ABSTRACT
Solitary fibrous tumors (SFTs) are known for their heterogeneous morphology, characterized by a variety of cell shapes and different growth patterns. They can also arise in various anatomical locations, most commonly in extremities and deep soft tissues. Despite this diversity in morphology and location, all SFTs share a common molecular signature involving the NAB2::STAT6 gene fusion. Due to their unpredictable clinical behavior, establishing prognostic factors is crucial. This study aims to evaluate an orbital risk stratification system (RSS) proposed by Huang et al. for use in extraorbital SFTs using a database of 97 cases. The Huang model takes into consideration tumor size, mitotic figures, Ki-67 index, and dominant constituent cell (DCC) as key variables. Survival analysis confirmed the model's predictive value, with higher-risk scores being associated with poorer outcomes. However, in contrast to the orbital SFTs studied by Huang et al., our study did not find a correlation between tumor size and recurrence in extraorbital cases. While the Huang model performs slightly better than other RSS, it falls short on achieving statistical significance in distinguishing recurrence risk groups in extraorbital locations. In conclusion, this study validates the Huang RSS for use in extraorbital SFTs and underscores the importance of considering DCC, mitotic count, and Ki-67 together. However, we found that including tumor size in this model did not improve prognostic significance in extraorbital SFTs. Despite the benefits of this additional RSS, vigilant monitoring remains essential, even in cases classified as low-risk due to the inherent unpredictability of SFT clinical outcomes.
Subject(s)
Hemangiopericytoma , Orbital Neoplasms , Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome , Solitary Fibrous Tumors , Humans , Orbital Neoplasms/genetics , Prognosis , Ki-67 Antigen , Repressor Proteins/genetics , Solitary Fibrous Tumors/diagnosis , Solitary Fibrous Tumors/genetics , STAT6 Transcription Factor/genetics , Risk Assessment , Biomarkers, Tumor/geneticsABSTRACT
Watch-and-wait has emerged as a new strategy for the management of rectal cancer when a complete clinical response is achieved after neoadjuvant therapy. In an attempt to standardize this new clinical approach, initiated by the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumors (TTD), and with the participation of the Spanish Association of Coloproctology (AECP), the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP), the Spanish Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (SEED), the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR), and the Spanish Society of Medical Radiology (SERAM), we present herein a consensus on a watch-and-wait approach for the management of rectal cancer. We have focused on patient selection, the treatment schemes evaluated, the optimal timing for evaluating the clinical complete response, the oncologic outcomes after the implementation of this strategy, and a protocol for surveillance of these patients.
Subject(s)
Rectal Neoplasms , Watchful Waiting , Humans , Consensus , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/drug therapy , Rectal Neoplasms/pathology , Neoadjuvant Therapy/methods , Chemoradiotherapy/methods , Pathologic Complete Response , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Caracterizar morfológica e inmunohitoquimicamente el carcinoma apocrino mamamario. Este estudio toma 24 casos diagnosticados como carcinomas apocrinos o con rasgos apocrinos, clasificándolos como puros y mixtos, reconociendo la presencia de componentes in situ asociados, para evaluar la expresión inmunohistoquímica del receptor de andrógenos (AR), receptor de estrógenos (ER), receptor de progesterona (PR), gross cistyc disease proteína (GCDFP-15), BCL2,KI67 y ERB-2 tanto en las áreas infiltrantes como intraepiteliales, estudiando adicionalmente la amplificación génica del ERB-2 en el cromosoma 17 por métodos de FISH. Los tumores clasificados como puros correspondieron a 11 casos que expresan la siguiente positividad inmunohistoquímica en las áreas infiltrativas: AR (100 por ciento), ER (18 por ciento), PR (18 por ciento), GCDFP (63 por ciento), BCL2 (54 por ciento), KI67 (28 por ciento) y ERB-2(28 por ciento) con una positividad de GCDFP-15(100 por ciento) en la áreas in situ. Los tumores mixtos correspondientes a 13 casos mostraron la siguiente positividad inmunohistoquímica: AR (58 por ciento), ER (46 por ciento), PR (46 por ciento), GCDFP-15 (50 por ciento), BCL2 (33 por ciento), KI67 (58 por ciento) y ERB-2(16 por ciento), con una positividad de GCDFP-15 (100 por ciento) en las áreas in situ. Las áreas in situ expresan GCDFP-15 en todos los casos con una reducción de la expresión en las zonas de infiltración del mismo al 63 y 50 por ciento en los tumores puros y mixtos, respectivamente. Los carcinomas mamarios apocrinos puros deben ser distinguidos de los mixtos mediante un examen morfológico detallado y por su perfil inmunohistoquímico (AR+, ER-, PR-/GCDFP+, BCL2+/-, KI67-, ERB2/-)(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Female , Carcinoma , Breast NeoplasmsABSTRACT
Objetivo: Caracecterizar morfológica e inmunohitoquimicamente el carcinoma apocrino mamamario. Materiales y métodos: Este estudio toma 24 casos diagnosticados como carcinomas apocrinos o con rasgos apocrinos, clasificándolos como puros y mixtos, reconociendo la presencia de componentes in situ asociados, para evaluar la expresión inmunohistoquími- ca del receptor de andrógenos (AR), receptor de estrógenos (ER), receptor de progesterona (PR), gross cistyc disease proteína (GCDFP-15), BCL2, KI67 y ERB-2 tanto en las áreas infiltrantes como intraepiteliales, estudiando adicionalmente la amplificación génica del ERB-2 en el cromosoma 17 por métodos de FISH. Resultados: Los tumores clasificados como puros correspondieron a 11 casos que expresan la siguiente positividad inmunohistoquímica en las áreas infiltrativas: AR (100%), ER (18%), PR (18%), GCDFP (63%), BCL2 (54%), KI67 (28%) y ERB-2(28%) con una positividad de GCDFP-15(100%) en la áreas in situ. Los tumores mixtos correspondientes a 13 casos mostraron la siguiente positividad inmunohistoquímica: AR (58%), ER (46%), PR (46%), GCDFP-15 (50%), BCL2 (33%), KI67 (58%) y ERB-2(16%), con una positividad de GCDFP-15 (100%) en las áreas in situ. Las áreas in situ expresan GCDFP-15 en todos los casos con una reducción de la expresión en las zonas de infiltración del mismo al 63 y 50% en los tumores puros y mixtos, respectivamente. Conclusiones: Los carcinomas mamarios apocrinos puros deben ser distinguidos de los mixtos mediante un examen morfológico detallado y por su perfil inmunohistoquímico (AR+, ER-, PR-/GCDFP+, BCL2+/-, KI67-, ERB2/-)...
Objetive: To recognize the morphologic and inmunohistochemical aspects of cases of apocrine mamary carcinomas. Matherials and methods: Twenty four cases of apocrine mamary carcinomas and ductal mamary carcinomas with apocrine diferetiation (mix apocine carcinomas) were studied morphologically and inmunohistochemiclly detected androgen receptor (AR), progesterone receptor (PR), gross cystic disease protein-15(GCDFP-15), BCL2, KI67 and CERB-2 in infiltrative and in situ areas of the same tumor and adicionally demonstrated the gene amplificacion of ERB-2 in the 17 cromosome by FISH analysis. Results: Eleven cases of pure apocrine carcinomas were encountered, inmunohistochemically positivity was as follows: AR (100%), ER (18%), PR (18%), GCDFP(63%)BCL2 (54%), KI67 (28%), and ERB-2(28%) with positivity of GCDFP-15(100%) over in situ areas; the rest 13 cases of mix apocrine carcinomas expresed positivity as follows: AR (58%), ER (46% ), PR (46% ), GCDFP-15 (50%), BCL-2 (33%), KI67 (58%) and ERB-2 (16%). In situ areas expresed of GCDFP-15 in all cases (100%) with a reduccion of the expression in the infiltrating areas of the same case to 63% and 50% of pure and mix tumors respectivilly. Conclution: Pure apocrine carcinoma most be distinguied of the mix apocrine forms of ductal and lobular carcinomas by a gently morfologic analysis of the tumor and the following combination would allow for and immunohistochemical identification: AR+, ER-, PR...