4.6 Article

Hobnail hemangioma reclassified as superficial lymphatic malformation: A study of 52 cases

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
Volume 66, Issue 1, Pages 112-115

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.05.019

Keywords

D2-40; hobnail hemangioma; Ki-67; vascular malformations; vascular neoplasms; Wilms tumor 1

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Hobnail hemangioma (HH) is currently classified as a benign vascular tumor, although it is not well understood whether this lesion differentiates toward blood or lymphatic endothelial cells. Immunostaining with the endothelial marker Wilms tumor 1 (WT1) helps distinguish between vascular neoplasms and malformations, being positive in the former and negative in the latter. Objective: We sought to investigate WT1, human herpesvirus 8 latent nuclear antigen, D2-40, and Ki-67 immunoprofile in HH, to gain further insight into its histogenesis. Methods: We evaluated 52-HHs collected in Dermatohistopathologische Gemeinschaftslabor, Friedrichshafen, Germany. Immunohistochemical expression of WT1 was performed in all cases. Ten of 52 lesions were also studied for D2-40 and Ki-67 staining and 12 lesions were stained for human herpesvirus 8 latent nuclear antigen. Results: All 52 HHs were completely negative for WT1 immunostaining. Immunohistochemistry performed in 10 HHs showed diffuse and strong positive staining for D2-40 in 8 lesions and focal positivity in two. All cases tested showed negative staining for Ki-67 and human herpesvirus 8 latent nuclear antigen. Limitations: There are no limitations. Conclusions: Although the exact histogenesis of HH is unknown, most of the performed immunohistochemical studies support a lymphatic line of differentiation. However, on the basis of the WT1 negativity, we believe that HH is better considered as a lymphatic malformation rather than a lymphatic neoplasm. (J Am Acad Dermatol 2012;66:112-5.)

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