Hubbry Logo
Signet ring cellSignet ring cellMain
Open search
Signet ring cell
Community hub
Signet ring cell
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Signet ring cell
Signet ring cell
Signet ring cell
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Signet ring cell, as seen in a case of colon adenocarcinoma with mucinous features, showing a tumor cell with a vacuole of mucin. H&E stain.
Signet ring for comparison.

In histology, a signet ring cell is a cell with a large vacuole. The malignant type is seen predominantly in carcinomas. Signet ring cells are most frequently associated with stomach cancer,[1] but can arise from any number of tissues including the prostate,[2] bladder, gallbladder,[3] breast, colon,[4] ovarian stroma and testis.[5]

Types

[edit]

The NCI Thesaurus identifies the following types of signet ring cell

Appearance

[edit]

The name of the cell comes from its appearance; signet ring cells resemble signet rings. They contain a large amount of mucin, which pushes the nucleus to the cell periphery. The pool of mucin in a signet ring cell mimics the appearance of a finger hole and the nucleus mimics the appearance of the face of the ring in profile.

Diagnostic significance

[edit]

A significant number of signet ring cells, generally, are associated with a worse prognosis.[6][7]

Classification of carcinomas

[edit]

SRC carcinomas can be classified using immunohistochemistry.[8]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Signet ring cell

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A signet ring cell is a distinctive histological entity observed in , featuring a large intracytoplasmic —often filled with —that eccentrically displaces and compresses the nucleus to the cell periphery, creating a morphology resembling a signet ring. This can contain neutral mucins, , or other substances, and the cells may appear singly or in clusters within tissues. In malignant contexts, signet ring cells are a hallmark of signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC), an aggressive subtype of defined by the presence of these cells in more than 50% of the tumor. SRCC most frequently arises in the , accounting for approximately 10% to 30% of gastric adenocarcinomas worldwide, though rates can be higher in certain populations, but it can also occur in the colorectum, , , and other glandular sites, often presenting at advanced stages with poor due to infiltrative growth and resistance to . Benign or reactive signet ring cell changes, in contrast, represent non-neoplastic phenomena that mimic , such as those seen in pseudomembranous or other inflammatory conditions of the , where they lack proliferative markers like high Ki-67 expression and retain strong E-cadherin immunoreactivity. Distinguishing these from malignant forms relies on immunohistochemical stains, including , Ki-67, and E-cadherin, alongside histochemical confirmation of content. Overall, the identification of signet ring cells underscores the need for careful clinicopathologic correlation to guide diagnosis and management.

Morphology and Identification

Microscopic Appearance

Signet ring cells are characterized by their distinctive morphology under light microscopy, featuring a large intracellular vacuole that occupies most of the and compresses the nucleus to the cell periphery, resulting in a ring-like appearance reminiscent of a signet ring. This vacuole appears optically clear or vacuolated on hematoxylin and (H&E) staining, while the compressed nucleus adopts a crescent-shaped or eccentric contour and exhibits hyperchromasia due to its condensed . These cells typically measure 15-30 μm in diameter, with the cytoplasm staining pale or eosinophilic owing to the mucin content, and they may appear isolated or in small discohesive clusters infiltrating the tissue stroma. Variations include smaller signet ring cells in certain contexts, such as hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, alongside larger forms or cells with eosinophilic cytoplasm and pleomorphic nuclei. On H&E, the mucin vacuole displaces the irregular, hyperchromatic nucleus peripherally, emphasizing the cell's dyscohesive nature. To confirm the mucinous nature, special stains such as periodic acid-Schiff (PAS), which highlights neutral s in red or purplish red, and Alcian blue, which stains acidic s blue-green, are employed on tissue sections. These stains demonstrate the abundant intracytoplasmic , with positivity often exceeding 50% in diagnostic cases, aiding in distinguishing signet ring cells from mimics like histiocytes. In typical microscopic views, isolated signet ring cells may resemble signet rings against a fibrous background, whereas infiltrating clusters show diffuse stromal without gland formation, as seen in gastric adenocarcinomas. This morphology contributes to the diffuse growth pattern observed in associated adenocarcinomas.

Histological and Cytological Features

Signet ring cells demonstrate a distinctive histological infiltration characterized by the dispersion of individual cells or small clusters that dissect through the stroma in a diffuse, infiltrative manner, often producing a linitis plastica-like thickening and rigidity of the affected tissue without forming cohesive glandular structures. This poorly cohesive allows for extensive submucosal and muscularis propria involvement, contributing to the desmoplastic stromal response observed in affected tissues. The cytoplasmic inclusions in signet ring cells consist predominantly of neutral , with frequent sialomucins and sulfomucins, which accumulate intracytoplasmically and displace the nucleus to the periphery. These mucinous components are verified histologically using , which positively highlights the epithelial-derived , and combined Alcian blue-periodic acid-Schiff () staining, where neutral appear magenta (PAS-positive) and acidic (including sialo- and sulfomucins) stain blue at pH 2.5. Ultrastructural examination by electron reveals the cytoplasm filled with numerous mucin granules of heterogeneous size and electron density, alongside compressed organelles such as mitochondria and rough pushed to the cell periphery, while the plasma remains intact and well-defined. This subcellular organization underscores the vacuolated appearance noted under with hematoxylin and . In cytological specimens from fine-needle aspirates or serous fluids such as pleural or peritoneal effusions, signet ring cells typically present as isolated, well-preserved units with a single large cytoplasmic vacuole indenting an eccentrically placed, hyperchromatic nucleus, often amid a background of inflammatory or mesothelial cells. Distinction from degenerative artifacts or benign vacuolated histiocytes/mesothelial cells is essential, as malignant signet ring cells exhibit persistent morphology across preparations (e.g., Wright-Giemsa and Papanicolaou stains), irregular nuclear features, and multiple bubbly vacuoles, unlike the fragile, single-vacuole benign mimics that disrupt during processing.

Pathogenesis and Molecular Basis

Cellular Origin and Development

Signet ring cells derive from glandular epithelial cells, particularly mucous cells within the , which undergo aberrant production during neoplastic transformation. This process transforms normal glandular epithelium into malignant cells capable of excessive secretion, a hallmark of the signet ring morphology observed in adenocarcinomas. The developmental stages involve progressive accumulation of intracytoplasmic , which fills the cell and displaces the nucleus to the periphery, creating the characteristic signet ring appearance. This buildup is facilitated by hyperactivity of the Golgi apparatus, evidenced by its cystiform dilation in electron microscopy studies, enhancing the cell's capacity for synthesis and contributing to the loss of cohesive cellular architecture. Regarding histogenesis, two primary theories exist: de novo differentiation from undifferentiated stem cells or metaplastic precursors without prior adenoma formation, versus dedifferentiation from conventional adenocarcinoma cells that lose polarity and acquire mucin-producing features. Environmental triggers, such as chronic inflammation induced by Helicobacter pylori infection, promote these metaplastic changes in the , fostering an environment conducive to signet ring cell emergence. Genetic alterations may accelerate synthesis in these cells, though specific mechanisms are detailed elsewhere.

Genetic and Molecular Alterations

(SRCC), a subtype of poorly cohesive gastric , is characterized by distinct genetic alterations that drive its aggressive behavior. Inactivating mutations or loss of CDH1, encoding E-cadherin, are central to SRCC pathogenesis, occurring somatically in approximately 37% of genomically stable diffuse gastric cancers and as variants in up to 40% of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer cases. These alterations disrupt cell-cell adhesion, promoting the discohesive morphology typical of SRCC. Similarly, mutations in RHOA, a involved in cytoskeletal regulation, are found in about 25% of diffuse gastric cancers, including SRCC, where hotspot mutations like Y42C act as gain-of-function changes that enhance invasion and are mutually exclusive with other oncogenic drivers such as HER2 amplification. Aberrant activation of key signaling pathways further contributes to SRCC progression by fostering epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), mucin hypersecretion, and metastatic potential. The Wnt/β-catenin pathway is dysregulated in over 50% of gastric cancers, including diffuse subtypes like SRCC, where it drives proliferation, , and chemoresistance through stabilization of β-catenin and downstream targets like c-Myc. The TGF-β pathway, often upregulated in diffuse gastric cancers, promotes EMT and immune evasion via Smad signaling, exacerbating the infiltrative growth pattern of SRCC. Likewise, the PI3K/AKT/ pathway is altered in the majority of gastric cancers, with PIK3CA mutations in about 25% of cases, leading to enhanced cell survival, , and mucin production in SRCC through with adhesion regulators. Epigenetic modifications, particularly promoter hypermethylation of tumor suppressor genes, play a significant role in SRCC development by inducing genomic instability. Hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter, observed in up to 73% of gastric carcinomas in certain studies, silences mismatch repair function and results in (MSI), which is more prevalent in intestinal-type gastric cancers compared to diffuse-type tumors including SRCC. This epigenetic silencing contributes to a hypermutated , though less frequently than in MSI-high colorectal cancers. Recent proteomic analyses of gastric SRCC have identified novel molecular subtypes characterized by distinct protein expression profiles, revealing potential new therapeutic targets such as dysregulated metabolic and immune-related pathways. According to the classification, SRCC is defined as a variant of poorly cohesive , exhibiting a genomically stable molecular profile with distinct features from intestinal-type gastric cancers. Notably, SRCC shows lower rates of TP53 mutations (around 42% in gastric SRCC) compared to the intestinal subtype, where TP53 alterations exceed 70%, reflecting differences in mutational burden and pathway dependencies that underlie the poorer cohesion and prognosis of SRCC.

Associated Cancers and Classification

Primary Gastric Adenocarcinoma

Signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) represents a distinct histological subtype of primary gastric , characterized by the predominance of malignant cells with intracellular accumulation displacing the nucleus. According to the classification, SRCC is diagnosed when more than 50% of tumor cells exhibit this morphology and is typically categorized under the diffuse type in the classification system. Worldwide, SRCC accounts for 8-30% of all gastric , comprising a significant proportion—often over half—of diffuse-type cases. Epidemiologically, SRCC is associated with a younger age at , with a mean onset around 62 years compared to 69 years for non-signet ring variants, and shows a near-equal distribution or slight predominance, contrasting with the male bias in intestinal-type gastric cancers. It is strongly linked to hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) syndrome, where mutations in the CDH1 gene confer a high lifetime risk, often presenting with multifocal signet ring cell lesions. Tumor characteristics of primary gastric SRCC vary by stage: early lesions frequently appear as subtle, tiny mucosal erosions or flat irregularities that evade routine detection, while advanced tumors infiltrate diffusely, resulting in marked thickening and rigidity of the gastric walls, a condition termed or "leather bottle stomach." This infiltrative growth pattern contributes to the tumor's aggressive local behavior. Geographically, the incidence of SRCC is notably higher in Eastern Asia, particularly and Korea, where it may account for up to 35% of gastric adenocarcinomas, compared to lower rates in Western populations. This variation is attributed in part to dietary factors, such as high consumption of salted, smoked, or preserved foods, which may promote chronic inflammation and in susceptible individuals.

Extragastric Adenocarcinomas

Signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) arising outside the represents a rare histological variant of , characterized by the presence of more than 50% signet ring cells with intracellular accumulation displacing the nucleus. These extragastric tumors exhibit site-specific clinical behaviors, often presenting at advanced stages with aggressive dissemination, though their molecular profiles may differ from gastric counterparts. In the colorectum, SRCC accounts for approximately 1-2% of all colorectal adenocarcinomas and is classified by the (WHO) as a subtype of poorly cohesive when signet ring cells comprise over 50% of the tumor. These tumors typically occur in younger patients with a mean age around 58 years and show a predilection for the rectosigmoid region. They are highly aggressive, with frequent (up to 64%) and peritoneal (about 20%), leading to poorer differentiation and worse compared to conventional colorectal adenocarcinomas, with median survival times of 16-24 months. Esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) SRCC constitutes 3.5-5% of esophageal and is often linked to underlying , though it tends to arise de novo in some cases. These tumors are recognized under WHO classification as a variant of esophageal adenocarcinoma with signet ring features, particularly when exceeding 50% cellular composition. They frequently present in advanced stages with reduced responsiveness to , resulting in 5-year overall rates around 31% and median disease-free of 15 months. At other sites, SRCC remains exceptionally uncommon, typically comprising less than 5% of . In the breast, it manifests as a rare subtype of that accounts for 2-4.5% of all carcinomas, defined by WHO as a poorly differentiated, weakly cohesive tumor with over 20% signet ring cells, often receptor-positive (78%) but associated with advanced stage at and 5-year overall of 68-90% for non-metastatic cases. Pancreatic SRCC, for under 1% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas per WHO criteria, exhibits rapid metastatic growth with 70% distant spread at presentation and dismal 5-year of 3.4%. Similarly, primary bladder SRCC represents 0.12-0.6% of urinary bladder malignancies, classified as an aggressive variant with intracellular , uniformly poor prognosis, and frequent advanced-stage presentation.

Rare and Metastatic Presentations

Signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) can rarely arise as a primary tumor in sites such as the prostate, ovary, and urinary bladder, where it exhibits aggressive behavior and distinct histological features. In the prostate, primary SRCC is an exceedingly uncommon variant, accounting for less than 1% of prostatic malignancies, and is characterized by high malignancy, rapid progression, and poor prognosis due to its infiltrative growth pattern. This subtype may mimic clear cell features histologically, complicating differentiation from other prostatic adenocarcinomas or metastatic lesions. Primary SRCC of the urinary bladder is also rare, with an incidence of approximately 0.12-0.6% among all bladder tumors, often presenting as an aggressive adenocarcinoma with signet ring morphology predominant in more than 50% of the tumor cells. For the ovary, primary SRCC is exceptionally uncommon and typically distinguished from metastatic disease by the absence of extraovarian involvement and specific immunohistochemical profiles, though it shares the mucin-rich, signet ring appearance and tends to occur in younger patients with a guarded prognosis. Metastatic SRCC frequently manifests with distinctive patterns, including widespread and ovarian involvement as Krukenberg tumors. is a common metastatic site, observed in up to 75% of advanced cases at , driven by the tumor's propensity for transcoelomic spread and resulting in diffuse abdominal involvement that contributes to poor outcomes. Krukenberg tumors represent a specific metastatic presentation to the ovaries, characterized by bilateral, mucin-rich signet ring cell deposits originating primarily from gastrointestinal primaries, and they account for 1-2% of all ovarian neoplasms while underscoring the aggressive dissemination of SRCC. These patterns highlight the tumor's hematogenous and lymphatic spread, often leading to multiorgan involvement early in the disease course. In cases of of unknown primary (CUP), SRCC frequently suggests a gastrointestinal origin due to shared production and molecular features, though identifying the primary site remains challenging and impacts therapeutic decisions. These CUP presentations often involve peritoneal or nodal metastases with signet ring cells, and despite extensive , the primary remains elusive in most scenarios. Diagnostic pitfalls in SRCC arise from its mimicry of benign conditions, such as or histiocytic aggregates, particularly in cytological samples like effusions. Benign signet ring-like cells, including reactive mesothelial cells or histiocytes laden with , can closely resemble malignant SRCC on Wright-stained smears, necessitating correlation with cell block preparations or (e.g., positive for CK7/CK20 in versus CD68 in histiocytes) to avoid misdiagnosis. In gastric biopsies, pseudo-signet ring cells from degenerative mucosal changes may imitate early SRCC, underscoring the need for careful assessment of nuclear and to differentiate benign artifacts from .

Diagnostic Approaches

Histopathological Diagnosis

Histopathological diagnosis of (SRCC) primarily relies on obtaining adequate tissue samples through targeted procedures, given the tumor's heterogeneous and often diffusely infiltrative nature. For gastric SRCC, upper gastrointestinal is the standard method, allowing for direct visualization and of suspicious mucosal lesions, such as flat or depressed areas or thickened folds; multiple biopsies, including four-quadrant sampling around the lesion, are recommended to account for sampling variability and improve detection rates in early or subtle presentations. In colorectal cases, facilitates acquisition from primary tumors or metastatic sites, with emphasis on procuring several samples from different areas due to the patchy distribution of signet ring cells within the tumor stroma. Diagnosis is confirmed via microscopic examination of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained sections, where the (WHO) 2019 classification defines SRCC as a subtype of poorly cohesive characterized by tumor cells with abundant intracellular that displaces the nucleus to the periphery, imparting a signet ring appearance; tumors are classified as SRCC when more than 50% of the neoplastic cells exhibit this morphology, though recent refinements suggest a predominant (>90%) component for the pure signet ring cell , with those having 10-90% considered poorly cohesive with a signet ring cell component. These carcinomas are graded as poorly cohesive (G3) due to the lack of gland formation and discohesive growth pattern. The Lauren classification complements this by categorizing such tumors as diffuse type, emphasizing their infiltrative behavior without discrete masses. Key challenges in diagnosis include distinguishing true signet ring cells from mimics on routine . Foamy macrophages, which may appear vacuolated due to content, lack the eccentric nucleus and positivity typical of SRCC; adipocytes can simulate the appearance but are identified by their uniform size and lack of . Artifactual vacuoles from fixation or processing can create pseudosignet ring artifacts, but these are usually empty and not associated with neoplastic features. Careful morphologic assessment, often with to clinical context, is essential to avoid misdiagnosis. Pathology reports should standardize terminology and quantify the signet ring cell component as a percentage of the total tumor cells to guide and ; inclusion of the WHO subtype (e.g., poorly cohesive , signet ring cell type) and diffuse type is recommended for consistency across institutions. Additional details, such as tumor invasion depth and margin status from or resection, support multidisciplinary management without invoking ancillary tests.

Ancillary Techniques

Ancillary techniques play a crucial role in confirming the diagnosis of (SRCC) by providing molecular and immunologic evidence beyond routine , particularly in distinguishing SRCC from mimics or determining primary site in metastatic cases. These methods include (IHC), molecular testing, and specialized assays such as and (FISH). Immunohistochemistry is a primary ancillary tool for characterizing SRCC, revealing site-specific expression patterns of s and core proteins. In gastric SRCC, tumor cells typically show strong positivity for cytokeratin 7 (CK7) in approximately 89% of cases, while cytokeratin 20 (CK20) expression is limited to about 10%. Conversely, colorectal SRCC demonstrates CK7 negativity in 83% of cases and CK20 positivity in 67%, aiding in differentiation from upper gastrointestinal primaries. core proteins further support the , with MUC5AC (gastric-type ) expressed in both gastric and colorectal SRCC, often alongside MUC1 in gastric cases, reflecting the intracellular accumulation characteristic of signet ring morphology. Loss or marked reduction of E-cadherin expression is observed in the majority of SRCC cases, particularly those with CDH1 alterations, occurring in up to 100% of primary colorectal SRCC and contributing to the diffuse, infiltrative growth pattern. Molecular testing enhances diagnostic precision by identifying key genetic alterations associated with SRCC. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) targeting CDH1 mutations is employed to detect or somatic variants, which are prevalent in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and sporadic SRCC, leading to E-cadherin dysfunction. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels assess for RHOA mutations, found in 20-30% of diffuse-type gastric SRCC, and (MSI) status, which can be high in a subset of gastrointestinal SRCC cases, guiding potential eligibility. Additional techniques include , primarily applied to cytological specimens for evaluating DNA or proliferation indices in SRCC, though its role is supportive rather than confirmatory due to the tumor's morphological challenges in fluid samples. FISH is utilized for HER2 gene amplification assessment, which is rare in SRCC (typically <10% positivity), but recommended in equivocal IHC cases to rule out targetable alterations in gastric primaries. In cases of of unknown primary () presenting with signet ring features, IHC panels are essential for suggesting gastrointestinal origin. SATB2 positivity, observed in 85% of lower gastrointestinal SRCC (versus 19% in upper gastrointestinal), outperforms CDX2 in specificity (81% versus 49%) for identifying colorectal primaries, often combined with CK20 to achieve near-100% predictive accuracy.

Clinical Significance and Management

Prognostic Implications

Signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) is generally associated with a poor prognosis across various primary sites, particularly in advanced stages, due to its aggressive biological behavior and tendency for early dissemination. In gastric SRCC, the 5-year overall survival rate for advanced disease is typically 30-40%, compared to 50-65% for the intestinal subtype in similar stages, reflecting higher rates of lymph node involvement and peritoneal spread. This disparity arises from SRCC's diffuse growth pattern, which often leads to incomplete resection and reduced efficacy of standard therapies. Stage-independent prognostic factors further exacerbate outcomes in SRCC, including a higher T and N stage at and a marked predilection for peritoneal , which occurs in 15-30% of cases at and up to 60% as recurrence, linked to median survival times of 14-21 months in treated cases. from SRCC carries a 5-year of approximately 4-18% with treatment, driven by the tumor's production and transcoelomic dissemination. Prognostic variations exist by primary site; for instance, colorectal SRCC exhibits worse outcomes with a survival of approximately 16-19 months and 5-year overall around 25%, often due to late and higher metastatic burden compared to gastric SRCC, where early detection can yield better results with 5-year exceeding 90% in stage I disease. Recent post-2020 analyses highlight the influence of molecular subtypes on , such as instability-high (MSI-high) SRCC, which is associated with improved in localized stages, particularly in colorectal cases where it correlates with longer disease-free intervals.

Treatment Strategies

Treatment of signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) typically involves multimodal strategies tailored to the primary site, disease stage, and patient factors, with surgery remaining the cornerstone for localized disease despite frequent late presentations that necessitate palliative intent. For gastric SRCC, total or subtotal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is standard for curative resection when feasible, achieving R0 margins in approximately 56% of cases, though peritoneal dissemination often limits long-term success. In colorectal SRCC, colectomy or proctectomy with regional lymph node dissection is employed, but curative surgery is possible in only about 52% of patients due to advanced stage at diagnosis, with high recurrence rates (up to 38%) primarily involving the peritoneum. Chemotherapy plays a central role in perioperative and advanced settings but yields poorer responses in SRCC compared to non-SRCC adenocarcinomas owing to inherent chemoresistance. For gastric SRCC, perioperative regimens such as FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, docetaxel) are recommended for resectable cases, though benefits are modest in SRCC compared to non-SRCC. In colorectal SRCC, adjuvant chemotherapy with regimens like improves outcomes in stage II/III disease, extending 5-year by up to 15-20%, but diminishes in metastatic settings due to peritoneal barriers. (HIPEC) following shows promise for peritoneal-limited disease, with median overall of 14-21 months in select colorectal cases. Emerging targeted therapies address specific molecular alterations in SRCC subsets, particularly in gastric primaries. For HER2-positive cases (prevalence 5-10% in SRCC), combined with is standard first-line treatment in advanced disease, improving overall survival ( 0.74 based on the trial). with PD-1 inhibitors like nivolumab or is recommended for PD-L1-positive (combined positive score ≥5) advanced gastric SRCC, demonstrating significant survival gains ( 0.71 from CheckMate 649). In CDH1-mutated hereditary diffuse gastric cancer, which often features SRCC histology, clinical trials are exploring targeted approaches alongside prophylactic , though no approved CDH1-specific therapies exist yet. As of 2025, emerging therapies targeting claudin-18.2 are under investigation for advanced gastric SRCC. Site-specific considerations further refine . Endoscopic mucosal resection or submucosal is suitable for early (T1a) gastric SRCC limited to ≤2 cm lesions with low risk, offering curative potential with lymph node metastasis rates under 2%. has a limited role overall, primarily as adjuvant or preoperative chemoradiation in rectal SRCC to improve local control (pathological complete response in 22%), but it is less beneficial in gastric SRCC due to diffuse growth patterns. Prognostic factors, such as stage and molecular profile, guide therapy selection to optimize multimodal integration.

References

  1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11795835/
  2. https://turkjpath.org/text.php?id=1774
  3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14576475/
  4. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/signet-ring-cell-carcinoma
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4616218/
  6. https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/stomachdiffuse.html
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/signet-ring-cell
  8. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2023.1166549/full
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8480344/
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10989384/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9412924/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4121924/
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7506292/
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9063554/
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4716925/
  16. https://www.gutnliver.org/journal/view.html?volume=6&number=1&spage=129
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006291X1401239X
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3655720/
  19. https://doi.org/10.21037/tgh.2020.01.02
  20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2014.06.022
  21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21155500
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305737221000232
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352304225002065
  24. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-022-02350-6
  25. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.e16572
  26. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2021.713587/full
  27. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38426-4
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10949970/
  29. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/pdq/information-summaries/genetics/hereditary-diffuse-gastric-cancer-hp-pdq
  30. https://wjso.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12957-017-1187-3
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10177574/
  32. https://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/colontumorsignetring.html
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6872992/
  34. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67388-6
  35. https://bmcgastroenterol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12876-023-02818-z
  36. https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S0022-5223%2820%2932562-9/fulltext
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8222152/
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S034403382030042X
  39. https://bmcgastroenterol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12876-022-02543-z
  40. https://www.autopsyandcasereports.org/article/doi/10.4322/acr.2021.264
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11668652/
  42. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/13/6/1016
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8087395/
  44. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30101024/
  45. https://www.giejournal.org/article/S0016-5107%2817%2930202-X/fulltext
  46. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482284/
  47. https://ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.19.22184
  48. https://www.dynamed.com/condition/cancer-of-unknown-primary-site
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4980384/
  50. https://cytojournal.com/signet-ring-cells-in-pleural-and-peritoneal-effusions-identified-on-wright-stains-a-diagnostic-pitfall/
  51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38584386/
  52. https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v15/i4/240.htm
  53. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/15/21/5191
  54. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10120-018-0868-0
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5923363/
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3606860/
  57. https://www.mdpi.com/2036-7422/15/3/46
  58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11850584/
  59. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11523-024-01097-2
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016508517355981
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5357760/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3606852/
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4948273/
  64. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30212392/
  65. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2025.43.4_suppl.357
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10382060/
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10046173/
  68. https://wjso.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12957-022-02699-8
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9410473/
  70. https://tcr.amegroups.org/article/view/22906/html
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9457205/
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7478370/
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5156848/
  74. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-70985-0
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7565458/
  76. https://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S0923-7534(22)01851-8/fulltext
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7607792/
  78. https://jnccn.org/view/journals/jnccn/23/5/article-p169.xml
  79. https://ro-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13014-017-0874-0
  80. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2024.1473798/full
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.