Varieties of Serous Surface Papillary Carcinoma of the Peritoneum in Northern Germany

Rothacker, D; Möbius, G

doi:10.1097/00004347-199510000-00005

Cited by 55 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The reported percentage of positivity for adenocarcinomas of the lung has ranged from 35 to 100%, 9,41,53 and for mesotheliomas in general from 0 to 48%. 7,9,41 The immunostaining results obtained in serous carcinomas and peritoneal epithelioid mesotheliomas that have been reported by different groups of investigators 2,27,28,50,[54][55][56] are summarized in Table 7. In the present investigation, 73% of the serous carcinomas and none of the mesotheliomas reacted with the B72.3 antibody.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…56,57 CD15 expression has been demonstrated in 30-80% of serous carcinomas 1,2,27,28,50,55,56 (Table 8). Although some series have also reported positivity in a minority of mesotheliomas, 3,13,41,58 in the present investigation, as well as in previous studies by this author 2,9,26 and others, 56,57,59 none of the mesotheliomas exhibited CD15 expression.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…31 Bu iki kanser türünü karşılaştıran çalışmalarda daha kötü, daha iyi sağkalım oranları bildirilse de benzer sağkalım oranları olduğu da bildirilmiş-tir. 4,7,30,31,33,34 TEDAVİ Primer peritoneal kanserlerde de genel yaklaşım sitoredüktif cerrahi ve takiben platin bazlı agresif kemoterapi rejimleridir. Fakat primer peritoneal kanserlerin gerek overleri hiç tutmaması veya minimal tutması gerekse de hastalığın davranış şekli-nin özellikle üst batını da tutacak şekilde difüz mikronodüler yayılması nedeni ile sitoredüktif cerrahinin over kanserli hastalarda olduğu gibi yeterli olamayabileceği vurgulanmaktadır.…”

Section: Kli̇ni̇k Seyi̇runclassified

Primary Peritoneal Cancer

Ariöz¹,

Özalp²

2017

Turkiye Klinikleri J Gynecol Obst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although this neoplasm is morphologically, ultrastructurally and immunohistochemically indistinguishable from papillary serous carcinoma of the ovary (PSCO) [1][2][3] and its clinical course, 1,4,5 treatment 4,5 and response 5 are similar to it, molecular 6 and epidemiologic 7 studies suggest that it is a distinct entity that should be classified apart from its ovarian counterpart. Optimal debulking is an important prognostic factor 5 but it is not performed on many PSCP patients partially due to the absence of a preoperative diagnosis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 The definitive diagnosis has always been performed intraoperatively, postoperatively, 4,5 retrospectively 3,4 or in autopsy studies. 2 Moreover, there are scarce descriptions of the cytologic findings. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%