These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Trichoepithelioma: a 19-year clinicopathologic re-evaluation.
    Author: Bettencourt MS, Prieto VG, Shea CR.
    Journal: J Cutan Pathol; 1999 Sep; 26(8):398-404. PubMed ID: 10551412.
    Abstract:
    Accurate histopathologic distinction between trichoepithelioma (TE) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) may be challenging. From 97 cases diagnosed as TE during the period 1979-1997, 73 available cases were studied with regard to: 1) stroma; 2) retraction effect; 3) papillary-mesenchymal bodies (PMB); 4) amyloid; 5) mitotic figures; 6) apoptotic cells; 7) inflammation; 8) granuloma; and 9) calcification. A judgment was made regarding diagnosis. The patients' medical records were subsequently reviewed for clinical features and possible recurrence. The diagnosis of TE was confirmed histologically in 48 (65%) of 73 cases. Fifteen cases (21%) were reclassified as BCC (RC-BCC), eight other cases (11%) were reclassified as other lesions, and two additional cases (3%) could not be confidently classified as either TE or BCC. The most helpful differentiating features were the presence of retraction effect (in 100% of RC-BCC vs. 37% of TE), myxoid stroma (in 80% of RC-BCC vs. 12% of TE) and PMB (in 20% of RC-BCC vs. 81% of TE). Unexpected findings in TE were detection of amyloid in 33%, apoptotic cells in 100%, and mitotic figures in 46%. Five of the 15 RC-BCC have recurred (33%), whereas there have been no recurrences in the confirmed TE group. A constellation of histopathologic criteria may help to discriminate problematic examples of trichoepithelioma from basal cell carcinoma.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]