PROLIFERATIVE MYOSITIS AND FASCIITIS - A LIGHT AND ELECTRON-MICROSCOPIC, CYTOLOGIC, DNA-CYTOMETRIC AND IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL STUDY

Two cases of proliferative myositis, four cases of proliferative fasciitis and one mixed form of proliferative myositis and fasciitis have been analyzed in terms of cell differentiation and DNA content. Light microscopically, the lesions were characterized by a mixture of proliferating spindle-shaped cells and uni-, bi- or occasionally multinucleated ganglion cell-like cells. The spindle cells showed ultrastructural features and immunohistochemical properties, including an immunoreactivity for smooth muscle-specific actin, indicative of a myofibroblastic differentiation. The ganglion cell-like cells displayed some resemblance to active osteoblasts ultrastructurally and differed immunohistochemically from the spindle cells by being non-immunoreactive for smooth muscle-specific actin. None of the two cell types showed immunoreactivity for desmin, myoglobin or factor VIII RAG. It is suggested that the two cell types represent different lines of cell differentiation. The cytologic features in smears, as seen in two cases of proliferative fasciitis and one case of proliferative myositis, are considered to be characteristic of these lesions and to permit the diagnosis to be made by fineneedle aspiration. In two of the cases, the lesion was diagnosed only cytologically and thereafter disappeared spontaneously within a month. Cytometric DNA measurements, using two different image analysis systems on Feulgen-stained sections and smears, revealed a "diploid" spindle-shaped cell population with a variable proportion of cells with scattered DNA values. The ganglion cell-like cells differed from the spindle cells by having a broad DNA peak in the diploid region and additional peaks in the tetraploid region, as well as a higher proportion of cells with scattered DNA values compared with those of the spindle-shaped cells. The results of the quantitative DNA analysis are well in keeping with the benign and proliferative nature of these lesions. However, with the technique used here, quantitative DNA analysis, does not distinguish these pseudosarcomatous fibrous lesions from diploid and tetraploid soft tissue sarcomas.