This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:—
In their paper on "Dermatofibroma" (Arch. Dermat. & Syph.43:498 [March] 1941), Stecker and Robinson take exception to our use of the term "histiocytoma cutis" to designate cutaneous tumors of the type they describe. It is their opinion "that these histiocytes are secondary members of the group, that they have wandered into the tumor to pick up the lipoids from the degenerated cells or iron-containing pigment from small hemorrhages into the tumor itself and that the tumor is not a histiocytoma."A careful reading of our paper (Senear, F. E., and Caro, M. R.: Histiocytoma Cutis, Arch. Dermat. & Syph.33:209 [Feb.] 1936) would have shown that priority for the belief in the histiocytic origin of these tumors belongs to Woringer (Woringer, F.: Histiocytoma of the Leg, Bull. Soc. franç. de dermat. et syph.38:1401, 1931) and to other members of the Strasbourg group
Senear FE, Caro MR. "HISTIOCYTOMA CUTIS" VERSUS "DERMATOFIBROMA". Arch Derm Syphilol. 1941;43(6):1011. doi:10.1001/archderm.1941.01490240091016
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: