PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “diagnostic pitfall”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 523 records · Page 29Linked to original sources

Prostate basal cell lesions can be negative for basal cell keratins: a diagnostic pitfall.

BACKGROUND: Prostate basal cell lesions can have architectural and cytologic atypia that mimic prostate adenocarcinoma. Immunohistochemical stains for basal cell markers are most helpful in the differential diagnosis. All of the published studies show basal cell lesions are positive for basal cell keratins, whereas adenocarcinoma is negative for both. We reported two cases of prostate basal cell lesions with negative basal cell keratin expression by immunohistochemistry. STUDY DESIGN: We reported the histologic and immunohistochemical profiles of two cases of basal cell lesions of the prostate. RESULTS: Histologically, both cases were highly suspicious for prostate adenocarcinoma with infiltrative growth pattern and significant nuclear atypia. The atypical glands in both cases were negative for basal cell keratins. However, both lesions were positive for another basal cell marker, p63, confirming that they were basal cells in origin, rather than prostate adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSION: Prostate basal cell lesions can occasionally be negative for basal cell keratins by immunohistochemistry and therefore may be misdiagnosed as prostate adenocarcinoma. We recommend using both p63 and basal cell keratins simultaneously in the workup of atypical prostate lesions to avoid such a misdiagnosis.

Adenocarcinoma↗

Fine needle aspiration cytology of renal infarcts. Cytomorphologic findings and potential diagnostic pitfalls in two cases.

The fine needle aspiration (FNA) cytologic features of two cases of renal infarction are presented. Both patients did not have a classic clinical history for infarction, and the radiologic findings were suggestive of neoplasia. In one of our cases, necrotic glomeruli and tubules were present, which suggested the correct diagnosis of renal infarction and permitted appropriate early treatment. In the other case, groups of atypical renal tubular cells undergoing repair secondary to the infarction was misinterpreted as renal cell carcinoma. This case illustrates that renal infarction, like pulmonary infarction, can be a potential pitfall for a false-positive cytologic diagnosis of malignancy in FNA biopsy. A conservative approach is warranted when there is scanty cellularity and atypical cells having features of a repairlike reaction are present.

Adult↗

[Extralobar pulmonary sequestration. A diagnostic pitfall].

The authors report a case of dual malformation: pulmonary (sequestration) and mediastinal (pericardial). This case is original in that clinically and at standard radiography sequestration was mistaken for hydatid cyst. The diagnosis was corrected after anatomico-pathologicale examination of the operative specimen.

Adult↗

Diagnostic pitfalls in the diagnosis of soft tissue bladder tumors in pediatric patients.

This is a case report of a low-grade leiomyosarcoma of the bladder in a four-year-old girl. The pitfalls in diagnosing a soft tissue tumor of the bladder in pediatric patients are discussed. This case is particularly instructive because the differential diagnosis was broad, difficult, and of serious consequence. This report discusses the process by which histologic, immunohistologic and ultrastructural data were used to sidestep the pitfalls in diagnosing this unusual tumor. Clinical follow-up data bearing out our conclusion are also presented.

Child, Preschool↗

[The "upside-down stomach"--a diagnostic pitfall].

Upside down stomach is an extreme variant of a paraesophageal hernia. The cardia and pylorus are located next to each other, while the rest of the stomach lies within the thorax. Radiology is mandatory for accurate anatomical documentation, while endoscopy is necessary to identify pathology, primarily bleeding sources. This is a rare condition found during endoscopy, with an incidence of 1.5%. Since there is a risk of volvulus, surgical correction is usually indicated.

Diagnosis, Differential↗