Lamps, Laura W.

AimsAdenomatoid tumours are mesothelial‐derived benign neoplasms with a predilection for the genital tract. Extragenital sites are rare and can cause significant diagnostic challenges. Herein, we describe the clinicopathological features of a cohort of adenomatoid tumours involving the gastrointestinal tract and liver in order to more clearly characterise their histological findings and aid in diagnosis.Methods and resultsThe pathology databases at four institutions were searched for adenomatoid tumours involving the gastrointestinal tract or liver, yielding eight cases. Available clinicoradiological and follow‐up data were collected from the medical records. Six tumours were incidentally discovered during imaging studies or at the time of surgical exploration for unrelated conditions; presenting symptoms were unknown in two patients. Histologically, the tumours were well‐circumscribed, although focal ill‐defined borders were present in four cases. No infiltration of adjacent structures was identified. Architectural heterogeneity was noted in five (63%) tumours; an adenoid pattern often predominated. The neoplastic cells were flattened to cuboidal with eosinophilic cytoplasm. Cytoplasmic vacuoles mimicking signet ring‐like cells were present in five (63%) cases. Three (38%) cases showed involvement of the mesothelium with reactive mesothelial hyperplasia. Cytological atypia or increased mitotic activity was not identified. The surrounding stroma ranged from oedematous/myxoid to densely hyalinised. Immunohistochemistry confirmed mesothelial origin in all cases evaluated. No patients developed recurrence of disease.ConclusionsThe current study evaluates the clinicopathological findings in a collective series of gastrointestinal and hepatic adenomatoid tumours, correlating with those described in individually reported cases. We highlight common histological features and emphasise variable findings that could mimic a malignant neoplasm.

We report an unusual case of appendicitis in a 9-year-old girl in whom the wall of the appendix contained necrotizing granulomas, as well as eggs of Enterobius vermicularis. Although luminal E vermicularis adult parasites are commonly identified in the appendix and luminal eggs are occasionally seen, intramural worms and eggs are rare. We are unaware of earlier reports of ectopic intramural eggs in the appendix. It is important to and make a correct diagnosis, as both, the patient, as well as the family should be treated for enterobiasis.

AimsThe diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) and the interpretation of glutamine synthetase (GS) staining can be challenging on biopsies. We aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of needle biopsy diagnosis of FNH, the effect of GS immunohistochemistry on FNH diagnosis, and which histological features are most useful for the diagnosis of FNH.Methods and resultsThe study included virtual needle biopsies generated from 75 resection specimens (30 FNHs, 15 hepatocellular adenomas, 15 hepatocellular carcinomas, and 15 non‐lesional liver specimens). Pathologists were reasonably accurate (83.1%) in the diagnosis of FNH with haematoxylin and eosin alone. Ductular reaction and nodularity had the highest sensitivity for a diagnosis of FNH (88.1% and 82.2%, respectively), whereas central scar was the most specific feature (90.6%). The presence of two or more of the classic histological features had 89.6% sensitivity and 86.2% specificity for a diagnosis of FNH. Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher with the addition of a GS stain. A map‐like GS staining pattern was highly specific (99.3%) for FNH. However, GS staining was interpreted as non‐map‐like in 14.4% of reviews of true FNH cases, and overall interobserver agreement for interpretation of the GS staining pattern was only moderate (kappa = 0.42).ConclusionsPathologists are reasonably accurate in the diagnosis of FNH on virtual biopsies, and GS staining improves accuracy. However, a subset of FNH cases remain challenging. Steatosis and a pseudo‐map‐like GS staining pattern were associated with increased difficulty. Therefore, although a map‐like GS staining pattern is useful for confirmation of a diagnosis, the lack of a map‐like GS staining pattern on needle biopsy does not necessarily exclude a diagnosis of FNH.