1993•PubMedRequires access

[Immunohistochemistry in the anatomopathologic diagnosis].

Fernando Carlos Schmitt, Kimaid Pa, Campos Pf, C E Bacchi

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

In order to determine the value of immunohistochemical staining methods for morphologic diagnosis specimens of 949 cases received at the Immunohistochemistry Laboratory of the Department of Pathology of the Medical School of Botucatu, in the period 1984-1989 were reviewed. All of them were submitted to the immunoperoxidase staining (PAP or ABC). The main morphologic diagnosis was confirmed in 468 cases (49.3%); the definitive diagnosis was made in 244 cases (25.7%) that had only differential diagnosis, and contributory information was provided in 74 cases (7.8%); the immunohistochemical staining was non-contributory in 114 cases (12%). It rendered an unsuspected diagnosis in 49 cases (5.2%). The analysis of these cases shows that immunohistochemical methods may provide important and sometimes essential informations for definitive diagnosis. This technique is particularly useful for distinguishing between carcinoma, lymphoma and melanoma.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In order to determine the value of immunohistochemical staining methods for morphologic diagnosis specimens of 949 cases received at the Immunohistochemistry Laboratory of the Department of Pathology of the Medical School of Botucatu, in the period 1984-1989 were reviewed. All of them were submitted to the immunoperoxidase staining (PAP or ABC). The main morphologic diagnosis was confirmed in 468 cases (49.3%); the definitive diagnosis was made in 244 cases (25.7%) that had only differential diagnosis, and contributory information was provided in 74 cases (7.8%); the immunohistochemical staining was non-contributory in 114 cases (12%). It rendered an unsuspected diagnosis in 49 cases (5.2%). The analysis of these cases shows that immunohistochemical methods may provide important and sometimes essential informations for definitive diagnosis. This technique is particularly useful for distinguishing between carcinoma, lymphoma and melanoma.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In order to determine the value of immunohistochemical staining methods for morphologic diagnosis specimens of 949 cases received at the Immunohistochemistry Laboratory of the Department of Pathology of the Medical School of Botucatu, in the period 1984-1989 were reviewed. All of them were submitted to the immunoperoxidase staining (PAP or ABC). The main morphologic diagnosis was confirmed in 468 cases (49.3%); the definitive diagnosis was made in 244 cases (25.7%) that had only differential diagnosis, and contributory information was provided in 74 cases (7.8%); the immunohistochemical staining was non-contributory in 114 cases (12%). It rendered an unsuspected diagnosis in 49 cases (5.2%). The analysis of these cases shows that immunohistochemical methods may provide important and sometimes essential informations for definitive diagnosis. This technique is particularly useful for distinguishing between carcinoma, lymphoma and melanoma.

Key concepts: Immunohistochemistry, Medicine, Differential diagnosis, Pathology, Immunoperoxidase, Staining, Lymphoma, Metastatic carcinoma

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
[Immunohistochemistry in the anatomopathologic diagnosis]. — Research Paper | ScholarLens