Jump to content

Building Blocks of Dermatopathology

BAD DermpathPRO Learning Hub: Diagnostic Clues

Diagnostic Challenge
Interesting Case
Pitfalls

Case Number : CT0098 Adam_Bates

Please read the clinical history and view the images by clicking on them before you proffer your diagnosis.
Submitted Date :
   (0 reviews)

1 year, dark lump, upper thigh. h/o penile carcinoma and lymph node dissection (Case c/o Dr Kathleen Romain).


  Report Record

User Feedback


Adam_Bates

Posted

Aneurysmal fibrous histiocytoma with monster cells.
 

Share this comment


Link to comment
share_externally

Adam_Bates

Posted

Atypical and aneurysmal fibrous histiocytoma. Complete excision is recommended.
 

Share this comment


Link to comment
share_externally

Adam_Bates

Posted

Atypical aneurysmal fibrous histiocytoma
 

Share this comment


Link to comment
share_externally

Adam_Bates

Posted

Agree. The monster cells are truly monstrous in this case!!
Not sure about the atypical mitoses in the last image though...should that be concerning?

Share this comment


Link to comment
share_externally

Adam_Bates

Posted

I agree with atypical aneurysmal fibrous histiocytoma. If there is history of irradiation in that anatomical region, angiosarc has to be r/o.
 

Share this comment


Link to comment
share_externally

Adam_Bates

Posted

"Symplastic" AFH
 

Share this comment


Link to comment
share_externally

Adam_Bates

Posted

I called it atypical fibrous histiocytoma and cited the reference below. It is certainly scary but I think atypical mitotic figures are to be expected in tumours with monster cells (e.g. trichoepithelioma, Spitz naevus) and do not necessarily predict a malignant outcome.
 

Share this comment


Link to comment
share_externally

Adam_Bates

Posted

I don't think I can refute the argument based on our current knowledge. Cases such as this challenge our concepts tremendously and I certainly don't feel at peace at all but I have to sleep at night so must be pragmatic and explain that the diagnostic label is one thing, predicting the potential behaviour is another thing altogether. In this case the group label suggests a low risk for metastasis. Whether there are individual tumour or host factors that affected the behaviour in the lesions that did and did not metastasise remains to be determined. Perhaps some are essentially benign and do not have any inate capacity (at the time of removal) to metastasise and kill and some are malignant and do have that capacity. I don't think anyone can currently answer these questions.
 

Share this comment


Link to comment
share_externally


×
×
  • Create New...