4.5 Review

The utility of GLUT1 as a diagnostic marker in cutaneous vascular anomalies: A review of literature and recommendations for daily practice

期刊

PATHOLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
卷 213, 期 6, 页码 591-597

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.prp.2017.04.023

关键词

Glucose transporter type 1; Vascular neoplasms; Hemangioma; Vascular malformations; Clinical pathology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the utility of GLUT1 as an immunohistochemical marker in the diagnostics of cutaneous vascular anomalies. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies on GLUT1 staining patterns in cutaneous vascular lesions. Data was grouped according to the latest ISSVA classification for vascular anomalies. Results: Vascular tumors: GLUT1 staining was positive in 368/386 (95%) of infantile hemangiomas. Congenital hemangiomas (16 cases) and kaposiform hemangioendotheliomas (62 cases) were all negative for GLUT1. Angiosarcomas were GLUT1 positive in 12/39 (31%) and epithelioid hemangioendotheliomas in 2127 (7%) of cases. Vascular malformations: All vascular malformations (33 arteriovenous malformations, 16 capillary malformations, 64 lymphatic malformations, 54 venous malformations, 3 venous-lymphatic malformations and 3 capillary venous-lymphatic malformations) were negative for GLUT1 staining. Unclassified vascular anomalies: Angiokeratomas were GLUT1 positive in 1/15 (7%) and verrucous hemangiomas in 71/100 (71%) of cases. Microvenular hemangiomas were negative for GLUT1 in all 9 cases. Conclusions: GLUT1 can be used as an additional diagnostic tool in cutaneous vascular lesions. A negative GLUT1 stain renders a diagnosis of infantile hemangioma unlikely. A positive GLUT1 stain excludes vascular malformations and is suggestive of infantile hemangioma. One must be cautious, however, that the final diagnosis is made through interpretation of all clinical and diagnostic features, and not based on GLUT1 staining alone. (C) 2017 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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