Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2017
Differentiating Merkel cell carcinoma of lymph nodes without a detectable primary skin tumor from other metastatic neuroendocrine carcinomas: The ELECTHIP criteria.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Kervarrec Thibault, Zaragoza Julia, Gaboriaud Pauline, Le Gouge Amélie, Beby-Defaux Agnès, Le Corre Yannick, Hainaut-Wierzbicka Ewa, Aubin Francois, Bens Guido, Michenet Patrick, Maillard Hervé, Touzé Antoine, Samimi Mahtab, Guyétant Serge
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) can present as a cutaneous tumor or a lymph node metastasis without a primary tumor. MCC presenting without a primary tumor (MCCWOPT) can be misinterpreted on histologic examination as lymph node metastasis (LNM) from another neuroendocrine carcinoma (LNMNEC). However, this distinction is crucial for therapeutic management.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the discriminative criteria for the differential diagnosis of MCCWOPT, LNM from cutaneous MCC, and LNMNECs.
METHODS: Clinical, morphologic, and immunohistochemical data (expression of cytokeratins AE1, AE3, 7, 19, and 20; chromogranin A, synaptophysin, thyroid transcription factor-1 [TTF-1]), as well as the presence of Merkel cell polyomavirus (by immunohistochemistry and PCR) were compared in patients with MCCWOPT (n = 17), LNM from a cutaneous MCC (n = 11), and LNMNEC (n = 20; 8 lung, 7 thyroid, 3 digestive tract, 2 other).
RESULTS: MCC (including MCCWOPT and LNM from a cutaneous MCC) differed from LNMNEC by 7 discriminative criteria: 1) elderly age, 2) location of the tumor, 3) extent of the disease, 4) cytokeratin expression, 5) TTF-1 expression, 6) histologic type, and 7) Merkel cell polyomavirus detection, summarized under the acronym ELECTHIP. All MCC patients had ≥5 of the ELECTHIP criteria, whereas all patients with LNMNEC (except 1) had <3 criteria.
LIMITATIONS: The discriminant ability of the ELECTHIP criteria should be validated in a second independent set.
CONCLUSION: MCCWOPT can be distinguished from other LNMNEC by the ELECTHIP criteria.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the discriminative criteria for the differential diagnosis of MCCWOPT, LNM from cutaneous MCC, and LNMNECs.
METHODS: Clinical, morphologic, and immunohistochemical data (expression of cytokeratins AE1, AE3, 7, 19, and 20; chromogranin A, synaptophysin, thyroid transcription factor-1 [TTF-1]), as well as the presence of Merkel cell polyomavirus (by immunohistochemistry and PCR) were compared in patients with MCCWOPT (n = 17), LNM from a cutaneous MCC (n = 11), and LNMNEC (n = 20; 8 lung, 7 thyroid, 3 digestive tract, 2 other).
RESULTS: MCC (including MCCWOPT and LNM from a cutaneous MCC) differed from LNMNEC by 7 discriminative criteria: 1) elderly age, 2) location of the tumor, 3) extent of the disease, 4) cytokeratin expression, 5) TTF-1 expression, 6) histologic type, and 7) Merkel cell polyomavirus detection, summarized under the acronym ELECTHIP. All MCC patients had ≥5 of the ELECTHIP criteria, whereas all patients with LNMNEC (except 1) had <3 criteria.
LIMITATIONS: The discriminant ability of the ELECTHIP criteria should be validated in a second independent set.
CONCLUSION: MCCWOPT can be distinguished from other LNMNEC by the ELECTHIP criteria.