Past exam of the medicine course of the University of Oxford / 1864 / Second examination / Pathology. medical, surgical / 1 / Solution

The typical contrast is between a highly cellular, relatively scantily supported encephaloid cancer and a fibroplastic growth composed predominantly of elongated cells and developing fibrous material. Neither historical name is a complete modern tumour classification.

In encephaloid cancer, a thin preparation from a viable region shows crowded, variably sized cells, often rounded, oval, polygonal or irregular, with conspicuous cell nuclei and a prominent cell nucleolus. Some cells have more than one cell nucleus; the cytoplasm and nuclear proportions vary. In sections, the cells form masses or groups separated by a comparatively delicate vascular stroma. Where the lesion is a carcinoma, cohesive epithelial arrangements and invasion of surrounding tissue help establish its nature. The scant support helps explain the soft, brain-like gross consistency denoted by “encephaloid”; it does not mean that the growth is made of brain tissue.

A rapidly growing soft tumour may also show evidence of mitosis, haemorrhage, necrosis and granular or fatty cellular debris. These features vary with sampling and are not the definition of every historical encephaloid lesion. The viable advancing edge is more informative about cell type and invasion than a completely broken-down centre. A modern interpretation combines architecture, cell morphology and, where needed, immunohistochemistry; one large nucleolated cell is not a universal “cancer corpuscle.”^[ref][ref]

In a typical fibroplastic growth, the conspicuous elements are oval or spindle-shaped cells, with elongated cell nuclei, tapering processes and intercellular material taking on a fibrillar character. The cells may run in parallel bundles or interlacing groups. Some areas contain many apparently free oval cell nuclei; other areas show more mature fibres and fewer obvious cell bodies. A teased preparation helps display individual elongated cells and fibres, whereas a section shows how the bundles relate to vessels and surrounding tissue.

The historical interpretation was of a growth resembling developing connective tissue. It should not be translated automatically into either a harmless fibroma or a specific modern fibrosarcoma. Contemporary descriptions recorded recurrence and malignant behaviour in some growths put in this broad category.^[ref] Cell shape must be read with tissue architecture and behaviour. Apparent resemblance to fibroblasts does not establish benignity, and a scant-fibred soft growth is not by itself proof of epithelial origin.