The Role of TROP2 in BCC and Cutaneous SCC: A Clinical and Immunohistochemical Study

Figures & data

Table 1 Personal, Clinical and Pathological Data of the Studied Subjects

	Control (N= 12)		BCC (N = 17)		SCC (N = 15)		Test	p
	N	%	N	%	N	%
Age (years)
- Min. – Max.	44.0–70.0		45.0–80.0		46.0–75.0		F= 2.381	0.105
- Mean ± SD.	57.67±7.46		65.06±9.20		61.47±9.88
Median	57.50		65.0		65.0
Sex
● Male	9	75.0	10	58.8	12	80.0	χ2= 1.788	0.415
● Female	3	25.0	7	41.2	3	20.0
Site
● Extremities	-	-	0	0.0	8	53.3
● Head and neck	-	-	17	100	7	46.7
∘ Scalp	-	-	4	23.5	7	46.7
∘ Face			13	76.5	0	0.0
Type of biopsy
● Excisional	-	-	13	76.5	15	100.0
● Incisional	-	-	4	23.5	0	0.0
Type of the lesion
● Mass (Nodular)	-	-	6	35.3	5	33.3
● Ulcer	-	-	11	64.7	10	66.7
Margin
● Free	-	-	12	70.6	7	46.7
● Involved	-	-	4	23.5	7	46.7
● Cannot be assessed	-	-	1	5.9	1	6.7
Grade
● I	–	–	–	–	10	66.7
● II	–	–	–	–	3	20.0
● III	–	–	–	–	2	13.3

Notes: F: ANOVA test; χ2: Chi-square test.

Abbreviations: BCC, basal cell carcinoma; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; SD, standard deviation; N, number.

Figure 1 Mild positive membrano-cytoplasmic expression of TROP2 in epidermis of; (A) normal control and (B) BCC peri-lesional tissue. Moderate positive cytoplasmic expression of TROP2 in epidermis of; (C) BCC and (D) SCC (Immunoperoxidase x400 for all).

Figure 2 Tumor islands of BCC showing; (A) negative, (B) mild positive, (C) moderate positive and (D) strong positive TROP2 expression (Immunoperoxidase x200 for A and C; x400 for B and D).

Figure 3 Tumor islands of SCC showing; (A) negative TROP2 expression in poorly differentiated case, (B) mild, (C) moderate and (D) strong TROP2 positivity in well differentiated cases (Immunoperoxidase x200 for A, C and D; x400 for B).

Table 2 Comparison Between the Studied Groups (Control, BCC and SCC) Regarding TROP2 Expression and H Score

TROP2	Control Epidermis		BCC		SCC		Test	p	Post Hoc Test
	N	%	N	%	N	%
Peri-lesion epidermis	(N = 12)		(N = 14)		(N = 12)		χ^2= 2.897	0.235	P1=0.716
Negative	3	25.0	8	57.1	6	50.0
Positive	9	75.0	6	42.9	6	50.0
H score							H=8.846*	0.012*	P1=0.288
Min. – Max.	20.0–80.0		50.0–100.0		40.0–70.0
Mean ± SD.	38.89 ± 20.28		76.67 ± 19.66		60.0 ± 15.49
Median	40.0		80.0		70.0
Lesion epidermis	(N= 12)		(N= 17)		(N= 15)		χ^2=0.176	1.000	P1=1.000
Negative	3	25.0	4	23.5	4	26.7
Positive	9	75.0	13	76.5	11	73.3
H score							H=16.129*	<0.001*	P1=0.153
Min. – Max	20.0–80.0		30.0–160.0		60.0–230.0
Mean ± SD.	38.89 ± 20.28		93.85 ± 43.50		140.91 ± 62.36
Median	40.0		90.0		150.0
Tumor islands	(N = 12)		(N = 17)		(N = 15)		χ^2=1.871	0.471	P1=1.000
Negative	3	25.0	2	11.8	1	6.7
Positive	9	75.0	15	88.2	14	93.3
H score							H=12.621*	0.002*	P1=0.725
Min. – Max.	20.0–80.0		30.0–210.0		30.0–160.0
Mean ± SD.	38.89 ± 20.28		109.33 ± 50.49		94.29 ± 39.75
Median	40.0		110.0		105.0

Notes: χ²: Chi-square test. H: H for Kruskal–Wallis test, Pairwise comparison between BCC and SCC was done using Post Hoc Test (Dunn’s for multiple comparisons test). p: p value for comparing between the studied groups. p₁: p value for comparing between BCC and SCC. *Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.

Abbreviation: N, number.

Table 3 Relationship Between Controls, BCC Peri-Lesions and Lesions (Epidermis and Tumor Islands) Regarding TROP2 H Score

TROP2 H Score	Control	BCC		H	p	Post Hoc Test
	Epidermis (N=12)	Peri-Lesion Epidermis (N=14)	Lesion Epidermis (N=17)
Min. – Max.	20.0–80.0	50.0–100.0	30.0–160.0	11.797	0.003*	p1=0.018*
Mean ± SD.	38.89 ± 20.28	76.67 ± 19.66	93.85 ± 43.50			p2=0.001*
Median	40.0	80.0	90.0			p3=0.682
	Epidermis (N=12)	Peri-Lesion Epidermis (N=14)	Tumor Islands (N=17)
Min. – Max.	20.0–80.0	50.0–100.0	30.0–210.0	13.980*	0.001*	p1=0.075
Mean ± SD.	38.89 ± 20.28	76.67 ± 19.66	109.33 ± 50.49			p2<0.001*
Median	40.0	80.0	110.0			p3=0.186
						p4 =0.141

Notes: H: Kruskal–Wallis test, Pairwise comparison between each 2 groups was done using Post Hoc Test (Dunn’s for multiple comparisons test). p: p value for comparing between the studied groups. p₁: p value for comparing between control and peri-lesion BCC. p₂: p value for comparing between control and lesion BCC. p₃: p value for comparing between peri-lesion BCC and lesion BCC. p₄: p value for comparing between lesion epidermis BCC and tumor islands BCC. *Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.

Abbreviations: N, number; SD, standard deviation.

Table 4 Relationship Between Controls, SCC Peri-Lesions and Lesions (Epidermis and Tumor Islands) Regarding TROP2 H Score

TROP2 H Score	Control	SCC		H	p	Post Hoc Test
	Epidermis (N= 12)	Peri-Lesion Epidermis (N= 12)	Lesion Epidermis (N= 15)
Min. – Max.	20.0–80.0	40.0–70.0	60.0–230.0	15.698*	<0.001*	P1=0.177
Mean ± SD.	38.89 ± 20.28	60.0 ± 15.49	140.91 ± 62.36			p2<0.001*
Median	40.0	70.0	150.0			p3=0.038*
	Epidermis (N= 12)	Peri-Lesion Epidermis (N= 12)	Tumor Islands (N= 15)
Min. – Max.	20.0–80.0	40.0–70.0	30.0–160.0	11.476*	0.003*	p1=0.168
Mean ± SD.	38.89 ± 20.28	60.0 ± 15.49	94.29 ± 39.75			p2=0.001*
Median	40.0	70.0	105.0			p3=0.144
						p4 =0.109

Notes: H: Kruskal–Wallis test, Pairwise comparison between each 2 groups was done using Post Hoc Test (Dunn’s for multiple comparisons test). p: p value for comparing between the studied groups. p₁: p value for comparing between control and peri-lesion SCC. p₂: p value for comparing between control and lesion SCC. p₃: p value for comparing between peri-lesion SCC and lesion SCC. p₄: p value for comparing between lesion epidermis SCC and tumor islands SCC. *Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.

Abbreviations: N, number; SD, standard deviation.