4.5 Article

Primary mixed adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma of the appendix - A clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular study of a hitherto unreported tumor

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 28, 期 9, 页码 1233-1239

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.pas.0000128666.89191.48

关键词

appendix; small cell carcinoma; adenocarcinoma; loss of heterozygosity; combined tumor; microsatellite

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Appendiceal carcinoids range from well-differentiated endocrine tumor to well-differentiated endocrine carcinoma, while poorly differentiated (small cell) carcinoma has not been described in this site. We report herein a case of mixed intestinal-type adenocarcinoma associated with a small cell carcinoma arisen in a 35-year-old woman and clinically presenting as an appendiceal abscess. The resected tumor histologically appeared as a biphasic lesion composed of a nonmucinous adenocarcinoma closely juxtaposed with a poorly differentiated (small cell) endocrine carcinoma. The subsequent right hemicolectomy was unremarkable, but one pericolic lymph node showed a metastatic deposit consisting of the adenocarcinoma only. The patient thus underwent a chemotherapeutic protocol for colorectal cancer, and she is alive and well at the 65-month follow-up. Immunohistochemically, the adenocarcinoma strongly stained for cytokeratin 20 and carcinoembryonic antigen, while the endocrine component displayed a dot-like positivity for pan-cytokeratins and chromogranin. Of note, both components did not stain with CDX2 and p53. At genotypic analysis by microsatellite instability, both components shared many microsatellite alterations as well as a normal p53 gene setup, although small cell carcinoma harbored additional alterations. Clinical and molecular findings led us to consider this lesion as a clonal tumor in which the endocrine component seems to derive from a progressive differentiation of the adenocarcinoma following a glandular-to-endocrine sequence.

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