Published in:
01-10-2013 | Letter to the Editor
CAM 5.2 shows specific reactivity for cytokeratin 8, but less strict reactivity for cytokeratin 7 and no reactivity for cytokeratin 18: in response to “Fujikawa T, Tanaka A, Abe T et al. ‘Undifferentiated carcinoma of the common bile duct with intraductal tumor thrombi: report of a case’. Surg Today 2011;41(4):579–84.”
Authors:
Chiew-Loon Koo, Wan-Ru Chao, Chi-Kuan Chen, Chih-Ping Han
Published in:
Surgery Today
|
Issue 10/2013
Login to get access
Excerpt
We read with great interest the case report contributed by Dr. T. Fujikawa et al. [
1] titled “Undifferentiated carcinoma of the common bile duct with intraductal tumor thrombi”. The authors presented an interesting case with a comprehensive review; however, this article conveys an incorrect message in the second paragraph of the “Histopathologic Findings” section, which may misguide your readers. The authors seem to have overlooked the manufacturer’s names of all the antibodies used and erroneously annotated CAM 5.2 as cytokeratins 8/18 (within parentheses), which suggests that CAM 5.2 is identical to CK8/18. …