Fernandez-Flores A
Servicio de Anatomía Patologica, Hospital El Bierzo, Fuentesnuevas, Leon, Spain.
Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2012;53(4):879-92.
The differential diagnosis between a primary cutaneous apocrine carcinoma (CAC) and a cutaneous metastasis from a breast carcinoma can be a very difficult task if it is only made on morphologic bases. Concerning adnexal tumors (in general), there have been many attempts to define an immunohistochemical panel, and while a definition is useful in certain respects, the series presented often times does not include examples of CAC. Other times, CAC seems to behave in an odd way in an immunohistochemical context; they behave differently than other adnexal tumors, and this in turn adds a grade of confusion to the differential diagnosis of a cutaneous metastasis. In the current study, we include seven cases of primary cutaneous apocrine tumors, including one carcinoma in situ, five infiltrating carcinomas, and one adenoma. Additionally, we examine the expression of estrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors (PR), and c-erbB-2. We also study myoepithelial markers, such as p63, D2-40, and SMA in them, as well as the pattern of expression of the following cytokeratins: CK7, CK8, CK18, CK19, CK5/6 and 34betaE12. On the other hand, we examine the expression of six immunohistochemical markers (ER, PR, p63, mammaglobin, CK5÷6 and D2-40) in 30 cases of cutaneous metastases from breast carcinoma, ductal type. None of our infiltrating primary CAC expressed ER or PR, while the cutaneous metastasis expressed the markers in 90% of the cases. D2-40 was expressed in 60% of the infiltrating CACs, while the metastases were either negative (93.33% of the cases) or positive with luminal reinforcement. Mammaglobin was a very useful marker, expressed by 66.66% of the metastases, and by only one CAC (and in less than 10% of the cells). None of the metastases were positive for p63, while 60% of the CAC expressed the marker. CK 5/6 was also expressed by a high percentage of our CACs (80%), while it was seen in only 6.66% of the metastases. We found SMA as a very useful tool in diagnosing an invasion in CAC. Regarding the expression of c-erbB-2, all of our cases had a value of either 0 or 1.
如果仅基于形态学依据,原发性皮肤大汗腺癌(CAC)与乳腺癌皮肤转移灶之间的鉴别诊断可能是一项非常困难的任务。关于附属器肿瘤(总体而言),已经有许多尝试来定义一个免疫组织化学检测组合,虽然在某些方面这个定义是有用的,但所呈现的系列病例往往不包括CAC的例子。其他时候,CAC在免疫组织化学背景下似乎表现异常;它们的行为与其他附属器肿瘤不同,这反过来又给皮肤转移灶的鉴别诊断增加了一定程度的困惑。在本研究中,我们纳入了7例原发性皮肤大汗腺肿瘤,包括1例原位癌、5例浸润性癌和1例腺瘤。此外,我们检测了雌激素受体(ER)、孕激素受体(PR)和c-erbB-2的表达。我们还研究了肌上皮标志物,如p63、D2-40和SMA在这些肿瘤中的表达,以及以下细胞角蛋白的表达模式:CK7、CK8、CK18、CK19、CK5/6和34βE12。另一方面,我们检测了30例导管型乳腺癌皮肤转移灶中6种免疫组织化学标志物(ER、PR、p63、乳珠蛋白、CK5÷6和D2-40)的表达。我们所有的浸润性原发性CAC均未表达ER或PR,而皮肤转移灶在90%的病例中表达这些标志物。D2-40在60%的浸润性CAC中表达,而转移灶要么为阴性(93.33%的病例),要么为阳性且管腔强化。乳珠蛋白是一个非常有用的标志物,66.66%的转移灶表达该标志物,而只有1例CAC表达(且表达细胞少于10%)。所有转移灶p63均为阴性,而60%的CAC表达该标志物。CK 5/6在我们的CAC中也有很高比例表达(80%),而在转移灶中仅6.66%可见。我们发现SMA是诊断CAC浸润的一个非常有用的工具。关于c-erbB-2的表达,我们所有病例的评分为0或1。