Journal of cutaneous pathology · 2023
Clinical and histopathological features of hypereosinophilic syndrome with cutaneous involvement: The Mayo Clinic Experience.
ОбзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zayas Jacqueline, Peters Margot S, Butterfield Joseph H, Pongdee Thanai, Sokumbi Olayemi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) encompasses a group of diseases with blood hypereosinophilia and eosinophil-mediated organ dysfunction. HES-associated skin abnormalities, termed cutaneous HES (cHES) here, may influence diagnosis of HES. We sought to better define clinical and histopathological features of cHES.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical records and cutaneous histopathology of adult patients with HES evaluated at our institution from 2007 to 2018.
RESULTS: Forty-one percent (61/150) patients with HES had cHES. The most common clinical morphologies were urticarial (30%) and eczematous (26%). Skin specimens most often showed a spongiotic pattern (31%) with abundant inflammation (50%) including eosinophils (85%). Two specimens (8%) showed interstitial granulomatous dermatitis, and two specimens showed eosinophilic fasciitis (8%). Vasculitis was not identified in any specimen. Eighty-four percent of patients with cHES had ≥1 other organ system involved: pulmonary 41%, ENT 26%, and nervous 23%. Sixty percent (53/89) of non-cHES patients had at least two organ systems involved. Cardiac or gastrointestinal involvement was more common in non-cHES than cHES (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Our review confirms that there are no specific clinical or histopathological cHES patterns, but HES should be considered in patients who have eczematous or urticarial reactions of unknown etiology and persistent peripheral hypereosinophilia.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical records and cutaneous histopathology of adult patients with HES evaluated at our institution from 2007 to 2018.
RESULTS: Forty-one percent (61/150) patients with HES had cHES. The most common clinical morphologies were urticarial (30%) and eczematous (26%). Skin specimens most often showed a spongiotic pattern (31%) with abundant inflammation (50%) including eosinophils (85%). Two specimens (8%) showed interstitial granulomatous dermatitis, and two specimens showed eosinophilic fasciitis (8%). Vasculitis was not identified in any specimen. Eighty-four percent of patients with cHES had ≥1 other organ system involved: pulmonary 41%, ENT 26%, and nervous 23%. Sixty percent (53/89) of non-cHES patients had at least two organ systems involved. Cardiac or gastrointestinal involvement was more common in non-cHES than cHES (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Our review confirms that there are no specific clinical or histopathological cHES patterns, but HES should be considered in patients who have eczematous or urticarial reactions of unknown etiology and persistent peripheral hypereosinophilia.