Pathologe最新文献

Background: Analyses for the presence of SARS-CoV‑2 in the tissues of COVID-19 patients is important in order to improve our understanding of the disease pathophysiology for interpretation of diagnostic histopathological findings in autopsies, biopsies, or surgical specimens and to assess the potential for occupational infectious hazard.

Material and methods: In this review we identified 136 published studies in PubMed's curated literature database LitCovid on SARS-CoV‑2 detection methods in tissues and evaluated them regarding sources of error, specificity, and sensitivity of the methods, taking into account our own experience.

Results: Currently, no sufficiently specific histomorphological alterations or diagnostic features for COVID-19 are known. Therefore, three approaches for SARS-CoV‑2 detection are used: RNA, proteins/antigens, or morphological detection by electron microscopy. In the preanalytical phase, the dominant source of error is tissue quality, especially the different intervals between sample collection and processing or fixation (and its duration) and specifically the interval between death and sample collection in autopsies. However, this information is found in less than half of the studies (e.g., in only 42% of autopsy studies). Our own experience and first studies prove the significantly higher sensitivity and specificity of RNA-based detection methods compared to antigen or protein detection by immunohistochemistry or immunofluorescence. Detection by electron microscopy is time consuming and difficult to interpret.

Conclusions: Different methods are available for the detection of SARS-CoV‑2 in tissue. Currently, RNA detection by RT-PCR is the method of choice. However, extensive validation studies and method harmonization are not available and are absolutely necessary.

In the past 25 years, treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has undergone profound changes. The approval of newer chemotherapeutics such as irinotecan and oxaliplatin was followed in 2005 by the first targeted therapies, for example, monoclonal antibodies directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), as cetuximab and panitumumab, or the angiogenesis inhibitors bevacizumab, ramucirumab, and aflibercept. With the rapidly progressing molecular characterization of mCRC in the last 10 years and the classification of the disease in four consensus subtypes, further changes are emerging, which will promote, among other things, the introduction of protein-kinase inhibitors developed for specific molecular aberrations as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors into the treatment algorithm.Thorough molecular pathologic testing is indispensable today for guideline-compliant treatment of mCRC patients. In addition to RAS testing as a precondition for the therapy decision with regard to cetuximab and panitumumab, BRAF testing is of considerable relevance to allow decision making with regard to the newly approved chemotherapy-free combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib and cetuximab in cases where a BRAF-V600E mutation is detected. Additional diagnostic tests should also include genome instability (microsatellite instability). Overall, more and more molecular alterations need to be investigated simultaneously, so that the use of focused next-generation sequencing is increasingly recommended.This overview describes the prognostic relevance of BRAF testing in the context of molecular pathologic diagnostics of mCRC, presents new treatment options for BRAF-mutated mCRC patients, and explains which modern DNA analytical and immunohistochemical methods are available to detect BRAF mutations in mCRC patients.

When Adolf Hitler annexed Austria to the German Reich in 1938, the famous Jewish oral pathologist Bernhard Gottlieb was in great distress. The Viennese university teacher immediately lost his employment and teaching authority and was forced to emigrate.While Gottlieb's exceptional scientific position in oral pathology is well documented, the complex implications of his deprivation of rights and forced emigration in the Third Reich have so far received little attention. Against this background, the present contribution poses the question of the concrete effects of this drastic event on Gottlieb's life and work.In order to clarify this question, Gottlieb's career status, his scientific success up to 1938, the concrete background of his forced emigration, as well as the further course of his life and career in the USA (his immigration country) are scrutinized. In addition, the paper analyzes the extent to which Gottlieb was able to build on his professional career after 1945 and posthumously. The work is based on a thorough analysis of Gottlieb's academic career using archival sources and a re-analysis of the relevant research literature.The study concludes that Gottlieb suffered a severe setback after his emigration. Several reasons played a role. In particular, cultural and age-related adjustment problems, difficult local conditions, and scarce financial resources hampered the seamless continuation of Gottlieb's career in the USA. Only in the last two decades have efforts been made, particularly in the environment of the University of Vienna, to bring Bernhard Gottlieb and his scientific achievements back into collective memory.

Apart from pulmonary disease, acute kidney injury (AKI) is one of the most frequent and most severe organ complications in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The SARS-CoV‑2 virus has been detected in renal tissue. Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) before and on dialysis and specifically renal transplant patients represent a particularly vulnerable population. The increasing number of COVID-19 infected patients with renal involvement led to an evolving interest in the analysis of its pathophysiology, morphology and modes of virus detection in the kidney. Meanwhile, there are ample data from several autopsy and kidney biopsy studies that differ in the quantity of cases as well as in their quality. While the detection of SARS-CoV‑2 RNA in the kidney leads to reproducible results, the use of electron microscopy for visualisation of the virus is difficult and currently critically discussed due to various artefacts. The exact contribution of indirect or direct effects on the kidney in COVID-19 are not yet known and are currently the focus of intensive research.

From the very beginning, special attention regarding severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus‑2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has been paid to pregnant women.In this review, after a short introduction into the immunodefensive role of the placenta and viral infections in general, we describe the morphological changes of the placenta in SARS-CoV-2-infected pregnant women based on our own and other published studies, draw comparisons to the SARS epidemic, and discuss the question of vertical transmission of SARS-CoV‑2 from the mother to the neonate.The most common pathological findings of the placenta in SARS-CoV‑2 infection are signs of maternal and fetal malperfusion as well as potentially immunologically and/or thromboinflammation-mediated findings. These manifest as infarcts and decidual vasculopathy as well as thrombi in the fetal circulation and avascular villi. In some cases, there is also an inflammatory reaction with villitis, intervillositis, and fetal vasculitis. In addition, it has been shown that SARS-CoV‑2 can directly infect the placenta, so vertical transmission is possible.There is no COVID-19 specific pattern of placental alterations, although the detection of fetal thrombovasculitis, villitis, and intervillositis as well as fetal and maternal malperfusion could be best interpreted as the signature of SARS-CoV‑2 infection - considering the known pathophysiology of COVID-19 regarding other organs (inflammatory reaction and [micro]angiopathy). Detection of viral RNA in the fetal placental tissue and the umbilical cord indicates SARS-CoV‑2 vertical transmission.

During the last decades, the SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complex has received enormous recognition as a major player in the molecular pathogenesis of diverse neoplasms. Accordingly, SWI/SNF defects affecting different subunits of the complex became defining genetic features in the nosology of different neoplastic entities. In the kidney, loss of SMARCB1(INI1) as a major component of the SWI/SNF complex has emerged as the defining genetic marker for renal medullary carcinoma and pediatric malignant rhabdoid tumor. Diagnosis of these two rare entities is based on a set of defined demographic, clinicopathological, immunophenotypic, and genetic (SMARCB1 loss) criteria. Moreover, the sickle cell trait is considered a prerequisite for renal medullary carcinoma. Current knowledge illustrates that SMARCB1 loss is encountered in three major tumor categories in the kidney: (1) histologically defined neoplasms that are primarily driven by de novo SMARCB1 loss (renal medullary carcinoma and malignant rhabdoid tumor); (2) SMRACB1-deficient renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with variable non-specific histology ranging from collecting duct-like, papillary high-grade (papillary type 2), or medullary-like (lacking sickle cell trait), to fully undifferentiated; and (3) biphasic (dedifferentiated) RCC showing a variable SMARCB1-deficient undifferentiated component. The latter variant most frequently originates from pre-existing clear cell RCC but may rarely superimpose on papillary or chromophobe RCC. This review summarizes the major defining features of the emerging SMARCB1-deficient renal neoplasms. All SMARCB1-deficient carcinomas have a poor prognosis in common. Therefore, exact diagnosis of these tumors is a prerequisite for studies investigating new therapies.

Throughout his professional life, the pathologist Albert Dietrich devoted himself to researching and combating cancer. Due to his considerable reputation and success, he was one of the first doctors to be awarded the Paracelsus Medal for his scientific services in 1952.However, Dietrich's role in the Third Reich was - and still is - far less defined. In May 1933, he became rector of the Eberhard Karls University in Tübingen, which at that time was one of the most Nazi-oriented universities. However, his term of office was short - by the end of 1933 he had already been replaced by the protestant theologian Karl Fezer.This article sheds light on Dietrich's ambivalent relationship to National Socialism and analyzes and discusses the background to his dismissal, his later (also politically influenced) emeritus status (1938/39), and his entry into the NSDAP, which took place at retirement age (1941). The study is based on archival sources partly evaluated for the first time and on a reanalysis of the relevant research literature.The study shows that Dietrich was targeted by individual Nazi decision-makers primarily because he advocated a supposedly "liberalist" university policy. Dietrich thus ultimately stands for a type of university lecturer who renounced a decidedly Nazi stance in public without, however, placing himself in a critical relationship to Nazi ideology. Against this background, statements from the postwar period that saw him retrospectively near Nazi opposition are to be classified as the formation of legends.