The use of the term “myoepithelioma” in the literature has been confusing. Several lesions reported as myoepithelioma were actually malignant tumors.9-11 To this end, Veeramachaneni et al5 proposed the use of “benign myoepithelioma” in 2001 when they reported the third case in the literature. The differential diagnosis in our case does include myoepithelial carcinomas. The criteria for malignancy in these tumors are not well defined; however, according to the series of 101 cases by Hornick and Fletcher,2 tumors with low-grade cytologic features had an 18% local recurrence rate, with none metastasizing, whereas tumors with severe cytologic atypia (nuclear pleomorphism, large nucleoli, and vesicular or coarse chromatin) were classified as myoepithelial carcinomas and had a local recurrence rate of 42%, with 32% metastasizing. Another differential diagnosis is pleomorphic adenoma or mixed tumor; however, the lack of ducts or glands in this case argues against this diagnosis. Immunohistochemically, myoepitheliomas are positive for epithelial and myoid markers such as smooth muscle actin, vimentin, calponin, and the S-100 stain. There are several reports of myoepithelial carcinomas of salivary glands being positive for p6311,12; this case represents, to our knowledge, the first pulmonary benign myoepithelioma with positivity for p63.