ABSTRACT Pseudocarcinomatous hyperplasia is not fundamentally a hyperplasia of epidermal epithelium, but rather a hyperplasia of adnexal epithelia, namely, of follicular infundibula and eccrine ducts. All examples of pseudocarcinomatous hyperplasia are responses to an underlying inflammatory or neoplastic process. That process can usually be discerned beneath the pseudocarcinomatous hyperplasia in the biopsy specimen. Application of criteria that pertain mostly to architectural pattern (silhouette) enables pseudocarcinomatous hyperplasia to be differentiated histopathologically from squamous cell carcinoma.
Dermatologic Surgery 01/2014; DOI:10.1111/dsu.12429 · 1.56 Impact Factor
Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery 10/2014; 7(4):232. DOI:10.4103/0974-2077.150787
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The clinical and pathological findings in 10 cases of vulvar granular cell tumor are reviewed. Nine patients presented with solitary, grossly circumscribed, subcutaneous or submucosal nodules and one with synchronous bilateral labial nodules; two exhibited surface epithelial ulceration. Striking pseudocarcinomatous hyperplasia of the overlying squamous epithelium was noted in five of the 10 cases, leading to a misdiagnosis of invasive squamous carcinoma on superficial biopsy in one case. In contrast to previously published data, it was found that pseudocarcinomatous hyperplasia contained numerous mitotic figures, squamous pearls, mildly atypical nuclei, focally prominent nucleoli, and focal single cell infiltration; follicular infundibula were not preferentially involved. Excluding the presence of the underlying granular cell tumor, these features rendered the hyperplastic proliferation nearly indistinguishable from infiltrative squamous carcinoma. Marked squamous cell atypia, although not always present in biopsies of well-differentiated squamous carcinoma, was the only distinguishing histologic feature not found in pseudocarcinomatous hyperplasia. Although vulvar granular cell tumor is an unusual neoplasm, it should be considered in the differential diagnosis of an apparently infiltrative squamous lesion of the vulva when the base of the lesion is not present in the biopsy specimen. This is particularly true of tumors with a nodular, radially symmetric gross appearance. (C)1991International Society of Gynecological PathologistsInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology 01/1991; 10(1):59-66. DOI:10.1097/00004347-199101000-00007 · 1.63 Impact Factor