BACKGROUND: We have encountered cases of post-radiation angiosarcoma (PRAS) histologically mimicking radiation dermatitis. METHODS: Cases of PRAS from institutional/consultation archives from 2006 to 2016 were reviewed. For inclusion, tumors had to have inapparent/subtle tumor at low magnification and scattered individual tumor cells resembling radiation fibroblasts. Prior ancillary studies were reviewed, with additional immunostains performed as needed. RESULTS: 10 cases met criteria. All occurred in women treated for breast cancer (mean age 71 years). All had similar findings: in particular, scattered single atypical cells with pleomorphic nuclei associated with microscopic hemorrhage. They also had narrow, slightly wavy "worm-like" vascular channels lined by atypical endothelial cells that lacked architectural complexity. Four cases showed focal areas of more conventional angiosarcoma. One case was an excision of a large mass that showed the "radiation dermatitis-like" pattern radiating out from the central mass. All were positive for vascular markers (CD31, CD34, and/or ERG) and MYC. MYC amplification was demonstrated by FISH in both cases tested. In 3 of 3 cases with available re-excision specimens, more obvious angiosarcoma was seen. CONCLUSIONS: PRAS can be very subtle and histologically mimic radiation dermatitis. Careful attention to histologic features and ancillary tests allow accurate diagnosis in subtle PRAS.
BACKGROUND: We have encountered cases of post-radiation angiosarcoma (PRAS) histologically mimicking radiation dermatitis. METHODS: Cases of PRAS from institutional/consultation archives from 2006 to 2016 were reviewed. For inclusion, tumors had to have inapparent/subtle tumor at low magnification and scattered individual tumor cells resembling radiation fibroblasts. Prior ancillary studies were reviewed, with additional immunostains performed as needed. RESULTS: 10 cases met criteria. All occurred in women treated for breast cancer (mean age 71 years). All had similar findings: in particular, scattered single atypical cells with pleomorphic nuclei associated with microscopic hemorrhage. They also had narrow, slightly wavy "worm-like" vascular channels lined by atypical endothelial cells that lacked architectural complexity. Four cases showed focal areas of more conventional angiosarcoma. One case was an excision of a large mass that showed the "radiation dermatitis-like" pattern radiating out from the central mass. All were positive for vascular markers (CD31, CD34, and/or ERG) and MYC. MYC amplification was demonstrated by FISH in both cases tested. In 3 of 3 cases with available re-excision specimens, more obvious angiosarcoma was seen. CONCLUSIONS: PRAS can be very subtle and histologically mimic radiation dermatitis. Careful attention to histologic features and ancillary tests allow accurate diagnosis in subtle PRAS.
Authors: Bryan J Thibodeau; Vincent Lavergne; Nayana Dekhne; Pamela Benitez; Mitual Amin; Samreen Ahmed; Jean L Nakamura; Philip R Davidson; Alice O Nakamura; Inga S Grills; Peter Y Chen; Jessica Wobb; George D Wilson Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-01-19