Gabriel M Groisman1, Ion Schafer, Mary Amar, Edmond Sabo. 1. Hillel Yaffe Medical Center, Hadera, HaEmek Medical Center, Afula, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel. groisman@hillel-yaffe.health.gov.il
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The expression of PG-M1, the most specific histiocytic marker, has not yet been studied in granuloma annulare (GA) and other palisaded granulomas of the skin. We evaluated the reactivity of PG-M1 with a series of GA and rheumatoid nodules (RN) to establish the sensitivity and potential usefulness of this marker in the diagnosis and characterization of these entities. METHODS: Histological sections from 30 GA and 15 RN were immunostained with PG-M1. For comparison, additional sections were stained with KP-1 and lysozyme. The stains were recorded as negative, weakly positive (1+) and strongly positive (2+). RESULTS: PG-M1 stained all cases of GA (100%). KP-1 and lysozyme stained 26 (86%) and 18 (60%) GA cases, respectively. PG-M1 exhibited a significantly stronger staining intensity (1.8 +/- 0.07) when compared with KP-1 (1.4 +/- 0.13) (p = 0.018) and with lysozyme (0.9 +/- 0.15) (p < 0.0001). All RN were stained by PG-M1 (100%). KP-1 and lysozyme stained 14 (93%) and six (40%) RN cases, respectively. PG-M1 staining intensity (1.6 +/- 0.13) was slightly higher than that of KP-1 (1.4 +/- 0.18) (p = 0.27) and significantly higher than that of lysozyme (0.4 +/- 0.13) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PG-M1 is consistently and strongly expressed by the histiocytic population of GA and RN, being more sensitive and reliable than other histiocytic markers. We recommend its use in difficult cases in which the histiocytic nature of the lesion needs to be confirmed.
BACKGROUND: The expression of PG-M1, the most specific histiocytic marker, has not yet been studied in granuloma annulare (GA) and other palisaded granulomas of the skin. We evaluated the reactivity of PG-M1 with a series of GA and rheumatoid nodules (RN) to establish the sensitivity and potential usefulness of this marker in the diagnosis and characterization of these entities. METHODS: Histological sections from 30 GA and 15 RN were immunostained with PG-M1. For comparison, additional sections were stained with KP-1 and lysozyme. The stains were recorded as negative, weakly positive (1+) and strongly positive (2+). RESULTS:PG-M1 stained all cases of GA (100%). KP-1 and lysozyme stained 26 (86%) and 18 (60%) GA cases, respectively. PG-M1 exhibited a significantly stronger staining intensity (1.8 +/- 0.07) when compared with KP-1 (1.4 +/- 0.13) (p = 0.018) and with lysozyme (0.9 +/- 0.15) (p < 0.0001). All RN were stained by PG-M1 (100%). KP-1 and lysozyme stained 14 (93%) and six (40%) RN cases, respectively. PG-M1 staining intensity (1.6 +/- 0.13) was slightly higher than that of KP-1 (1.4 +/- 0.18) (p = 0.27) and significantly higher than that of lysozyme (0.4 +/- 0.13) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:PG-M1 is consistently and strongly expressed by the histiocytic population of GA and RN, being more sensitive and reliable than other histiocytic markers. We recommend its use in difficult cases in which the histiocytic nature of the lesion needs to be confirmed.