Marilena Vered1, Eddie Fridman, William M Carpenter, Amos Buchner. 1. Department of Oral Pathology and Oral Medicine, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. mvered@post.tau.ac.il
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Classic neurothekeoma (nerve sheath myxoma) is regarded as being a true benign cutaneous tumor of nerve sheath origin. Cellular neurothekeoma was separated from the classic type by histogenesis, morphology and immunophenotype. Whether cellular neurothekeoma represents a continuum within the spectrum of classic neurothekeoma or is an independent entity is controversial. Only a small number of classic neurothekeomas of the oral mucosa have been reported and there are even fewer publications on cellular neurothekeoma. We analyzed a series of oral neurothekeomas (classic and cellular) with a panel of neural and other mesenchymal markers to enhance their diagnosis and classification. METHODS: One cellular and three classic neurothekeomas were submitted to a panel of immunohistochemical stains with antibodies against S100, S100A6, NSE, NKI/C3, PGP9.5, α-SMA, HHF-35, CD68 and vimentin. Two cases of neurofibroma (plexiform type), representing a true lesion of neural origin, served as control. RESULTS: The cellular neurothekeoma yielded a positive immunoreaction for S100A6 and NKI/C3 and a negative immunoreaction for S-100. The classic neurothekeomas demonstrated a positive reaction for S-100 and S100A6, but a negative one for NKI/C3. Other markers were non-contributory to distinguishing between these types of lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The small number of reported oral neurothekeomas (classic and cellular) could be due, in part, to the lack of recognition of their particular morphologic and immunohistochemical features. Our results indicate that testing for NKI/C3 immunoreactivity may be of value in distinguishing between cellular and classic neurothekeoma.
BACKGROUND:Classic neurothekeoma (nerve sheath myxoma) is regarded as being a true benign cutaneous tumor of nerve sheath origin. Cellular neurothekeoma was separated from the classic type by histogenesis, morphology and immunophenotype. Whether cellular neurothekeoma represents a continuum within the spectrum of classic neurothekeoma or is an independent entity is controversial. Only a small number of classic neurothekeomas of the oral mucosa have been reported and there are even fewer publications on cellular neurothekeoma. We analyzed a series of oral neurothekeomas (classic and cellular) with a panel of neural and other mesenchymal markers to enhance their diagnosis and classification. METHODS: One cellular and three classic neurothekeomas were submitted to a panel of immunohistochemical stains with antibodies against S100, S100A6, NSE, NKI/C3, PGP9.5, α-SMA, HHF-35, CD68 and vimentin. Two cases of neurofibroma (plexiform type), representing a true lesion of neural origin, served as control. RESULTS: The cellular neurothekeoma yielded a positive immunoreaction for S100A6 and NKI/C3 and a negative immunoreaction for S-100. The classic neurothekeomas demonstrated a positive reaction for S-100 and S100A6, but a negative one for NKI/C3. Other markers were non-contributory to distinguishing between these types of lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The small number of reported oral neurothekeomas (classic and cellular) could be due, in part, to the lack of recognition of their particular morphologic and immunohistochemical features. Our results indicate that testing for NKI/C3 immunoreactivity may be of value in distinguishing between cellular and classic neurothekeoma.