Search results for: Cytokeratin, High Molecular Weight; Clone 34bE12
#31969246 // To Up
Desmoplastic Trichoepithelioma: An Uncommon but Diagnostically Problematic Benign Adnexal Tumor.
Dear Editor, I read an interesting recent article by Karimzadeh et al. (1) in an earlier issue of your journal, who provided a comprehensive review addressing a relatively rare benign tumor originating from the hair follicles - trichoepithelioma (TE). They rightly claimed that trichoepithelioma can be divided into the following 3 subgroups: a) multiple familiar TE, b) solitary non-hereditary TE, and c) desmoplastic trichoepithelioma (DTE). I would like to stress that the last category represents a distinct variant with some unique clinical and particularly histopathological characteristics. However, Karimzadeh et al. (1) did not provide any further information on DTE in their review. In my opinion, this variant of TE deserves special mention. The main reason is that it histomorphologically mimics infiltrative (morpheic) basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and can be challenging to differentiate for pathologists, particularly in small biopsies (2-5). Therefore, I report the case of young woman with two simultaneously growing DTEs with emphasis on the histopathology of this tumor. A 32-year old woman presented with two skin lesions arising on the left side of the forehead and on the right side of the neck. She claimed they had been present for one year. On gross examination, the lesion arising on the forehead was flat, whitish, and about 10 mm in diameter. The lesion on the neck was flat, light brownish, and 6 mm in diameter. A total surgical extirpation was performed. At a low magnification, both lesions histologically mimicked infiltrative (morpheic) BCC of the skin. However, more detailed inspection of individual microscopic features excluded this diagnosis. The tumors were composed of narrow lines and irregular strands of basaloid epithelial cells embedded in a dense stroma (Figure 1). Neoplastic aggregates grew within the dermis and were not attached to the surface epidermis. In the larger lesion, they extended into the subcutaneous fat. No ulceration was present. At high magnification, the tumor cells presented a bland appearance with prominent oval nuclei and scant cytoplasm (Figure 2). There were some signs that abortive follicular (hair bulb) differentiation occurred. Nuclear pleomorphism and mitotic figures as well as peripheral palisading and tumor-stroma retraction phenomenon were not present. Furthermore, sporadic keratinous cysts lined by stratified squamous epithelium were found. The stroma was densely collagenous, hypocellular, without solar elastosis, and without any inflammatory infiltration. Foreign body type granulomas with multinucleated giant cells were sometimes present, usually in relation to disrupted keratinous cysts. Calcifications were observed in both lesions, and ossification also occurred in the larger tumor. Immunohistochemically, the tumor was positive for high molecular weight cytokeratin (clone 34bE12) and epithelial antigen (clone BerEP4) (Figure 3). A few cells immunoreactive for cytokeratin 20 (CK20, clone Ks20.8) were observed within tumor aggregates. The Ki-67 proliferation index (clone MIB-1) did not exceed 10%. A spectrum of histomorphological findings of both lesions were consistent with DTE. Resection margins were intact and no local recurrence has been observed at the time of this writing. The differential diagnosis between DTE and infiltrative BCC is sometimes exceedingly difficult, even when assessed by a dermatopathology expert. However, establishing the correct diagnosis is crucial for clinicians, as the first entity represents a benign adnexal tumor with an excellent prognosis, while the latter is a high-risk variant of BCC that requires much more stringent clinical management. As we have already pointed out, both tumors share many histomorphological features. Firstly, they both consist of small strands and thin cords of basaloid epithelial cells in a densely sclerotic stroma. Several attempts have been made to provide reliable and reproducible criteria for their differentiation. An excellent description of various histopathological features that help to discriminate DTE from infiltrative BCC has been published by Costache et al. (3). They studied samples from 19 DTEs and 18 infiltrative BCCs. They revealed that the most reliable findings that favored a diagnosis of DTE rather than infiltrative BCC were as follows: architectural symmetry and well-circumscribed lesions, depression in the center of the tumor, connection of tumor aggregation to infundibula, at least one sign of follicular, infundibular, or sebaceous differentiation, granulomatous giant cell reaction due to rupture of keratinous cysts, foci of calcification and ossification, no tumor-stroma clefting, absence of solar elastosis, and association with melanocytic nevus. Another set of criteria also thought to provide significant diagnostic evidence for DTE was the lack of connection of neoplastic nests to the surface epidermis, the clefts between the peritumorous stroma and the surrounding dermis, and the presence of cut artefacts (knife marks) in histologic sections. In challenging cases, immunohistochemical stains for CK20 and androgen receptors can be helpful in discriminating between DTE and BCC. While TEs usually contain at least a few CK20-positive Merkel cells and are negative for androgen receptors, BCCs are mostly negative for Merkel cells and positive for androgen receptors (2,3). However, the diagnostic limitation of these markers should be kept in mind. For example, an expression of androgen receptors is often focal and sometimes completely absent in BCCs (2). On the other hand, many TEs have very low density of colonizing Merkel cells, which may require serial sections for reliable detection (2). Along with histopathology, clinical aspects have also to be taken into consideration when deciding on the final diagnosis. DTE occurs mainly in young and middle-aged women and has a predilection for the face, principally for the cheeks (4,5). In contrast, an age of the onset is much higher and a prevalence of women much lower in cutaneous BCCs (6). Overall, DTE is an uncommon adnexal tumor and its aggressive histological features can cause diagnostic uncertainty and confusion with infiltrative BCC. Distinguishing of these two structurally similar but biologically completely different tumor entities often requires a comprehensive diagnostic approach that includes the complexity of histopathological, immunohistochemical, and clinical findings.Vladimír Bartoš
1300 related Products with: Desmoplastic Trichoepithelioma: An Uncommon but Diagnostically Problematic Benign Adnexal Tumor.
100 μg100ug Lyophilized100ug Lyophilized100ug100ug LyophilizedRelated Pathways
#2479944 // To Up
Papillary neoplasia of the breast: immunohistochemically defined myoepithelial cells in the diagnosis of benign and malignant papillary breast neoplasms.
The presence or absence of myoepithelial cells (ME) has been considered as an important feature in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant papillary lesions of the breast. We evaluated the distribution of myoepithelial cells in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections of 25 papillomas and 18 papillary carcinomas by ABC immunoperoxidase technique with antibodies to muscle actin (HHF-35) and high molecular weight (HMW) keratin (clone 34BE12, cytokeratins 1, 5, 10, and 14; reacting preferentially with ME cells) and an antiserum to S-100 protein. Also included in the study were eight cases of micropapillary ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) having a few fibrovascular cores and five peripheral papillomas with accompanying ductal carcinoma in situ or atypical hyperplasia. The antibodies to muscle actin were sensitive and relatively specific for ME cells of the breast and uniformly labeled ME cells in all 25 papillomas. ME cells were absent or extremely sparse in papillary carcinomas. They were present focally in some of the fibrovascular cores of the micropapillary DCIS, and a mixed pattern was observed in peripheral papillomas with areas of carcinoma. HMW keratin was variably expressed in ME cells in most cases with positive internal controls and was present in several normal ductal and papilloma epithelial cells but not in epithelial cells of papillary carcinomas. HMW keratin, although less specific for ME cells, was a useful adjunct because of its reactivity with ME cells as well as hyperplastic epithelial cells in papillomas, which resulted in a combined positive reaction.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)U B Raju, M W Lee, R J Zarbo, J D Crissman
2709 related Products with: Papillary neoplasia of the breast: immunohistochemically defined myoepithelial cells in the diagnosis of benign and malignant papillary breast neoplasms.
Related Pathways
Contact Us:
Belgium
Voortstraat 49, 1910 Kampenhout BELGIUM
Tel 0032 16 58 90 45 Fax 0032 16 50 90 45
[email protected]
France
9, rue Lagrange, 75005 Paris
Tel 01 43 25 01 50 Fax 01 43 25 01 60
[email protected]
Germany
GENTAUR GmbH
Marienbongard 20
52062 Aachen Deutschland
Tel 0241 40 08 90 86 Fax 0241 55 91 05 36
[email protected]
United Kingdom
GENTAUR Ltd.
Howard Frank Turnberry House
1404-1410 High Road
Whetstone London N20 9BH
Tel 020 3393 8531 Fax 020 8445 9411
[email protected]
Also in
Luxembourg +35220880274
Schweiz Züri +41435006251
Danmark +4569918806
Österreich +43720880899
Česká republika Praha +420246019719
Ireland Dublin +35316526556
Norge Oslo +4721031366
Finland Helsset +358942419041
Sverige Stockholm +46852503438
Ελλάς Αθήνα +302111768494
Magyarország Budapest +3619980547
Poland
GENTAUR Poland Sp. z o.o.
ul. Grunwaldzka 88/A m.2
81-771 Sopot, Poland
Tel 058 710 33 44
Fax 058 710 33 48
[email protected]
skype gentaurpoland
Nederland
GENTAUR Nederland BV
Kuiper 1
5521 DG Eersel Nederland
Tel 0208-080893 Fax 0497-517897
[email protected]
Italy
GENTAUR SRL
IVA IT03841300167
Piazza Giacomo Matteotti, 6, 24122 Bergamo
Tel 02 36 00 65 93 Fax 02 36 00 65 94
[email protected]
Spain
GENTAUR Spain
Tel 0911876558
[email protected]
Bulgaria
GENTAUR Bulgaria
53 Iskar Str. 1191 Kokalyane, Sofia
Sofia 1000
Tel 0035924682280
Fax 0035929830072
[email protected]