The Pathologist as the Patient: Professional Insights Gained from a Personal Health Journey.

One pathologist reflects upon her own medical journey and shares how that perspective is carried forward in her practice and her life.

Cystic Lesions of the Jaws: The Top 10 Differential Diagnoses to Ponder.

BACKGROUND: Cystic lesions of the gnathic bones present challenges in differential diagnosis. This category includes a smorgasbord of odontogenic and non-odontogenic entities that may be reactive or neoplastic in nature. While most cystic jaw lesions are benign, variability in biologic behavior makes distinction between these entities absolutely crucial. METHODS: Review. RESULTS: Two clinical cases are presented in parallel and are followed by an illustrated discussion of the ten most likely differential diagnoses that should be considered when confronted with a cystic jaw lesion. Strong emphasis is placed on the histologic differences between these entities, empowering readers to diagnose them with confidence. Perhaps even more importantly, the more common diagnostic pitfalls in gnathic pathology are discussed, recognizing that a definitive diagnosis cannot be rendered in every situation. The histologic diagnoses for the two clinical cases are finally revealed. CONCLUSION: Cystic lesions of the maxilla and mandible may be odontogenic or non-odontogenic. The most common cystic lesions are the reactive periapical cyst, and the dentigerous cyst (which is developmental in nature). It is important to note that cystic neoplasms also occur in the jaws, and that the presence of inflammation may obscure the diagnostic histologic features of lesions like odontogenic keratocyst and unicystic ameloblastoma. Ancillary testing is of limited diagnostic value in most scenarios. However, both clinical and radiographic information (such as the location, size, duration, associated symptoms, and morphology of the lesion in its natural habitat) are significantly useful.

A Subset of Salivary Intercalated Duct Lesions Harbors Recurrent CTNNB1 and HRAS Mutations: A Molecular Link to Basal Cell Adenoma and Epithelial-Myoepithelial Carcinoma?

BACKGROUND: Intercalated duct lesions (IDLs) are benign salivary gland proliferations that resemble normal intercalated ducts and are subdivided into hyperplastic, adenoma or hybrid types depending on circumscription. While IDLs were historically regarded as non-neoplastic, frequent association with basal cell adenoma (BCA) and epithelial-myoepithelial carcinoma (EMC) has raised the possibility that they are neoplastic precursors. METHODS: In this study, we performed ß-catenin immunohistochemistry and targeted molecular analysis on IDLs to clarify their pathogenesis. RESULTS: We identified 15 IDLs from the parotid glands of eight men and six women with a median age of 65 years (range 42-85 years). These lesions included nine hyperplastic, three adenoma, and three hybrid types. Nuclear ß-catenin localization was present in 7 of 13 lesions tested (54%). Next generation sequencing was successfully completed in 12 IDLs, of which seven (58%) had likely oncogenic mutations. These included three recurrent CTNNB1 mutations in hyperplastic (n = 2) and hybrid (n = 1) lesions and two recurrent HRAS hotspot mutations in adenomas. CONCLUSION: Despite substantial heterogeneity, these findings confirm that a majority of IDLs are genuinely neoplastic, and some demonstrate molecular overlap with both BCA and EMC, supporting their theorized role as precursors to these tumors. Nevertheless, no oncogenic drivers were present in a significant subset of cases, suggesting that some IDLs may be truly reactive and hyperplastic. As such, IDL appear to represent a diverse morphologic and molecular spectrum that include both neoplastic and hyperplastic lesions. Reconsideration of the boundary between IDL and BCA in the future may be necessary to simplify classification.

Sinonasal Amoebiasis: An Unexpected Cause of Sinonasal Necroinflammatory Disease.

While amoebic infection is widely known as a cause of gastroenteritis, keratitis, and meningoencephalitis, amoebae are challenging to recognize at unexpected sites. Despite multiple case reports of sinonasal amoebiasis, amoebic infection is not regularly considered in the differential diagnosis of sinonasal necroinflammatory disease. Here, we aim to characterize the pathologic features of sinonasal amoebiasis to facilitate better recognition. We identified sinonasal amoebiasis in 4 men, median age of 67 years (range: 37 to 71 y). All were immunocompromised, including 2 with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 1 with human immunodeficiency virus, and 1 with human immunodeficiency virus and kidney transplant. Patients presented with nasal mucosal necrosis or polypoid masses, with facial ulceration in 1 patient and distant dermal nodules in another. Biopsies displayed extensive necrotic debris and inflammation. Although amoebic cysts were abundant in 3 cases, they were mistaken for yeast at frozen section in 1 case; 1 case showed only rare trophozoites that were not recognized on initial biopsy. Periodic acid Schiff and Grocott Methenamine Silver stains highlighted the organisms, and polymerase chain reaction confirmed Acanthamoeba species in 3 cases tested. 2 patients responded well to antiprotozoal medications, but 2 died of disease. Overall, sinonasal amoebiasis presents as a necroinflammatory process in patients immunocompromised for various reasons. Amoebae can mimic other organisms or be incredibly scarce, requiring active consideration to recognize amoebiasis and differentiate it from overlapping conditions like invasive fungal sinusitis, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and natural killer/T-cell lymphoma. Because sinonasal amoebiasis is highly treatable when diagnosed promptly, pathologists play a critical role in the recognition of this rare necroinflammatory disease.

Microsecretory adenocarcinoma of the skin harboring recurrent SS18 fusions: A cutaneous analog to a newly described salivary gland tumor.

BACKGROUND: Microsecretory adenocarcinoma (MSA) is a newly described salivary gland neoplasm characterized by MEF2C::SS18 fusions. MSA was previously thought to occur exclusively in salivary glands. Here, we expand the spectrum of known primary sites of this tumor by describing a series of cutaneous tumors with analogous findings. METHODS: We identified four cutaneous primary tumors with histopathologic features identical to MSA of the salivary glands. These cases were evaluated by immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for SS18 rearrangement and targeted RNA-sequencing. We also queried a pan-tumor database of advanced carcinomas for MEF2C::SS18. RESULTS: The cases occurred in men ranging from 61 to 74 years (mean, 68). They arose from the skin of the nose, chin, scalp, and external auditory canal. All included cords/microcysts of eosinophilic cells with bland oval nuclei and bluish mucin within fibromyxoid stroma. The scalp tumor also exhibited high-grade transformation (marked atypia, elevated mitotic rate, and necrosis), a feature unreported in salivary MSA. By immunohistochemistry, all cases were positive for S100. Two showed a myoepithelial component positive for p40 and smooth muscle actin or calponin. Three cases harbored MEF2C::SS18 by RNA sequencing, while one with limited tissue had SS18 rearrangement via FISH. Two patients had no evidence of recurrence or metastasis in limited follow-up (3 and 6 months). The pan-tumor database query also did not identify MEF2C::SS18 in any advanced cutaneous carcinomas. CONCLUSION: This report expands the sites that can be involved by MSA. Similar to salivary cases, MEF2C::SS18 represents a recurrent fusion in MSA of the skin. Unusual features in cutaneous cases not seen in salivary MSA include one case with high-grade transformation and two cases with a myoepithelial cell component. Identification of this fusion expands the spectrum of salivary-analog cutaneous tumors and aids in precise tumor classification.