Nucleolar organizer regions in cutaneous T cell lymphomas

  • Xu Liangzhong 
  • Chen Hongli 
  • Qiu Bingsen 
  • Tao Lingdi 
Clinical Observation


The present work studied the application of AgNOR count to differential diagnosis between cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) and cutaneous pseudolymphoma (CPL). Paraffin sections from 50 mycosis fungoides (22 MFI-Premycotic stage, 24 MF II infiltrative stage and 4 MF III — tumor stage), 2 nonepidermotropic cutaneous T cell lymphoma (NECTCL) and 9 CPL were investigated. In each case, 200 cells randomly selected were examined using a × 100 oil immersion lens. The mean number, standard deviation and standard error of the mean of AgNOR counts were as follows: MFI 1.17±0.09, SEM=0.01; MF II 1.17±0.01, SEM=0.01; MF III 3.55±0.87, SEM=0.43; NECTCL 4.5±0.28, SEM=0.199; CPL 1.17±0.1, SEM±0.03. The results revealed a highly significant difference between CTCL (MF III+NECTCL) and CPL (t=4.75,P<0.001), tumor stage (MF III) and pretumor stage (MFI, MF II) of mycosis fungoides (t=4.75,P<0.001). Thus. AgNOR count is valuable in differential diagnosis.


Nucleolar Organizer Region Mycosis Fungoides Nucleolar Organizer Salivary Gland Tumor AgNOR Count 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Howell WM, Black DA. Controlled silver-staining of nucleolus organizer regions with a protective colloidal developer: A 1-step method. Experientia 1980; 36:1014.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crocker J, Skilbeck N. Nucleolar organizer region associated proteins in cutaneous melanotic lesions: A quantitative study. J Clin Pathol 1987; 40:885.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Egan MJ, Crocker J. Nucleolar organizer regions in cutaneous tumors. J Pathol 1988; 154:247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burg G, et al. Some statistical data, diagnosis, and staging of cutaneous B-cell lymphomas. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1984; 10:256.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giri DD, et al. Limitations of the AgNOR technique in distinguishing between benign and malignant epithelial lesions of the breast. J Pathol 1988; 54:44A.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nairn ER, et al. Limited value of AgNOR enumeration in assessment of thyroid neoplasms. J Clin Pathol 1988; 41:1136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crocker J, Nar P. Nucleolar Organizer regions in lymphomas. J Pathol 1987; 151:111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hall PA, et al. A comparison of nucleolar organizer region staining and Ki-67 immunostaining non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Histopathology 1988; 12:373.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crocker J, et al. Correlation between DNA flow cytometric and nucleolar organizer region data in non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. J Pathol 1988; 154:151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crocker J, Egan MJ. Correlation between NOR sizes and numbers in non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. J Pathol 1988; 156:233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crocker J, et al. A comparative study of nucleolar organizer regions (AgNORs), Ki 67 staining and DNA flow cytometry in non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. J Pathol 1988; 154:37A.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ayres JG, et al. Differentiation of malignant from normal and reactive mesothelial cells by the argyrophil technique for nucleolar organizer region associated proteins. Thorax 1988; 43:366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crocker J, et al. Evaluation of the AgNOR technique in the diagnosis of malignant mesotheliomas. J Pathol 1988; 154:43A.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith R, Crocker J. Evaluation of nucleolar organizer region-associated proteins in breast malignancy. Histopathology 1988; 12:113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Egan MJ, et al. Nucleolar organizer regions in fibrous proliferations of childhood and infantile fibrosarcoma. J Clin Pathol 1988; 41:31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Crocker J, McGovern J. Nucleolar organizer regions in normal, cirrhotic and carcinomatous livers. J Clin Pathol 1988; 41:1044.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suarez V, et al. The value of NOR number in neoplastic and non-neoplastic epithelium of the stomach. Histopathology 1989; 14:61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Egan M, et al. The prognostic significance of nucleolar organizer regions in neuroblastomas and the relationship to established prognostic indices. J Pathol 1988; 154:109A.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morgan DW, et al. Salivary gland tumors studied by means of the AgNOR technique. Histopathology 1988; 13:553.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McNicol AM, et al. Nucleolar organizer regions-in pituitary adenomas. J Pathol 1988; 154:106A.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rowlands DC. Nucleolar organizer regions in-cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Clin Pathol 1988; 41:1200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Chinese Journal of Cancer Research 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xu Liangzhong 
    • 1
  • Chen Hongli 
    • 1
  • Qiu Bingsen 
    • 2
  • Tao Lingdi 
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pathology, Cancer HospitalShanghai Medical UniversityChina
  2. 2.Laboratory of Dermatopathology, Huashan HospitalShanghai Medical UniversityChina

Personalised recommendations