Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2007
Endometrial stromal lesions: a morphological and immunohistochemical study of short series.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Bal Amanjit, Mohan Harsh, Aulakh Rakhi, Huria Anju
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endometrial stromal tumours are rare and constitute less than 5% of uterine tumours. This study presents our experience of endometrial stromal tumours and their immunohistochemical profile.
METHODS: All cases reported as endometrial stromal tumors from January 2001 to December 2004 were extracted from the files of pathology department. Hematoxylin and eosin stained slides were reviewed and immunohistochemical staining for vimentin, desmin and cytokeratin was done in all cases.
RESULTS: In all five cases of endometrial stromal tumors were retrieved from the records and constituted 0.3% of endometrial neoplasms. One case was diagnosed as endometrial stromal nodule and four cases were diagnosed as low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma. Four out of five cases were confined to the uterine corpus. Only one case showed spread to the cervix and the fallopian tube. All tumors were negative for desmin and cytokeratin and showed only focal vimentin positivity.
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis rests on morphological features mainly while immunohistochemical profile of these tumours is rather inconsistent.
METHODS: All cases reported as endometrial stromal tumors from January 2001 to December 2004 were extracted from the files of pathology department. Hematoxylin and eosin stained slides were reviewed and immunohistochemical staining for vimentin, desmin and cytokeratin was done in all cases.
RESULTS: In all five cases of endometrial stromal tumors were retrieved from the records and constituted 0.3% of endometrial neoplasms. One case was diagnosed as endometrial stromal nodule and four cases were diagnosed as low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma. Four out of five cases were confined to the uterine corpus. Only one case showed spread to the cervix and the fallopian tube. All tumors were negative for desmin and cytokeratin and showed only focal vimentin positivity.
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis rests on morphological features mainly while immunohistochemical profile of these tumours is rather inconsistent.