Abstract
A child with plexiform fibrohistiocytic tumor is presented, in whom a superficial biopsy was misdiagnosed as an inflammatory granuloma. Cytogenetic analysis revealed a 46,X,del(X)(q13)[3]/46,XX[23] karyotype. However, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and array-comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analysis failed to detect any numerical or quantitative genomic anomaly. Because of lack of specific chromosomal hallmarks, a molecular diagnosis of plexiform fibrohistiocytic tumor with the currently available tools is not reliable.
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Publication types
-
Case Reports
-
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
MeSH terms
-
Adolescent
-
Antigens, CD / analysis
-
Antigens, CD / metabolism
-
Antigens, Differentiation, Myelomonocytic / analysis
-
Antigens, Differentiation, Myelomonocytic / metabolism
-
Chromosome Deletion
-
Cytogenetic Analysis / methods
-
Diagnostic Errors
-
Female
-
Granuloma / diagnosis
-
Histiocytoma, Malignant Fibrous / diagnosis*
-
Histiocytoma, Malignant Fibrous / genetics
-
Histiocytoma, Malignant Fibrous / surgery
-
Humans
-
Sensitivity and Specificity
-
Sex Chromosome Disorders / genetics
-
Skin Neoplasms / diagnosis*
-
Skin Neoplasms / genetics
-
Skin Neoplasms / surgery
-
Treatment Outcome
Substances
-
Antigens, CD
-
Antigens, Differentiation, Myelomonocytic
-
CD68 antigen, human