This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (49)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

An Immunohistochemical Comparison With Other Cutaneous Appendage Tumors

Mark R. Wick, MD; Philip H. Cooper, MD; Paul E. Swanson, MD; Valda N. Kaye, MD; Tung-Tien Sun, PhD

Arch Dermatol. 1990;126(2):189-194.

Abstract
Since its initial description, microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC) of the skin has been controversial. In particular, it features keratin production of the type seen in some pilar neoplasms, and has been thought to pursue partial follicular differentiation. Diagnostically, MAC may be difficult to separate from desmoplastic trichoepithelioma (DTE) in superficial biopsy specimens. We studied 12 MACs, 22 malignant eccrine acrospiromas, 7 sudoriferous syringometaplasias, 6 syringomas, 5 DTEs, and 40 other benign pilar neoplasms immuno-histochemically. Paraffin sections and antibodies to "hard" (pilar) keratins, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), Leu-M1, and S 100 protein were employed. The MACs exhibited reactivity for hard keratin subclasses AE13 and AE14, EMA, CEA, and Leu-M1. Desmoplastic trichoepitheliomas expressed positivity for AE14, EMA, and Leu-M1 focally, but lacked the other specified markers. Syringomas and malignant acrospiromas displayed EMA, CEA, and AE14 reactivity, and 5 syringometaplastic lesions were AE14-reactive. Benign pilar tumors aside from DTEs were reactive only for AE13, AE14, or both. These data indicate that MAC exhibits an immunophenotype that is a "hybrid" of those seen in pure sweat glandular and follicular neoplasms, and suggest that it may indeed show combined pilar and sudoriferous differentiation. Based on these results, it also appears that immunohistochemical analysis may be useful in the diagnostic separation of MAC and DTE.

(Arch Dermatol. 1990; 126:189-194)

Author Affiliations
From the Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology (Drs Wick, Swanson, and Kaye) and Dermatology (Dr Kaye), University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis; the Departments of Pathology and Dermatology, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, Charlottesville (Dr Cooper); and the Department of Dermatology, New York (NY) University School of Medicine (Dr Sun). Dr Wick is currently with the Department of Pathology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mo.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication August 2, 1989.

Presented at the 77th annual meeting of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Washington, DC, March 2,1988.

Reprints not available.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Asymptomatic Cutaneous Lip Plaque--Diagnosis
Arch Dermatol 2007;143:791-796.
FULL TEXT  

Microcystic Adnexal Carcinoma: Case Report and Review of the Literature
Billingsley et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;122:179-182.
ABSTRACT  

RESIDENT'S PAGE: PATHOLOGY
ASKIN and WESTRA
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;121:1430-1433.
ABSTRACT  

Eyelid Microcystic Adnexal Carcinoma
Hesse et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:494-496.
ABSTRACT