Florid mesonephric hyperplasia of the cervix: a report of a case with review of the literature.

International Journal of Gynecological Pathology (Impact Factor: 1.63). 02/1985; 4(3):245-54.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A rare case of florid mesonephric hyperplasia (FMH) of the cervix found incidentally in the hysterectomy specimen of a 49-year-old woman was studied with light and electron microscopy as well as histochemistry and immunohistochemistry. A lack of architectural and cytologic atypia of the glands and tubules and a benign clinical course are consistent with a hyperplastic rather than neoplastic process. Direct histologic continuity between mesonephric duct remnants and hyperplastic glands with numerous cytotelolysosomes and lack of intracellular mucin and carcinoembryonic antigen are the features that distinguish FMH from minimal deviation adenocarcinoma of the endocervix.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pseudo-tumoral lesions of the cervix implies some reactive, non-neoplastic changes (metaplasia, hyperplasia, inflammation) that, occasionally, are wrong interpreted as precancerous or malign lesions. Even some can present architectural or cytological abnormal aspects, these are different from the one noted in carcinomas or the precursor lesions of carcinomas. Them recognition is indispensable in order to avoid the diagnose errors and the super evaluation of these benign lesions.
    Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie 02/2005; 46(3):239-47. · 0.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A case of mesonephric adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix arising in florid mesonephric hyperplasia is reported. The reviewed literature contained many cases of cervical “mesonephroma” but only a few of these were considered to be demonstrably of mesonephric origin. These tumors were usually associated with proliferating mesonephric remnants in the cervix. Similar tubuloglandular mesonephric proliferations without formation of a frankly malignant tumor have also been described in the cervix, most recently as florid mesonephric hyperplasia. This latter entity appears to be benign. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) was focally positive in this cervical adenocarcinoma, suggesting that CEA may not be useful in distinguishing this variant from the more common mullerian adenocarcinoma of the cervix.
    Gynecologic Oncology 06/1987; 27(1-27):58-68. DOI:10.1016/0090-8258(87)90230-7 · 3.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: From 1962 to 1985, 2201 patients with invasive cervical cancer were staged, evaluated, and treated at the University of Kentucky Medical Center. After a thorough evaluation, 25 cases (1.1%) fulfilled the histologic criteria for small cell cancer defined by Reagan and coworkers. These patients were computermatched for age, disease stage, and lesion size to 25 patients with large cell nonkeratinizing cancer and 25 patients with keratinizing squamous cell cancer. Morphometric analyses of nuclear size and maximum nuclear diameter were performed on all cases without knowledge of cell type. Small cell cancers were characterized by a nuclear area of 160 μ2 or less and a maximum nuclear diameter of 16.2 μ, which was significantly lower than that for large cell tumors. Thirty-three percent of the small cell carcinomas stained positively for the neuroendocrine markers (neuron-specific enolase [NSE] and chromogranin [CGR]), whereas the remainder contained only epithelial markers such as cytokeratin (CYK) and epithelial membrane antigen (EMA). Small cell cancers were associated with a high frequency of lymph-vascular space invasion and a diminished lymphoplasmacytic response. Patients with small cell cancer had a significantly higher recurrence rate, particularly to extrapelvic sites, than the matched patients with large cell cancers, and their survival was lower. Clinical trials to determine the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of small cell cervical cancer are needed.
    Cancer 10/1988; 62(8):1586 - 1593. DOI:10.1002/1097-0142(19881015)62:8<1586::AID-CNCR2820620822>3.0.CO;2-W · 4.90 Impact Factor