Journal of cutaneous pathology · 2017
Radiation-associated angiosarcoma in the setting of breast cancer mimicking radiation dermatitis: A diagnostic pitfall.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Daniels Brianne H, Ko Jennifer S, Rowe J Jordi, Downs-Kelly Erinn, Billings Steven D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We have encountered cases of post-radiation angiosarcoma (PRAS) histologically mimicking radiation dermatitis.
METHODS: Cases of PRAS from institutional/consultation archives from 2006 to 2016 were reviewed. For inclusion, tumors had to have inapparent/subtle tumor at low magnification and scattered individual tumor cells resembling radiation fibroblasts. Prior ancillary studies were reviewed, with additional immunostains performed as needed.
RESULTS: 10 cases met criteria. All occurred in women treated for breast cancer (mean age 71 years). All had similar findings: in particular, scattered single atypical cells with pleomorphic nuclei associated with microscopic hemorrhage. They also had narrow, slightly wavy "worm-like" vascular channels lined by atypical endothelial cells that lacked architectural complexity. Four cases showed focal areas of more conventional angiosarcoma. One case was an excision of a large mass that showed the "radiation dermatitis-like" pattern radiating out from the central mass. All were positive for vascular markers (CD31, CD34, and/or ERG) and MYC. MYC amplification was demonstrated by FISH in both cases tested. In 3 of 3 cases with available re-excision specimens, more obvious angiosarcoma was seen.
CONCLUSIONS: PRAS can be very subtle and histologically mimic radiation dermatitis. Careful attention to histologic features and ancillary tests allow accurate diagnosis in subtle PRAS.
METHODS: Cases of PRAS from institutional/consultation archives from 2006 to 2016 were reviewed. For inclusion, tumors had to have inapparent/subtle tumor at low magnification and scattered individual tumor cells resembling radiation fibroblasts. Prior ancillary studies were reviewed, with additional immunostains performed as needed.
RESULTS: 10 cases met criteria. All occurred in women treated for breast cancer (mean age 71 years). All had similar findings: in particular, scattered single atypical cells with pleomorphic nuclei associated with microscopic hemorrhage. They also had narrow, slightly wavy "worm-like" vascular channels lined by atypical endothelial cells that lacked architectural complexity. Four cases showed focal areas of more conventional angiosarcoma. One case was an excision of a large mass that showed the "radiation dermatitis-like" pattern radiating out from the central mass. All were positive for vascular markers (CD31, CD34, and/or ERG) and MYC. MYC amplification was demonstrated by FISH in both cases tested. In 3 of 3 cases with available re-excision specimens, more obvious angiosarcoma was seen.
CONCLUSIONS: PRAS can be very subtle and histologically mimic radiation dermatitis. Careful attention to histologic features and ancillary tests allow accurate diagnosis in subtle PRAS.