Home Your basket
• Acoustic analysis of the ...
   Price 10.50 €
• Total pharyngolayngectomy...
   Price 10.50 €
• Primary sub-mandibular gl...
   Price 8.50 €
• Notes on voice and speech...
   Price 8.50 €
• A survey of current wound...
   Price 5.50 €
• Lifting of the oval face ...
   Price 10.50 €
• Fistula of the fourth bra...
   Price 5.50 €
• Sinonasal hemangiopericyt...
   Price 5.50 €
• A protocol for the evalua...
   Price 8.50 €
• From the physiologic perf...
   Price 14.00 €
• Description of complicati...
   Price 5.50 €
• Facial paralysis: Functio...
   Price 10.50 €
• Laryngeal neuroendocrin c...
   Price 5.50 €
• Treatments of hereditary ...
   Price 10.50 €
• Autologous cartilaginous ...
   Price 10.50 €
• External versus endoscopi...
   Price 14.00 €
• Merkel cell carcinoma of ...
   Price 8.50 €
• Fungal infections of para...
   Price 8.50 €
• Cholesteatoma presenting ...
   Price 12.50 €
• Acute rhinosinusitis in a...
   Price 8.50 €
• Rehabilitation strategies...
   Price 10.50 €
• How to predict post thyro...
   Price 12.00 €
• Laryngeal schwannomas...
   Price 5.50 €
• Metastatic angiosarcoma t...
   Price 5.50 €
• BAHA in single sided deaf...
   Price 12.50 €
• Adult laryngeal cavernous...
   Price 5.50 €
• A single appointment with...
   Price 8.50 €
• Morbidity of neck dissect...
   Price 15.00 €
• Social consequence of a d...
   Price 10.50 €
• Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid...
   Price 10.50 €
• Temporary loss of visual ...
   Price 8.50 €
• Middle ear tuberculosis e...
   Price 5.50 €
• Which face lift for which...
   Price 14.00 €
• Transhyoid bucopharyngect...
   Price 8.50 €
• Technique of upper blepha...
   Price 10.50 €
• Comparative results of ty...
   Price 10.50 €
• Clinical implementation o...
   Price 5.50 €

Total Order 341.00 €

contents
2019
   N# 1 |
2018
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2017
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2016
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2015
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2014
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2013
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2012
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2011
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2010
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2009
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2008
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2007
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2006
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2005
   N# | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2004
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2003
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2002
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2001
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2000
   N# | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1999
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1998
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
1997
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1996
   N# 4 | 5 |

Click on the number of the review to see the content
Teaching bulletin CME
List of all teaching bulletins CME.
Editor reading committee
Editor reading committee.
To publish...
Instructions for authors
Archives Press and Books
Select of books and press articles.
Mailing list
News information letter.
Subscription prices


If you wish to adjust the size of the displayed characters, click in the high menu on "Your account" and choose the desired size.



  Contents > Previous page > Article detail print Order
o Issue N# 4 - 2012 o

SALIVARY GLANDS

Mucoepidermoid carcinomas of salivary glands: Prognostic significance of immunohistochemestry. A study of 49 cases


Authors : Santini L, Coulibaly B, Gaudart J, Turner F, Michel J, Giovanni A, Dessi P, Fakhry N. (Marseille)

Ref. : Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol. 2012;133,4:183-187.

Article published in french
Downloadable PDF document french



Summary : Introduction: Mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) is consi­dered as the most common malignant salivary gland tumor. Its prognosis is dominated by the presence of high-grade forms involving life-threatening. The aim of our study was to evaluate the usefulness of immunohistochemistry to identify the most aggressive forms and allow better discrimination between low grade, intermediate grade and high grade tumors. Materials and methods: This was a retrospective study of 49 cases of mucoepidermoid carcinomas of salivary glands. Two immunohistochemical markers have mainly been studied: a marker of proliferation (Ki-67) and a growth factor receptor (EGFR). Additional analyzes were performed with other markers (p53, ACE, bcl2, CD 117 and her2). Statistical analy­sis investigated the existence of a correlation between the pre­sen­ce of these factors and the histopathological grade on one hand and survival of patients on the other hand. Results: Regarding the results of immunohistochemical Ki-67 and EGFR, it was observed a better survival rate when the immuno­staining was less than 10%. The expression of Ki-67 and EGFR was correlated with the histological grade, but did not, in our study, allow discrimination between low-grade, intermediate grade and high grade. Our results are consistent with data of the literature, including Ki-67, which appears to be a useful but not powerful marker of prognosis of MEC. Other markers studied (p53, ACE, bcl2, CD 117 and her2) showed no contri­bu­tory results. Conclusion: The prognosis of MEC is appre­ciated satisfactorily following histological criteria: histological grade, surgical margins, perineural invasion or vascular emboli. The integration of immunohistochemistry in a thera­peutic algorithm could be particularly useful for the challen­ging assessment of prognosis of intermediate grades.

Price : 10.50 €      order
|


Subscribe online - Pay by credit card!


© Copyright 1999-2024 - Revue de Laryngologie   Réalisation - Hébergement ELIDEE