DeCure for Myoepithelial tumor

Myoepithelial Carcinoma of the Salivary Glands

AbstractOBJECTIVE: To analyze the importance of unique cytoarchitectural patterns and the immunohistochemical profile in the diagnosis of myoepithelial carcinomas. DESIGN: Retrospective case analysis. SETTING: Tertiary cancer center. PATIENTS: A total of 51 patients with myoepithelial-rich carcinomas diagnosed over a 14-year period were studied for demographic data and tumor histologic characteristics and biologic behavior. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We analyzed various histopathologic parameters and an immunohistochemical profile consisting of pan-cytokeratin (Pan-CK), epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), CD10, smooth-muscle actin (SMA), S-100 protein, p63, calponin, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). RESULTS: The parotid gland (n = 15) and the palate (n = 15) were common sites involved. The cell types encountered were epithelioid, stellate, plasmacytoid, spindle, clear, and mixed with myxoid, hyaline, or myxohyaline stroma. Immunohistochemical analysis revealed vimentin (100%), CK (74%), EMA (27%), CD10 (62%), SMA (35%), S-100 protein (82%), p63 (28%), and calponin (98%) positivity and CEA (100%) negativity. Cervical node dissection was performed in 17 cases: 7 showed nodal metastasis, 2 with pure spindle-cell morphologic characteristics and 3 with spindle cells mixed with other cells. Distant metastasis was noted in 3 of these 7 cases: 2 of these 3 cases showed spindle-cell morphologic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Myoepithelial carcinomas showed varied cell types and patterns leading to a wide range of differential diagnoses. Immunohistochemical analysis helped determine the diagnosis. Spindle morphologic characteristics were observed with nodal and distant metastasis.

Cell clusters overlying focally disrupted mammary myoepithelial cell layers and adjacent cells within the same duct display different immunohistochemical and genetic features: implications for tumor progression and invasion

AbstractINTRODUCTION: Our previous studies detected focal disruptions in myoepithelial cell layers of several ducts with carcinoma in situ. The cell cluster overlying each of the myoepithelial disruptions showed a marked reduction in or a total loss of immunoreactivity for the estrogen receptor (ER). This is in contrast to the adjacent cells within the same duct, which were strongly immunoreactive for the ER. The current study attempts to confirm and expand previous observations on a larger scale. METHODS: Paraffin sections from 220 patients with ER-positive intraductal breast tumors were double immunostained with the same protocol previously used. Cross-sections of ducts lined by > or = 40 epithelial cells were examined for myoepithelial cell layer disruptions and for ER expression. In five selected cases, ER-negative cells overlying the disrupted myoepithelial cell layer and adjacent ER-positive cells within the same duct were separately microdissected and assessed for loss of heterozygosity and microsatellite instability. RESULTS: Of the 220 cases with 5698 duct cross-sections examined, 94 showed disrupted myoepithelial cell layers with 405 focal disruptions. Of the 94 cases, 79 (84%) contained only ER-negative cell clusters, nine (9.6%) contained both ER-negative and ER-positive cell clusters, and six (6.4%) contained only ER-positive cell clusters overlying disrupted myoepithelial cell layers. Of the 405 disruptions, 350 (86.4%) were overlain by ER-negative cell clusters and 55 (13.6%) were overlain by ER-positive cell clusters (P < 0.01). Microdissected ER-negative and ER-positive cells within the same duct from all five selected cases displayed a different frequency or pattern of loss of heterozygosity and/or microsatellite instability at 10 of the 15 DNA markers. CONCLUSIONS: Cells overlying focally disrupted myoepithelial layers and their adjacent counterparts within the same duct displayed different immunohistochemical and molecular features. These features potentially represent an early sign of the formation of a biologically more aggressive cell clone and the myoepithelial cell layer breakdown possibly associated with tumor progression or invasion.

Combined myoepithelial carcinoma and myoepithelioma in soft tissue: a case report and review of the literature

AbstractINTRODUCTION: Soft tissue myoepithelial carcinoma and myoepithelioma are rare entities, part of myoepithelial tumors. They were incorporated into the World Health Organization classification of soft tissue tumors in 2002. Here we present an exceptional case of myoepithelial carcinoma and myoepithelioma association. To the best of our knowledge, such an association has never been reported in the literature. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of myoepithelial carcinoma combined with myoepithelioma occurring in the soft tissue of the right forearm of an 84-year-old Arabian man. We describe the clinical, radiological and pathological features dominated by histological polymorphism. We will also describe the proposed histological criteria of malignancy and the major role of immunohistochemistry in positive and differential diagnosis. We finally mention the therapeutic arsenal available. CONCLUSION: Through this work, we report that myoepithelioma of soft tissue can progress to malignant myoepithelioma.

Three Cases of Adenomyoepithelioma: An Unusual Breast Neoplasm

AbstractAdenomyoepithelioma of the breast is an unusual tumor characterized by biphasic proliferation of both epithelial and myoepithelial cells. Although most of these tumors have a benign course, a small number of malignant le­sions have been reported in the literature. Adenomyoepi­thelioma is also characterized by propensity for local re­currence. Therefore, the sufficiency of initial surgery plays very important role in the management of these tumors. Due to the potential to malignant transformation and high risk of local recurrence, totally excision with wide margins should be performed in surgical treatment of these tu­mors. In this paper, three cases of adenomyoepithelioma of the breast with different clinical presentations and ra­diological findings were reported. J Clin Exp Invest 2016; 7 (1): 91-93

A rare case of a recurrent atypical adenomyoepithelial tumor of the breast: Case report

AbstractINTRODUCTION: Adenomyoepithelial tumors of the breast are very rare tumors comprising of - fibroepithelial and myoepithelial components PRESENTATION OF THE CASE: We present the case of a 66 years old lady who presented with a right breast lump 5 cm in size, diagnosed as an atypical adenomyoepithelioma who underwent successful excision and returned two and half years later with a recurrence DISCUSSION: These tumors present a diagnostic dilemma needing histopathology for definitive diagnosis. Recurrence is not uncommon CONCLUSION: Adenomyoepitheliomas demand regular surveillance for early detection of any recurrence.

Clinical dielema-epithelial myoepithelial carcinoma- rare presentation

AbstractTo describe our experience with a case of epithelial myoepithelial carcinoma that was reported as two different entities and thus proved to be a challenging case. : Retrospective review of histo-pathological reports with detailed work up of final findings and treatment. Four year follow up of the patient shows successful treatment with no recurrence. High index of suspicion and detailed histo-pathological evaluation with IHC testing is needed in tumours presenting with mixed cell population.

AbstractBackground: Soft tissue myoepitheliomas are rare and exhibit a wide spectrum of benignity and low-to high-grade malignancy with histopathological heterogeneity, including cell morphology, nuclear atypia, proliferation patterns, and background matrices, often making pathological diagnosis very challenging.Although recent molecular and genetic studies of the genetic abnormalities, particularly unique gene fusions, have determined associations with the clinicopathological features, they have not been sufficiently elucidated. Conclusion:Malignant myoepithelioma diagnosis is very challenging owing to its rarity and clinicopathological diversity.Thus, the possibility of malignant myoepithelioma should always be considered when encountering a soft tissue malignancy that is pathologically questionable, such as the present tumor, which served as a valuable and instructive case.

AbstractBackground: Soft tissue myoepitheliomas are rare and exhibit a wide spectrum of benignity and low-to high-grade malignancy with histopathological heterogeneity, including cell morphology, nuclear atypia, proliferation patterns, and background matrices, often making pathological diagnosis very challenging.Although recent molecular and genetic studies of the genetic abnormalities, particularly unique gene fusions, have determined associations with the clinicopathological features, they have not been sufficiently elucidated. Conclusion:Malignant myoepithelioma diagnosis is very challenging owing to its rarity and clinicopathological diversity.Thus, the possibility of malignant myoepithelioma should always be considered when encountering a soft tissue malignancy that is pathologically questionable, such as the present tumor, which served as a valuable and instructive case.