48,860
edits
(fix typos) |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
1. J Urol. 2007 Sep;178(3 Pt 1):838-43; quiz 1129. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.018. Epub 2007 Jul 16. | 1. J Urol. 2007 Sep;178(3 Pt 1):838-43; quiz 1129. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.018. Epub 2007 Jul 16. | ||
2. Mol Clin Oncol. 2013 Mar;1(2):257-262. doi: 10.3892/mco.2013.69. Epub 2013 Jan 14. | 2. Mol Clin Oncol. 2013 Mar;1(2):257-262. doi: 10.3892/mco.2013.69. Epub 2013 Jan 14. | ||
===Alternate=== | |||
The tumour's morphology is NOT in keeping with a small cell neuroendocrine (NE) component (the tumour cells have too much cytoplasm) and NOT in keeping with a large cell NE component (the tumour cells have nucleoli and eosinophilic/clear cytoplasm). | |||
This case has neuroendocrine (NE) staining (CD56, synaptophysin); however, it does NOT have a typical NE morphology. As such, the case does NOT have a definite neuroendocrine component. However, NE marker positivity is predictive of hormone refractive disease. |
edits