Abstract
To the Editor: In a recent article by Misago et al1 and 2 previous ones by other authors,2,3 new terms, such as follicular, infundibular, and infundibulocystic squamous cell carcinoma, were proposed for a variant or variants of squamous cell carcinoma, which were claimed by those authors to show infundibular differentiation. As pointed out rightly by Kossard et al3 using these words: “The introduction of an infundibular variant of squamous cell carcinoma raises the central issue whether the follicular infundibulum is merely an extension of the epidermis or is truly part of the hair follicle that possesses distinct biological properties with the capacity for involution despite an epidermoid appearance.” However, this central issue was not addressed in any of these reports with satisfaction. A decade ago, Ackerman et al did look into this issue, namely, whether the infundibulum is epidermal or follicular, and concluded that the infundibulum is an invagination of epidermis and not part of true follicle.4,5 To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence, either histological or immunocytochemical, indicating that infundibular epithelium is fundamentally different from epidermis. Therefore, we see no basis for terms such as follicular, infundibular, or infundibulocystic squamous cell carcinoma at this time.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call