Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T19:23:56.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The cytokeratin pattern of congenital and acquired cholesteatoma, epidermoid, medial and lateral canal wall skin

Presenting Author: Jef Mulder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2016

Jef Mulder ,
Theo Peters  and
Paul Vennix
Jef Mulder
Affiliation:
Radboud University Medical Center
Theo Peters
Affiliation:
Radboud University Medical Center
Paul Vennix
Affiliation:
Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Abstracts
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 130 , Supplement S3: Abstracts for the 10th International Conference on Cholesteatoma , May 2016 , pp. S211 - S212
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

Learning Objectives: In this paper we present a study in which cytokeratins have been used to characterize congenital cholesteatoma and epidermoid (and we compared these patterns with previous data on acquired cholesteatoma and ear canal skin) in order to confirm or invalidate a developmental theory.

Introduction: Histologically ear canal skin, epidermoid, congenital and acquired cholesteatoma are indistinguishable. They all contain keratin, a matrix of keratinizing stratified squamous epithelium and a lamina propria-perimatrix. Nowadays still different theories on the development of congenital cholesteatoma and epidermoid are suggested.

Cytokeratins are intermediate filament proteins that are exclusively present in epithelial cells and can be used to study epithelial differentiation.

In this paper we present a study in which cytokeratins have been used to characterize congenital cholesteatoma and epidermoid (and we compared these patterns with previous data on acquired cholesteatoma and ear canal skin) in order to confirm or invalidate a developmental theory.

Methods: Cytokeratin Antibodies RCK103, RCK105, M20, CK18–2, LP2 K, AE14, RCK107, E3, KA12, LL025, RKSE60, 6B10 en 1C7 were used to characterize the cytokeratin pattern of congenital cholesteatoma and epidermoid of the cerebellopontine angle. These data were compared with previous patterns on acquired cholesteatoma and medial and lateral ear canal skin.

Results: Our results show that the cytokeratin pattern of congenital cholesteatoma and epidermoid differs. The cytokeratin expression of congenital cholesteatoma mimics the pattern of acquired cholesteatoma and medial ear canal skin: slightly positive LP2 K (Ck19), AE14 (Ck5), 6B10)Ck10) and 1C7 (Ck13). The pattern of epidermoid is comparable to that of normal skin: negative LP2 K, 6B10 and 1C7 and positive AE14.

Conclusions: The cytokeratin pattern of congenital cholesteatoma, acquired cholesteatoma and medial ear canal skin coincide. This may support the invasion theory as explanation of its development. Epidermoid and lateral ear canal skin share the same cytokeratin pattern which may support the ectodermal rest theory.