4.6 Article

The many faces of acinic cell carcinomas of the salivary glands: a study of 40 cases relating histological and immunohistological subtypes to clinical parameters and prognosis

Journal

HISTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 61, Issue 3, Pages 395-408

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2012.04233.x

Keywords

acinic cell carcinoma; cytokeratin 7 immunohistochemistry; histogenetic subtypes; mixed ductulo-acinar subtype; salivary glands

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To study the morphological heterogeneity of acinic cell carcinoma (ACC) in correlation with clinicopathological parameters. Methods and results: Forty well-characterized ACCs were classified as solid (n = 20), microcystic (n = 15), papillary-cystic (n = 4) or follicular (n = 1), based on the dominant architectural growth pattern. Fourteen tumours exhibited eosinophilic/clear cell morphology and 18 tumours were rich in zymogen granules (so-called blue dot tumours). High-grade morphology occurred in five tumours. Based on cytokeratin (CK) 7 staining and in analogy to CK7 expression in normal salivary gland epithelia, three distinct histogenetic subtypes were recognized: acinar (CK7-negative; n = 13), ductular (diffuse CK7-positive; n = 11) and mixed ductulo-acinar (1066% CK7-positive cells; n = 16). Most papillary-cystic tumours displayed ductular differentiation (P = 0.015), whereas blue dot tumours never did (P < 0.001). Analysis of relapse-free survival (RFS) revealed that Stage I tumours had the best prognosis without any relapse in 18 years follow-up (P = 0.06). High-grade tumours were associated with shorter RFS (P = 0.028). Concerning the histogenetic types, monophasic (pure acinar or ductular) tumours were associated with a significantly better RFS than mixed ductulo-acinar tumours (P = 0.008). Conclusion: The results underscore the great histological diversity of ACC, and the value of histogenetic subtyping as an additional prognostic factor regarding RFS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available