This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
—We very much appreciate the interest of Font et al in our article. When our patient was first seen in 1982, the slides were reviewed in consultation with numerous surgical pathologists, neuropathologists, and ophthalmic pathologists at six medical institutions across the country. There was a consensus that the tumor was neuroendocrine in nature. The diagnoses included esthesioneuroblastoma, metastatic carcinoid tumor, neuroblastoma, and paraganglioma, with the majority favoring a diagnosis of neuroblastoma. At that time, specific keratin antibody stains, as performed by Dr Battifora, were not available.We reviewed Dr Battifora's slides and agree with his interpretation of the tumor's keratin positivity. A polyclonal broad-spectrum antikeratin stain was questionably positive in our laboratory while our anti-AE1/AE3 was strongly positive. The keratin positivity effectively includes a neuroblastoma and is very strong evidence in favor of a carcinoid tumor. In view of these new findings, we completely agree that this is
Connelly PJ, Bullock JD. Orbital Carcinoid Tumor-Reply. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109(3):316. doi:10.1001/archopht.1991.01080030017004