Search

Enhui Guo,1,2,* Chengqian Li,2,3,* Yanjiao Hu,4 Kongyuan Zhao,1,2 Qingmei Zheng,1,* Liming Wang1,* 1Department of Gynecology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, People’s Republic of China; 2Qingdao Medical College, Qingdao University, Qingdao, People’s Republic of China; 3Department of Neurology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, People’s Republic of China; 4Department of Pathology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Qingmei Zheng; Liming Wang, Department of Gynecology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 1677, Wutaishan Road, Huangdao District, Qingdao, Shandong, 266000, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86-18661806725 ; +86-18661807912, Email zhengqingmei0532@126.com; wlmqingyi@163.comAbstract: Leiomyoma with bizarre nuclei (LBN), also known as symplastic leiomyoma, is a histological subtype of benign leiomyoma with bizarre cells and nuclear atypia. Differentiating LBN from other benign leiomyoma subtypes, uterine smooth muscle tumors of uncertain malignant potential (STUMP), or leiomyosarcoma (LMS) can be diagnostically challenging owing to overlapping features in clinical presentation and pathologic morphological analysis. The difficulty of distinguishing LBN from other lesions, especially from LMS, and the potential of LBN for subsequent malignant transformation make LBN an important topic of research. Herein, we review the definition, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of LBN. Histopathological examination is essential for distinguishing LBN from other diseases. Pathology sampling and morphological examination remain the key to diagnosis. The newly established ancillary immunohistochemical (IHC) and molecular genetic analysis can be useful tools for differential diagnosis. Furthermore, serum biomarkers and imaging examination may also be useful diagnostic tools. Attention should be paid to the differentiation between LBN and LMS because morphological diagnosis may still be challenging in some cases. Some IHC markers of LBN have been identified, which may be helpful for differential diagnosis. Furthermore, the use of IHC panels as diagnostic markers may be advocated. Molecular genetic studies suggest that some genes can aid with the differential diagnosis between LBN and LMS. However, increasing evidence support the idea that LBN and LMS are molecularly related, indicating that LBN may represent a potentially malignant stage of precancerous progression. At present, conservative treatment is recommended for primary LBN, especially for patients desiring to retain fertility, but close follow-up with imaging examinations is required.Keywords: diagnosis, histopathology, molecular genetics, imaging examination, treatment, prognosis

Background: To develop a common follow‐up strategy for appropriate imaging examination at an appropriate time for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods: Independent prognostic factors were identified by Cox regression analysis, and a nomogram model was developed. Random survival forest (RSF) model was constructed to depict probability of disease failure during a 5‐year follow‐up and establish a reasonable risk‐based follow‐up strategy. Results: The nomogram model finally categorized the patients into three risk groups. RSF model demonstrated distribution trends for local and regional recurrences, bone metastasis, liver metastasis, and lung metastasis of NPC. Adequate imaging at follow‐up should be considered between 10 and 21 months for patients at moderate‐risk of recurrence or metastasis and 7–36 months for those at high‐risk. Conclusions: The temporal distribution of incidence rates of recurrence or metastasis varied among different risk groups. We recommend implementing a focused and targeted imaging surveillance intervention at appropriate times to improve its efficiency and reduce costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare subtype of malignant pulmonary tumor. The incidence rate of LCNEC was reported to be 0.3%–3% in lung cancers. Although LCNEC is classified as non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), it is more aggressive and malignant than other NSCLC, and its biological behavior is similar to that of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Most of the LCNEC patients are elderly smoking male and the clinical manifestations are not specific. The imaging manifestations of the tumors are often located in the periphery and the upper lobes, and the enlargement of mediastinal or hilar lymph nodes is common. The diagnosis is mainly based on pathology by the histological features and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Specific neuroendocrine markers such as chromogranin A (CgA), synaptophysin (Syn) and CD56 are usually diffusely positive in LCNEC, and found that insulinoma-associated protein (INSM1) and high rate of Ki-67 are helpful for diagnosis. More differential diagnoses also increase the difficulty of correctly diagnosing LCNEC. The rise of LCNEC molecular typing in recent years may be helpful for diagnosis and subsequent treatment. This review focuses on the epidemiological features, imaging studies, pathology, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of LCNEC.

Abstract Background In this study, we aimed to investigate the preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the diagnosis of positive lymph node metastasis (LNM), and to evaluated the relationship between CEA and survival in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC). Methods The significance of the preoperative serum CEA level for the diagnose of LAGC and prediction of LNM was determined using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The areas under the ROC of CEA were compared with those of other tumor markers or imaging examination including CT and MRI. Logistic regression was utilized to identify the risk factors predicting positive LNM. Independent prognosis factors were evaluated using univariate and multivariate COX regression analyses. Results The ROC curves showed that the AUCs of CEA, CA199, and CA125 for diagnosing LAGC were 0.727, 0.594, and 0.566. When used to predict LNM, the AUC of CEA, CA199 and CA125 were 0.696, 0.531, and 0.588. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that preoperative serum CEA were significantly associated with positive LNM. On combining imaging examination with CEA, the sensitivity and specificity were 85.3 and 79.4%, respectively, with the AUC equal to 0.853. The combination of CEA and imaging examination preformed the highest levels of AUC and sensitivity for diagnosing LNM, which is significantly higher than using either of them alone. Although patients with abnormal CEA have a poor prognosis, two models of multivariate analysis showed that CEA was not the independent prognosis factor for survival. Conclusions CEA can be used to diagnose gastric cancer and determine whether it has LNM. Moreover, combined with CEA could improve the diagnostic sensitivity of imaging examination for lymph node involvement.

Background: In this study, we aimed to investigate the preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the diagnosis of positive lymph node metastasis (LNM), and to evaluated the relationship between CEA and survival in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC).Methods: The significance of the preoperative serum CEA level for the diagnose of LAGC and prediction of LNM was determined using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The areas under the ROC of CEA were compared with those of other tumor markers or imaging examination including CT and MRI. Logistic regression was utilized to identify the risk factors predicting positive LNM. Independent prognosis factors were evaluated using univariate and multivariate COX regression analyses.Results: The ROC curves showed that the AUCs of CEA, CA199, and CA125 for diagnosing LAGC were 0.727, 0.594, and 0.566. When used to predict LNM, the AUC of CEA, CA199 and CA125 were 0.696, 0.531, and 0.588. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that preoperative serum CEA were significantly associated with positive LNM. On combining imaging examination with CEA, the sensitivity and specificity were 85.3 and 79.4%, respectively, with the AUC equal to 0.853. The combination of CEA and imaging examination preformed the highest levels of AUC and sensitivity for diagnosing LNM, which is significantly higher than using either of them alone. Although patients with abnormal CEA have a poor prognosis, two models of multivariate analysis showed that CEA was not the independent prognosis factor for survival.Conclusions: CEA can be used to diagnose gastric cancer and determine whether it has LNM. Moreover, combined with CEA could improve the diagnostic sensitivity of imaging examination for lymph node involvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This article reviews the pathological mechanisms and progress of imaging of severe frostbite to assist in the search for targets for clinical diagnosis and treatment of severe frostbite. This review also aims to provide strong evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment of deep frostbite.Methods: The review was based on the summary and analysis of the existing literature, and explored the pathological mechanism of deep frostbite and the advantages and disadvantages of imaging diagnostic methods.Results: According to the depth of tissue involvement, frostbite is divided into 4 levels. Severe frostbite includes Grade 3 and Grade 4 frostbite. Clinical performance evaluation and imaging diagnostic research have always been the mainstream of severe frostbite diagnosis. Imaging methods focus on vascular patency and tissue vitality. This article introduces angiography, SETCT/CT and MRA, and we summarize the advantages and disadvantages of these imaging methods. We recommend corresponding imaging modalities according to the state of frostbite patients.Conclusions: Imaging examination, especially angiography and bone scans, provide useful information for determining the diagnosis and prognosis of severe frostbite. In order to obtain a good clinical prognosis, clinicians should first perform SPECT/CT. MRA does not burden the patient's body, but the balance between cost and benefit must be considered. Angiography provides a good feedback on the changes in blood vessel status before and after treatment, which is helpful for discovering the response of limbs to treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]