Prospective study of skin adnexal tumours for a period of two years in a tertiary care hospital

Abstract

Background: Skin adnexal tumours are rare tumours with complex histological patterns and variations and difficult to diagnose by histopathology only, so clinical history and presentation is necessary. The objective of the study was to correlate with age, sex, location, type of differentiation of adnexal tumours in our pathology department.Methods: The present study was a prospective study done in the department of pathology in Andhra medical college, King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. A total of 51 cases were included in this study from January 2015 to December 2016. Specimens were formalin fixed and after adequately processing the sections were stained routinely with hematoxylin and eosin stain and properly evaluated for histopathological examination.Results: Out of these 51 cases, 88.24% (45 cases) were benign, and 11.76% (6 cases) were malignant tumours. Hair follicle differentiation were most common (35.3%) followed by sebaceous gland differentiation (31.37%) and sweat gland differentiation (29.41%).Conclusions: Benign adnexal tumours were most common than malignant tumours. Skin adnexal tumours are clinically often misdiagnosed, so histopathological examination remains gold standard for their correct diagnosis.

A 5-year retrospective review of skin adnexal tumours received at a tertiary dermatopathology service: implications for linked genetic diagnoses

“…These variations may be explained by methodological, clinical practice and population‐specific differences. The literature is summarized in Table S4 (see Supporting Information) 3,9,12–33 . Our population had a significantly higher female representation (male to female ratio of 0·77 : 1) than that found in the reported literature (male to female ratio of 0·98 : 1) and had a proportionally low number of malignant cases (2·8%; 45 of 1615) compared with the literature (9·4%; 204 of 2167).…”

“…A further factor contributing to the differences in our data is likely to be our exclusion of sebaceous naevi, which are now recognized to be a birthmark arising as a result of genetic postzygotic mosaicism in HRAS and KRAS , 34 and sebaceous hyperplasia; both case types are no longer included in the 2018 WHO classification of skin tumours 1,5,10 . In contrast, the prior literature (Table S4) typically included these cases in their analyses, which contributed to 4–47·9% of their cases 3,9,12,13,16–20,22,23,25–29,33 . The largest of these studies had a cohort of 1014 patients, and a significant proportion of these patients had cases that were of sebaceous differentiation (53%, 536 of 1014), the majority of which were sebaceous naevi and sebaceous hyperplasia (413 and 73, respectively) 9 .…”

“…1,5,10 In contrast, the prior literature (Table S4) typically included these cases in their analyses, which contributed to 4-47Á9% of their cases. 3,9,12,13,[16][17][18][19][20]22,23,[25][26][27][28][29]33 The largest of these studies had a cohort of 1014 patients, and a significant proportion of these patients had cases that were of sebaceous differentiation (53%, 536 of 1014), the majority of which were sebaceous naevi and sebaceous hyperplasia (413 and 73, respectively). 9 This exclusion is likely to influence the age of presentation, as sebaceous naevi are common and tend to be excised at a younger age.…”