Search

This tutorial focuses on myoepithelial tumors of salivary glands, an entity with heterogeneous cytomorphology and inconsistent immunophenotype. Moreover, the clinical course cannot be predicted reliably from cytomorphological and immunophenotypic analysis. This heterogeneity causes problems in routine diagnostic, so that diagnosis ultimately rests on conventional histology. In a representative series of myoepitheliomas and malignant myoepitheliomas, antibodies against cytokeratins 5/6, S 100 protein and vimentin produced the most consistent reactivity profile. Staining for cytokeratins 5/6 is a useful addition to the established immunohistologic marker panel in the work-up of myoepitheliomas, because of its reliable expression in most cases and because it may underline the epithelial nature of the lesion. Comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) profiles of myoepitheliomas and myoepithelial carcinomas showed no chromosomal aberration in less than 50% of myoepithelial carcinomas, so that CGH is of limited help in a given case. In a case that was represented in three separately localized manifestations of the disease that differed in their CGH profiles, gross genetic aberrations suggest to be acquired during tumor progression and should raise the suspicion of malignancy. Thus, diagnosis of myoepithelial tumors of salivary glands has to rest on morphological grounds with support of a restricted panel of immunohistologic markers.

Background: Adenomyoepithelial tumours and myoepithelial carcinomas of the breast are primarily defined by the presence of neoplastic cells with a myoepithelial immunophenotype. Current classification schemes are based on purely descriptive features and an assessment of individual prognosis is still problematic., Methods: A series of 27 adenomyoepithelial tumours of the breast was analysed immunohistochemically with antibodies directed against various cytokeratins, p63, smooth muscle alpha-actin (SMA) and vimentin. Additionally, double immunofluorescence and comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) was performed., Results: Immunohistochemically, all the tumours showed a constant expression of high molecular weight cytokeratins (Ck) Ck5 and Ck14, p63, SMA and vimentin. With exception of one case diagnosed as myoepithelial carcinoma, all tested tumours expressed low molecular weight cytokeratin Ck18 in variable proportions of cells. Even in monophasic tumours lacking obvious glandular differentiation in conventional staining, a number of neoplastic cells still expressed those cytokeratins. Double immunofluorescence revealed tumour cells exclusively staining for Ck5/Ck14 in the presence of other cell populations that co-expressed high molecular weight Ck5/Ck14 as well as either low molecular weight Ck8/18 or SMA. Based on morphology, we assigned the series to three categories, benign, borderline and malignant. This classification was supported by a stepwise increase in cytogenetic alterations on CGH., Conclusion: Adenomyoepithelial tumours comprise a spectrum of neoplasms consisting of an admixture of glandular and myoepithelial differentiation patterns. As a key component SMA-positive cells co-expressing cytokeratins could be identified. Although categorisation of adenomyoepithelial tumours in benign, borderline and malignant was supported by results of CGH, any assessment of prognosis requires to be firmly based on morphological grounds. At present it is not yet clear, if and to what extent proposed Ck5-positive progenitor cells contribute to the immunohistochemical and morphological heterogeneity of these neoplasms of the breast.

The diagnosis of salivary gland myoepithelioma, an entity with heterogeneous cytomorphology and inconsistent immunophenotype, rests on conventional histology. However, the clinical course cannot be predicted reliably from cytomorphological and immunophenotypic analysis. The present study determined the immunophenotype of a representative series of 12 myoepitheliomas and 21 malignant myoepitheliomas. Among the seven markers tested, antibodies against cytokeratins 5/6, S-100 protein, and vimentin produced the most consistent reactivity profile. Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) profiles of 12 myoepitheliomas showed chromosomal losses in three of 12 cases. In myoepithelial carcinomas, however, ten of 19 tissues investigated by CGH lacked detectable cytogenetic aberrations. In five cases, aberrations involved chromosome 8, in line with observations in salivary gland carcinomas of other differentiation. One case that was represented in three separately localized manifestations of the disease proved informative as to the relevance of gross aberration for tumour development, as these tumours differed in their CGH profiles. Staining for cytokeratins 5/6 is a useful addition to the established immunohistological marker panel in the work-up of myoepitheliomas, because of its reliable expression in most cases and because it may underline the epithelial nature of the lesion. CGH proved to be of limited value as a diagnostic adjunct; the presence of numerous gross cytogenetic aberrations should raise the suspicion of malignancy. The low frequency of aberrations detectable by CGH in overtly malignant myoepithelial neoplasms suggests that gross cytogenetic alterations were acquired in the course of tumour progression and points to the relevance of genetic changes not resolved by CGH., (Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)