Review ArticlesA Comprehensive Review of Biomarker Use in the Gynecologic Tract Including Differential Diagnoses and Diagnostic PitfallsHirsch, Michelle S. MD, PhD*; Watkins, Jaclyn MD, MS†Author Information *Department of Pathology, Women’s and Perinatal Division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA †Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose. Reprints: Michelle S. Hirsch, MD, PhD, Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Amory-3, Boston, MA 02115 (e-mail: email@example.com). Online date: May 29, 2019 Advances In Anatomic Pathology: May 2020 - Volume 27 - Issue 3 - p 164-192 doi: 10.1097/PAP.0000000000000238 Buy Metrics Abstract Morphologic (ie, hematoxylin and eosin) evaluation of the Mullerian tract remains the gold standard for diagnostic evaluation; nevertheless, ancillary/biomarker studies are increasingly utilized in daily practice to assist in the subclassification of gynecologic lesions and tumors. The most frequently utilized “biomarker” technique is immunohistochemistry; however, in situ hybridization (chromogenic and fluorescence), chromosomal evaluation, and molecular analysis can also be utilized to aid in diagnosis. This review focuses on the use of immunohistochemistry in the Mullerian tract, and discusses common antibody panels, sensitivity and specificity of specific antibodies, and points out potential diagnostic pitfalls when using such antibodies. Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.