Should Special Staining (AB/PAS) be Routinely Performed in Gastric Biopsies for the Detection of Intestinal Metaplasia?

Background. Gastric intestinal metaplasia increases the risk of gastric cancer by nine times. Although attempts are made to diagnose it using endoscopic methods, the final diagnosis is established by examining and reporting biopsy samples. Although there are studies in the literature that do not recommend routine special staining, many laboratories routinely perform alcian blue/periodic acid Schiffs (AB/PAS) staining, in addition to hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining. In this study, we examined the need for performing routine special staining. Methods. Seven hundred forty-one consecutive gastric biopsies obtained from the archive of our laboratory in 2019 were included in the study. One day after evaluating the cases using H&E, they were evaluated with AB/PAS without examining the H&E results. Result. All of the intestinal metaplasia lesions detected in H&E were observed with AB/PAS. However, we missed 14 (13.73%) of 102 intestinal metaplasia lesions with H&E that we detected using AB/PAS. We found the sensitivity and specificity of H&E in detecting intestinal metaplasia were 86.3% and 99.7%, respectively. When we retrospectively examined the 14 missed lesions in H&E staining, we could observe intestinal metaplasia in six biopsies, but it was not possible in eight (7.8%). Conclusion. Considering that gastric intestinal metaplasia is a precancerous lesion, we think that this ratio (13.73%) is high and that the number of malignancies can be reduced with a low-cost special stain. In this context, we advocate and recommend routinely performing inexpensive special staining such as AB/PAS to detect intestinal metaplasia in all gastric biopsies.

Application of different methods used to measure the apparent diffusion coefficient of renal cell carcinoma on the same lesion and its correlation with ISUP nuclear grading.

PURPOSE: To determine the most frequently used different apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement methods in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and their correlation with the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) histologic grading system. METHODS: A total of 99 patients who underwent diffusion-weighted imaging and whose pathologic diagnosis of RCC was confirmed were included in the study. As a result of a literature review, region of interest (ROI) selection and measurement methods were determined in five ways. These included a small ROI (ADC1) on the solid part of the lesion showing the most restriction; a large ROI (ADC2) on the solid part of the lesion showing restriction; ROI (ADC3) that covered the lesion in the cross-section with the largest diameter, which was obtained by placing ROIs (ADC4) covering the lesion on all sections of the lesion; three small ROIs (ADC5) on solid parts of the lesion showing the most restriction. Then, ADC measurements were made from the contralateral normal kidney parenchyma. Tumors were pathologically subdivided [71 clear cell RCCs (ccRCC), 17 chromophobe RCCs (chRCC), 11 papillary RCCs (pRCC)], and graded according to the ISUP nuclear grading system (42 high-grade, 57 low-grade). Data were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: In all measurement methods, ADC values of RCCs were statistically significantly lower than normal kidney ADC values. There were no differences between the ADC3 and ADC4 measurements of RCCs (p = 0.999). There was a statistical difference in other measurement methods (p < 0.001). There were differences between ccRCCs and pRCCs and chRCCs in all measurement methods. In all measurement methods, pRCC and chRCC ADC values ​​were lower than ccRCC ADC values. When ISUP nuclear grading and ADC values ​​were compared, there was a statistically inverse correlation between all ADC measurements. The strongest correlation was found in the ADC1 and ADC5 measurements. When the ADC values ​​of ISUP low and high-grade groups were compared, a significant difference was found in the ADC5 measurement method (p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: According to the findings of the study, ADC5 is the measurement method that shows the best correlation with the ISUP histologic grading system. Therefore, we think that ADC5 can be the primary measurement method for determining the ADC value of RCCs.

Investigation into the effect of neoadjuvant therapy and tumor regression grade on the shrinkage of distal surgical margin in rectal cancer: A prospective case-control study.

Background: The present study aimed to explore the effect of neoadjuvant therapy and tumor regression grade (TRG) on the shrinkage in the distal surgical margin (DSM) induced by formalin fixation in rectal cancer. Materials and. Methods: In this prospective study, the DSM of resected 61 specimens of rectal and rectosigmoid junction adenocarcinoma were measured following fresh and formalin fixation. The measurements were performed within the first 15 min after resection and at 24 h after formalin fixation without pinning and were compared with regard to neoadjuvant treatment status and TRG. Results: In the patients that received neoadjuvant therapy, the fresh and postfixation DSM values were 32.2 mm and 22.7 mm, respectively, and the mean shrinkage rate was 34.7% (P < 0.001). In the patients that did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, the fresh and postfixation DSM values were 54.03 mm and 41.9 mm, respectively, and the mean shrinkage rate was 23.7% (P < 0.001). The mean shrinkage rate was 41.9% in TRG 1, 29.4% in TRG 2, and 31.9 in TRG 3 specimens. The mean shrinkage rate was higher in specimens with a DSM of ≤20 mm compared to specimens with a DSM of >20 mm (46.2% vs. 24.9%). Conclusion: A complete or near-complete tumor regression in patients with rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant therapy increases the shrinkage of DSM. Moreover, this shrinkage rate is likely to be higher and the pathological DSM is likely to be closer than expected in cases that present a better clinical response to neoadjuvant therapy, particularly in distal rectal cancer.

A larval granuloma in the lung: An extremely rare phenomenon.

The formation of pulmonary nodules is associated with benign or malignant pathologies. Based on the sizes, growth rates, and morphological features of nodules, surgical treatment or follow-up can be performed. Pulmonary nodules are frequently encountered in the practice of thoracic surgery. A 37-year-old male patient who had a 2.0x1.9 cm nodule in the right lung was followed. His medical history revealed no chronic disease. During follow-up, the sizes of the nodule increased and, therefore, it was removed by wedge resection. The pathological examination result was reported as a larval granuloma. In conclusion, larval granulomas in the lung are extremely rare phenomena and should be further examined.

An Epithelioid Hemangioendothelioma of the Head and Neck.

An epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is a rare vascular tumor of the head and neck region, which carries a risk of recurrence and metastasis. Its etiology is still unclear. It frequently involves the lungs, liver, and bones. Rarely, it may manifest in other parts of the body. Pathologic immunohistochemical investigations are essential to make the definite diagnosis. As it is uncommon, there is no standardized protocol for the treatment of EHE. Herein, the authors report a rare patient with of an EHE localized in the head and neck region.

Unusual presentation; seeding of tumor after biopsy for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatocellular cancer is one of the most common and fatal cancer tumor worldwide. However, the obtained results are questionable in terms of medical treatment of hepatocellular cancer. The muscle, soft tissue and cutaneous metastases of hepatocellular cancer, for instance, are rare and may result from interventional procedures. Seeding of tumor along the biopsy needle upon percutaneous biopsy is a very rare phenomenon. We report a very rare case of a 79 -year- old man, known to be hepatitis C virus carrier with a metastatic tumor in abdominal wall caused by seeding of tumor after three years following a percutaneous biopsy procedure. Even years later, after a biopsy procedure for diagnostic purposes and may be soft tissue metastases. This complication is a very rare condition that should not be ignored but can be observed. The biopsy requirement should be questioned closely and avoided unnecessary biopsy procedures.

Value of Glut-1 and Koc markers in the differential diagnosis of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, malignant mesothelioma and pulmonary adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a primary malignant tumor developing from mesothelial cells lining the serosal surfaces and particularly the pleura, and has a very poor prognosis. It may display a variety of histological patterns and has a wide spectrum of cytomorphological characteristics, causing problems in its differential diagnosis from lung adenocarcinomas and sometimes from benign mesothelial proliferations. Immunohistochemical examination is the most useful method for this distinction. In our study, we aimed to determine the value of glucose transporter isoform-1 (GLUT-1) and K homology domain-containing protein (KOC) markers in the differential diagnosis of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia, malignant mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Our study included 30 samples of malignant mesothelioma, 30 samples of pulmonary adenocarcinoma and 30 samples of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia selected from the archives of the Firat University Hospital's Pathology Department Laboratory. The samples were applied GLUT-1 and KOC markers by immunohistochemistry and the place of these markers in the differential diagnosis was examined. RESULTS: GLUT-1 was found positive in 80% of malignant mesothelioma cases, 83.3% of adenocarcinoma cases and 6.6% of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia cases. KOC was positive in 83.3% of malignant mesothelioma cases, 76.6% of adenocarcinoma cases and 46.6% of reactive mesothelial hyperplasia cases. There was no statistically significant difference between malignant mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma cases in terms of the diffuseness and intensity of staining with GLUT-1, whereas a significant difference was established when these groups were compared with reactive mesothelial hyperplasia cases. However, the KOC staining diffuseness and intensity results were similar to those obtained with GLUT-1. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, GLUT-1 and KOC markers do not differentiate malignant mesotheliomas from pulmonary adenocarcinomas but can be useful in differentiating reactive mesothelial hyperplasia from malignant mesothelioma and lung adenocarcinoma.