Widespread cutaneous metastases from acinic cell carcinoma 20 years after primary presentation.

Acinic cell carcinoma is a rare, low-grade malignant salivary gland neoplasm. Approximately, 20% of patients experience local recurrence and 10% distant metastasis, often many years after initial presentation. We present a case of widespread cutaneous metastasis from acinic cell carcinoma arising in a 59-year-old woman with a history of acinic cell carcinoma of the parotid gland 20 years prior to her cutaneous disease. To our knowledge, is the first report of widespread cutaneous metastasis from acinic cell carcinoma.

Expression of androgen receptor by fibroepithelioma of Pinkus: evidence supporting classification as a basal cell carcinoma variant?

The classification of fibroepithelioma of Pinkus as basal cell carcinoma or trichoblastoma remains controversial. Immunohistochemical stains for androgen receptor may be useful in differentiating basal cell carcinoma from trichoepithelioma or trichoblastoma. We studied androgen receptor expression in 13 fibroepitheliomas of Pinkus, 11 basal cell carcinomas, 12 trichoepitheliomas, and 3 trichoblastomas. Androgen receptor expression was present in 77% (10/13) of fibroepitheliomas of Pinkus, 73% (8/11) of basal cell carcinomas, 17% (2/12) of trichoepitheliomas, and 0% (0/3) of trichoblastomas. Androgen receptor expression was significantly higher in fibroepitheliomas of Pinkus compared with trichoepitheliomas and trichoblastomas (P = .0007), but not basal cell carcinoma (P = 1.00). Tumor-associated Merkel cells, a feature of benign follicular tumors, was identified by cytokeratin 20 stains. Merkel cells were identified in 85% (11/13) of fibroepitheliomas of Pinkus, 27% (3/11) of basal cell carcinoma cases, and 73% (11/15) of benign follicular tumors. Cytokeratin 20 expression was significantly higher in fibroepithelioma of Pinkus and benign follicular tumors compared with basal cell carcinomas (P = 0.0111 and P = 0.025, respectively). No significant difference was found between fibroepitheliomas of Pinkus and trichoepitheliomas and trichoblastomas (P = 1.00). Similar to basal cell carcinomas, fibroepitheliomas of Pinkus express androgen receptors, potentially supporting classification as a basal cell carcinoma. Conversely, fibroepithelioma of Pinkus demonstrates retention of Merkel cells, a feature of benign follicular tumors. Immunophenotypic evidence for the classification of fibroepithelioma of Pinkus remains inconclusive. In small, partial biopsy specimens, coexpression of androgen receptor and cytokeratin 20 may aid in the diagnosis of fibroepithelioma of Pinkus.

Glutaraldehyde-induced and formaldehyde-induced allergic contact dermatitis among dental hygienists and assistants.

BACKGROUND: Research has found that among health care workers, dental personnel are especially likely to have reactions to glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde. METHODS: The authors conducted patch test evaluations with a voluntary cohort of randomly recruited, healthy dental hygienists, or DHs, and dental assistants, or DAs, and nondental professionals to determine the incidence of glutaraldehyde-induced and formaldehyde-induced allergic contact dermatitis, or ACD; the potential for coreactivity between glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde; and the correlation between training methods in safe handling of sterilizing solutions and the sensitivity to glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde among DHs and DAs. RESULTS: The researchers enrolled 101 DHs and DAs and 51 nondental professionals in the study. All except one DH/DA subject were female. The dental subjects' mean age was 34.3 +/- standard deviation of 10.7 years; the nondental subjects', 33.8 +/- 11.0 years. DHs and DAs had worked in their profession for a mean of 11.0 +/- 9.3 years. Among the dental professionals, 80 (79.2 percent) had had a known exposure to cold sterilizing solutions, while the remainder were unable to provide a known history of exposure. Eleven (10.9 percent) dental professionals had clear reactions to glutaraldehyde, four (4.0 percent) were questionably allergic to glutaraldehyde, and two (2 percent) were definitively allergic to formaldehyde. One (2 percent) control subject had a reaction to glutaraldehyde, and one other (2 percent) had a reaction to formaldehyde. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL: IMPLICATIONS: The authors found a statistically significant disparity in the rates of glutaraldehyde sensitivity among healthy DHs and DAs versus healthy control subjects (10.9 percent versus 2 percent reactively; P = .02). They found no evidence of cross-reactivity between glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde. The preponderance of reactions among the DHs and DAs suggests that their present safety practices are largely ineffective in protecting against sensitization to glutaraldehyde in sterilizing solutions.