BACKGROUND: Overlapping histopathologic features of cellular neurothekeoma (CNT) and plexiform fibrohistiocytic tumor (PFHT), when both are predominantly composed of histiocytoid cells, make distinction between these entities challenging. Some have suggested that CNT and PFHT are related entities. No prior study has demonstrated a reliable immunohistochemical panel to differentiate these entities. METHODS: Skin biopsies diagnosed as CNT and PFHT, from 2004 to 2010 were retrieved with accompanying pathology reports. Each case was reviewed by at least 2 dermatopathologists and 2 soft tissue pathologists for confirmation of diagnosis. All cases were then evaluated for immunohistochemical expression of PAX2, NKIC3, CD10, and microphthalmia transcription factor (MiTF). RESULTS: Histopathologically, the histiocytoid areas of each tumor shared similar architecture, demonstrating nests and fascicles of histiocytoid to spindled cells, with some separation of nests by collagen bands. Both CNT and PFHT were uniformly positive for NKIC3 and CD10, and both were frequently PAX2 positive. MiTF was strongly and diffusely positive in CNT and was consistently negative in the PFHT. CONCLUSIONS: CNT and PFHT share many histopathologic features and immunohistochemical staining patterns. Of the stains we evaluated, we found that expression of MiTF may be a reliable marker for distinguishing CNT from histiocytoid-predominant PFHT, especially in instances where only a small part of the tumor is sampled for evaluation.
BACKGROUND: Overlapping histopathologic features of cellular neurothekeoma (CNT) and plexiform fibrohistiocytic tumor (PFHT), when both are predominantly composed of histiocytoid cells, make distinction between these entities challenging. Some have suggested that CNT and PFHT are related entities. No prior study has demonstrated a reliable immunohistochemical panel to differentiate these entities. METHODS: Skin biopsies diagnosed as CNT and PFHT, from 2004 to 2010 were retrieved with accompanying pathology reports. Each case was reviewed by at least 2 dermatopathologists and 2 soft tissue pathologists for confirmation of diagnosis. All cases were then evaluated for immunohistochemical expression of PAX2, NKIC3, CD10, and microphthalmia transcription factor (MiTF). RESULTS: Histopathologically, the histiocytoid areas of each tumor shared similar architecture, demonstrating nests and fascicles of histiocytoid to spindled cells, with some separation of nests by collagen bands. Both CNT and PFHT were uniformly positive for NKIC3 and CD10, and both were frequently PAX2 positive. MiTF was strongly and diffusely positive in CNT and was consistently negative in the PFHT. CONCLUSIONS: CNT and PFHT share many histopathologic features and immunohistochemical staining patterns. Of the stains we evaluated, we found that expression of MiTF may be a reliable marker for distinguishing CNT from histiocytoid-predominant PFHT, especially in instances where only a small part of the tumor is sampled for evaluation.