International journal of dermatology · 2018
Idiopathic histiocytoid Sweet syndrome: a case report with clinical and histopathological considerations.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Secchin Pedro, Gomes Maria K, Quintella Danielle C, Barata Mariangela C C, Machado Humberto S V, Ramos-E-Silva Marcia, Cuzzi Tullia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Histiocytoid Sweet syndrome is characterized by a predominant neutrophilic dermal infiltrate. Usual clinical differential diagnosis includes erythema multiforme, drug eruption, and erythema nodosum. Histiocytoid Sweet syndrome is considered an uncommon histopathological variant of the disease.
METHODS: We evaluated clinical, histopathological, and immunohistochemical findings of a case categorized as idiopathic histiocytoid Sweet syndrome in which clinical-epidemiological data raised the possibilities of Sweet syndrome, leprosy, and drug reaction.
RESULTS: Positive reaction to myeloperoxidase (MPO) in histiocytoid cells of the dermal infiltrate, response to oral corticosteroids, clinical and laboratory investigation, and absence of cutaneous lesions or clinical complaints within 1 year of follow-up are consistent with the diagnosis of idiopathic histiocytoid Sweet syndrome. CD68 (PG-M1) and CD15 positive cells were also present among dermal cells.
CONCLUSIONS: Epidemiological data are relevant while considering a clinical differential diagnosis of Sweet syndrome that can be further expanded, from a histopathological point of view, when dealing with the histiocytoid variant since neutrophils, macrophages, and immature myelomonocytic cells with histiocytoid morphology are present. The significance of the MPO positive mononuclear dermal cells are not completely established.
METHODS: We evaluated clinical, histopathological, and immunohistochemical findings of a case categorized as idiopathic histiocytoid Sweet syndrome in which clinical-epidemiological data raised the possibilities of Sweet syndrome, leprosy, and drug reaction.
RESULTS: Positive reaction to myeloperoxidase (MPO) in histiocytoid cells of the dermal infiltrate, response to oral corticosteroids, clinical and laboratory investigation, and absence of cutaneous lesions or clinical complaints within 1 year of follow-up are consistent with the diagnosis of idiopathic histiocytoid Sweet syndrome. CD68 (PG-M1) and CD15 positive cells were also present among dermal cells.
CONCLUSIONS: Epidemiological data are relevant while considering a clinical differential diagnosis of Sweet syndrome that can be further expanded, from a histopathological point of view, when dealing with the histiocytoid variant since neutrophils, macrophages, and immature myelomonocytic cells with histiocytoid morphology are present. The significance of the MPO positive mononuclear dermal cells are not completely established.