Neuroimaging parameters in early open spina bifida detection. Further benefit in first trimester screening?
Vol. 52 No. 3 Suppl., 2011
This supplement was not sponsored by Outside Organizations.
ROMANIAN JOURNAL of MORPHOLOGY and EMBRYOLOGY
D. Iliescu, A. Comanescu, P. Antsaklis, Stefania Tudorache, Mirela Ghilusi, Violeta Comanescu, Daniela Paulescu, Iuliana Ceausu, A. Antsaklis, Liliana Novac, N. Cernea
Objective: Morphological investigation of the central nervous system (CNS) in fetuses with positive markers for open spina bifida (OSB) detection, visualized by ultrasound during the first trimester of pregnancy. Materials and Methods: Data from fetuses that underwent routine first trimester ultrasound scan in our center during September 2007-March 2011 and presented abnormal aspects of the fourth ventricle, also referred as intracranial translucency (IT), provided the morphological support to evaluate CNS features. A neuro-histological study of posterior cerebral fossa illustrated anatomical features of the structures involved in the sonographic first trimester detection of neural tube defects. Results: Abnormal IT aspects were found in OSB cases examined in the first trimester, but also in other severe cerebral abnormalities. Brain stem antero-posterior diameter (BS) and brain stem to occipital bone (BSOB) ratio may be more specific for OSB detection. Correlations between histological aspects of posterior brain fossa and ultrasound standard assessment have been made; highlighting the anatomical features involved by the new techniques developed for OSB early detection. Conclusions: Preliminary results show that modern sonographic protocols are capable to detect abnormalities in the morphometry of the posterior brain. First trimester fourth ventricle abnormalities should be followed by careful CNS evaluation because are likely to appear in OSB affected fetuses, but also in other CNS severe anomalies; in such cases, normal BS and BSOB ratio may serve as indirect argument for spine integrity, if specificity is confirmed in large series of fetuses.
Corresponding author: Alexandru Comanescu, Teaching Assistant, MD, PhD, e-mail: alexcom8000@yahoo.com
Download PDF Neuroimaging parameters in early open spina bifida detection. Further benefit in first trimester screening? PDFROMANIAN JOURNAL of MORPHOLOGY and EMBRYOLOGY
Aurora Alexa, Flavia Baderca, Rodica Lighezan, Delia Elena Zahoi, D. Izvernariu
Renal parenchyma tumors are a heterogeneous group of malignancies that are difficult to diagnose and classify. Immunohistochemistry begun to be routinely used for the diagnosis of these tumors. Panels of antibodies are developed for the diagnostic assessment of these tumors, which include cytokeratins, epithelial membrane antigen and vimentin. Epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) is expressed by most of the tumor cell types. Forty-seven specimens of renal parenchyma tumors were studied immunohistochemically for the expression of EMA. In the majority of the cases, clear cells carcinoma was positive for EMA (25/33, 75.70%). All of the papillary carcinomas were positive, with different staining patterns between the two subtypes. The two cases of chromophobe cells carcinomas were intensely positive with a granular cytoplasmic staining pattern. The mixed epithelial-stromal tumor was negative for EMA in both of the components. Out of the three cases of sarcomatoid carcinomas, one was negative, one was weakly positive (+1) and the last was positive (+2). Intensely positive normal tubes were caught by the tumor proliferation in the negative case and in the negative stained areas of the weakly positive case.
Corresponding author: Flavia Baderca, Lecturer, MD, PhD, e-mail: flaviabaderca@yahoo.com
Download PDF The diagnostic value of EMA expression in the renal parenchyma tumors PDF
Download contents
Journal archive
- vol. 65 no. 2, 2024
- vol. 65 no. 1, 2024
- vol. 64 no. 4, 2023
- vol. 64 no. 3, 2023
- vol. 64 no. 2, 2023
- vol. 64 no. 1, 2023
- vol. 63 no. 4, 2022
- vol. 63 no. 3, 2022
- vol. 63 no. 2, 2022
- vol. 63 no. 1, 2022
- vol. 62 no. 4, 2021
- vol. 62 no. 3, 2021
- vol. 62 no. 2, 2021
- vol. 62 no. 1, 2021
- vol. 61 no. 4, 2020
- vol. 61 no. 3, 2020
- vol. 61 no. 2, 2020
- vol. 61 no. 1, 2020
- vol. 60 no. 4, 2019
- vol. 60 no. 3, 2019
- vol. 60 no. 2, 2019
- vol. 60 no. 1, 2019
- vol. 59 no. 4, 2018
- vol. 59 no. 3, 2018
- vol. 59 no. 2, 2018
- vol. 59 no. 1, 2018
- vol. 58 no. 4, 2017
- vol. 58 no. 3, 2017
- vol. 58 no. 2, 2017
- vol. 58 no. 1, 2017
- vol. 57 no. 4, 2016
- vol. 57 no. 3, 2016
- vol. 57 no. 2 Suppl., 2016
- vol. 57 no. 2, 2016
- vol. 57 no. 1, 2016
- vol. 56 no. 4, 2015
- vol. 56 no. 3, 2015
- vol. 56 no. 2 Suppl., 2015
- vol. 56 no. 2, 2015
- vol. 56 no. 1, 2015
- vol. 55 no. 4, 2014
- vol. 55 no. 3 Suppl., 2014
- vol. 55 no. 3, 2014
- vol. 55 no. 2 Suppl., 2014
- vol. 55 no. 2, 2014
- vol. 55 no. 1, 2014
- vol. 54 no. 4, 2013
- vol. 54 no. 3 Suppl., 2013
- vol. 54 no. 3, 2013
- vol. 54 no. 2, 2013
- vol. 54 no. 1, 2013
- vol. 53 no. 4, 2012
- vol. 53 no. 3 Suppl., 2012
- vol. 53 no. 3, 2012
- vol. 53 no. 2, 2012
- vol. 53 no. 1, 2012
- vol. 52 no. 4, 2011
- vol. 52 no. 3 Suppl., 2011
- vol. 52 no. 3, 2011
- vol. 52 no. 2, 2011
- vol. 52 no. 1 Suppl., 2011
- vol. 52 no. 1, 2011
- vol. 51 no. 4, 2010
- vol. 51 no. 3, 2010
- vol. 51 no. 2, 2010
- vol. 51 no. 1, 2010
- vol. 50 no. 4, 2009
- vol. 50 no. 3, 2009
- vol. 50 no. 2, 2009
- vol. 50 no. 1, 2009
- vol. 49 no. 4, 2008
- vol. 49 no. 3, 2008
- vol. 49 no. 2, 2008
- vol. 49 no. 1, 2008
- vol. 48 no. 4, 2007
- vol. 48 no. 3, 2007
- vol. 48 no. 2, 2007
- vol. 48 no. 1, 2007
- vol. 47 no. 4, 2006
- vol. 47 no. 3, 2006
- vol. 47 no. 2, 2006
- vol. 47 no. 1, 2006
- vol. 46 no. 4, 2005
- vol. 46 no. 3, 2005
- vol. 46 no. 2, 2005
- vol. 46 no. 1, 2005
- vol. 45 no. CI, 2004