Journal of cutaneous pathology · 2013
The differential diagnosis of CD8-positive ("type D") lymphomatoid papulosis.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
McQuitty Elizabeth, Curry Jonathan L, Tetzlaff Michael T, Prieto Victor G, Duvic Madeleine, Torres-Cabala Carlos
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cutaneous CD8(+) CD30(+) lymphoproliferative lesions are difficult to classify and encompass entities that follow a benign course to overt lymphoma. In order to identify histopathologic criteria for lesions in this spectrum, a series of such cases was reviewed.
METHODS: Twenty-eight biopsies from 27 patients with CD8(+) CD30(+) cutaneous lymphoid proliferations were evaluated.
RESULTS: Seventeen cases were classified as lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) 'type D', eight as cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (C-ALCL) and two as CD8(+) mycosis fungoides (MF) with CD30 expression. Features of LyP included spongiosis and/or parakeratosis (90%), epidermotropism by large lymphocytes (90%), with (80%) or without (10%) small lymphocytes; wedge-shaped infiltrate (70%) with perivascular (100%) and interstitial (80%) pattern; and relative uniformity of CD30(+) large atypical cells (90%). C-ALCL was characterized by ulceration (63%), epidermotropism restricted to small lymphocytes (100%), marked density (63%) and pleomorphism (62%) of CD30(+) large atypical cells, and at least focal extension of infiltrate to subcutaneous tissue (88%). CD8(+) CD30(+) MF had vacuolar interface change and a lichenoid pattern (100%).
CONCLUSIONS: We concur with previous authors that distinction of CD8(+) LyP from lymphoma in its differential diagnosis is difficult based on histopathology alone. Nonetheless, we propose that certain histopathologic clues may be helpful in this differential diagnosis.
METHODS: Twenty-eight biopsies from 27 patients with CD8(+) CD30(+) cutaneous lymphoid proliferations were evaluated.
RESULTS: Seventeen cases were classified as lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) 'type D', eight as cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (C-ALCL) and two as CD8(+) mycosis fungoides (MF) with CD30 expression. Features of LyP included spongiosis and/or parakeratosis (90%), epidermotropism by large lymphocytes (90%), with (80%) or without (10%) small lymphocytes; wedge-shaped infiltrate (70%) with perivascular (100%) and interstitial (80%) pattern; and relative uniformity of CD30(+) large atypical cells (90%). C-ALCL was characterized by ulceration (63%), epidermotropism restricted to small lymphocytes (100%), marked density (63%) and pleomorphism (62%) of CD30(+) large atypical cells, and at least focal extension of infiltrate to subcutaneous tissue (88%). CD8(+) CD30(+) MF had vacuolar interface change and a lichenoid pattern (100%).
CONCLUSIONS: We concur with previous authors that distinction of CD8(+) LyP from lymphoma in its differential diagnosis is difficult based on histopathology alone. Nonetheless, we propose that certain histopathologic clues may be helpful in this differential diagnosis.