Cutaneous syncytial myoepithelioma: clinicopathologic characterization in a series of 38 cases
Vickie Y Jo,Cristina R Antonescu,Lei Zhang,Paola Dal Cin,Jason L Hornick,Christopher D M Fletcher
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182772bba
Abstract:Cutaneous myoepithelial tumors demonstrate heterogenous morphologic and immunophenotypic features. We previously described, in brief, 7 cases of cutaneous myoepithelioma showing solid syncytial growth of ovoid, spindled, or histiocytoid cells. We now present the clinicopathologic features in a series of 38 cases of this distinctive syncytial variant, which were diagnosed between 1997 and 2012 (mostly seen in consultation). There were 27 men and 11 women, with a median age of 39 years (range, 2 mo to 74 y). Primary anatomic sites were the upper extremity (11, including 2 on the hand), upper limb girdle (3), lower extremity (14; 3 on the foot), back (6), face (2), chest (1), and buttock (1); the typical presentation was as either a polypoid or papular lesion. Tumors were well circumscribed and centered in the dermis and ranged in size from 0.3 to 2.7 cm (median 0.8 cm). Microscopically all tumors showed a solid sheet-like growth of uniformly sized ovoid to spindled or histiocytoid cells with palely eosinophilic syncytial cytoplasm. Nuclei were vesicular with fine chromatin and small or inconspicuous nucleoli and exhibited minimal to no atypia. Mitoses ranged from 0 to 4 per 10 HPF; 28 tumors showed no mitoses. Necrosis and lymphovascular invasion were consistently absent. Adipocytic metaplasia, appearing as superficial fat entrapped within the tumor, was seen in 12 cases. Chondro-osseous differentiation was seen in 1 tumor. All tumors examined were diffusely positive for EMA, and the majority showed diffuse staining for S-100 protein (5 showing focal staining). Keratin staining was focal in 1 of 33 tumors and seen in rare cells in 3 other cases. There was also positivity for GFAP (14/33), SMA (9/13), and p63 (6/11). Most lesions were treated by local excision. The majority of tumors tested (14/17; 82%) were positive by fluorescence in situ hybridization for EWSR1 gene rearrangement; testing for potential fusion partners (PBX1, ZNF444, POU5F1, DUX4, ATF1, CREB1, NR4A3, DDIT3, and NFATc2) was negative in all EWSR1-rearranged tumors. No FUS gene rearrangement was detected in 2 tumors lacking EWSR1 rearrangement. Follow-up information is available for 21 patients (mean follow-up 15 mo). One patient with a positive deep margin developed a local recurrence 51 months after initial biopsy. All other patients with available follow-up information, including 11 who had positive deep margins, are alive with no evidence of disease and no reported metastases. In summary, cutaneous syncytial myoepithelioma is a morphologically distinct variant that more frequently affects men, occurs over a wide age range, and usually presents on the extremities. Tumors are positive for S-100 protein and EMA, and, unlike most myoepithelial neoplasms, keratin staining is infrequent. EWSR1 gene rearrangement is present in nearly all tumors tested and likely involves a novel fusion partner. Prior reports describe some risk of recurrence and metastasis for cutaneous myoepithelial tumors; however, the syncytial variant appears to behave in a benign manner and only rarely recurs locally.