scholarly journals Synovial sarcoma and malignant mesothelioma of the pleura: review, differential diagnosis and possible role of apoptosis

Pathology ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Cappello ◽  
Leon Barnes
2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 487-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nurhan Sahin ◽  
Ayse Nur Akatli ◽  
Muhammet Reha Celik ◽  
Hakkı Ulutas ◽  
Emine Turkmen Samdanci ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michela Campanelli ◽  
Francesca Cabry ◽  
Roberto Marasca ◽  
Roberta Gelmini

GYNECOLOGY ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-72
Author(s):  
S.A. Martynov ◽  
◽  
L.V. Adamyan ◽  
E.A. Kulabukhova ◽  
P.V. Uchevatkina ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 62 (6) ◽  
pp. 452-463
Author(s):  
E. Cebada Chaparro ◽  
J. Lloret del Hoyo ◽  
R. Méndez Fernández

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. e237099
Author(s):  
Daanesh Huned ◽  
Juinn Huar Kam ◽  
Lui Shiong Lee ◽  
Raj Vikesh Tiwari

Synovial sarcomas are most commonly localised in extremities, especially in the lower thigh and knee areas. Comprising less than 1% of all malignancies, retroperitoneal synovial sarcoma is very rare with primary synovial sarcoma of the kidney being even more infrequent and difficult to diagnose. We describe a case report of a renal synovial sarcoma in a young adult who was initially managed as a case of Wunderlich’s syndrome secondary to what was believed to be a ruptured renal angiomyolipoma. After biopsy confirmation, the patient was eventually managed with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by a right radical nephrectomy and right hepatectomy. Despite its rarity, synovial sarcoma should be considered as differential diagnosis of a bleeding retroperitoneal soft tissue mass detected in young adults.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Jan M. Wit ◽  
Sjoerd D. Joustra ◽  
Monique Losekoot ◽  
Hermine A. van Duyvenvoorde ◽  
Christiaan de Bruin

The current differential diagnosis for a short child with low insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and a normal growth hormone (GH) peak in a GH stimulation test (GHST), after exclusion of acquired causes, includes the following disorders: (1) a decreased spontaneous GH secretion in contrast to a normal stimulated GH peak (“GH neurosecretory dysfunction,” GHND) and (2) genetic conditions with a normal GH sensitivity (e.g., pathogenic variants of <i>GH1</i> or <i>GHSR</i>) and (3) GH insensitivity (GHI). We present a critical appraisal of the concept of GHND and the role of 12- or 24-h GH profiles in the selection of children for GH treatment. The mean 24-h GH concentration in healthy children overlaps with that in those with GH deficiency, indicating that the previously proposed cutoff limit (3.0–3.2 μg/L) is too high. The main advantage of performing a GH profile is that it prevents about 20% of false-positive test results of the GHST, while it also detects a low spontaneous GH secretion in children who would be considered GH sufficient based on a stimulation test. However, due to a considerable burden for patients and the health budget, GH profiles are only used in few centres. Regarding genetic causes, there is good evidence of the existence of Kowarski syndrome (due to <i>GH1</i> variants) but less on the role of <i>GHSR</i> variants. Several genetic causes of (partial) GHI are known (<i>GHR</i>, <i>STAT5B</i>, <i>STAT3</i>, <i>IGF1</i>, <i>IGFALS</i> defects, and Noonan and 3M syndromes), some responding positively to GH therapy. In the final section, we speculate on hypothetical causes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document