This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Patrick J. Connelly, MD; John D. Bullock, MD
Dayton, Ohio

Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109(3):316.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.

—We very much appreciate the interest of Font et al in our article. When our patient was first seen in 1982, the slides were reviewed in consultation with numerous surgical pathologists, neuropathologists, and ophthalmic pathologists at six medical institutions across the country. There was a consensus that the tumor was neuroendocrine in nature. The diagnoses included esthesioneuroblastoma, metastatic carcinoid tumor, neuroblastoma, and paraganglioma, with the majority favoring a diagnosis of neuroblastoma. At that time, specific keratin antibody stains, as performed by Dr Battifora, were not available.

We reviewed Dr Battifora's slides and agree with his interpretation of the tumor's keratin positivity. A polyclonal broad-spectrum antikeratin stain was questionably positive in our laboratory while our anti-AE1/AE3 was strongly positive. The keratin positivity effectively includes a neuroblastoma and is very strong evidence in favor of a carcinoid tumor. In view of these new findings, we completely agree that this is . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?