No abstract

Aims PRRX1–NCOA1‐rearranged fibroblastic tumour is a recently described, rare mesenchymal tumour. Only four cases have been previously reported. The aim of this article is to report six additional cases of this unusual mesenchymal neoplasm, with an emphasis on its differential diagnosis. Methods and results The six cases were from three females and three males (age, 20–49 years; median, 42 years). Three tumours were located on the abdominal wall; two from the shoulder/axillary areas, and one on the lateral hip. All presented as slow‐growing subcutaneous nodules, ranging from 26 to 55 mm (median, 40 mm). The tumours consisted of circumscribed, variably cellular nodules composed of relatively bland plump spindled to epithelioid cells arranged singly, in cords, and occasionally in nests, embedded in hyalinised and collagenous stroma. Small hypocellular myxoid zones with ropey collagen fibres were present, as were irregularly dilated, gaping, crescent‐shaped or staghorn‐like thin‐walled vessels, best appreciated at the periphery. Immunohistochemistry for CD34, S100, MUC4 and STAT6 was consistently negative. RNA‐sequencing revealed PRRX1–NCOA1 fusions in all cases. Of the four cases with limited follow‐up (1.5–4 months), none recurred following local surgical excision. Conclusions The morphological features of PRRX1–NCOA1‐rearranged fibroblastic tumour overlap with those of RB1‐deficient soft‐tissue tumours, solitary fibrous tumour, and low‐grade fibromyxoid sarcoma/sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma. This differential diagnosis can be resolved with a combination of careful morphological study and the application of a panel of immunostains, although molecular genetic study is most definitive. The natural history of PRRX1–NCOA1‐rearranged fibroblastic tumour appears to be quite favourable, although longer‐term study of a larger number of cases is warranted.

Background Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is a rare malignant vascular tumor characterized by WWTR1‐CAMTA1, t (1:3) (p36;q25) translocation in 90% of cases. Without prior EHE history, it can mimic other malignant effusions. Recently, CAMTA1 was published as an excellent immunohistochemical surrogate marker for molecular testing for WWTR1‐CAMTA1 fusion in surgical specimens. Methods A 6‐year retrospective search using our computer system was performed for cases diagnosed as EHE on effusion cytology and surgical specimens. The clinical presentation, cytologic findings and immunohistochemical stain results, including CAMTA1 were reviewed. Results Four pleural and one peritoneal effusions were identified. The median age was 52 years with a female to male ratio of 3:2. Most patients presented with pulmonary symptoms. The cytologic features were non‐specific easily mimicking other malignancies; especially in the absence of known prior malignancy. This was exemplified by one of our cases which was initially misdiagnosed as adenocarcinoma. Intracytoplasmic erythrocytes were present only on the cell blocks but not on cytology. The cytology cell blocks from patients with prior EHE confirmed on surgical biopsies stained positive for vascular markers (CD31, ERG) and CAMTA1. Conclusion The features of EHE in effusion are non‐specific and a diagnostic pitfall in cytology. In the absence of prior EHE diagnosis, inclusion of this entity in the differential diagnoses and application of immunohistochemical stain panels will be prudent in avoiding a misdiagnosis. However, in cases with prior EHE diagnosis, CAMTA1 could serve as diagnostic marker; especially on limited cytology material. Additional studies will be helpful in supporting our results.

No abstract