4.6 Article

Immunohistochemical demonstration of EMA/Glut1-positive perineurial cells and CD34-positive fibroblastic cells in peripheral nerve sheath tumors

期刊

MODERN PATHOLOGY
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 293-298

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.MP.0000062654.83617.B7

关键词

CD34; EMA; endoneurial fibroblast; Glut1; immunohistochemistry; perineurial cell; peripheral nerve sheath tumor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To clarify the cellular composition of various peripheral nerve tumorous lesions (traumatic neuroma, 5 cases, schwannoma, 10 cases; neurofibroma, 14 cases; perineurioma, 3 cases, conventional malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST), 7 cases, perineurial MPNST, 4 cases), expression of several markers specific to nerve sheath cells, including glucose transporter protein I (Glut1) and CD34, were immunohistochemically investigated with highly sensitive detection methods. In normal nerves and neuromas, perineuriums were positive for Glut1 as well as for epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), and there were some CD34-positive fibroblast-like cells in the endoneurium. Schwannomas consisted principally of S-100 protein-positive Schwann cells, whereas a few CD34-positive fibroblastic cells were present in Antoni B areas. Neurofibromas and conventional MPNST exhibited a mixed proliferation of S-100 protein-, EMA/Glut1-, and CD34-positive cells, indicating a heterogeneous composition of the constituents. The catalyzed signal amplification (CSA) system demonstrated more numerous EMA-positive perineurial cells in neurofibromas, than did the ENVISION+ method. Perineurial cell tumors (benign and malignant) were composed of EMA/Glut1-positive and S-100 protein-negative tumor cells. The present study confirmed the characteristic cellular composition to each nerve sheath tumor immunohistochemically and showed the usefulness of the nerve sheath cell markers. Glut1 as well as EMA are specific to perineurial cells, and CD34 seems to be immunoreactive to endoneurial fibroblasts.

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

4.6
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