↓ Skip to main content

New trends of immunohistochemistry for making differential diagnosis of breast lesions

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Molecular Morphology, March 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
New trends of immunohistochemistry for making differential diagnosis of breast lesions
Published in
Medical Molecular Morphology, March 2006
DOI 10.1007/s00795-006-0309-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takuya Moriya, Atsuko Kasajima, Kazuyuki Ishida, Yoshiyuki Kariya, Jun-ichi Akahira, Mareyuki Endoh, Mika Watanabe, Hironobu Sasano

Abstract

Immunohistochemistry is widely used for pathological diagnosis of breast lesions. Other than hormone receptors and HER2/neu analysis for primary breast carcinomas, several markers may be useful for differential diagnoses, although in limited situations. To decide the malignant potential of intraductal proliferative lesions, analysis for the staining pattern of cytokeratins may be a good reference. Most ductal carcinoma in situ cases are diffusely positive for luminal cell markers (CK8, CK18, CK19), but negative for basal cell markers (CK5/6 and CK14). However, usual ductal hyperplasia may show the mosaic staining patterns for any of these markers, which may indicate a heterogeneous cell population in benign lesions. Myoepithelial markers (alpha-SMA, myosin, calponin, p63, CD10) are almost consistently positive for benign papillomas but they do not completely distinguish intraductal papillary carcinomas. Preservation of myoepithelial layer is the diagnostic key when looking at benign sclerosing lesions, including carcinoma with pseudoinvasive structures. E-cadherin is mostly positive for ductal carcinomas but negative for lobular carcinomas. Some of the lobular carcinomas are positive for 34betaE12, but they are consistently negative for CK5/6. Comparison with histopathological findings of hematoxylin and eosin is essential to make proper diagnosis in the individual case.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 3%
Korea, Republic of 1 3%
Unknown 34 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Researcher 4 11%
Professor 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 9 25%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Engineering 3 8%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2010.
All research outputs
#8,784,015
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Medical Molecular Morphology
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,581
of 93,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Molecular Morphology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 93,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them