LETTER TO THE EDITOR Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumor

U I read with interest the paper entitled “So-called primitive neuroectodermal tu- inor in macerated fetuses: a confusing arti- fact,” in which the authors Van Noort and dc la Fuente’ demonstrated very convinc- ingly that pressure on the skull could ex- trude central nervous tissue into various body planes.

From my own experience and that of

Before assuming every such mass in the macerated fetus is an artifact, histological examination of the lesion is necessary, as a few arc indeed genuinc neuroectodermal tu- mors.

REFERENCES others,‘ I agree that the great majority of these “neuroectodermal tumors” are arti- 1 . Van Noort G , de la Fuente AA. So-called

arimitive neuroectodermal tumor in macer- ated fetuses: a confusing artifact. Pediatr Pathol 1988;8:3SWi5

2 , ~~~~l~~ s, ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ of products or cl,n- ception terminated after prenatal investiga-

tacts. It is, however, important to examine by

histology all such lesions. Recently we had a case” in which a macerated male fetus of 15 weeks’ gestation presented a paravertebral mass rnacroscopically identical to several ar- tifactual ones we had previously seen. To our surprise, histological examination showed numerous rosette forming neuro- blasts (i.e., as in neuroblastoma), and not the disorganized neural and ependymal tis- sue which is present in the artifactually ex- truded neural tissue.

tion. J Clin Pathol 1986;39:1049-65. 3. Harvey JA, Gray ES. Paravertebra1 neuro-

blastoma in a macerated fetus. Histopaihology 1988;12:670-72.

Elizabeth S. Grny Dcfmrtmml aJ Puthalogy

University of Aberdeen Aberdern, Scotland

106 Pediatric Puthologv, 9:106, 1989 Copyr*ht 0 1989 by Hemi,sphere Publishing Corporation

Feta

l Ped

iatr

Pat

hol D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

B K

iel o

n 11

/08/

14Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.