A Rare Case of Adenocarcinoma With Micropapillary Structure and Apocrine Differentiation Arising in a Sebaceous Tumor.

ABSTRACT: A 77-year-old Japanese man presented to our hospital with subcutaneous tumors of the right upper arm and axilla. A biopsy revealed a cutaneous adnexal tumor, showing apocrine differentiation, and axillary lymph node metastasis. After chemoradiotherapy to shrink the tumors, both lesions were resected. A resected specimen of the arm tumor showed a variegated histology: (1) a classic sebaceoma with an organoid pattern and sebocytes; (2) a sebaceous tumor with cellular atypia; (3) a papillotubular tumor showing a biphasic pattern of pale eosinophilic cells with apocrine differentiation and basaloid cells; and (4) an invasive adenocarcinoma with a micropapillary structure, reminiscent of an invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. The axillary tumor was regressed. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of an adnexal tumor of the skin with an invasive micropapillary structure arising in a sebaceous tumor.

Application of fluorescence in situ hybridization in distinguishing acral melanoma in situ from acral junctional melanocytic nevus on the volar skin in Japanese patients.

Four-colored fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is an ancillary diagnostic tool for melanoma. However, most studies that have investigated the usefulness of FISH primarily focused on advanced melanomas. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness of FISH in distinguishing acral melanoma (AM) in situ from benign acral junctional nevus (AJN), two types of lesions that are difficult to differentiate via traditional clinical means. The authors investigated the usefulness of FISH in 91 acral melanocytic lesions, including 50 lesions with diagnostic discrepancies between dermoscopic and pathologic approaches or difficulty diagnosing between AM in situ and AJN, on the volar skin of Japanese patients. The authors classified the lesions based on the diagnosis of dermatologists and pathologists into four groups: (I) lesions with a unanimous diagnosis by dermatologists and pathologists as AM in situ or AJN (n = 41); (II) lesions with a unanimous diagnosis by dermatologists only as AM in situ or AJN (n = 21); (III) lesions with a unanimous diagnosis by pathologists only as AM in situ or AJN (n = 15); and (IV) all other lesions (n = 14). The dermatologists diagnosed the lesions by clinical and dermoscopic photographs alone, while the pathologists diagnosed the lesions by microscopy of hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides alone. In group I (AM in situ [n = 20] and AJN [n = 21]), four-colored FISH demonstrated 90% sensitivity and 81% specificity in distinguishing AM in situ from AJN. There was a significant correlation between the FISH results and the unanimous diagnoses by pathologists alone (p = 0.03) in group III. However, FISH results were not significantly correlated with the unanimous diagnoses by dermatologists alone (p = 0.33) in group II. In conclusion, the four-colored FISH probe kit was useful in distinguishing between AM in situ and AJN and may be an ancillary method when pathologists who are not experts of dermatopathology diagnose melanocytic lesions.

Hyperplastic melanocytes with chromosomal aberrations in surrounding skin of subungual melanoma: fluorescence in situ hybridisation analysis using whole-slide digital imaging.

AIMS: Subungual melanoma (SUM) is increasingly being treated with conservative surgery. Consequently, the evaluation of the resection margins has increased in importance. However, in several cases it is difficult to distinguish the in-situ lesion of SUM from hyperplastic melanocytes in the surrounding skin. We examined whether PReferentially expressed Antigen in MElanoma (PRAME) immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) labelling of CCND1 (11q13), RREB1 (6p25), MYB (6q23), and centromere 6 (CEP6) genes differentiated SUM from hyperplastic melanocytes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed specimens of 36 SUM cases and compared PRAME immunostains of invasive melanoma, melanoma in situ, and hyperplastic melanocytes. PRAME-positive cases accounted for 90.5% of invasive melanoma, 88.9% of in situ melanoma, and 59.4% of hyperplastic melanocyte specimens. While invasive and in situ melanomas in more than half of the examined cases were diffusely positive, this was found for only 9.4% of hyperplastic melanocyte cases. Four-coloured FISH using whole-slide digital imaging was used to analyse positive detection rates and changes in chromosomal aberrations. The FISH positive detection rate was 100% in invasive melanomas, 94.7% in melanomas in situ, and 66.7% in hyperplastic melanocytes. The number of RREB1 (6p25) signals per cell was significantly amplified following tumour progression. CONCLUSION: Hyperplastic melanocytes in the surrounding skin of SUM, considered morphologically non-neoplastic, showed chromosomal aberrations similar to those in melanoma. Such cells are also thought similar to the field cells of acral melanomas. Thus, whole-slide digital imaging is a technique that allows the evaluation of individual melanocyte lesions by FISH.

Distribution of CD1a-positive cells is not different between pseudolymphomatous folliculitis and primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma.

Pseudolymphomatous folliculitis (PLF) is a subtype of cutaneous pseudolymphoma that is recognized as an independent disease. PLF is characterized by dermal lymphocytic infiltration surrounding an irregular hyperplastic pilosebaceous unit (i.e., activated pilosebaceous unit). An interstitial distribution of CD1a-positive cells is regarded as an important feature of PLF, especially in distinguishing it from primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma (PCMZL), which is associated with a peripheral concentration of CD1a-positive cells. We undertook a clinicopathological investigation of PLF, with a reassessment of CD1a immunohistochemistry. We defined diagnostic criteria for PLF based on past studies and consequently identified 79 cases. In addition, we collected 32 cases of PCMZL and performed detailed clinical, pathological, and immunohistochemical investigations using antibodies to CD3, CD20, and CD1a. We found an interstitial concentration of CD1a-positive cells in 90.2% of PLF and 34.5% of PCMZL cases. The peripheral concentration of CD1a-positive cells was seen in 9.8% of PLF and 34.5% of PCMZL cases. In both diseases, CD1a-positive cells appeared in T-cell nests (88.5% in PLF and 92.9% in PCMZL) but were absent in B-cell nests (0% in both groups). All 79 cases of PLF showed activated pilosebaceous units while 22 of the 32 PCMZL cases displayed pilosebaceous units, although none of these were activated. In summary, regarding the distribution patterns of CD1a-positive cells as a diagnostic feature in distinguishing between PLF and PCMZL is somewhat inconclusive. To differentiate PLF and PCMZL, determining the presence or absence of activated pilosebaceous units is essential.