HISTOPATHOLOGIC AND IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL DIAGNOSIS OF BENIGN AND MALIGNANT FIBROUS AND FIBROHISTIOCYTIC TUMORS OF THE SKIN - 08/09/11

Doi : 10.1016/S0733-8635(05)70103-0

Hideko Kamino, MD ^{^{*
Dermatopathology Section, New York University Medical Center, New York, New York}}, Eduardo Salcedo, MD ^{^{*
Dermatopathology Section, New York University Medical Center, New York, New York}}

Résumé

This article reviews criteria for the histopathologic diagnosis of benign and malignant fibrous and fibrohistiocytic proliferations of the skin. These lesions are composed of several of the following elements in variable proportions: fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, histiocytes, dermal dendrocytes, collagen, elastic fibers, and connective tissue mucin.^{5 Barr R.J., Young E.M., King D.F. Non-polarizable collagen in dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans: A useful diagnostic aid J Cutan Pathol 1986 ; 13 : 339-346 [cross-ref]

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références, 9 Cerio R., Spaull J.R., Wilson Jones E. Histiocytoma cutis: A tumor of dermal dendrocytes (dermal dendrocytoma) Br J Dermatol 1989 ; 120 : 197-206

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références, 32 Nakanishi I., Kajikawa K., Okada Y. , et al. Myofibroblasts in fibrous tumors and fibrosis in various organs Acta Pathologica Japanica 1981 ; 31 : 423

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références, 47 Vilanova J.R., Flint A. The morphological variations of fibrous histiocytomas J Cutan Pathol 1974 ; 1 : 155-164 [cross-ref]

Cliquez ici pour aller à la section Références} The benign proliferations are very common tumors, and most of them are easily diagnosed on routine hematoxylin-and-eosin– stained sections. There are variants of these lesions that show cytologic atypia or unusual features that could be mistaken for malignant neoplasms. Histopathologic criteria and immunohistochemical reactions that are helpful in distinguishing among these entities are listed in this article. Immunohistochemistry for vimentin, CD34, muscle-specific actin, factor XIIIa, and histiocytic markers KP-1, HAM 56, and ⍺₁–antichymotrypsin are very helpful in distinguishing among these entities, but there are some pitfalls in their interpretation. This is an expanded update of an article that appeared in Dermatologic Clinics in 1992.