Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Case report
Full Version
Primary Cutaneous Mucinous Carcinoma: Case Report of a Rare Adnexal Tumour
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Janaky Ramakrishnan,
Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, KMCT Medical College, Kozhikode-673602, Kerala, India.
E-mail: janakyram87@gmail.com
Primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma is a rare malignant adnexal tumour of the skin, with the most common location being the periorbital region. Differentiating this tumour from cutaneous metastases and mucinous adenocarcinomas from other sites can be challenging, and due to its rarity, this tumour merits a more detailed study. The authors present a case of a 55-year-old male who presented with a slow-growing tumour located below the right earlobe. The lesion was clinically differentially diagnosed as either a lymph node or a soft tissue mass. An excisional biopsy of the mass revealed features of cutaneous mucinous carcinoma. The patient was clinically assessed, and the possibility of metastasis from other sites was ruled out. Hence, the present case lesion was diagnosed as primary mucinous carcinoma of the skin. The patient is doing well on follow-up, with no history of recurrence or other relevant issues.
Adenocarcinomas, Excisional biopsy, Metastases
A 55-year-old male, a known case of hypertension not on any medication and with no other co-morbidities, presented with complaints of a slow-growing tumour below the right earlobe for the past year. Clinically, the lesion was given a differential diagnosis of either a lymph node or a soft-tissue mass. Ultrasound findings suggested a benign cystic lesion, possibly an epidermal inclusion cyst. Upon clinical examination, the lesion revealed a 2×2 cm subcutaneous swelling with firm consistency. The patient underwent excision biopsy, and the specimen was sent to the Histopathology Department of the Institution.
The specimen received in the department showed a pale white to translucent firm nodular mass measuring 2.5×2×1 cm. No attached skin was seen on gross examination. Cut sections revealed a solid, pale white gelatinous appearance (Table/Fig 1),(Table/Fig 2). Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections stained with Haematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) showed a fairly circumscribed neoplasm with tumour cells arranged in solid nests and glands floating in pools of extracellular mucin, separated by fibrocollagenous septae of varying thickness (Table/Fig 3). Some areas in the periphery exhibited neoplastic cells arranged in closely packed glandular and cribriform clusters (Table/Fig 4). No mitotic figures or necrosis were observed. The possible histopathological differential diagnoses included primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma or a metastatic deposit from an unknown primary carcinoma. The extracellular mucin showed Periodic Acid-Schiff (PAS) positivity (Table/Fig 5). Most cutaneous mucinous carcinomas are positive for oestrogen receptors and exhibit neuroendocrine differentiation. In the present case, Immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis revealed that tumour cells were positive for Oestrogen Receptors (ER) (Table/Fig 6) and negative for synaptophysin (Table/Fig 7).
The case was discussed with the clinician, and further investigations, including radiography, ultrasound and computed tomography, were performed, all of which were negative. Thus, the possibility of metastasis from a mucinous adenocarcinoma from other sites was ruled out. Hence, a final diagnosis of primary mucinous carcinoma of the skin was reached.
Primary mucinous carcinoma of the skin was first described by Lennox B et al., in 1952 (1). It is a rare adnexal tumour with features similar to the mucinous lesions found in the breast. Some tumours that have a solid component with immunohistochemical features of neuroendocrine tumours are diagnosed as endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma, which is regarded as a precursor lesion (2). A review of 159 patients found that 77%, 13% and 10% of the patients were Caucasian, Asian and Black, respectively (3). Both males and females are affected equally, with a predominant number of cases seen in the older population (4),(5),(6). The most common location for this carcinoma is the face, particularly the periorbital region (3). Rare cases have been reported in the anogenital area, supposedly arising from the mammary glands in that region (7). Most cases of primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma present as a single, bluish, flesh-coloured nodule or cyst that grows slowly. The mean diameter is reported to be approximately 1.8 cm (8).
Classic morphology shows nests, cords and singly scattered neoplastic cells floating in extracellular mucin pools, separated by fibrous septa of variable thickness. Primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma shows a histopathological spectrum with two variants: a pure tumour where extracellular mucin comprises over 90% and a rare mixed form with an invasive ductal component (9). Neoplastic cells are monomorphic with scant mitotic activity. An in situ component should be searched for, as it can be a supportive feature in defining the tumour as primary cutaneous. The in situ component can range from ductal and atypical ductal hyperplasia to ductal carcinoma in situ. Immunohistochemically, the neoplastic cells are positive for epithelial membrane antigen, low molecular weight cytokeratins, cadherins and gross cystic disease fluid protein-15. In most cases, neoplastic cells express oestrogen and progesterone receptors. Neuroendocrine differentiation may also be observed in primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma. Although ultrastructural findings have proposed an eccrine origin for these tumours, about half of them show apocrine secretion, suggesting apocrine differentiation.
Primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma is very rare. No morphological feature or immunohistochemical tool can clearly distinguish it from metastatic mucinous carcinoma. Primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma has a better clinical outcome than metastatic lesions; therefore, differentiating between the two is crucial. Some features that can help differentiate primary lesions include their more organised neoplastic cells, lesser hyperchromasia, and low mitotic activity. In metastatic carcinoma, tumour cells invade between collagen bundles at the margins of the tumour.
The usual sites of origin for mucinous carcinoma include the breast, gastrointestinal tract, salivary glands, lacrimal glands, nose, paranasal sinuses, bronchi, renal pelvis and ovary (10). Differentiating cutaneous mucinous carcinomas from breast carcinomas can be challenging. However, it is noteworthy that instances of breast mucinous carcinoma metastasising to the skin of the face or eyelid are very rare (11). Staining for myoepithelial markers {tumour Protein 63 (p63) or Cytokeratin 5/6 (CK 5/6)} in the in situ component, if present, can help exclude metastatic mucinous breast carcinoma (12). Metastasis from colorectal carcinoma can be excluded by immunohistochemical staining for CK20. In the present case, no primary tumour was detected in the breast, gastrointestinal tract, salivary glands, lungs, or kidneys.
The treatment for mucinous carcinoma is local excision. Due to an increased recurrence rate, excision with adequate margins is advised. Prognostically, tumours located in the head and neck have a much better outcome compared to those noted on the chest and back. A high recurrence rate and metastasis have been linked to younger age at presentation, white race and tumour size greater than 1.5 cm (3).
Since these tumours have a high recurrence rate, patients must be counselled about the need for frequent follow-ups for recurrence and regional lymphadenopathy. The present case patient is doing well nine months post-surgery during follow-up.
Primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma is a rare malignant adnexal carcinoma. The present case patient represents one of the few rare cases. Clinical distinction from metastatic mucinous carcinoma is of utmost importance. Clinicians should consider all possibilities before reaching a diagnosis, and investigations should be thoroughly reviewed to check for any signs of rare tumours.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/73351.20346
Date of Submission: Jun 06, 2024
Date of Peer Review: Jul 09, 2024
Date of Acceptance: Aug 30, 2024
Date of Publishing: Nov 01, 2024
AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jun 07, 2024
• Manual Googling: Jul 12, 2024
• iThenticate Software: Aug 19, 2024 (15%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
EMENDATIONS: 6
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com