4.1 Review

Histological findings and pathologic diagnosis of spiradenocarcinoma: A case series and review of the literature

期刊

JOURNAL OF CUTANEOUS PATHOLOGY
卷 46, 期 4, 页码 243-250

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cup.13408

关键词

adnexal tumors; adnexal carcinoma; CEA; histology; Ki67; p53; S100; spiradenocarcinoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Atypical spiradenoma and spiradenocarcinoma present a diagnostic challenge. We aim to assess the significance of certain histologic features, which may facilitate diagnosis of these tumors. Methods A natural language search for cases of atypical spiradenoma and spiradenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2009 and 2018 was performed. Original slides were retrieved and a subset of cases (n = 5) were stained for Ki-67, p53, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and S100. All cases (n = 7) were assessed for overall architecture, atypical mitotic figures, abnormal cytology, necrosis, ductal proliferation, dilated vessels, and loss of dual cell population. Results All our cases showed an abrupt transition from benign to malignant morphology, nuclear atypia, atypical mitotic figures, and a monomorphic loss of the dual cell population (7/7; 100%). The majority also had dilated vessels (6/7; 85.7%), and ductal dilation or proliferation (5/7; 71.4%). Fewer cases showed tumor encapsulation (3/7; 43%), massive necrosis (3/7; 43%), and focal cellular necrosis (1/7; 14%). All cases showed a relatively increased Ki-67 proliferation index at the transitional interface (5/5; 100%). Almost all cases stained positively for p53 (4/5; 80%). Malignant areas of tumor or at the transitional interface showed more intense S100 staining (3/5; 60%). All cases were negative for CEA. Conclusion Histologic features that strongly favor atypical spiradenoma or spiradenocarcinoma include abrupt transition to malignant foci, atypical mitotic figures, and monomorphic loss of the dual cell population. Ki-67, p53, and S100 may help delineate areas of atypical or malignant transformation in spiradenomas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据