Premium
Cutaneous ciliated cyst on the cheek in a male
Author(s) -
Ohba Norihiro,
Tsuruta Daisuke,
Muraoka Michinari,
Haba Tomoko,
Ishii Masamitsu
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
international journal of dermatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.677
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1365-4632
pISSN - 0011-9059
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-4362.2002.1326_3.x
Subject(s) - pathology , periodic acid–schiff stain , cyst , myoepithelial cell , staining , cuboidal cell , anatomy , cytokeratin , apocrine , epithelium , h&e stain , medicine , columnar cell , immunohistochemistry , biology
A 53‐year‐old man presented with a 2‐year history of a painless mass on the right cheek. On physical examination, the lump was a solitary, well‐demarcated, mobile lesion. There was no abnormality in the surrounding skin. Ultrasonography demonstrated a single, cystic, well‐defined, subcutaneous cyst, measuring 20 mm in diameter. Laboratory tests, including sex hormones, were within the normal range. The tumor was resected surgically under local anesthesia. The cyst had a slightly yellow wall and contained clear, watery fluid. The patient had no other medical problems and no history of other skin disease. Histopathologically, the unilocular cyst was lined with two layers of epithelium and was devoid of papillary infolding. The inner layer of the cyst was composed of cuboidal to columnar epithelial cells, most of which demonstrated prominent cilia. The outer layer consisted of polygonal cells that contained clear cytoplasm ( Fig. 1). No foci of squamous metaplasia were present and the cyst wall did not contain adnexal structures. The inner layer of the epithelium was positive for periodic acid–Schiff (PAS) stain, but contained no diastase‐resistant granules. Figure 1 Hematoxylin and eosin staining. A unilocular cyst lined with two layers of epithelium (original magnification, × 200) Immunohistochemical staining revealed strong staining in the membrane for epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) and diffuse cytoplasmic reaction to cytokeratin in the epithelial component, but carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) staining was negative. Staining for α‐smooth muscle actin (αSMA) and S‐100 protein was positive in the outer layer ( Fig. 2), suggesting myoepithelial cells. There were no desmin, vimentin, amylase or estrogen receptor‐positive cells in the epithelium. 2α‐Smooth muscle actin (αSMA) staining was positive in the outer layer (original magnification, × 100)