Exact(1)
Bile obtained from a percutaneous catheter will be positive for malignant cells in approximately 30% of cases.
Similar(59)
Data on lymph nodes included the number of lymph nodes dissected and whether or not lymph nodes were positive for malignant cells.
In all the four asymptomatic patients with screen-detected ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, endometrial cytological testing was positive for malignant cells, whereas cervicovaginal cytological testing was positive in only one of these patients.
In a recent study Giannarini et al. described 5 patients with BF after RP and pelvic lymph node dissection in whom conventional MRI findings were negative or equivocal and locoregional relapse was depicted with DWI; all TRUS-guided biopsy cores directed to the lesions discovered on DW images were positive for malignant prostatic tissue [ 70].
None of the breast tissues (malignant or non-malignant) were found to be positive for XMRV or MCV.
In the present case, all malignant cells in the carcinomatous element were positive for p63, while almost all malignant cells in the sarcomatous element were negative for p63.
Interestingly, a higher number of malignant specimens was positive for both receptors relative to normal ovary (97.1% and 14.3% of malignant EOC were FZD1- and FZD5-positive, whereas only 54.5% and 8.7% of the normal ovarian tissues were positive respectively).
All lesions, in males and females, diagnosed as malignant schwannomas were positive for S100 staining.
In all, 13/17 malignant cases were positive for both these markers as compared to 4/15 benign cases (P=0.006).
Hence, all 17/17 malignant cases were positive for either VEGF-A ligand or the VEGF-A receptor, flt-1, as compared to 8/15 of the benign cases (P=0.002).
We examined the expression of EP4 in 44 invasive ductal carcinomas of the breast by immunohistochemistry. EP4 expression was very low or absent in normal ducts (0, 1+, Fig. 1a), malignant epithelium was positive for cytoplasmic EP4 expression.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com