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: Myoid differentiation in dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans and its fibrosarcomatous variant: clinicopathologic analysis of 5 cases.
    Author: Calonje E, Fletcher CD.
    Journal: J Cutan Pathol; 1996 Feb; 23(1):30-6. PubMed ID: 8720984.
    Abstract:
    We report a series of five cases of dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, four of which were fibrosarcomatous and all of which showed histologic and immunohistochemical evidence of focal myoid/myofibroblastic differentiation (accounting for up to 5% of each tumor). These lesions were identified amongst 208 cases of dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans including 24 examples of the fibrosarcomatous variant. Three of the five patients were male and two were females; all were adults (37-72 years). One case arose on the scalp and two cases each on the abdominal wall and upper trunk. All tumors were less than 5cm in diameter and preoperative duration ranged from 2 months to 10 years. In three cases with follow-up there was no recurrence. Histologically, all tumors were typical fibrosarcomatous or ordinary dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans but for the presence of scattered to confluent nodules and bundles of eosinophilic spindle cells associated with well-defined cytoplasmic margins and vesicular nuclei associated with focal stromal hyalinization. While the typical dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans areas were CD34 positive, the myoid areas were negative for this antibody and positive for smooth muscle actin and pan-muscle actin. All tumors were desmin negative. Recognition of myofibroblastic differentiation in fibrosarcomatous dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is important not only because it gives support to the theory of a fibroblastic/myofibroblastic line of differentiation for this type of tumor, but also because it might be a source of confusion with other myofibroblastic lesions (e.g. myofibromatosis, adult myofibroma), especially when small biopsies are evaluated.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]