Malignant Superficial Mesenchymal Tumors in Children

Malignant superficial mesenchymal tumors are a very diverse group of neoplasms with few clinical and radiological discriminatory factors. Hence, some of these cancers are rarely suspected based on clinical and radiological grounds, others may be easily misdiagnosed, and the histological analysis of a biopsy or resection is central in the diagnostic process. In children, the age at presentation is a major element of the differential diagnosis. Some tumors have a very distinct epidemiology, while others may be seen at any age. More recently, the advances in molecular biology have greatly improved the diagnosis of mesenchymal tumors and new entities are still being described. In the present review, we provide an overview of the diversity of malignant superficial mesenchymal tumors in children, including new and/or rare entities. We discuss the important diagnostic features, be they clinical, histological, or molecular. Special attention was given to the genetic features of these tumors, particularly when they were helpful for the diagnosis or treatment.

Protein gene product 9.5 (PGP9.5) expression in benign cutaneous mesenchymal, histiocytic, and melanocytic lesions: comparison with cellular neurothekeoma

Cellular neurothekeoma (CNTK) frequently enters the differential diagnosis of a benign dermal cellular proliferation. Diagnosis often relies on immunohistochemistry including the use of protein gene product 9.5 (PGP9.5). A previous study demonstrated PGP9.5 expression across a wide variety of soft tissue neoplasms. We explored the utility of this antibody in distinguishing CNTK from other benign dermal-based lesions. A cohort of CNTK (n=7) and benign cutaneous lesions of neural (n=28), fibrohistiocytic (n=23), fibroblastic (n=25), histiocytic (n=18), myofibroblastic (n=7), smooth muscle (n=14), and melanocytic (n=12) differentiations were immunostained with PGP9.5. Staining was graded by H-score and compared with CNTK. A significantly higher H-score was found in CNTK compared with the fibrohistiocytic (p=0.0001), histiocytic (p=0.0016), myofibroblastic (p=0.0003), smooth muscle (p<0.0001), and melanocytic (p=0.0004) groups, with the exceptions of plexiform fibrohistiocytic tumour, xanthoma, and xanthogranuloma. No significant difference was found when comparing CNTK with fibroblastic and neural lesions, with the exceptions of neurofibroma and perineurioma. In conclusion, PGP9.5 is helpful in distinguishing CNTK from most benign cutaneous fibrohistiocytic, histiocytic, myofibroblastic, smooth muscle, and melanocytic lesions. In addition to CNTK and neural lesions, PGP9.5 is also expressed in benign fibroblastic lesions, and therefore distinction of these lesions should not be based on PGP9.5 positivity.

Immunohistochemical analysis of KBA.62 in 18 neurothekeomas: a potential marker for differentiating neurothekeoma, but a marker that may lead to confusion with melanocytic tumors

BACKGROUND

Neurothekeoma represents a neoplasm of uncertain histogenesis that often occurs on the head and neck of younger individuals. Distinguishing neurothekeoma from other tumors, particularly malignancies such as melanoma, can be difficult given the variable presence of nuclear atypia, mitoses and extension into fat or skeletal muscle. KBA.62 represents an anti-melanoma monoclonal antibody that marks approximately 93% of melanomas. This study sought to evaluate KBA.62 expression in neurothekeomas, both as means of affirming the diagnosis and as a potential confounding factor in excluding a melanocytic process.

METHODS

Eighteen neurothekeomas from 17 patients were analyzed by light microscopy and immunohistochemistry. Immunohistochemistry was performed with KBA.62, S100 and CD10 antibodies. The diagnosis of neurothekeoma was confirmed by at least two dermatopathologists.

RESULTS

All cases showed similar light microscopic and immunohistochemical features. With the exception of two cases, cells expressed CD10 and exhibited morphologic features consistent with neurothekeoma. All 18 cases were S100 immunonegative. The epithelioid cells of all neurothekeomas were KBA.62 immunopositive, including both of two neurothekeomas occurring in the same patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study 100% of neurothekeomas tested were KBA.62 positive, admittedly to varying degrees, suggesting the utility of this reagent as being supportive of the diagnosis of neurothekeoma.

Plexiform fibrohistiocytic tumor with molecular and cytogenetic analysis

A child with plexiform fibrohistiocytic tumor is presented, in whom a superficial biopsy was misdiagnosed as an inflammatory granuloma. Cytogenetic analysis revealed a 46,X,del(X)(q13)[3]/46,XX[23] karyotype. However, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and array-comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analysis failed to detect any numerical or quantitative genomic anomaly. Because of lack of specific chromosomal hallmarks, a molecular diagnosis of plexiform fibrohistiocytic tumor with the currently available tools is not reliable.