Case 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 19
خانم 65 ساله با سابقه هیپرتانسیون، هیپوتیرییدیسم و استیوآرتریت که از 3 سال گذشته با توده تیبیای راست مراجعه کرد. در Xray ضایعه expansile در پروگزیمال تیبیای راست مشاهده گردید. در PET/CT ندولهای اینترامدولری هیپرمتابولیک دیده شد. بیوپسی استخوان به عمل آمد:
Case6پاسخ
Case 1
A 34-year-old male patient was admitted to the nephrology service due to a 30-day history of macroscopic hematuria episodes. On physical examination, there were no clinical changes. There was no previous history of relevant disease. On laboratory investigation, glucose, hemoglobin, erythrocytes, creatinine, urea, liver enzymes, and cholesterol were within normal plasma levels. Serologic tests for hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C, and HIV were negative. Qualitative urinalysis revealed the presence of several red blood cells per field. Abdominal computed tomography/ magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI) showed an small round lesion affecting the inferior pole of the right kidney. CT/ MRI of the chest has not identified significant alterations.The patient underwent partial nephrectomy.
Gross image:
What is your diagnosis ?
What IHC staining do you recommend?
What is the most proper way to describe this tumor ?
A. Large hemorrhagic tumor of renal medulla
B. Encapsulated multiloculated cystic and solid mass
C. Honeycomb-like yellow tumor
D. Well circumscribed mass with spongy or bubblewrap appearance
Case1پاسخ
-Tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma-
- PAX8,CK7,CD10,AMACR,Fumarate hydratase, focal positive for HMWK, Negative for ER and PR
- D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 2
In the following Levey-Jenning control chart for Cholestrol in 2 levels,in which day the run should be rejected?
Case2پاسخ
Day 5. The value for Control 1 exceeds a -3s control limit, which is a good indication that there is a problem with the method. Stop, reject the run
trouble-shoot the method, fix the cause of the problem, then restart the method and reanalyze the patient specimens
Day 8. Both the values for Control 1 and Control 2 exceed their respective +2s control limits. It is rare to see two values in a row exceed the same +2s limit, therefore this occurrence indicates a problem with the method. Note that this interpretation applies the 22s control rule, i.e., 2 values in a row exceeding the same control limit. Since both controls are out in the same direction, it is likely there is a systematic error (or problem with the accuracy of the method). Stop, reject the run, trouble-shoot the method, fix the cause of the problem, then restart the method and reanalyze the patient specimens
Day 11. Both control values exceed 2s control limits, but one is positive and one is negative. It is a rare occurrence and most likely there is a problem with the method. Since the two controls are out in opposite directions, it is likely that there is a random error (or problem with the precision of the method). Note that this interpretation applies the R4s rule, i.e., the range of the control values exceeds 4s. Stop, reject the run, trouble- shoot the method, fix the cause of the problem, then restart the method and reanalyze the patient specimens.
Day 14. The value for Control 2 is again outside the low end of the 2s range. This makes 2 days or 2 runs in a row, which is unusual. Since both values for Control 2 are out in the same direction, it is likely there is a systematic error (or problem with the accuracy of the method). Stop, reject the run, trouble-shoot the method, fix the cause of the problem, then restart the method and reanalyze the patient specimens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------