Malignant granular cell tumor. Report of a case with special reference to carcinoembryonic antigen.
ABSTRACT A case of malignant granular cell tumor and its histochemical and electron-microscopic characteristics are reported. This case showed, in addition to the well-known distribution of this type of tumor in subcutaneous fat, mediastinum, retroperitoneum and lungs, multiple foci in the myocardium. Contrary to recent studies reporting the presence of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in benign and malignant granular cell tumors, this case is CEA-negative. We suggest that the reported CEA-reactivity in this type of tumor is probably due to cross-reacting antibodies against antigens, presumably associated with lysosomes.
Article: Granular cell tumor of the esophagus[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A case of granular cell tumor of the esophagus in a 50-year-old man is reported. Gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed a round, sessile, non-ulcerated white-yellow elevated tumor at the lower third of the esophagus. Biopsy revealed a granular cell tumor. Immunohistochemical staining demonstrated that granules in the cytoplasm of tumor cells were positive for S-100 protein and negative for carcinoembryonic antigen. An electron microscopic study revealed that tumor cells were closely packed in clusters, surrounded by basal lamina and collagen fibers. Most cells contained dark cytoplasm filled with electrondense granules. These granules resembled lysosomes and phagosomes. In a few cells with clear cytoplasm, some mitochondria and poorly developed endoplasmic reticulums were seen. Fibrillar internal materials, myelin-like figures and a premature angulate body were observed in the clear cytoplasm. The lesion has remained unchanged in gross appearance and in size for twenty-three months without any treatment.Journal of Gastroenterology 21(5):508-512. · 4.02 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The common subtypes of renal tumours are conventional, papillary, chromophobe carcinoma and oncocytoma. The morphological differentiation between chromophobe carcinoma and oncocytoma may be difficult. The aim was to evaluate S100A1 as a new marker for the differentiation of the two subtypes. Thirty-nine tumour samples [nine clear cell renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), six papillary RCCs, nine chromophobe RCCs and 15 oncocytomas] were studied. The protein expression of S100A1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. The gene expression of S100A1 was analysed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. Nine oncocytomas showed strong immunoreactivity for S100A1. Four oncocytomas were scored as moderate and one as weak reactivity. In total, 14/15 (93%) of oncocytomas were considered to be immunopositive. In contrast, all nine chromophobe RCCs were considered to be immunonegative. There was a significant difference in the positive percentages of staining of S100A1 between these two subtypes (P < 0.01). S100A1 immunoreactivity was observed in 6/9 clear cell and 4/6 papillary carcinomas. The results of S100A1 gene expression corresponded well with the results of immunohistochemistry. S100A1 may be a potentially powerful marker to differentiate the chromophobe RCC from renal oncocytoma.Histopathology 04/2007; 50(5):642-7. · 3.30 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A series of granular cell myoblastomas (GCM) and other benign and malignant tumours of soft tissue were examined for cytoplasmic content of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) by the two-layer conjugated immunoperoxidase technique. Using a commercial rabbit anti-CEA serum only granular cell myoblastomas showed positive cytoplasmic reaction. Pretreatment with periodic acid made this reaction less intense, but when the commercial rabbit anti-CEA serum was absorbed with tissue powder from normal human spleen the positive reaction was totally abolished. It is concluded that the positivity of GCM for CEA using commercial rabbit anti-CEA serum is due to the content of non-specific cross-reacting antigen (NCA) and maybe other cross-reacting glycoproteins in this tumour, and not to CEA as claimed in a previous study.Archiv für Pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für Klinische Medicin 12/1982; 401(2):159-162. · 2.56 Impact Factor