&?>lactic<\$%&?>dehydrog In normal human liver, CD10 is detected in the bile canaliculi and interlobular bile ducts [6,7]. The present study indicated a decrease of CD10(BC) expression in CH/LC, a similar finding to what has been recently reported [15]. The distribution of CD10-immunoreactivity was not uniform, while the regularly arranged hepatocyte plates with distinct sinusoids maintained CD10-positive bile canaliculi. These observations may indicate, in CH/LC, a loss of differen‐ tiation and/or a functional impairment of bile canaliculi due to persistent hepatocyte injury. According to Shousha *et al.* [15], the loss of CD10(BC) reactivity was significantly correlated with fibrosis stage, but not with necro-inflammatory grade. In our study, however, a significant difference of CD10(BC) expression was demonstrated according to the presence or absence of inflammatory activity or fibrosis, but not necessarily between the groups of different grades of them. These results suggest that a decrease of CD10(BC) expression does not simply depend on the grade of inflammatory activity or fibrosis. Concerning other factors in relation to the severity of CH/LC, Shousha *et al.* reported a correlation of decreased CD10(BC) expression with abnormalities in liver function tests in CH/LC [15]. Meanwhile, our preliminary exami‐ nation on alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), lactic dehydro‐ genase (LDH), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (gamma-GTP) showed that there was no distinct correlation between CD10 score and any data described above (data not shown). Further investigation on the mechanism of change in expression of CD10(BC) is warranted.

CD10 has also been used as a reliable marker for pathological diagnosis of HCC. The positive rate (58.8%) of CD10 expression in HCC in the present study was consistent with the previous reports (about 52-68%) [6,7,13,14]. In addition, CD10 in HCC was significantly correlated with the CD10 score of background hepatic tissue, although there was no significant correlation between CD10-T in HCC and CD score *in the lobular areas* in the previous report [33]. The present study suggests a phenotypic similarity of neoplastic and non-neoplastic hepatic tissue and also indicates the importance of evaluation of CD10 score in the all (peri-portal and lobular) areas.

The current study disclosed a significant inverse correlation between CD10 score and CD105 score in CH/LC. It has been reported that CD105 is not or minimally expressed in sinusoidal endothelial cells in normal human liver and is up-regulated in various types of chronic diseases, such as viral CH [29-32], autoimmune hepatitis [37], primary biliary cirrhosis [37,38], alcoholic liver disease [39,40] and various benign nodular lesions [27]. Recently, it has been reported that increased CD105(HS) expression is significantly associated with progressive hepatic fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C virus infection [31]. The present study also showed upregulation of CD105(HS)-immunoreactivity in CH/LC, indicating neoangiogenesis of hepatic sinusoids [30], and it was significantly correlated with the degree of inflammatory activity but not with the degree of fibrosis. The discrepancy between the two reports may reflect differences of methods of grading and scoring system. As for the type of hepatitis virus, CD105 score in CH/LC caused by hepatitis B virus was 0 or 1 in all cases in the present study. A correlation between CD105 score and type of hepatitis virus, however, could not be clarified because the number of cases of type B CH/LC was too small. Further cases of hepatitis B virus-positive CH/LC should be analyzed, although its infectious rate has been recently decreased due to vaccination [41].

In conclusion, the present study indicates simultaneous down-regulation of CD10(BC) and upregulation of CD105(HS) in CH/LC. Although the phenotypic changes of bile canaliculi and hepatic sinusoids may be caused by separate mechanisms, they seem to represent different aspects induced by a common event, i.e., persistent hepatic injury.

#### **5. Summary**

Figure 5. Inverse<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD105<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>(rs=-0.533).

background liver tissue 0 1 2 3 4 5

*Table 3.* CD10 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma

and CD10 score in background liver tissue

**Table 3.** CD10 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma and CD10 score in background liver tissue

ocyte<\$%&?>plates<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>distinct<\$%&?>sinusoids<\$%&?>maintained<\$%&?>CD10-

CD10 in HCC (-) 6 2 2 2 1 1

Table 3. CD10<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>hepatocellular<\$%&?>carcinoma<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>score<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>back

In<\$%&?>normal<\$%&?>human<\$%&?>liver,<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>is<\$%&?>detected<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>cana liculi<\$%&?>and<\$%&?>interlobular<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>ducts<\$%&?>[6,7].<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>present<\$%&?>study<\$%&?>indicat ed<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>decrease<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>CH/LC,<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>similar<\$%& ?>finding<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>what<\$%&?>has<\$%&?>been<\$%&?>recently<\$%&?>reported<\$%&?>[15].<\$%&?>The<\$%&?>distributi

immunoreactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>uniform,<\$%&?>while<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>regularly<\$%&?>arranged<\$%&?>hepat

In normal human liver, CD10 is detected in the bile canaliculi and interlobular bile ducts [6,7]. The present study indicated a decrease of CD10(BC) expression in CH/LC, a similar finding to what has been recently reported [15]. The distribution of CD10-immunoreactivity was not uniform, while the regularly arranged hepatocyte plates with distinct sinusoids maintained CD10-positive bile canaliculi. These observations may indicate, in CH/LC, a loss of differen‐ tiation and/or a functional impairment of bile canaliculi due to persistent hepatocyte injury. According to Shousha *et al.* [15], the loss of CD10(BC) reactivity was significantly correlated with fibrosis stage, but not with necro-inflammatory grade. In our study, however, a significant difference of CD10(BC) expression was demonstrated according to the presence or absence of inflammatory activity or fibrosis, but not necessarily between the groups of different grades of them. These results suggest that a decrease of CD10(BC) expression does not simply depend on the grade of inflammatory activity or fibrosis. Concerning other factors in relation to the severity of CH/LC, Shousha *et al.* reported a correlation of decreased CD10(BC) expression with abnormalities in liver function tests in CH/LC [15]. Meanwhile, our preliminary exami‐ nation on alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), lactic dehydro‐ genase (LDH), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (gamma-GTP) showed that there was no distinct correlation between CD10 score and any data described above (data not shown). Further investigation on the mechanism of change in expression of

positive<\$%&?>bile<\$%&?>canaliculi.<\$%&?>These<\$%&?>observations<\$%&?>may<\$%&?>indicate,<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>CH/LC,<\$ %&?>a<\$%&?>loss<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>differentiation<\$%&?>and/or<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>functional<\$%&?>impairment<\$%&?>of<\$%&?> bile<\$%&?>canaliculi<\$%&?>due<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>persistent<\$%&?>hepatocyte<\$%&?>injury.<\$%&?>According<\$%&?>to<\$%&?> Shousha<\$%&?>*et<\$%&?>al.*<\$%&?>[15],<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>loss<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>reactivity<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>s ignificantly<\$%&?>correlated<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>fibrosis<\$%&?>stage,<\$%&?>but<\$%&?>not<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>necroinflammatory<\$%&?>grade.<\$%&?>In<\$%&?>our<\$%&?>study,<\$%&?>however,<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>significant<\$%&?>difference<\$% &?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>was<\$%&?>demonstrated<\$%&?>according<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>presen ce<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>absence<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%&?>or<\$%&?>fibrosis,<\$%&?>but<\$%&?>not<\$%&? >necessarily<\$%&?>between<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>groups<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>different<\$%&?>grades<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>them.<\$%&?>Th ese<\$%&?>results<\$%&?>suggest<\$%&?>that<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>decrease<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>does <\$%&?>not<\$%&?>simply<\$%&?>depend<\$%&?>on<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>grade<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>inflammatory<\$%&?>activity<\$%& ?>or<\$%&?>fibrosis.<\$%&?>Concerning<\$%&?>other<\$%&?>factors<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>relation<\$%&?>to<\$%&?>the<\$%&?>severity <\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CH/LC,<\$%&?>Shousha<\$%&?>*et<\$%&?>al.*<\$%&?>reported<\$%&?>a<\$%&?>correlation<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>decre ased<\$%&?>CD10(BC)<\$%&?>expression<\$%&?>with<\$%&?>abnormalities<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>function<\$%&?>tests<\$ %&?>in<\$%&?>CH/LC<\$%&?>[15].<\$%&?>Meanwhile,<\$%&?>our<\$%&?>preliminary<\$%&?>examination<\$%&?>on<\$%&?>alani ne<\$%&?>aminotransferase<\$%&?>(ALT),<\$%&?>aspartate<\$%&?>aminotransferase<\$%&?>(AST),<\$%&?>lactic<\$%&?>dehydrog

CD10 has also been used as a reliable marker for pathological diagnosis of HCC. The positive rate (58.8%) of CD10 expression in HCC in the present study was consistent with the previous reports (about 52-68%) [6,7,13,14]. In addition, CD10 in HCC was significantly correlated with the CD10 score of background hepatic tissue, although there was no significant correlation between CD10-T in HCC and CD score *in the lobular areas* in the previous report [33]. The present study suggests a phenotypic similarity of neoplastic and non-neoplastic hepatic tissue and also indicates the importance of evaluation of CD10 score in the all (peri-portal and lobular)

The current study disclosed a significant inverse correlation between CD10 score and CD105 score in CH/LC. It has been reported that CD105 is not or minimally expressed in sinusoidal endothelial cells in normal human liver and is up-regulated in various types of chronic diseases, such as viral CH [29-32], autoimmune hepatitis [37], primary biliary cirrhosis [37,38],

(+) 4 1 6 5 2 2 p<0.05

*Figure 6.* Expression of CD10 in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Figure 6. Expression<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10<\$%&?>in<\$%&?>hepatocellular<\$%&?>carcinoma.

CD10 score in

<\$%&?>liver<\$%&?>tissue

**4.<\$%&?>Discussion** 

288 Hepatocellular Carcinoma - Future Outlook

**4. Discussion**

on<\$%&?>of<\$%&?>CD10-

CD10(BC) is warranted.

areas.

The present study was undertaken in order to examine expression of CD10 in bile canaliculi (CD10(BC)) in relation to that of CD105 (endoglin) along hepatic sinusoids (CD105(HS)) in chronic hepatitis and liver cirrhosis (CH/LC). Fifty-two cases of resected liver, bearing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), metastatic carcinoma or biliary cystadenoma, were immu‐ nostained for CD10 and CD105. The immunoreactivity for CD10(BC) and CD105(HS) in the background hepatic tissue of tumors was scored separately. In the background hepatic tissue of metastatic carcinoma or cystadenoma (as controls), CD10(BC) was moderately or markedly expressed in more than half of the cases, whereas CD105(HS) was not or minimally positive. Compared with the controls, CH/LC cases significantly showed a decrease of CD10 score and an increase of CD105 score, the latter indicating neoangiogenesis, with inverse correlation (rs = -0.533). The down-regulation of CD10 was not necessarily correlated with inflammatory activity or degree of fibrosis, whereas the up-regulation of CD105 was significantly correlated with inflammatory activity. These results indicate that the expression pattern of CD10(BC) and CD105(HS) changed simultaneously in CH/LC by persistent hepatic injury, although the mechanism of change of these markers may be different.

#### **Acknowledgements**

The author thanks Dr. S. Kajikawa for providing surgical specimens, and Ms. M. Morozumi, Mr. S. Hokibara, Mr. M. Shimomura and Mr. M. Yajima for their excellent technical assistance. This work was approved by Institutional Review Board on ethical aspects at Suwa Red Cross Hospital (Suwa, Japan).

[8] McIntosh GG, Lodge AJ, Watson P, Hall AG, Wood K, Anderson JJ, Angus B, Horne CH, Milton ID. NCL-CD10-270: A new monoclonal antibody recognizing CD10 in

Simultaneous Changes in Expression of Bile Canalicular CD10 and Sinusoidal CD105…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56734

291

[9] Shipp MA, Stefano GB, Switzer SN, Griffin JD, Reinherz EL. CD10 (CALLA) neutral endopeptidase 24.11 modulates inflammatory peptide-induced changes in neutro‐ phil morphology, migration, and adhesion proteins and is itselt regulated by neutro‐

[10] Lebien TW, McCormack RT. The common acute lymphoblastic leukemia antigen

[11] Borella L, Sen L, Casper JT. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) antigens detected with antisera to E rosette-forming and non-E rosette forming ALL blasts. Journal of

[12] Chu P, Arber DA. Paraffin-section detection of CD10 in 505 nonhematopoietic neo‐ plasms. Frequent expression in renal cell carcinoma and endometrial stromal sarco‐

[13] Chu PG, Ishizawa S, Wu E, Weiss LM. Hepatocyte antigen as a marker of hepatocel‐ lular carcinoma: an immunohistochemical comparison to carcinoembryonic antigen, CD10, and alpha-fetoprotein. American Journal of Surgical Pathology 2002: 26:

[14] Morrison C, Marsh W Jr, Frankel WL. A comparison of CD10 to pCEA, MOC-31, and hepatoyte for the distinction of malignant tumors in the liver. Modern Pathology

[15] Shousha S, Gadir F, Peston D, Bansi D, Thillainaygam AV, Murray-Lyon IM. CD10 immunostaining of bile canaliculi in liver biopsies: change of staining pattern with

[16] Duff SE, Li C, Garland JM, Kumar S. CD105 is important for angiogenesis: evidence

[17] Fonsatti E, Maio M. Highlights on endoglin (CD105): from basic findings towards clinical applications in human cancer. Journal of Translational Medicine 2004; 2: 18 (http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/ 2/1/18) (accessed 5 October 2012)

[18] Ho JW, Poon RT, Sun CK, Xue W-C, Fan S-T. Clinicopathological and prognostic im‐ plications of endoglin (CD105) expression in hepatocellular carcinoma and its adja‐

cent non-tumorous liver. World Journal of Gastroenterology 2005; 11: 176-181. [19] Yu J-X, Zhang X-T, Liao Y-Q, Zhang Q-Y, Chen H, Lin M, Kumar S. Relationship be‐ tween expression of CD105 and growth factors in malignant tumors of gastrointesti‐ nal tract and its significance. World Journal of Gastroenterology 2003; 9: 2866-2869.

(CD10): emancipation from a functional enigma. Blood 1989; 73: 625-635.

ma. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 2000; 113: 374-382.

the development of cirrhosis. Histopathology 2004; 45: 335-342.

and potential applications. The FASEB Journal 2003; 17: 984-992.

paraffin-embedded tissue. American Journal of Pathology 1999; 154: 77-82.

phil activation. Blood 1991; 78: 1834-1841.

Immunology 1977; 118: 309-315.

978-988.

2002; 15: 1279-1287.

### **Author details**

Toshitsugu Nakamura\*

Address all correspondence to: pathology@suwa.jrc.or.jp

Department of Pathology, Suwa Red Cross Hospital, Suwa, Japan

### **References**


[8] McIntosh GG, Lodge AJ, Watson P, Hall AG, Wood K, Anderson JJ, Angus B, Horne CH, Milton ID. NCL-CD10-270: A new monoclonal antibody recognizing CD10 in paraffin-embedded tissue. American Journal of Pathology 1999; 154: 77-82.

This work was approved by Institutional Review Board on ethical aspects at Suwa Red Cross

[1] Nakamura T, Hayama M, Sakai T, Hotchi M, Tanaka E. Proliferative activity of hepa‐ tocytes in chronic viral hepatitis as revealed by immunohistochemistry for proliferat‐

[2] Farinati F, Cardin R, D'Errico A, De Maria N, Naccarato R, Cecchetto A, Grigioni W. Hepatocyte proliferative activity in chronic liver damage as assessed by the monoclo‐ nal antibody MIB1 Ki67 in archival material: the role of etiology, disease activity,

[3] Kaita KD, Pettigrew N, Minuk GY. Hepatic regeneration in humans with various liv‐ er disease as assessed by Ki-67 staining of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded liver

[4] Nakamura T, Hotch M. Changes in DNA strand breakd in non-parenchymal cells fol‐ lowing heptocyte regeneration in CCl4-induced rat liver injury. Virchows Archiv B:

[5] Taniguchi E, Sakisaka S, Matsuo K, Tanikawa K, Sata M. Expression and role of vas‐ cular endothelial growth factor in liver regeneration after partial hepatectomy in rats.

[6] Borscheri N, Roessner A, Rocken C. Canalicular staining of neprilysin (CD10) as a di‐ agnostic marker of hepatocellular carcinoma. American Journal of Surgical Patholo‐

[7] Rocken C, Licht J, Roessner A, Carl-McGrath S. Canalicular immunostaining of ami‐ nopeptidase N (CD13) as a diagnostic marker for hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal

Hospital (Suwa, Japan).

290 Hepatocellular Carcinoma - Future Outlook

Toshitsugu Nakamura\*

Address all correspondence to: pathology@suwa.jrc.or.jp

tissue. Liver 1997; 17: 13-16.

gy 2001; 25: 1297-1303.

of Clinical Pathology 2005; 58: 1069-1075.

Department of Pathology, Suwa Red Cross Hospital, Suwa, Japan

ing nuclear cell antigen. Human Pathology 1993; 24: 750-753.

iron, and lipid peroxidation. Hepatology 1996; 23: 1468-1475.

Cell Pathology including Molecular Pathology 1992; 63: 11-16.

Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry 2001; 49: 121-130.

**Author details**

**References**


[20] Salvesen HB, Gulluoglu MG, Stefansson I, Akslen LA. Significance of CD105 expres‐ sion for tumor angiogenesis and prognosis in endometrial carcinoma. Acta Patholog‐ ica Microbiologica et Immunologica Scandinavica 2003; 111: 1011-1018.

[32] Yu D, Zhuang L, Sun X, Chen J, Yao Y, Meng K, Ding Y. Particular distribution and expression pattern of endoglin (CD105) in the liver of patients with hepatocellular

Simultaneous Changes in Expression of Bile Canalicular CD10 and Sinusoidal CD105…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56734

293

[33] Nakamura T. Changes in expression of bile canalicular CD10 and sinusoidal CD105

[34] Ichida F, Tsuji T, Omata M, Ichida T, Kamimura T, Yamada G et al. New Inuyama Classification: new criteria for histological assessment of chronic hepatitis. Interna‐

[35] Desmet VJ, Gerber M, Hoofnagle JH, Manns M, Scheuer PJ. Classification of chronic hepatitis: diagnosis, grading and staging. Hepatology 1994; 19: 1513-1520.

[36] Shi SR, Cote RJ, Taylor CR. Antigen retrieval techniques: current perspectives. Jour‐

[37] Medina J, Sanz-Cameno P, Garcia-Buey L, Martin-Vilchez S, Lopez-Cabrera M, Mor‐ eno-Otero R. Evidence of angiogenesis in primary biliary cirrhosis: an immunohisto‐

[38] Xu B, Broome U, Uzunel M, Nava S, Kumagai-Braesch M, Hultenby K et al. Capillari‐ zation of hepatic sinusoid by liver endothelial cell-reactive autoantibodies in patients with cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis. American Journal of Pathology 2003; 163:

[39] Urashima S, Tsutsumi M, Nakase K, Wang JS, Takada A. Studies on capillarization of the hepatic sinusoids in alcoholic liver disease. Alcohol and Alcoholism, Supplement

[40] Xu GF, Wang XY, Ge GL, Li PT, Jia X, Tian DL et al. Dynamic changes of capillariza‐ tion and peri-sinusoid fibrosis in alcoholic liver diseases. World Journal of Gastroen‐

[41] Yoshizawa A, Suzuki K, Abe A, Tanaka T, Yamaguchi K, Tanaka T, Ishikawa Y, Minegishi K, Gotanda Y, Yugi H, Uchida S, Satake M, Mizoguchi H, Tadokoro K. Ef‐ fect of selective vaccination on a decrease in the rate of hepatitis B virus-positive Jap‐

anese first-time blood donors. Transfusion Medicine 2009; 19: 172-179.

(endoglin) in peritumoral hepatic tissue. Tumori 2009; 95: 495-500.

tional Hepatology Communications 1996; 6: 112-119.

nal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry 2001; 49: 931-937.

chemical descriptive study. Journal of Hepatology 2005; 42: 124-131.

carcinoma. BMC Cancer 2007; 7: 122.

1275-1289.

1B 1993; 77-84.

terology 2004; 10: 238-243.


[32] Yu D, Zhuang L, Sun X, Chen J, Yao Y, Meng K, Ding Y. Particular distribution and expression pattern of endoglin (CD105) in the liver of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Cancer 2007; 7: 122.

[20] Salvesen HB, Gulluoglu MG, Stefansson I, Akslen LA. Significance of CD105 expres‐ sion for tumor angiogenesis and prognosis in endometrial carcinoma. Acta Patholog‐

[21] Saad RS, Liu YL, Nathan G, Celebrezze J, Medich D, Silverman JF. Endoglin (CD105) and vascular endothelial growth factor as prognostic markers in colorectal cancer.

[22] Kyzas PA, Agnantis NJ, Stefanou D. Endoglin (CD105) as a prognostic factor in head

[23] Fonsatti E, Sigalotti L, Arslan P, Altomonte M, Maio M. Emerging role of endoglin (CD105) as a marker of angiogenesis with clinical potential in human malignancies.

[24] Fonsatti E, ALtomonte M, Nicotra MR, Natali PG, Maio M. Endoglin (CD105): a pow‐ erful therapeutic target on tumor-associated angiogenetic blood vessels. Oncogene

[25] Chung YC, Hou YC, Pan AC. Endoglin (CD105) expression in the development of hemorrhoids. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 2004; 34: 107-112.

[26] Tasman F, Dagdeviren A, Kendir B, Er N, Atac A. Endothelial cell and stromal anti‐ gens in human periapical granulation tissue. Journal of Endodontics 2000; 26: 81-84.

[27] Torsney E, Charlton R, Parums D, Collis M, Arthur HM. Inducible expression of hu‐ man endoglin during inflammation and wound healing in vivo. Inflammation Re‐

[28] Zhang EG, Smith SK, Charnock-Jones DS. Expression of CD105 (endoglin) in arterio‐ lar endothelial cells of human endometrium throughout the menstrual cycle. Repro‐

[29] Garcia-Monzon C, Sanchez-Madrid F, Garcia-Buey L, Garcia-Arroyo A, Garcia-San‐ chez A, Moreno-Otero R. Vascular adhesion molecule expression in viral chronic hepatitis: evidence of neoangiogenesis in portal tracts. Gastroenterology 1995; 108:

[30] Asanza CG, Garcia-Monzon C, Clemente G, Salcedo M, Garcia-Buey L, Garcia-Igle‐ sias C, Banares R, Alvarez E, Moreno-Otero R. Immunohistochemical evidence of im‐ munopathogenetic mechanisms in chronic hepatitis C recurrence after liver

[31] Clemente M, Nunez O, Lorente R, Rincon D, Matilla A, Salcedo M, Catalina MV, Ri‐ poll C, Iacono OL, Banares R, Clemente G, Garacia-Monzon C. Increased intrahepatic and circulating levels of endoglin, a TGF-α co-receptor, in patients with chronic hep‐ atitis C virus infection: relationship to histological and serum markers of hepatic fib‐

ica Microbiologica et Immunologica Scandinavica 2003; 111: 1011-1018.

and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Virchows Archiv 2006; 448: 768-775.

Modern Pathology 2004; 17: 197-203.

2003; 22: 6557-6563.

292 Hepatocellular Carcinoma - Future Outlook

search 2002; 51: 464-470.

duction 2002; 124: 703-711.

transplantation. Hepatology 1997; 26: 755-763.

rosis. Journal of Viral Hepatitis 2006; 13: 625-632.

231-241.

Current Cancer Drug Targets 2003; 3: 427-432.


**Chapter 15**

**Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Steroid Hormones and**

Noemí Eiró, Belen Fernandez-Garcia, Antonio Altadill, Luis O. González and

Liver cancer is the fifth and seventh most frequently diagnosed cancer worldwide in men and women, respectively, but the second most frequent cause of cancer death in men [1]. In addition, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents the major histological subtype of primary liver cancers, accounting up to 90% of the total liver cancer burden worldwide [2]. The incidence of HCC has increased significantly over the past 10 years and is expected to increase because of the actual high prevalence of viral hepatitis C-seropositive individuals and also because of the known long latency period to HCC development from the initial hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, which may take 2-3 decades [3]. Despite of the varied treatment options, the prognosis of HCC remains poor. Thus, estimated 5-year survival rates are in the range of 26% to 50%, and disease-free survival is 13% to 29% [4]. At present, systemic chemo‐ therapy is quite ineffective in HCC treatment, and is also known to express the multidrugresistance gene MDR-1 [5]. Therefore, is necessary to identify and characterize molecular abnormalities of clinical significance in HCC. Besides the heterogeneity of different HCC subtypes, these tumors may use different cellular pathways and oncogenic mechanisms at different development stages, and this is of essential importance to develop biologically-based

**2. Steroid hormone receptors and hepatocellular carcinoma**

Although sex differences in liver cancer may be attributed to differences in lifestyle [6-8], there are several epidemiological and experimental studies suggesting that HCC might be, in part, hormone-related. Liver cancer is predominantly a male disease, with approximately three

> © 2013 Eiró et al.; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**Metalloproteases**

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56877

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Francisco J. Vizoso

**1. Introduction**

clinical trials.
