GI, Liver & Pancreas Pathology
Geetha V PATIL Oklay; Akina Prakash; Akshatha C; Ashwini Nargund; Libin Babu Cherian; Balu S; Arun Kumar A R
Abstract
Background & Objective: Hepatoblastoma encompasses 1% of pediatric malignancies and is the most common liver malignancy in children. Ninety percent of cases are under 5 years of age. Clinical and pathological risk stratification forms a crucial role in determining the treatment strategy. This study ...
Read More
Background & Objective: Hepatoblastoma encompasses 1% of pediatric malignancies and is the most common liver malignancy in children. Ninety percent of cases are under 5 years of age. Clinical and pathological risk stratification forms a crucial role in determining the treatment strategy. This study aimed to assess the clinicopathological profile of hepatoblastoma with risk stratification and follow-up in children.Methods: A retrospective evaluation was performed on all pediatric patients recognized with hepatoblastoma between 2016 and 2020 in our institution. Clinical, radiological, biochemical, pathological, and treatment data were analyzed. Cases were stratified based on the SIOPEL protocol and compared with the outcome.Results: The median age of all children was 1 year, the male-to-female ratio was 2.3:1, and elevated α-fetoprotein (AFP) was observed in all cases. SIOPEL risk stratification showed that 50% of children are at high risk. The histopathological types were fetal (30%), embryonal (20%), and macrotrabecular (5%) patterns under epithelial type and mixed epithelial and mesenchymal type (45%) with 1 case showing teratoid features. During the follow-up period, of the 7 children who died, 6 belonged to the high-risk SIOPEL category, and 5 had a mixed epithelial and mesenchymal pattern.Conclusion: Our study found a significant correlation between clinicopathological data, histopathological patterns, and outcomes. Accordingly, histopathological patterns could be considered one of the criteria for risk stratification. Histopathological risk stratification indicators (such as SIOPEL and PRETEXT) have strong prognostic and predictive outcomes; hence, our study emphasizes such parameters to aid oncologists.
Breast Pathology
Geetha V Patil Okaly1; Akshatha C; Sandhya N; Akina Prakash; M N Suma; Ashwini Nargund; Shankar Anand; C Ramachandra; Libin Babu Cherian
Abstract
Background & Objective: Metaplastic carcinoma is a diverse variant of invasive breast carcinomas (IBC) characterized by dedifferentiation of malignant cells towards squamous and/or mesenchymal elements. It accounts for 0.3-1.2% of all IBC. These tumors are typically triple-negative by hormonal profiling ...
Read More
Background & Objective: Metaplastic carcinoma is a diverse variant of invasive breast carcinomas (IBC) characterized by dedifferentiation of malignant cells towards squamous and/or mesenchymal elements. It accounts for 0.3-1.2% of all IBC. These tumors are typically triple-negative by hormonal profiling with a high proliferation index and a dismal prognosis. Lymph node metastasis is an unusual feature in metaplastic carcinoma.Methods: The present study analyses 30 cases (26 cases of modified radical mastectomy and 4 cases of lumpectomy) of metaplastic carcinoma over 2018-2020 (3 years). Four oncopathologists reviewed routine histopathologic and immunohistochemical-stained slides. The clinical details were collected from the Medical Records Department of the Cancer Institute.Results: A total of 20 (66.67%) cases were patients >50 years of age, 21(70%) out of which were diagnosed as invasive carcinoma, grade 3 according to the Nottingham histological score. Five (16.7%) cases presented with lymph node metastasis. While immunohistochemically 28 (93.3%) cases were triple-negativeCK5/6, P63, EGFR, and Ki-67 (more than 40%) positivity was noted in 25 (83.3%) , 26 (86,7%) , 20 (66.7%), and 25 (83.3%) cases, respectively.Conclusion: Metaplastic carcinoma is characteristically triple-negative breast malignancies (TNBC) exhibiting a high Ki-67 index and a lower rate of lymph node metastasis. CK5/6, p63, and EGFR are pertinent immunohistochemical markers that may aid in diagnosis. However, those markers are non-specific for the disease and morphologic features are always the key to the diagnosis of the process.
