scholarly journals A study of AgNOR count in FNAC lymphnode in case of lymphadenopathy

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 225
Author(s):  
Vasava T ◽  
Shah A ◽  
Katara K ◽  
Desai J ◽  
Damor M
Keyword(s):  
2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sulekha Gosh ◽  
Tapan Kumar Ghosh ◽  
Nikhilesh Dewasi ◽  
Krishnendu Das

Objective: The present study was undertaken to find out the relationship of Goseki grading system (I-IV) with existing classification of WHO, Lauren and tumour differentiation of gastric carcinoma and its prognostic information in relation to AgNOR & PCNA expression. Materials and methods: To assess the reproducibility and usefulness of Goseki grading system thirty five gastric carcinoma were selected from January 2007 to July 2009 in the department of Pathology, Burdwan Medical College in West Bengal, India and analyzed in relation to existing grading system by chi-squared testing. Mean AgNOR count & mean PCNA leveling index quantities of different tissue sections were assessed according to different classification system of gastric carcinoma and interobserver variations of all data were evaluated from Spearman Rank-order Correlation Coefficient (rs ). Results: Highly significant predictable correlation of Goseki grading system for existing classification of gastric carcinoma was obtained statistically. Increasing values of mean AgNOR count and PCNA leveling index (2.35% & 15.14%, 2.91% & 21.32%, 3.08 %& 24.76% and 3.2% & 25.12 respectively) were observed from Grade I – IV of Goseki grade. Mucin rich (3.05% & 23.22%) and tubule poor (3.14% & 24.76%) tumours higher values than mucin poor (2.71% & 19.95%) and tubule rich (2.63% & 18.23%) tumors. No significant correlations were observed in other grading system. Conclusion: Following Goseki grading system increasing expression of proliferating marker in mucin rich than mucin poor tumours and tubules poor than tubules rich tumors indicate poor prognosis and tumour behavior. Simple system may help to select patients for adjuvant therapy. Key words: Goseki grade; gastric carcinoma; AgNOR; PCNA. DOI: 10.3329/bjms.v9i2.5655Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science Vol.09 No.2 Apr 2010 pp.76-86


1995 ◽  
Vol 137 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Chandrasekar ◽  
P. Lalitha
Keyword(s):  

1995 ◽  
Vol 103 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorena Losi ◽  
Rossella Fante ◽  
Carmela Di Gregorio ◽  
Maria Luisa Aisoni ◽  
Giovanni Lanza ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hussain Gadelkarim Ahmed ◽  
Mohammed Ali Al-Adhraei ◽  
Ibraheem M. Ashankyty

Settings. Despite the limited diagnostic utility of AgNORs (argyrophilic nucleolar organiser region-associated proteins) for individual breast lesions, AgNOR analysis bears a significant potential for characterizing cell proliferative activity of breast lesions. Methodology. The present study investigated the relationship between mean AgNORs count and immunohistochemical expression of ER, PR, HER2/neu, and p53 in breast carcinoma in serial paraffin sections from 137 breast carcinomas. Twenty control cases of benign breast lesions were included. Results. Mean AgNOR counts correlated significantly inversely with hormone estrogen receptors (ER), Progesterone receptors (PR), and p53 immunohistochemical expression, denoting values of 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively. No significant correlation was found between mean AgNOR counts and HER2/neu, . Mean AgNOR count was significantly higher in grade II tumor cells. We conclude that mean AgNOR counts correlate with ER, PR, and P53 tumor markers in breast carcinomas. Conclusion. We recommend the use of mean AgNOR count for accurate reporting of breast carcinomas, as well as prediction of ER, PR, and P53 in routine paraffin sections.


2000 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 445-452
Author(s):  
Hiroshi OKAMURA ◽  
Hidemi SHIBUTA ◽  
Ayako MITSUNO ◽  
Toshiaki KAMEI ◽  
Nobuo SAKUMA ◽  
...  

1996 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 724-728 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Sujathan ◽  
S. Kannan ◽  
Raveendran Pillai ◽  
B. Chandralekha ◽  
Sreedevi Amma ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heloisa de Castro Sampaio ◽  
Adriano Motta Loyola ◽  
Ricardo Santiago Gomez ◽  
Ricardo Alves Mesquita

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-160
Author(s):  
A. Chattopadhyay ◽  
J.G. Ray
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document