Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Immunohistochemical stains for myoepithelial cell (MEC) markers are commonly used in breast pathology to help distinguish benign and in situ lesions from invasive carcinomas. Benign and in situ lesions typically demonstrate an associated MEC layer, whereas invasive carcinomas typically lack associated MECs. However, there are some benign lesions and in situ carcinomas in which a MEC layer is partially or completely absent, and there are malignant lesions that contain a component of MECs. An understanding of these exceptions is critical to ensure the correct diagnosis. This review will focus on benign and in situ breast lesions in which associated MECs are reduced or entirely lacking, and malignant breast lesions that contain a population of MECs.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2025.105909 | DOI Listing |