Desmoplastic nested spindle cell tumor of liver: report of four cases of a proposed new entity.

Lauren V. Ackerman Laboratory of Surgical Pathology, Barnes-Jewish and St. Louis Children's Hospitals, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
American Journal of Surgical Pathology (Impact Factor: 5.15). 02/2005; 29(1):1-9.
Source: PubMed


We describe a distinctive tumor of the liver in four children composed of nested spindled and epithelioid cells with extensive desmoplasia that we have termed "desmoplastic nested spindle cell tumor of the liver." All four patients were previously healthy. One patient had a presumptive diagnosis of hepatic hemangioma 11 years prior to presentation. Grossly, the tumors were well circumscribed, lobular white masses, ranging from 2.8 to 15 cm in diameter. These tumors were characterized by the presence of cohesive nests of plump, bland spindle cells arranged in short fascicles with an accompanying desmoplastic stroma. Epithelioid areas ranging from palisading epithelioid cells at the periphery of some nests to pseudoglandular and polygonal cells with intercellular bridges were invariably present. Mitotic activity was low. Calcification and ossification were present. Non-neoplastic bile ducts and hepatic elements were seen both within and surrounding the tumor cell nests. Each tumor displayed cytoplasmic reactivity for vimentin, pan-cytokeratin, CD57, and nuclear staining for WT1. Neuroendocrine markers were negative. Ultrastructurally, the tumor cells showed focally well-developed cell junctions, basal lamina, and few cytoplasmic organelles. All tumors were confined to the liver and were resected without complication. Two patients received postoperative adjuvant therapy for presumed hepatoblastoma. The patients are doing well without recurrence at 7.5 years, 7 years, 5 years, and 8 months post-surgery. The morphologic appearance and immunohistochemical profile of these lesions are unique in our experience and represent a new category of pediatric liver tumor.

1 Follower
28 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Extragonadal germ cell tumors (GCTs) are relatively uncommon, but represent 1% to 5% of all GCTs. Their morphology varies widely and includes mature teratoma, immature teratoma, seminoma, yolk sac tumor, embryonal carcinoma, choriocarcinoma, and mixed GCTs. Noncentral nervous system extragonadal GCTs are found in a variety of anatomic locations, but most commonly affect the mediastinum and sacrococcygeal region. Predicting behavior in these tumors can be confusing because it is based on a combination of varying factors including patient age, histologic subtype, anatomic site, and clinical stage. This review attempts to dissect these issues by separating the discussion into 3 age groups: neonatal (congenital), children (prepubertal), and adult (postpubertal). Within each individual age group, we cover the significance of anatomic site, morphology, and staging parameters. In addition, we discuss the spectrum of associated secondary malignancies and their impact on patient outcome. Finally, we provide a detailed survey of differential diagnostic considerations grouped by anatomic site.
    Advances in Anatomic Pathology 04/2007; 14(2):69-92. DOI:10.1097/PAP.0b013e31803240e6 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: WT1, the Wilms tumor gene product, can be expressed in various tumors from different anatomic sites, including some types of ovarian tumors. Regarding the latter, most studies have focused on surface epithelial-stromal tumors in which serous carcinomas are usually positive and endometrioid carcinomas are negative. Very few studies have specifically investigated this marker in ovarian sex cord-stromal tumors; however, limited data in the literature suggest that WT1 may be frequently expressed in sex cord-stromal tumors. As pure Sertoli cell tumor can be in the histologic differential diagnosis of endometrioid tumors (particularly borderline tumor and carcinoma) and carcinoid, immunostaining for WT1 might be of diagnostic value. Immunohistochemical staining for WT1 was performed in 108 ovarian tumors: pure Sertoli cell tumor (n=26), endometrioid borderline tumor (n=25), classic well-differentiated endometrioid carcinoma (n=23), sertoliform endometrioid carcinoma (n=12), and carcinoid (n=22). Additionally, inhibin and calretinin immunostaining were performed in all cases of Sertoli cell tumor for purposes of comparing expression with WT1. Extent of immunostaining was scored on a 0 to 4+ semiquantitative scale, and immunohistochemical composite scores based on a combination of extent and intensity of immunostaining were calculated in positive cases (possible range, 1 to 12). Nuclear expression of WT1 was present in 96% of Sertoli cell tumors, 16% of endometrioid borderline tumors, 13% of classic well-differentiated endometrioid carcinomas, 25% of sertoliform endometrioid carcinomas, and 0% of carcinoids. In Sertoli cell tumors, expression was diffuse (>50% of positive cells) in all positive cases. When positive in the non-Sertoli cell tumors, the extent of expression tended to be focal to patchy (50% or less positive cells). In Sertoli cell tumors, inhibin and calretinin were expressed in 96% and 54% of cases, respectively. The extent of expression of inhibin tended to be diffuse, similar to WT1; however, the extent of immunostaining for calretinin tended to be focal to patchy. The immunohistochemical composite scores for WT1, inhibin, and calretinin were 11.2, 7.6, and 4.8, respectively. Coordinate patterns for the extent of expression of WT1, inhibin, and calretinin in pure Sertoli cell tumor showed that all 3 markers were positive in 54% of cases; however, 42% were positive for WT1 and inhibin but negative for calretinin. In cases positive for both WT1 and inhibin, expression of both markers was diffuse in 84% of cases, but WT1 was diffuse while inhibin was focal to patchy in 16% of cases. We conclude that ovarian Sertoli cell tumor should be added to the growing list of WT1-positive tumors. This marker is useful for the distinction of Sertoli cell tumor from endometrioid tumors and carcinoid. The diagnostic utility of WT1 in Sertoli cell tumor is similar to inhibin but better than that of calretinin.
    American Journal of Surgical Pathology 09/2007; 31(9):1378-86. DOI:10.1097/PAS.0b013e3180339961 · 5.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nested stromal epithelial tumor is a recently described primary neoplasm of the liver. This tumor is characterized by well-demarcated nests of spindle and epithelioid cells with occasional calcification and bone formation. An association between these tumors and Cushing syndrome has been described. Herein we report a case of a recurrent nested stromal epithelial tumor of the liver in a 17-year-old female with aggressive clinical behavior and an extrahepatic lymph node metastasis. Also, we provide the first detailed clinical, histologic, immunohistochemical, and cytogenetic comparison of the original and recurrent tumors. Initially, the patient presented with Cushingoid symptoms and epigastric pain, radiating to her back. A computed tomographic (CT) scan revealed a large lesion in the liver. After a partial hepatectomy, the Cushingoid features were resolved. A year later, a CT scan revealed multiple lesions within the liver, and positron emission tomographic/CT imaging showed a hypermetabolic lymph node. The patient underwent a cadaveric liver transplant. Histologically, both the original and recurrent tumors had similar characteristics, with different immunoreactivity, correlating with the absence of systemic hormonal symptoms. Electron microscopy of the original neoplasm revealed an abundance of rough cytoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria. No evidence of endocrine differentiation was found. Cytogenetics of the primary tumor was complex with an abnormal hypotriploid karyotype. Our data indicate that patients with nested stromal epithelial tumor of the liver must be carefully followed with imaging to detect hepatic recurrence and extrahepatic metastases.
    Pediatric and Developmental Pathology 03/2008; 11(6):469-73. DOI:10.2350/07-12-0391.1 · 0.87 Impact Factor
Show more