2020
DOI: 10.5021/ad.2020.32.5.417
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

GATA3-Positive Adnexal Adenocarcinoma: Report of a Confusing Case with a Potential Pitfall of Leading to a Misdiagnosis of Urothelial Carcinoma and a Review of Published Work

Abstract: We describe a confusing case of GATA3-positive adnexal adenocarcinoma with a potential pitfall of leading to a misdiagnosis of urothelial carcinoma. A 62-year-old male presented with a subcutaneous nodule on the right lower abdomen around a scar from surgery for urothelial carcinoma in the right urinary tract, which had been resected 8 years previously. Histologically, atypical cells possessing ample cytoplasm and partial intracytoplasmic lumens were densely grouped in the subcutaneous expansive nodule and bil… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In their data, 33% (n = 3/9) of poromas stained positively, and the lone example of porocarcinoma lacked GATA3 expression (n = 1). In 2017, a separate study was conducted by Pardal et al 9 to further characterize GATA3 expression in skin adnexal tumors, including poromas (20%, n = 1/5) and porocarcinomas (43%, n = 10/23), which was supported in a case and review conducted by Kiyohara and Tanimura 10 Practicing pathologists have encountered many "magic" determinants that seem to exhibit their greatest specificity for a brief period postpublication. Our case, with morphological and immunohistochemical features simulating CSK, instead represents a sweat gland tumor (i.e., porocarcinoma in situ arising in a long-standing poroma) and suggests that GATA3 may not be as specific or diagnostically informative in the distinction of these entities as stated by Lin et al…”
Section: Emilio Sudy MD Francisco Urbina Mdmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…In their data, 33% (n = 3/9) of poromas stained positively, and the lone example of porocarcinoma lacked GATA3 expression (n = 1). In 2017, a separate study was conducted by Pardal et al 9 to further characterize GATA3 expression in skin adnexal tumors, including poromas (20%, n = 1/5) and porocarcinomas (43%, n = 10/23), which was supported in a case and review conducted by Kiyohara and Tanimura 10 Practicing pathologists have encountered many "magic" determinants that seem to exhibit their greatest specificity for a brief period postpublication. Our case, with morphological and immunohistochemical features simulating CSK, instead represents a sweat gland tumor (i.e., porocarcinoma in situ arising in a long-standing poroma) and suggests that GATA3 may not be as specific or diagnostically informative in the distinction of these entities as stated by Lin et al…”
Section: Emilio Sudy MD Francisco Urbina Mdmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…To clarify the histogenesis of the tumor and determine the immunophenotype of tumor cells, an immunohistochemical study was performed (Figure 2). Also, the reason for additional immunohistochemical studies was the frequent metastasis of malignant tumors of other localizations into the skin 3 . When conducting an immunohistochemical study, most of the tumor cells were positive for the following markers—CK7, GATA 3 (L50‐853), GCDSP‐15, mammaglobin A&B and negative for CK 5/6.…”
Section: Case Reportmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…GCDFP‐15 is reported to be of cutaneous or mammary origin. In addition, tumor cells showed a positive reaction of varying degrees of intensity to ER and PgR receptors 3 . Since the histological picture, as well as the immunophenotype of the tumor, was similar to non‐specific type ductal carcinoma of the breast, 5 additional targeted clinical studies of mammary lesions were carried out.…”
Section: Case Reportmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations