Serous Surface Papillary Carcinoma of the Ovary

Gooneratne, S; Sassone, Marianna; Blaustein, Ancel; Talerman, Aleksander

doi:10.1097/00004347-198203000-00003

Cited by 85 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiciliated cells, such as those shown in Figure 10a and b, have previously been reported in serous carcinomas and are more often found in low-grade serous carcinomas and serous tumors of borderline malignancy originating in the ovary and peritoneum. 23,24,[69][70][71][72] Neither in the present study nor in previous investigations have these cells been found in mesotheliomas. Cells presenting a solitary cilium or a few cilia have frequently been found in serous carcinomas, including those of high-grade malignancy; however, their occurrence in mesotheliomas is exceedingly rare.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 93%

The diagnostic utility of immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy in distinguishing between peritoneal mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas: a comparative study

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The histologic distinction between peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas diffusely involving the peritoneum may be difficult, but it can be facilitated by the use of immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy. D2-40 and podoplanin are two recently recognized lymphatic endothelial markers that can be expressed in normal mesothelial cells and mesotheliomas. The purpose of this study is to compare the value of these new mesothelial markers with those that are commonly used for discriminating between mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas, and also to determine the current role of electron microscopy in distinguishing between these malignancies. A total of 40 peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas and 45 serous carcinomas of the ovary (15 primary, 30 metastatic to the peritoneum) were investigated for the expression of the following markers: D2-40, podoplanin, calretinin, keratin 5/6, thrombomodulin, MOC-31, Ber-EP4, B72.3 (TAG-72), BG-8 (Lewis Y ), CA19-9, and leu-M1 (CD15). All 40 (100%) of the mesotheliomas reacted for calretinin, 93% for D2-40, 93% for podoplanin, 93% for keratin 5/6, 73% for thrombomodulin, 13% for Ber-EP4, 5% for MOC-31, 3% for BG-8, and none for B72.3, CA19-9, or leu-M1. All 45 (100%) serous carcinomas were positive for Ber-EP4, 98% for MOC-31, 73% for B72.3, 73% for BG-8, 67% for CA19-9, 58% for leu-M1, 31% for keratin 5/6, 31% for calretinin, 13% for D2-40, 13% for podoplanin, and 4% for thrombomodulin. After analyzing the results, it is concluded that Ber-EP4 and MOC-31 are the best negative mesothelioma markers for differentiating between epithelioid mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas. The best discriminators among the positive markers for mesotheliomas are D2-40, podoplanin, and calretinin. From a practical point of view, Ber-EP4 and MOC-31, in combination with calretinin, and/or D2-40 or podoplanin allow the differential diagnosis to be established between mesothelioma and serous carcinoma in nearly all instances. As a clear distinction could be made between these two malignancies in all of the cases in which electron microscopy was performed, this technique can be very useful in establishing the correct diagnosis when the immunohistochemical results are equivocal or further support of a diagnosis of either mesothelioma or serous carcinoma is needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 93%

The diagnostic utility of immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy in distinguishing between peritoneal mesotheliomas and serous carcinomas: a comparative study

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Very soon it has become apparent that with regard to histology, immunohistochemistry, cellular ultrastructure, epidemiology, and clinical behavior, PPSC is not distinguishable from OPSC and therefore should not be considered a malignant mesothelioma but a variant of OPSC [3][4][5]11,12]. Some authors [13] have not even considered PPSC as a different clinical entity from OPSC and therefore have not reported it separately from stage III-IV OPSC, whereas others [3,14,15] have considered PPSC to be a different clinical entity from OPSC and have reported it separately from OPSC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peritoneal papillary serous carcinoma: Study of 15 cases and comparison with stage iii–iv ovarian papillary serous carcinoma

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Mitotic figures are easily found and psammoma bodies common. 4,17,20 The first evidence of disease in our patient was the presence of cells interpreted as highly suggestive of adenocarcinoma in a VCE smear. Figure 7 shows the main cytopathologic settings in which a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma should be entertained.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…4 It is limited to the ovarian surface or shows minimal focal stromal invasion. Due to its more aggressive behavior and poorer prognosis, it should not be confused with conventional serous papillary carcinoma of the ovary (SPC).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%