The great imitator - EMA positive glioblastoma multiforme

Stoyanov, George S; Dzhenkov, Deyan; Ghenev, Peter

doi:10.14748/ssm.v49i1.2056

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These reactions, however, are reportedly based on the AE3 antibody fraction of the CK AE1/AE3 cocktail recognizing and reacting with the GFAP molecules produced by the neoplastic astrocytes in GBM and not on their production of CK molecules. A similar phenomenon may be observed with some other epithelial markers that have variable IHC reactions with GBM cells (11).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 74%

Cytokeratin AE1/AE3 mimicry in glioblastoma

Stoyanov

Dzhenkov

Ghenev

2017

SSM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 74%

Cytokeratin AE1/AE3 mimicry in glioblastoma

Stoyanov

Dzhenkov

Ghenev

2017

SSM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The biggest innovations in the fi eld for this period were the commercial introduction of immunohistochemical (IHC) markers such as GFAP, S100, Vimentin and others which give a constant positive reaction and often help with the differential diagnosis of GBM and CNS metastatic diseases, while others give a varying IHC reaction. 17,18 With the introduction of modern molecular pathological and genetic test in oncopathology practices, however, the term multiforme has once again been popularized in the last fi fteen years of glioma research due to the multifomity of different genotypes bearing the same histomorphological and IHC picture. [17][18][19][20][21] As part of the research in this area and its relevance to therapeutic approaches, based on the presence of mutations, correlating with their biological potential and not the histomorphological and IHC hallmarks, some key mutations have been identifi ed in both pGBM and sGBM, giving a modern explanation to Scherers observations and estimations.…”

Section: Pheno-and Genotypisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17,18 With the introduction of modern molecular pathological and genetic test in oncopathology practices, however, the term multiforme has once again been popularized in the last fi fteen years of glioma research due to the multifomity of different genotypes bearing the same histomorphological and IHC picture. [17][18][19][20][21] As part of the research in this area and its relevance to therapeutic approaches, based on the presence of mutations, correlating with their biological potential and not the histomorphological and IHC hallmarks, some key mutations have been identifi ed in both pGBM and sGBM, giving a modern explanation to Scherers observations and estimations. 1,3,6 The common presence of some mutations in different combinations has led to the discovery of a clinical correlation and even new therapeutic approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of GBM.…”

Section: Pheno-and Genotypisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Concepts and History of Glioblastoma Multiforme - Morphology, Genetics and Epigenetics

Stoyanov¹,

Dzhenkov²

2018

Folia Medica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a grade IV WHO malignant tumor with astrocytic differentiation. As one of the most common clinically diagnosed central nervous system (CNS) oncological entries, there have been a wide variety of historical reports of the description and evolution of ideas regarding these tumors. The first recorded reports of gliomas were given in British scientific reports, by Berns in 1800 and in 1804 by Abernety, with the first comprehensive histomorphological description being given in 1865 by Rudolf Virchow. In 1926 Percival Bailey and Harvey Cushing gave the base for the modern classification of gliomas. Between 1934 and 1941 the most prolific researcher in glioma research was Hans-Joachim Scherer, who postulated some of the clinico-morphological aspects of GBM. With the introduction of molecular and genetic tests the true multifomity of GBM has been established, with different genotypes bearing the same histomorphological and IHC picture, as well as some of the aspects of gliomagenesis. For a GBM to develop, a specific trigger mutation needs to occur in a GBM stem cell - primary GBM, or a slow aggregation of individual mutations, without a distinct trigger mutation - secondary GBM. Knowledge of GBM has been closely related to general medical knowledge of the CNS since these malignancies were first described more than 200 years ago. Several great leaps have been made in that time, in the footsteps of both CNS and advancements in general medical knowledge.

show abstract

“…Despite morphology on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) being highly suggestive in some cases, often IHC is also needed to distinguish between different entries, especially in cases of only small tumor fragments being sent for pathological investigation. Although IHC is a useful tool in the DD of any lesion, when regarding ICTs, it is especially important to avoid some common pitfalls due to antigen mimicry such as the glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) mimicry with epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) and the pan-cytokeratin (CK AE1/AE3), where if all three reactions are positive, only the GFAP one should be considered valid [3][4][5][6].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Practical Approach to the Differential Diagnosis of Intracranial Tumors: Gross, Histology, and Immunoprofile-based Algorithm

Stoyanov

Petkova

Dzhenkov

2019

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intracranial tumors are a diverse group of conditions, both benign and malignant, primary and metastatic and always require detailed medical information, radiological reports and deep knowledge of the histological hallmarks and immunohistochemical profile of different types of tumors and tumor-like processes. Despite it clinically often being possible to differentiate between primary and metastatic tumors, based on the tumor location and age of the patient, histological variants and rare tumor entries should always be considered in the histological differential diagnosis. A thorough diagnostic algorithm based on the location of the tumor and its histological features, together with some common pitfalls in immunohistochemical profiling, based on the 2016 revised World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumors of the central nervous system should be implemented in all cases. Such an algorithm is especially valuable in cases where only small tumor fragments are sent for morphological evaluation, such as in deep parenchyma tumors. In these instances where only small fragments of the tumor are present for histology, some key features, corresponding to the WHO grade, may easily be missed or underreported. Furthermore, the histological verification of the tumor entry is the first, often overlooked, step in defining the presence or absence of WHO gradespecific mutations.

show abstract

The great imitator - EMA positive glioblastoma multiforme

Cited by 5 publications

References 17 publications

Cytokeratin AE1/AE3 mimicry in glioblastoma

Cytokeratin AE1/AE3 mimicry in glioblastoma

On the Concepts and History of Glioblastoma Multiforme - Morphology, Genetics and Epigenetics

A Practical Approach to the Differential Diagnosis of Intracranial Tumors: Gross, Histology, and Immunoprofile-based Algorithm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About