Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEyden, Brian P
dc.contributor.authorBanik, S
dc.contributor.authorHarris, Martin
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-08T11:55:11Z
dc.date.available2010-04-08T11:55:11Z
dc.date.issued2010-04-08T11:55:11Z
dc.identifier.citationMalignant epithelial mesothelioma of the peritoneum: observations on a problem case., 20 (4):337-44 Ultrastruct Patholen
dc.identifier.issn0191-3123
dc.identifier.pmid8837340
dc.identifier.doi10.3109/01913129609016334
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/95996
dc.description.abstractA 71-year-old asbestos-exposed male with symptoms suggestive of asbestosis for the previous 8 years presented with abdominal distension and ascites. Clinically, a diagnosis of mesothelioma carcinoma was made. Light microscopy of an omental biopsy failed to advance the diagnosis: The tumor was a solid, papillary, and glandular neoplasm lacking mucin and hyaluronidase-sensitive Alcian blue staining material. Immunohistochemistry gave positive results for Ber-EP4, LeuM1, and CEA, markers, favoring carcinoma. Electron microscopy revealed processes in channels and lumina, which were long, slender, and uncoated with a length: diameter ratio of 19.7. A few possessed small rootlets. A glycocalyx and glycocalyceal bodies were not seen. Other features included tonofibrils, a basal lamina, and desmosomes. The patient died 3 months following the onset of abdominal symptoms. Autopsy findings included solid and papillary tumor throughout the peritoneum, but no intrinsic tumor of the gastrointestinal tract or elsewhere. Arriving at a final diagnosis was complicated by immunohistochemistry, which favored carcinoma, and ultrastructure, which suggested mesothelioma. Taking into account all lines of evidence, it was concluded that the tumor was probably a mesothelioma but one with some features developed to an extent more typical of carcinoma.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectPeritoneal Canceren
dc.subject.meshAged
dc.subject.meshBiological Markers
dc.subject.meshCarcinoma
dc.subject.meshDiagnosis, Differential
dc.subject.meshFatal Outcome
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshImmunohistochemistry
dc.subject.meshMale
dc.subject.meshMesothelioma
dc.subject.meshMicroscopy, Electron
dc.subject.meshPeritoneal Neoplasms
dc.titleMalignant epithelial mesothelioma of the peritoneum: observations on a problem case.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Histopathology, Christie Hospital National Health Service Trust, Manchester, UK.en
dc.identifier.journalUltrastructural Pathologyen
html.description.abstractA 71-year-old asbestos-exposed male with symptoms suggestive of asbestosis for the previous 8 years presented with abdominal distension and ascites. Clinically, a diagnosis of mesothelioma carcinoma was made. Light microscopy of an omental biopsy failed to advance the diagnosis: The tumor was a solid, papillary, and glandular neoplasm lacking mucin and hyaluronidase-sensitive Alcian blue staining material. Immunohistochemistry gave positive results for Ber-EP4, LeuM1, and CEA, markers, favoring carcinoma. Electron microscopy revealed processes in channels and lumina, which were long, slender, and uncoated with a length: diameter ratio of 19.7. A few possessed small rootlets. A glycocalyx and glycocalyceal bodies were not seen. Other features included tonofibrils, a basal lamina, and desmosomes. The patient died 3 months following the onset of abdominal symptoms. Autopsy findings included solid and papillary tumor throughout the peritoneum, but no intrinsic tumor of the gastrointestinal tract or elsewhere. Arriving at a final diagnosis was complicated by immunohistochemistry, which favored carcinoma, and ultrastructure, which suggested mesothelioma. Taking into account all lines of evidence, it was concluded that the tumor was probably a mesothelioma but one with some features developed to an extent more typical of carcinoma.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record