Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2014
The spectrum of cervical glandular neoplasia and issues in differential diagnosis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Loureiro Joana, Oliva Esther
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Premalignant and malignant glandular lesions of the cervix are known to often cause diagnostic problems with a variety of benign (more common) as well as other malignant mimics, the latter setting often being represented by secondary involvement by endometrioid endometrial carcinoma especially in small samplings.
OBJECTIVE: To highlight key histologic features and immunohistochemical markers that may be helpful in the distinction of in situ endocervical carcinoma from benign glandular proliferations, and those that separate different subtypes of invasive endocervical carcinoma, as well as invasive carcinoma from other carcinomas secondarily involving the cervix and nonneoplastic proliferations of the cervix.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and morphologic features as well as immunohistochemistry results should be used in conjunction in the differential diagnosis of glandular proliferations of the cervix, as correct interpretation has major clinical consequences for the patient in most instances (especially benign versus malignant). Immunohistochemical markers should be used as part of a panel of antibodies, as exceptions may occur to the usual pattern of staining, and if used singly, they may mislead the pathologist to establish a wrong diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: To highlight key histologic features and immunohistochemical markers that may be helpful in the distinction of in situ endocervical carcinoma from benign glandular proliferations, and those that separate different subtypes of invasive endocervical carcinoma, as well as invasive carcinoma from other carcinomas secondarily involving the cervix and nonneoplastic proliferations of the cervix.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and morphologic features as well as immunohistochemistry results should be used in conjunction in the differential diagnosis of glandular proliferations of the cervix, as correct interpretation has major clinical consequences for the patient in most instances (especially benign versus malignant). Immunohistochemical markers should be used as part of a panel of antibodies, as exceptions may occur to the usual pattern of staining, and if used singly, they may mislead the pathologist to establish a wrong diagnosis.