| Title |
Low Grade Carcinoma Ex-Pleomorphic Adenoma: Diagnosis and Diagnostic Challenges Caused by Fine Needle Aspiration: Report of Three Cases and Review of Literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Head and Neck Pathology, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12105-017-0829-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Covinsky, Zhenjian Cai, Manju Ambelil, Jing Liu, Hui Zhu |
| Abstract |
Low grade carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma (LG CXPA) is a rare low grade malignant neoplasm arising from preexisting pleomorphic adenoma (PA). LG CXPA demonstrates no overt cytological atypia, and can be difficult to distinguish from cellular PA. Invasive growth is one of the hallmarks of LG CXPA, e.g., tumor extends beyond the capsule and into adjacent non-neoplastic tissue. However, it is known that capsular and vascular invasion, as well as the presence of stroma-rich PA in soft tissue without a capsule (pseudopodia) can be seen in PA. These histological findings have no prognostic significance and are not diagnostic of malignancy. In addition, recurrent PA typically presents as numerous nodules extending into soft tissue and skeletal muscle, which again are not considered malignant features. Thus, "infiltrative growth" of LG CXPA is difficult to define and diagnosis is challenging to many practicing pathologists. In this study, we report three cases of LG CXPA. We review the diagnostic criteria for LG CXPA, and discuss the diagnostic challenges caused by fine needle aspiration (FNA) changes. FNA is widely used as a cost-effective, quick and accurate method for diagnosing salivary gland lesions. Histological changes post-FNA are usually focal and mild, and are not causes of diagnostic difficulties. According to our knowledge, this is the first report of LG CXPA complicated with FNA changes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 50% |
| Turkey | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 30% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 16% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 53% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 42% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 January 2018.
All research outputs
#5,940,310
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Head and Neck Pathology
#551
of 935 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,970
of 317,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head and Neck Pathology
#12
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 935 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 317,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.