Search

Introduction: Considering the increasing number of conservative surgeries (quadrantectomies) for primary breast carcinoma, especially in the early stages, often followed by adjuvant radiotherapy, the incidence of radiation-associated angiosarcoma (RAS) is expected to rise in the coming decades, and it will represent a clinical and therapeutic challenge, as limited data are available due to the rarity and heterogeneity of the disease. Though the prognosis of these patients is poor, a number of clinical and pathological factors can be evaluated to better understand the course of RAS. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the available clinical-pathological, therapeutic, and prognostic data regarding RAS to evaluate its occurrence, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Method: RAS clinical data were identified by a systematic review conducted in five different databases (Medline, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane). Only RAS works published in English, with access to the full manuscript text, and with clear results, were considered as eligible. Results: We considered 52 papers comprising 319 RAS cases. The patient age at diagnosis ranged from 37 to 93 years, with most cases occurring from 5 to 10 years after breast irradiation. The most common clinical presentation was an aggressive development of macules, papules, or erythematous-violaceous skin discoloration at the site of previous radiation treatment for primary breast carcinoma. Complete surgical excision appeared to be the first-line treatment of the disease, in some cases followed by adjuvant local and/or systemic therapies. Despite different treatments, local recurrence rates ranged from 40% to 90%, leading to negative outcomes and poor prognosis for patients. Conclusion: Although the literature is limited and the data are heterogeneous and contentious, our review aims to highlight the importance of early diagnosis, multimodal treatment, and long-term follow-up of RAS in order to limit and prevent the aggressiveness of this neoplasm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Papillary neoplasms of the middle and inner ear are rare and poorly characterised. The current World Health Organization classification divides them into two major subtypes: aggressive papillary tumours (APTs) and endolymphatic sac tumours (ELSTs). The aim of this article is to present two papillary neoplasms of the middle ear that do not fit into either the classic APT category or the classic ELST category, and compare them with three ELSTs. Methods and results: The patients were a 48‐year‐old female and a 59‐year‐old male without a history of other neoplasms. Histology showed papillary‐cystic growth of predominantly oncocytic (Case 1) or mucinous (Case 2) cells surrounded by a p63‐positive basal layer. The overall histology was reminiscent of oncocytic sinonasal papilloma (Case 1) and pancreatobiliary or salivary intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (Case 2). Ovarian‐type stroma, invasion and malignant features were absent. Immunohistochemistry revealed expression of cytokeratin (CK) 7, but not carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX) or paired box gene 8 (PAX8) (except for very focal PAX8 expression in Case 1). The TST15 gene panel and HRAS sequencing revealed no pathogenic mutations in BRAF, KRAS, EGFR, AKT1, or HRAS. The TruSight RNA fusion panel revealed an MKRN1–BRAF fusion in Case 1. No fusion was detected in Case 2. The three ELSTs showed classic features of the entity, expressed CK7, epithelial membrane antigen, PAX8, and CAIX, and lacked a basal cell layer. Conclusion: These novel cases suggest that papillary tumours of the ear represent a heterogeneous spectrum of distinct neoplasms unified by a prominent papillary‐cystic pattern rather than a single entity. Future studies should clarify whether the MKRN1–BRAF fusion is a defining recurrent driver event, especially in those cases reported as sinonasal‐type middle ear papillomas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Secretory carcinoma (SC) (synonym: mammary analogue secretory carcinoma) is a low‐grade salivary gland tumour that occurs in both major and minor salivary glands. SC is known for its wide morphological, architectural and immunohistochemical spectrum, which overlaps with those of several salivary gland neoplasms, including acinic cell carcinoma (AciCC) and intercalated duct‐type intraductal carcinoma (IDC) in major salivary glands, and polymorphous adenocarcinoma (PAC) in minor salivary glands. These tumours share with SC some morphological features and SOX10 immunoreactivity; also, with the exception of AciCC, they all coexpress S100 and mammaglobin. Methods and results: We compared MUC4 and mammaglobin expression in 125 salivary gland carcinomas (54 genetically confirmed SCs, 20 AciCCs, 21 PACs, and 30 IDCs) to evaluate the potential of these two markers to differentiate these entities. Moderate to strong diffuse MUC4 positivity was detected in 49 SCs (90.7%), as compared with none of the IDCs and PACs. In contrast, mammaglobin was frequently expressed in SCs (30 of 36 cases; 83.3%), IDCs (24/28; 85.7%), and PACs (7/19; 36.8%). Two of three high‐grade SCs lost MUC4 expression in the high‐grade tumour component. No significant correlation was found between MUC4 expression and the fusion variant in SC (ETV6–NTRK versus non‐ETV6–NTRK). Conclusion: The results of our study identify MUC4 as a sensitive (90.7%) and specific (100%) marker for SC, with high positive (100%) and negative (93.4%) predictive values. Thus, MUC4 may be used as a surrogate for SC in limited biopsy material and in cases with equivocal morphology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]