Lacrimal myoepithelial carcinoma ex recurrent pleomorphic adenoma: A clinicopathological report and review of the literature

  • Authors:
    • Noppadol Larbcharoensub
    • Duangjai Pangpunyakulchai
    • Rangsima Aroonroch
    • Lojana Tuntiyatorn
    • Pornchai Mahaisavariya
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: November 3, 2017     https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2017.1488
  • Pages:209-213
Metrics: HTML 0 views | PDF 0 views     Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations

Abstract

Myoepithelial carcinoma is an uncommon malignant tumor of the lacrimal gland, composed of neoplastic myoepithelial cells with an infiltrative growth. The present study describes a unique case of progressive proptosis and blindness of the right eye in a 68‑year‑old woman following total tumor removal for lacrimal pleomorphic adenoma. Clinical study, surgical exploration, and pathology revealed lacrimal myoepithelial carcinoma ex recurrent pleomorphic adenoma, T2N0M0. In addition, 18 cases of lacrimal myoepithelial tumor that have been previously described in the literature are reviewed. The application of clinical, radiological, histopathologic, and immunohistochemical investigations may help to reach the definite diagnosis. Criteria for malignancy of lacrimal myoepithelial tumor should be the same as salivary myoepithelial tumor diagnosis, until long‑term outcome data for a larger number of patients with lacrimal myoepithelial carcinoma become available.

Introduction

Histopathological typing of tumors arising in the lacrimal gland is generally similar to the classification of salivary gland, although the frequency of occurrence of individual types is different. Myoepithelial tumor (MET) is an uncommon epithelial neoplasm of the lacrimal gland and was first described in salivary gland and lacrimal gland by Sheldon et al and Heathcote et al, respectively (1,2). MET has been included in the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of salivary gland tumours since 1991. The histogenesis of myoepithelial tumor is currently regarded as tumor showing morphologic and immunophenotypic evidence towards myoepithelial cell (3). Herein, the authors report the clinical, radiological, histopathologic, and immunohistochemical features of lacrimal myoepithelial carcinoma (MEC) arising in pleomorphic adenoma of the lacrimal gland.

Case report

A 68-year-old Thai female patient presented with progressive painless proptosis in the right eye. For 12 years ago, she had had swelling of the right upper eyelid. She underwent total tumor removal for pleomorphic adenoma, tumor size 3 cm in greaest dimension, with intact capsule and complete surgical resected margin. For one year, 11 years later, she had noticed progressive proptosis. Three months before surgery, she developed blindness of the right eye with a large palpable mass in the superotemporal aspect of the periocular area. Physical examination showed a visual acuity of no light perception in the right eye and 20/32 in the left eye. A firm mass was palpated in the superior temporal part of the right orbit. There was proptosis and limited upward gaze of the right eye. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the orbit revealed a well-defined, lobulated, vivid inhomogeneous enhancing isosignal T1W/slightly hypersignal T2W mass measuring 38×37×33 mm. The volume was 30.626 cm3. It located at retrobulbar portion involving extraconal-conal-intraconal spaces of the right orbit and invading of the lateral bony wall laterally, displacing the eye inferiorly, the optic nerve medially and the globe anteriorly resulting exophthalmos (Fig. 1). No regional lymphadenopathy was detected.

An incisional biopsy through the lateral orbitotomy was performed, and the diagnosis of myoepithelial neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential was made. Two months later, exenteration of the right orbit was performed. Intraoperatively, the tumor exhibited worrisome anatomic features in that is extended into adjacent periocular soft tissue. The histopathologic diagnosis was MEC arising in recurrent pleomorphic adenoma. Her postoperative course was uneventful. The patient desired no further treatment. Follow-up at 3 years revealed no evidence of tumor.

Pathologic findings

The resected specimen contained a firm gray-tan mass measuring 40×40×35 mm. Cut surfaces were variably gray to light-brown appearance. The mass had an infiltrative border not involving the margins of resection. Histopathologic examinations revealed round to polygonal epithelioid cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm (Fig. 2). Occasional cells had small amounts of spindle and plasmacytoid appearance. The nuclei were round to oval with finely distributed chromatin and small nucleoli. Cellular and nuclear pleomorphisms were detected. Mitotic activity was 10/10 high-power fields (HPFs). The tumor demonstrated focal infiltration into adjacent periocular soft tissue. Angiolymphatic and neural invasions were not identified. There was no intracytoplasmic mucin. There were small foci of myxoid stroma, representing the residual pleomorphic adenoma. Immunohistochemiscal stains of the epithelioid, spindle, and plasmacytoid cells were diffuse positive reactivity for cytokeratin AE1/AE3, S100 protein, vimentin, myogenin, muscle-specific actin, and α-smooth muscle actin. The tumor cells did not express sarcomeric actin, desmin, h-caldesmon, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), HMB45, estrogen receptor, and progesterone receptor. The proliferation (Ki67) of the tumor cells was 10.26%. The tumor was completely excised. The pathologic diagnosis was lacrimal MEC arising in recurrent pleomorphic adenoma.

Discussion

MET is an uncommon neoplasm composed of histologically and immunohistochemically distinctive myoepithelial cells (3). Most METs arise in the salivary glands (3). Lacrimal METs are uncommon. Including the authors' patient, 19 cases of lacrimal MET have been reported (Table I). Of these cases, nine cases (50%) were considered to be malignant MET or MEC. The ages of patients range from 23 to 88 years with the mean and median ages of 57.25 and 62.5 years, respectively (2,418). The average age of diagnosis of benign MET was younger than MEC (50.50±22.13 vs. 60.62±23.84 years, P=0.495). The tumor sizes range from 9 to 40 mm with the mean and median sizes of 28 and 30.5 mm, respectively (2,418). The average size of benign MET was smaller than MEC (24.60±10.78 cm vs. 30.43±7.89 cm, P=0.303). Male patients are more likely to have MEC with a male to female ratio of 3:1 (P=0.049, Table II). Lacrimal METs usually remain asymptomatic until they produce a mass effect. The most frequently presenting symptoms are painless proptosis, progressive periorbital swelling, diplopia, and blindness (2,418).

Table I.

Summary of 19 reported cases of lacrimal myoepithelial tumors.

Table I.

Summary of 19 reported cases of lacrimal myoepithelial tumors.

Authors, yearAge (years)SexSideSize (mm)VariantNature(Refs.)
Heathcote et al, 1990MiddleFNA31×25×17SpindleBenign(2)
Herrera, 199068MLeft35×30×25EpithelioidMalignant(4)
Font et al, 199223FLeft30×25×17SpindleBenign(5)
Ni et al, 1992NANANANASpindleBenign(6)
NANANANASpindleBenign
Grossniklaus et al, 199776FRight9×9×9MixedBenign(7)
Okudela et al, 200034MRight25×15×18MixedMalignant(8)
Iida et al, 200177MLeftNASpindleMalignant(9)
Bolzoni et al, 200546MRight18×16×16PlasmacytoidBenign(10)
Pasquale et al, 200557FLeft35×25×15EpithelioidBenign(11)
Wiwatwongwana et al, 200984MLeft32×26×22EpithelioidMalignant(12)
Weis et al, 2009NANANANAMixedBenign(13)
NANANANAEpithelioidMalignant
Argyris et al, 201339FLeft16×11×13EpithelioidMalignant(14)
von Holstein et al, 2013NANANANANAMalignant(15)
Eldesouky et al, 2014NANANANANABenign(16)
Moret et al, 201488MRight35×17×25SpindleMalignant(17)
Rabade et al, 201427MRight30×20Clear cellMalignant(18)
Present case68FRight40×40×35EpithelioidMalignant

[i] M, male; F, female; NA, not available.

Table II.

Clinicopathological characteristic of 19 reported cases of lacrimal myoepithelial tumors.

Table II.

Clinicopathological characteristic of 19 reported cases of lacrimal myoepithelial tumors.

CharacteristicsBenignMalignantP-value
Mean age (years)50.50±22.1360.62±23.840.495
(range, 23–76)(range, 27–88)
M:F ratio1:43:10.049
Right:left ratio1:11:10.135
Size (mm)24.60±10.7830.43±7.890.303
Histopathologic variant 0.046
  Epithelioid15
  Spindle42
  Plasmacytoid10
  Clear01
  Mixed21
  NA11

[i] M, male; F, female; NA, not available.

The imaging procedures such as computed tomography, and MRI may allow recognition of lacrimal METs. Imaging findings of MET show vivid enhancing isosignal T1 W and hyper-, intermediate or even hypointense T2 W (8,10). In the authors' case, the mass shows typical MRI feature and invades the lateral wall of orbit. This behavior suggests progression of slow growing malignant tumor.

The diagnosis of MET is based on histopathology and immunohistochemical studies. The lacrimal MET can easily be mistaken for variety tumors including atypical meningioma, leiomyosarcoma, and metastatic amelanotic melanoma. Atypical meningioma is excluded, as it does not immunohistochemically express myogenin, muscle-specific actin, and alpha-smooth muscle actin. Leiomyosarcoma with epithelioid feature does not demonstrate immunoreactivity for S100 protein, and cytokeratin AE1/AE3. Metastatic amelanotic melanoma may have a similar histopathology, but the tumor cells typically show atypia, and usually locate in the lymphovascular channels as well as there is no evidence of primary lesion. Negative results of HMB45 immunohistochemical stain may be helpful in excluding melanoma. Finally the definite diagnosis is lacrimal MEC.

Histopathologically, MET is classified into four subtypes composing of solid, trabecular, reticular, and mixed pattern (3). Five cellular variants are identified in MET: namely spindle, plasmacytoid, epithelioid, clear, and mixed cell type (3,12,18). Benign MET usually shows spindle cellular variant, whereas, MEC usually shows epithelioid cellular variant (P=0.046). However, different cell types and architectural patterns may be found within the same tumor. In fact, most MECs are less monomorphic than benign MET.

Most METs have benign course, however few reported patients had malignant nature. Clear criteria for lacrimal MEC have not been elaborated. On the basis of prior reports, it appears that lacrimal MET displaying infiltrative, destructive growth, marked hypercellularity, marked cellular pleomorphism, perineural invasion, lymphovascular invasion, high mitotic activity or necrosis should be regarded as indicating neoplasms with malignant potential (5,8,9). METs showing p53 expression and mitotic figure more than 7/10HPFs as well as Ki67 labeling index more than 10% are indicatory for malignancy (19). The authors suggest lacrimal MET having a few above parameters should be considered a tumor of malignant potential. Criteria for malignancy of lacrimal MET should be used as same as salivary MET until long-term clinicopathologic outcome data for a larger number of lacrimal MECs become available. Additional investigations and long-term follow-up are warranted to clarify the malignant potential of lacrimal MET.

Malignant tumor can arise either de novo or develop in a pleomorphic adenoma. Di Palma et al postulated that MEC has a low-grade malignancy when it arises from a pleomorphic adenoma, but may play more aggressive growth when it arises de novo (20). To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of MEC arising in recurrent pleomorphic adenoma of the lacrimal gland.

Surgical excision remains the cornerstone of management of the lacrimal neoplasms (21). Orbital exenteration is indicated where the lacrimal neoplasm is extensive and the mass has infiltrated beyond neoplastic capsule (21). Benign lacrimal tumors generally behave in an indolent manner and generally do not recur after complete wide surgical excision. However, malignant lacrimal neoplasms appear to be more aggressive may recur and metastasize. Close follow-up after wide surgical excision is recommended. The surgery will be followed by radiotherapy, chemotherapy and molecularly targeted agents, which classically belong to the armamentarium of malignant neoplasm (21).

In conclusion, lacrimal MEC should be considered in the differential diagnosis of lacrimal neoplasm. The application of immunohistochemical investigation correlating with the clinical presentation, intraoperative and radiological findings might help in making the definite diagnosis.

References

1 

Sheldon WH: So-called mixed tumors of the salivary glands. Arch Pathol. 35:1–20. 1943.

2 

Heathcote JG, Hurwitz JJ and Dardick I: A spindle-cell myoepithelioma of the lacrimal gland. Arch Ophthalmol. 108:1135–1139. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Bell D, Di Palma S, Katabi N, Schwartz MR, Seethala R and Skálová A: Myoepithelial carcinomaWHO Classification of Head and Neck Tumours. El-Naggar AK, John KC, Chan JRC, Grandis JR, Takata T and Slootweg PJ: IARC Press; Lyon: pp. 174–175. 2017

4 

Herrera GA: Light microscopic, ultrastructural and immunocytochemical spectrum of malignant lacrimal and salivary gland tumors, including malignant mixed tumors. Pathobiology. 58:312–322. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5 

Font RL and Garner A: Myoepithelioma of the lacrimal gland: Report of a case with spindle cell morphology. Br J Ophthalmol. 76:634–636. 1992. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Ni C, Kuo PK and Dryja TP: Histopathological classification of 272 primary epithelial tumours of the lacrimal gland. Chin Med J (Engl). 105:481–485. 1992.PubMed/NCBI

7 

Grossniklaus HE, Wojno TH, Wilson MW and Someren AO: Myoepithelioma of the lacrimal gland. Arch Ophthalmol. 115:1588–1590. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Okudela K, Ito T, Iida MI, Kameda Y, Furuno K and Kitamura H: Myoepithelioma of the lacrimal gland: Report of a case with potentially malignant transformation. Pathol Int. 50:238–243. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Iida K, Shikishima K, Okido M, Sato S and Masuda Y: A case of malignant myoepithelioma in the lacrimal gland. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi. 105:42–46. 2001.(In Japanese). PubMed/NCBI

10 

Bolzoni A, Pianta L, Farina D and Nicolai P: Benign myoepithelioma of the lacrimal gland: Report of a case. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 262:186–188. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Pasquale S, Strianese D, Mansueto G and Tranfa F: Epithelioid myoepithelioma of lacrimal gland. Virchows Arch. 446:972005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Wiwatwongwana D, Berean KW, Dolman PJ, Rootman J and White VA: Unusual carcinomas of the lacrimal gland: Epithelial-myoepithelial carcinoma and myoepithelial carcinoma. Arch ophthalmol. 127:1054–1056. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Weis E, Rootman J, Joly TJ, Berean KW, Al-Katan HM, Pasternak S, Bonavolontà G, Strianese D, Saeed P, Feldman KA, et al: Epithelial lacrimal gland tumors: Pathologic classification and current understanding. Arch Ophthalmol. 127:1016–1028. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14 

Argyris PP, Pambuccian SE, Cayci Z, Singh C, Tosios KI and Koutlas IG: Lacrimal gland adenoid cystic carcinoma with high-grade transformation to myoepithelial carcinoma: Report of a case and review of literature. Head Neck Pathol. 7:85–92. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

von Holstein SL, Therkildsen MH, Prause JU, Stenman G, Siersma VD and Heegaard S: Lacrimal gland lesions in Denmark between 1974 and 2007. Acta Ophthalmol. 91:349–354. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Eldesouky MA, Elbakary MA, Sabik S and Shareef MM: Lacrimal fossa lesions: A review of 146 cases in Egypt. Clin Ophthalmol. 8:1603–1609. 2014.PubMed/NCBI

17 

Moret A, Tabareau-Delalande F, Joly A, de Muret A, Goga D and Laure B: Myoepithelial carcinoma of the lacrimal gland. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac Chir Orale. 115:172–177. 2014.(In French). PubMed/NCBI

18 

Rabade NR and Goel NA: Clear cell myoepithelial carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 57:456–459. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Nagao T, Sugano I, Ishida Y, Tajima Y, Matsuzaki O, Konno A, Kondo Y and Nagao K: Salivary gland malignant myoepithelioma: A clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of ten cases. Cancer. 83:1292–1299. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

20 

Di Palma S and Guzzo M: Malignant myoepithelioma of salivary glands: Clinicopathological features of ten cases. Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol. 423:389–396. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

von Holstein SL, Coupland SE, Briscoe D, Le Tourneau C and Heegaard S: Epithelial tumours of the lacrimal gland: A clinical, histopathological, surgical and oncological survey. Acta Ophthalmol. 91:195–206. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

January 2018
Volume 8 Issue 1

Print ISSN: 2049-9450
Online ISSN:2049-9469

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
APA
Larbcharoensub, N., Pangpunyakulchai, D., Aroonroch, R., Tuntiyatorn, L., & Mahaisavariya, P. (2018). Lacrimal myoepithelial carcinoma ex recurrent pleomorphic adenoma: A clinicopathological report and review of the literature. Molecular and Clinical Oncology, 8, 209-213. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2017.1488
MLA
Larbcharoensub, N., Pangpunyakulchai, D., Aroonroch, R., Tuntiyatorn, L., Mahaisavariya, P."Lacrimal myoepithelial carcinoma ex recurrent pleomorphic adenoma: A clinicopathological report and review of the literature". Molecular and Clinical Oncology 8.1 (2018): 209-213.
Chicago
Larbcharoensub, N., Pangpunyakulchai, D., Aroonroch, R., Tuntiyatorn, L., Mahaisavariya, P."Lacrimal myoepithelial carcinoma ex recurrent pleomorphic adenoma: A clinicopathological report and review of the literature". Molecular and Clinical Oncology 8, no. 1 (2018): 209-213. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2017.1488