4.3 Article

Diagnostic utility of FOSB immunohistochemistry in pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma and its histological mimics

期刊

DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s13000-016-0530-2

关键词

Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma; FOSB; CAMTA1; Immunohistochemistry; Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma; Angiosarcoma; Kaposi sarcoma; Epithelioid sarcoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据