MYC gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization and MYC protein expression by immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of cutaneous angiosarcoma: Systematic review and appropriate use criteria

• Published in: Journal of cutaneous pathology 2021-04, Vol.48 (4), p.578-586
• Main Authors: Motaparthi, Kiran, Lauer, Scott R., Patel, Rajiv M., Vidal, Claudia I., Linos, Konstantinos
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: angiosarcoma; appropriate use criteria; atypical vascular lesions; Breast cancer; Fluorescence in situ hybridization; Gene amplification; Immunohistochemistry; Lymphedema; MYC; Myc protein
• ISSN: 0303-6987; 1600-0560
• DOI: 10.1111/cup.13912

Background Secondary angiosarcoma (AS) most commonly follows breast cancer and includes postirradiation AS (PRAS) and lymphedema‐associated AS. The frequent amplification of MYC (8q24.21) in secondary AS and the rising incidence of PRAS and atypical vascular lesions (AVLs) have prompted interest in the diagnostic and prognostic utility of MYC in AS. Methods Retrospective series with ≥2 cases of cutaneous AS and describing the use of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for MYC amplification or immunohistochemistry (IHC) for MYC overexpression were included. Results Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, 93% of cases evaluated by FISH and IHC were concordant. The sensitivity of FISH in primary AS was only 6.8%, and protein overexpression occurred without amplification in sun‐damaged skin. FISH and IHC were over 78% sensitive in secondary AS but negative in over 98% of AVLs. MYC amplification and FLT4 coamplification were associated with shorter overall survival in secondary AS. Conclusion FISH for MYC amplification and IHC for MYC overexpression are useful in distinguishing PRAS from AVLs and may also have prognostic value in secondary AS. In contrast, these methods have little diagnostic or prognostic value in primary AS and should not be used to distinguish primary AS from benign vascular neoplasms.