The Utility of HMFG-1 and GCDFP-15 to Discriminate the Differentiation of Eccrine and Apocrine Neoplasms.
- Author:
Ki Baek JEONG
1
;
Dong Hoon SHIN
;
Jong Soo CHOI
;
Ki Hong KIM
;
Song Sug KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Dermatology, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. dhshin@med.yu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
HMFG-1;
GCDFP-15;
Eccrine;
Apocrine
- MeSH:
Acrospiroma;
Cytoplasm;
Discrimination (Psychology);
Dissent and Disputes;
Hidrocystoma;
Phenobarbital;
Poroma;
Syringoma
- From:Korean Journal of Dermatology
2003;41(12):1583-1591
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The discrimination of eccrine and apocrine neoplasms is still in dispute among researchers. To discriminate the differentiation of eccrine and apocrine neoplasms, immunohistochemical stainings with HMFG-1 and GCDFP-15 were performed on 12 specimens of eccrine and apocrine neoplasms, 3 of normal palmar tissues, and 3 of normal axillary tissues. The 12 cases of eccrine and apocrine neoplasms included 3 cases of syringoma, 2 cases of eccrine poroma, 2 cases of hidradenoma, 2 cases of apocrine hidrocystoma, 2 cases of syringocystadenoma papilliferum, and 1 case of spiradenoma. The 3 specimens of palmar tissue were used as the positive control of eccrine unit, and the 3 specimens of axillary tissue as that of apocrine unit. The results are as follows; HMFG-1 was positive in the cytoplasm and luminal surface of normal apocrine units, and also positive in those of eccrine units. Still more, HMFG-1 was documented as positive even in the eccrine poroma which is originated from eccrine unit. GCDFP-1 was positive in both normal eccrine and apocrine units, and glandular structure was stained stronger than ductal structure. In all of eccrine and apocrine neoplasms, syringoma, eccrine poroma, and spiradenoma which were known to differentiate to ductal structure were negative in GCDFP-15, but hidradenoma, apocrine hidrocystoma, and syringocystadenoma papilliferum which were known to differentiate to glandular structure were positive, partially. All these findings suggest that GCDFP-15 might be a useful marker for glandular differentiation rather than ductal differentiation, and both HMFG-1 and GCDFP-15 might not be useful to discriminate eccrine and apocrine neoplasms. Further intensive studies about normal eccrine and apocrine unit should be performed to determine if HMFG-1 could be used as a significant marker of apocrine unit, and it is necessary to develop new methods for the discrimination of eccrine and apocrine neoplasms.
