[Skip to Navigation]
February 1990

Microcystic Adnexal Carcinoma: An Immunohistochemical Comparison With Other Cutaneous Appendage Tumors

Author Affiliations

From the Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology (Drs Wick, Swanson, and Kaye) and Dermatology (Dr Kaye), University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis; the Departments of Pathology and Dermatology, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, Charlottesville (Dr Cooper); and the Department of Dermatology, New York (NY) University School of Medicine (Dr Sun). Dr Wick is currently with the Department of Pathology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mo.

Arch Dermatol. 1990;126(2):189-194. doi:10.1001/archderm.1990.01670260059011

† Since its initial description, microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC) of the skin has been controversial. In particular, it features keratin production of the type seen in some pilar neoplasms, and has been thought to pursue partial follicular differentiation. Diagnostically, MAC may be difficult to separate from desmoplastic trichoepithelioma (DTE) in superficial biopsy specimens. We studied 12 MACs, 22 malignant eccrine acrospiromas, 7 sudoriferous syringometaplasias, 6 syringomas, 5 DTEs, and 40 other benign pilar neoplasms immuno-histochemically. Paraffin sections and antibodies to "hard" (pilar) keratins, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), Leu-M1, and S 100 protein were employed. The MACs exhibited reactivity for hard keratin subclasses AE13 and AE14, EMA, CEA, and Leu-M1. Desmoplastic trichoepitheliomas expressed positivity for AE14, EMA, and Leu-M1 focally, but lacked the other specified markers. Syringomas and malignant acrospiromas displayed EMA, CEA, and AE14 reactivity, and 5 syringometaplastic lesions were AE14-reactive. Benign pilar tumors aside from DTEs were reactive only for AE13, AE14, or both. These data indicate that MAC exhibits an immunophenotype that is a "hybrid" of those seen in pure sweat glandular and follicular neoplasms, and suggest that it may indeed show combined pilar and sudoriferous differentiation. Based on these results, it also appears that immunohistochemical analysis may be useful in the diagnostic separation of MAC and DTE.

(Arch Dermatol. 1990; 126:189-194)

Add or change institution