HistopathologyVolume 45, Issue 1 p. 96-98 Epithelial markers in primary sinonasal mucosal melanoma C Feeley, C Feeley Department of Histopathology, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJ Theaker, J Theaker Department of Histopathology, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UKSearch for more papers by this author C Feeley, C Feeley Department of Histopathology, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJ Theaker, J Theaker Department of Histopathology, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 30 June 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2004.01824.xCitations: 9Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References 1 Banerjee SS, Harris M. Morphological and immunophenotypic variations in malignant melanoma. Histopathology 2000; 36; 387–402. 10.1046/j.1365-2559.2000.00894.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 2 Regauer S, Anderhuber W, Richtig E et al. Primary mucosal melanomas of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. A clinicopathological analysis of 14 cases. APMIS 1998; 106; 403–410. 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1998.tb01364.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 3 Franquemont DW, Mills SE. Sinonasal malignant melanoma. A clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of 14 cases. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1991; 96; 689–697. 10.1093/ajcp/96.6.689 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 4 Xu J, Chen L, Wang P. Pathological and immunohistochemical studies on primary mucosal malignant melanoma. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi 1995; 30; 98–100. CASPubMedGoogle Scholar 5 Thompson L, Wieneke J, Miettinen M. Sinonasal tract and nasopharyngeal melanomas, a clinicopathologic study of 115 cases with a proposed staging system. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2003; 27; 594–611. 10.1097/00000478-200305000-00004 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 6 Ben-Izhak O, Stark P, Levy R et al. Epithelial markers in malignant melanoma. A study of primary lesions and their metastases. Am. J. Dermatopathol. 1994; 16; 241–246. 10.1097/00000372-199406000-00003 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume45, Issue1July 2004Pages 96-98 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Most patients with disseminated nonseminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT) have an excellent prognosis with modern chemotherapy, although certain subgroups with a worse prognosis have been described. One such subgroup includes patients with high serum levels of the tumor marker, human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG). Sixteen patients of 104 treated for NSGCT at the CRC Wessex Medical Oncology Unit (Southampton, UK) presented with serum HCG > 25,000. Most of these patients exhibited features of the “choriocarcinoma syndrome” with bulky, rapidly progressive disease; frequent pulmonary, hepatic, and central nervous system complications; and a generally poorer response to standard NSGCT chemotherapy. Histologic identification of trophoblastic tumor was not made in all patients and is not essential for the diagnosis of the syndrome; indeed, closed biopsy may be contradicted in some circumstances because of the risk of hemorrhage. The NSGCT patients with poor prognosis, including patients with the choriocarcinoma syndrome, must be clearly identified in order to improve management and, eventually, cure rates.

The techniques of ultrasonographic and hookwire localization biopsy of impalpable breast lesions detected by a large breast screening unit during its first year of operation are described. Hookwire localization (HL) was performed using mammography. Ultrasonographic localization (UL) was used for lesions readily detectable by ultrasonography by marking the skin directly over the lesion and calculating its depth below the surface. UL is not appropriate when microcalcification is the sole mammographic abnormality. Localization was required for 150 of the 191 (78.5 per cent) screen-detected lesions. HL was used for 94 (62.7 per cent) and UL for 56 (37.3 per cent). Four lesions were missed by HL, none by UL; 35 per cent of lesions removed by HL and 39 per cent by UL were malignant, giving benign:malignant biopsy ratios of 1.8:1 and 1.5:1 respectively. Only 22 per cent of the patients required overnight hospital stay. Localization biopsy plays a major role in the surgery for screen-detected lesions and, where applicable, UL is the technique of choice.

Oestrogen receptor immunocytochemical assay (ER‐ICA) was used to determine oestrogen receptor (ER) content of cells in fine needle aspirate (FNA) specimens from 88 breast carcinomas. In 49 of these the radioligand binding assay for oestradiol was available for comparison. The predictive value of ER‐ICA staining for a positive radioligand binding assay (greater than 10 fmol/mg protein) was 95%. Although the predictive value of negative staining was only 66%, 34 out of 37 ER‐ICA negative tumours had radioligand binding assays below 60 fmol/mg protein. ER‐ICA staining showed a strong positive correlation with age of the patient, positivity being rare before the menopause. There was a weak inverse correlation with tumour grade but none with tumour size or lymph node status. The assessment of ER by immunocytochemistry using FNA cytology is a rapid technique, which may easily be repeated and provides a pre‐operative assessment of ER status. It allows confirmation that tumour cells are present in the sample and an assessment of tumour heterogeneity.