scholarly journals A case of clear cell chondrosarcoma: Imprint cytology and cytologic differential diagnosis.

1995 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-109
Author(s):  
Masami SUGISHITA ◽  
Masaharu FUKUNAGA ◽  
Shinichiro USHIGOME ◽  
Kazuhito NAKAMORI ◽  
Sachiko MIURA ◽  
...  
1998 ◽  
Vol 170 (3) ◽  
pp. 802-803 ◽  
Author(s):  
G de Pinieux ◽  
P Anract ◽  
E Pessis

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos A. Paidakakos ◽  
Aristides Rovlias ◽  
Evaggelos Rokas ◽  
Spyridon Theodoropoulos ◽  
Patroklos Katafygiotis

Chondrosarcoma is the third most common primary malignant bone tumor after osteosarcoma and Ewing’s sarcoma. Clear cell chondrosarcoma is a rare subtype variant of chondrosarcoma, most commonly encountered in the proximal part of the femur or humerus. Vertebral involvement is exceedingly rare and shows a predilection for the thoracic spine. We report the case of a woman with clear cell chondrosarcoma of the thoracic spine, which has been surgically excised, and review the pertinent literature (PubMed). Although it has a reasonably benign biological behavior, clear cell chondrosarcoma needs to be treated as a malignancy. The best treatment for spinal chondrosarcoma is surgery. It should be promptly and adequately resected. Gross-total resection should be the ultimate surgical goal. Radiation therapy should also be considered, especially in the case of subtotal resection or inoperable lesions. In conclusion, it is important to keep in mind this entity in the differential diagnosis of spinal tumors, in order to optimize treatment planning. With adequate treatment, local recurrence rates as low as 20% can be achieved.


2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (12) ◽  
pp. 1137-1141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takashi Kato ◽  
Shin Ichihara ◽  
Hiroko Gotoda ◽  
Shunji Muraoka ◽  
Terufumi Kubo ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-28
Author(s):  
Mahmut Nedim Aytekin ◽  
Recep Öztürk ◽  
Mehmet Atıf Erol Aksekili ◽  
Ercan Bal ◽  
Metin Doğan

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-116
Author(s):  
Yukari OBANA ◽  
Shotaro MAEDA ◽  
Masaru HOSONE ◽  
Hironori KATAYAMA ◽  
Toshitsugu TAKEUCHI ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 137 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajen Goyal ◽  
Elizabeth Gersbach ◽  
Ximing J. Yang ◽  
Stephen M. Rohan

Context.—The World Health Organization classification of renal tumors synthesizes morphologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular findings to define more than 40 tumor types. Of these, clear cell (conventional) renal cell carcinoma is the most common malignant tumor in adults and—with the exception of some rare tumors—the most deadly. The diagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma on morphologic grounds alone is generally straightforward, but challenging cases are not infrequent. A misdiagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma has clinical consequences, particularly in the current era of targeted therapies. Objective.—To highlight morphologic mimics of clear cell renal cell carcinoma and provide strategies to help differentiate clear cell renal cell carcinoma from other renal tumors and lesions. The role of the pathologist in guiding treatment for renal malignancies will be emphasized to stress the importance of proper tumor classification in patient management. Data Sources.—Published literature and personal experience. Conclusions.—In challenging cases, submission of additional tissue is often an inexpensive and effective way to facilitate a correct diagnosis. If immunohistochemical stains are to be used, it is best to use a panel of markers, as no one marker is specific for a given renal tumor subtype. Selection of limited markers, based on a specific differential diagnosis, can be as useful as a large panel in reaching a definitive diagnosis. For renal tumors, both the presence and absence of immunoreactivity and the pattern of labeling (membranous, cytoplasmic, diffuse, focal) are important when interpreting the results of immunohistochemical stains.


Orthopedics ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 593-596
Author(s):  
Robert E Leggon ◽  
K Krishnan Unni ◽  
John W Beabout ◽  
Franklin H Sim

2007 ◽  
Vol 131 (10) ◽  
pp. 1541-1546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher D. Hornsby ◽  
Cynthia Cohen ◽  
Mahul B. Amin ◽  
Maria M. Picken ◽  
Diane Lawson ◽  
...  

Abstract Context.—The differential diagnosis of eosinophilic renal tumors can be difficult by light microscopy. In particular, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is difficult to distinguish from oncocytoma. This differential diagnosis is important because chromophobe RCC is malignant, whereas oncocytoma is benign. Furthermore, chromophobe RCC has distinct malignant potential and prognosis compared with eosinophilic variants of other RCC subtypes. Immunohistochemistry is useful for distinguishing chromophobe RCC from other subtypes of renal carcinoma, but no expression marker reliably separates chromophobe RCC from oncocytoma. Objective.—In a previous gene expression microarray analysis of renal tumor subtypes, we found the distal nephron markers claudin-7 and claudin-8 to be overexpressed in chromophobe RCC versus oncocytoma and other tumor subtypes. We have confirmed similar findings in independent microarray data and validated differential claudin-7 protein expression by immunohistochemistry. Design.—Immunohistochemical analysis of claudin-7 in 36 chromophobe RCCs, 43 oncocytomas, 42 clear cell RCCs, and 29 papillary RCCs. Results.—Membranous claudin-7 expression was detected in 67% chromophobe RCCs, compared with 0% clear cell RCCs, 28% papillary RCCs, and 26% oncocytomas (P < .001). Conclusions.—Based on microarray and immunohistochemical data, we propose claudin-7 to be a candidate expression marker for distinguishing chromophobe RCC from other renal tumor subtypes, including the morphologically similar oncocytoma. The clinical utility of claudin-7 should be validated in independent studies of renal tumors, possibly in combination with additional targets in a multiplex immunohistochemical panel.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document