Diagnostic pathology · 2016
Diagnostic utility of FOSB immunohistochemistry in pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma and its histological mimics.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sugita Shintaro, Hirano Hiroshi, Kikuchi Noriaki, Kubo Terufumi, Asanuma Hiroko, Aoyama Tomoyuki, Emori Makoto, Hasegawa Tadashi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma (PHE) is an unusual vascular tumor of intermediate malignancy that rarely metastasizes and tends to arise in the lower limbs of young adults and children. Histologically, PHE shows fascicular proliferation of eosinophilic spindle cells and/or epithelioid cells showing "pseudomyogenic" morphology. Immunohistochemically, PHE is usually positive for vimentin, cytokeratin, CD31 and ERG.
METHOD: We examined FOSB immunohistochemistry (IHC) in 27 cases consisting of 4 PHE and its histologic mimics including 6 epithelioid hemangioendotheliomas (EHE), 8 angiosarcomas (AS), 4 Kaposi sarcomas (KS) and 5 epithelioid sarcomas (ES). In addition, we performed IHC of CAMTA1 which has recently been established as a useful marker of EHE. We elucidated the diagnostic utility of FOSB IHC in the differential diagnosis of PHE and its histological mimics and also examined the usefulness of FOSB and CAMTA1 IHC combination in the differential diagnosis of the tumors.
RESULTS: IHC revealed diffuse and strong FOSB expression in all PHE cases, while the other tumor types demonstrated limited, weak or no FOSB expression. All EHE cases exhibited diffuse and moderate to strong expression of CAMTA1. All tumor types except for EHE showed limited, weak or no CAMTA1 reactivity.
CONCLUSIONS: Diffuse and strong FOSB expression was specific for PHE in the current series and FOSB IHC is an effective tool for differentiating between PHE and its histological mimics. Moreover, the combination of FOSB and CAMTA1 IHC is useful for distinguishing PHE from EHE.
METHOD: We examined FOSB immunohistochemistry (IHC) in 27 cases consisting of 4 PHE and its histologic mimics including 6 epithelioid hemangioendotheliomas (EHE), 8 angiosarcomas (AS), 4 Kaposi sarcomas (KS) and 5 epithelioid sarcomas (ES). In addition, we performed IHC of CAMTA1 which has recently been established as a useful marker of EHE. We elucidated the diagnostic utility of FOSB IHC in the differential diagnosis of PHE and its histological mimics and also examined the usefulness of FOSB and CAMTA1 IHC combination in the differential diagnosis of the tumors.
RESULTS: IHC revealed diffuse and strong FOSB expression in all PHE cases, while the other tumor types demonstrated limited, weak or no FOSB expression. All EHE cases exhibited diffuse and moderate to strong expression of CAMTA1. All tumor types except for EHE showed limited, weak or no CAMTA1 reactivity.
CONCLUSIONS: Diffuse and strong FOSB expression was specific for PHE in the current series and FOSB IHC is an effective tool for differentiating between PHE and its histological mimics. Moreover, the combination of FOSB and CAMTA1 IHC is useful for distinguishing PHE from EHE.