Journal of cutaneous pathology · 2024
Clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis: Clinical, laboratory, and histopathological features.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Wang Xintong, De Moll Ellen, Koschitzky Merav, Shihab Nahla, Khattri Saakshi, Phelps Robert
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite the advancements in the categorization of clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis (CADM), the classification and diagnosis of its subtypes are still challenging. The aim of our study was to describe the clinicopathological features of CADM and assess the differences between amyopathic dermatomyositis (ADM) and hypomyopathic dermatomyositis (HDM).
METHODS: This retrospective study included 43 patients with CADM diagnosed at our institution from 2016 to 2020. Patients were subclassed into ADM (n = 30) and HDM (n = 13) groups to assess their clinicopathological differences.
RESULTS: All included patients had characteristic cutaneous manifestations of dermatomyositis; 67.4% had myositis-associated auto-antibodies, including ANA (32.6%), RNP (14.0%), anti-Ro52 (9.3%), anti-p155/140 (7.0%), rheumatoid factor (7.0%), anti-NXP-2 (4.7%), anti-MDA5 (2.3%), and anti-Jo-1 (2.3%) antibodies. One patient had associated interstitial lung disease, and another patient had oral squamous cell carcinoma. The histopathological findings included mucin deposition (69.8%), telangiectasia (65.1%), lymphocytic infiltrate (48.8%), vacuolar interface dermatitis (46.5%), and epidermal atrophy (14.0%). Compared to patients with HDM, ADM patients were significantly less likely to have epidermal atrophy, 3.3% versus 38.5% (p = 0.006), and more likely to have mucin deposition, 80.0% versus 46.2% (p = 0.028).
CONCLUSION: We described the clinicopathological features of CADM and highlighted the distinctions between ADM and HDM dermatopathologic findings. This information may prove helpful in diagnosing ambiguous lesions.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 43 patients with CADM diagnosed at our institution from 2016 to 2020. Patients were subclassed into ADM (n = 30) and HDM (n = 13) groups to assess their clinicopathological differences.
RESULTS: All included patients had characteristic cutaneous manifestations of dermatomyositis; 67.4% had myositis-associated auto-antibodies, including ANA (32.6%), RNP (14.0%), anti-Ro52 (9.3%), anti-p155/140 (7.0%), rheumatoid factor (7.0%), anti-NXP-2 (4.7%), anti-MDA5 (2.3%), and anti-Jo-1 (2.3%) antibodies. One patient had associated interstitial lung disease, and another patient had oral squamous cell carcinoma. The histopathological findings included mucin deposition (69.8%), telangiectasia (65.1%), lymphocytic infiltrate (48.8%), vacuolar interface dermatitis (46.5%), and epidermal atrophy (14.0%). Compared to patients with HDM, ADM patients were significantly less likely to have epidermal atrophy, 3.3% versus 38.5% (p = 0.006), and more likely to have mucin deposition, 80.0% versus 46.2% (p = 0.028).
CONCLUSION: We described the clinicopathological features of CADM and highlighted the distinctions between ADM and HDM dermatopathologic findings. This information may prove helpful in diagnosing ambiguous lesions.