Joana Loureiro1, Esther Oliva. 1. From the Department of Pathology, Instituto Português de Oncologia, Porto, Portugal (Dr Loureiro); and the Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (Dr Oliva).
Abstract
CONTEXT: Premalignant and malignant glandular lesions of the cervix are known to often cause diagnostic problems with a variety of benign (more common) as well as other malignant mimics, the latter setting often being represented by secondary involvement by endometrioid endometrial carcinoma especially in small samplings. OBJECTIVE: To highlight key histologic features and immunohistochemical markers that may be helpful in the distinction of in situ endocervical carcinoma from benign glandular proliferations, and those that separate different subtypes of invasive endocervical carcinoma, as well as invasive carcinoma from other carcinomas secondarily involving the cervix and nonneoplastic proliferations of the cervix. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and morphologic features as well as immunohistochemistry results should be used in conjunction in the differential diagnosis of glandular proliferations of the cervix, as correct interpretation has major clinical consequences for the patient in most instances (especially benign versus malignant). Immunohistochemical markers should be used as part of a panel of antibodies, as exceptions may occur to the usual pattern of staining, and if used singly, they may mislead the pathologist to establish a wrong diagnosis.
CONTEXT: Premalignant and malignant glandular lesions of the cervix are known to often cause diagnostic problems with a variety of benign (more common) as well as other malignant mimics, the latter setting often being represented by secondary involvement by endometrioid endometrial carcinoma especially in small samplings. OBJECTIVE: To highlight key histologic features and immunohistochemical markers that may be helpful in the distinction of in situ endocervical carcinoma from benign glandular proliferations, and those that separate different subtypes of invasive endocervical carcinoma, as well as invasive carcinoma from other carcinomas secondarily involving the cervix and nonneoplastic proliferations of the cervix. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and morphologic features as well as immunohistochemistry results should be used in conjunction in the differential diagnosis of glandular proliferations of the cervix, as correct interpretation has major clinical consequences for the patient in most instances (especially benign versus malignant). Immunohistochemical markers should be used as part of a panel of antibodies, as exceptions may occur to the usual pattern of staining, and if used singly, they may mislead the pathologist to establish a wrong diagnosis.
Authors: Ekaterina Perminov; Sara Mangosing; Alexandra Confer; Olga Gonzalez; Jason R Crawford; Natalia Schlabritz-Loutsevitch; Shyamesh Kumar; Edward Dick Journal: J Med Primatol Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 0.667
Authors: Joanne K L Rutgers; Andres A Roma; Kay J Park; Richard J Zaino; Abbey Johnson; Isabel Alvarado; Dean Daya; Golnar Rasty; Teri A Longacre; Brigitte M Ronnett; Elvio G Silva Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Angela A Cleveland; Julia W Gargano; Ina U Park; Marie R Griffin; Linda M Niccolai; Melissa Powell; Nancy M Bennett; Kayla Saadeh; Manideepthi Pemmaraju; Kyle Higgins; Sara Ehlers; Mary Scahill; Michelle L Johnson Jones; Troy Querec; Lauri E Markowitz; Elizabeth R Unger Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 7.316