A study of collagen refractility in dermatofibroma and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans using diffractive microscopy.
dermatofibroma
dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans
diffraction
microscopy
refractility
Journal
Journal of cutaneous pathology
ISSN: 1600-0560
Titre abrégé: J Cutan Pathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425124
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Dec 2023
20 Dec 2023
Historique:
revised:
23
10
2023
received:
20
06
2023
accepted:
04
12
2023
medline:
21
12
2023
pubmed:
21
12
2023
entrez:
21
12
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Diffractive microscopy creates contrast within samples that are otherwise uniform under bright light. This technique can highlight subtle differences in refractive indices within birefringent samples containing varying amounts of mature collagen. Dermatofibroma (DF) and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) possess differences in their mature collagen content and, therefore, may be distinguishable using diffractive microscopy. Two hundred forty-two DF and 85 DFSP hematoxylin-eosin (H&E)-stained specimens were analyzed using diffractive microscopy. Data regarding the distribution pattern and strength of refractility was recorded. DFSP was more frequently found to be focally, weakly, or non-refractile (82.9%; n = 68) under diffractive microscopy, while DF more often showed diffusely bright refractility (52.9%; n = 128). DFSP samples with diffuse refractility in portions of the lesion (17.1%; n = 14) also exhibited a unique checkerboard pattern distinct from that which was seen in DF samples. The absence of diffuse refractility was more closely associated with DFSP, as was the presence of a unique checkerboard diffraction pattern. Despite high sensitivity (Sn = 82.9%), absent refractility was not a specific test (Sp = 52.9%), with 47.1% (n = 114) of DF samples sharing this feature. The distinction between DF and DFSP is often diagnosed using H&E alone. In difficult cases, examination of collagen under diffractive microscopy may be useful in distinguishing DFSP from DF and provide an alternative cost-effective tool to immunohistochemical staining.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Diffractive microscopy creates contrast within samples that are otherwise uniform under bright light. This technique can highlight subtle differences in refractive indices within birefringent samples containing varying amounts of mature collagen. Dermatofibroma (DF) and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) possess differences in their mature collagen content and, therefore, may be distinguishable using diffractive microscopy.
METHODS
METHODS
Two hundred forty-two DF and 85 DFSP hematoxylin-eosin (H&E)-stained specimens were analyzed using diffractive microscopy. Data regarding the distribution pattern and strength of refractility was recorded.
RESULTS
RESULTS
DFSP was more frequently found to be focally, weakly, or non-refractile (82.9%; n = 68) under diffractive microscopy, while DF more often showed diffusely bright refractility (52.9%; n = 128). DFSP samples with diffuse refractility in portions of the lesion (17.1%; n = 14) also exhibited a unique checkerboard pattern distinct from that which was seen in DF samples.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The absence of diffuse refractility was more closely associated with DFSP, as was the presence of a unique checkerboard diffraction pattern. Despite high sensitivity (Sn = 82.9%), absent refractility was not a specific test (Sp = 52.9%), with 47.1% (n = 114) of DF samples sharing this feature. The distinction between DF and DFSP is often diagnosed using H&E alone. In difficult cases, examination of collagen under diffractive microscopy may be useful in distinguishing DFSP from DF and provide an alternative cost-effective tool to immunohistochemical staining.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001450
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Kim HJ, Lee JY, Kim SH, et al. Stromelysin-3 expression in the differential diagnosis of dermatofibroma and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans: comparison with factor XIIIa and CD34. Br J Dermatol. 2007;157(2):319-324. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2007.08033.x
Buteau AH, Keeling BH, Diaz LZ, et al. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans in pediatric patients: a diagnostic and management challenge. JAAD Case Rep. 2018;4(2):155-158. doi:10.1016/j.jdcr.2017.09.022
Llombart B, Serra-Guillén C, Monteagudo C, López Guerrero JA, Sanmartín O. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans: a comprehensive review and update on diagnosis and management. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2013;30(1):13-28. doi:10.1053/j.semdp.2012.01.002
Thway K, Noujaim J, Jones RL, Fisher C. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans: pathology, genetics, and potential therapeutic strategies. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2016;25:64-71. doi:10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2016.09.013
Cicchi R, Vogler N, Kapsokalyvas D, Dietzek B, Popp J, Pavone FS. From molecular structure to tissue architecture: collagen organization probed by SHG microscopy. J Biophotonics. 2013;6(2):129-142. doi:10.1002/jbio.201200092
Doillon CJ, Dunn MG, Bender E, Silver FH. Collagen fiber formation in repair tissue: development of strength and toughness. Coll Relat Res. 1985;5(6):481-492. doi:10.1016/s0174-173x(85)80002-9
Abramowitz M, Spring KR, Fellers TJ, Davidson MW. Introduction to Oblique Illumination. Olympus-America; 1998 https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu
Hoffman R, Davidson MW. Contrast in Optical Microscopy. Modulation Optics; 1995 https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu
Silflies JS, Schwartz SA, Davidson MW. The Diffraction Barrier in Optical Microscopy. Nikon Instruments, Inc; 2018 https://www.microscopyu.com/techniques/
Zhou C, Thieu K, Elston DM. Diffractive microscopy in dermatopathology. J Cutan Pathol. 2016;43(1):18-23. doi:10.1111/cup.12608
Sonis J. How to use and interpret interval likelihood ratios. Fam Med. 1999;31(6):432-437.
Sakai S, Yamanari M, Miyazawa A, et al. In vivo three-dimensional birefringence analysis shows collagen differences between young and old photo-aged human skin. J Invest Dermatol. 2008;128(7):1641-1647. doi:10.1038/jid.2008.8
Lo WCY, Villiger M, Golberg A, et al. Longitudinal, 3D imaging of collagen remodeling in murine hypertrophic scars in vivo using polarization-sensitive optical frequency domain imaging. J Invest Dermatol. 2016;136(1):84-92. doi:10.1038/JID.2015.399
Chen G, Chen J, Zhuo S, et al. Nonlinear spectral imaging of human hypertrophic scar based on two-photon excited fluorescence and second-harmonic generation. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161(1):48-55. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09094.x
Ribeiro JF, dos Anjos EH, Mello ML, de Campos VB. Skin collagen fiber molecular order: a pattern of distributional fiber orientation as assessed by optical anisotropy and image analysis. PloS One. 2013;8(1):e54724. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054724