Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics · 2003
The histologic differentiation of oral condyloma acuminatum from its mimics.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Anderson K Mark, Perez-Montiel Dehlia, Miles Lili, Allen Carl M, Nuovo Gerard J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine which histologic features could enable one to distinguish oral condyloma, as defined by the detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA through in situ hybridization, from its mimics.
STUDY DESIGN: Thirty-two paraffin-embedded specimens from 28 patients that were clinically suggestive of oral condyloma were analyzed histologically and through in situ hybridization with a consensus HPV probe.
RESULTS: HPV DNA was detected in 17/32 (53%) of the lesions; no additional positive cases were detected after polymerase chain reaction amplification. Only 5 of the 17 virus-positive cases were considered to be histopathologically unequivocal for condyloma. The histologic features significantly associated with HPV detection were nonuniform perinuclear halos, often in association with epithelial crevices (P =.02), and papillomatosis (P =.02). Each of the 17 patients who were HPV-positive had either HPV-6 or HPV-11, a finding that is similar to those for condyloma involving the penis and vulva/vagina.
CONCLUSION: Differentiation between oral condyloma and its mimics is best accomplished by using a combination of histologic, clinical, and in situ viral studies.
STUDY DESIGN: Thirty-two paraffin-embedded specimens from 28 patients that were clinically suggestive of oral condyloma were analyzed histologically and through in situ hybridization with a consensus HPV probe.
RESULTS: HPV DNA was detected in 17/32 (53%) of the lesions; no additional positive cases were detected after polymerase chain reaction amplification. Only 5 of the 17 virus-positive cases were considered to be histopathologically unequivocal for condyloma. The histologic features significantly associated with HPV detection were nonuniform perinuclear halos, often in association with epithelial crevices (P =.02), and papillomatosis (P =.02). Each of the 17 patients who were HPV-positive had either HPV-6 or HPV-11, a finding that is similar to those for condyloma involving the penis and vulva/vagina.
CONCLUSION: Differentiation between oral condyloma and its mimics is best accomplished by using a combination of histologic, clinical, and in situ viral studies.