Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma: Clues to Diagnosis in Early Lesions

  • Marco Santucci
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 265)

Abstract

The correct identification of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas and their differentiation from both inflammatory dermatoses and reactive lymphoid hyperplasias represent a vexing problem when dealing with the initial phases of a lymphomatous process. Even advanced diagnostic techniques, like immunophenotyping, quantitative DNA cytophotometry, and molecular genetic analysis, have proven to be unsuitable for solving the problem; thus, light microscopy remains the basic, gold standard diagnostic procedure. In order to make a definite diagnosis of lymphoma from early lesions, the most important and cardinal feature is the presence of lymphocytes with extremely convoluted (cerebriform), medium-large-sized (7–9 μm) nuclei (medium-large cerebriform celis), singly or in clusters in the epidermis and in discrete collections in the dermis. Additional histologic features are: (i) epidermotropism, manifested as single cells lining up along the basal keratinocytes near the dermal-epidermal junction; (ii) tendency of medium-large cerebriform cells within the epidermis to congregate and seemingly to touch one another; (iii) absence of spongiotic microvesiculation; (iv) little or no edema of the papillary dermis; slight to moderate fibrosis in some cases; and (v) a tendency of the dermal infiltrate, which as a rule is rather monomorphous in composition, to assume a lichenoid configuration.

Keywords

Lymphoma Shrinkage Convolution Hematoxylin Eosin 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bignon YL and P Souteyrand, 1990. Genotyping of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas and pseudolymphomas, In: WA van Vloten, R Willemze, G Lange Vejlsgaard and K Thomsen, Eds. Cutaneous Lymphoma, Current Problems in Dermatology, vol. 19 (H Honigsmann, Ed:), Karger, Basel.Google Scholar
  2. Burg G and P Kaudewitz, 1990. Where are we today in the diagnosis of cutaneous lymphoma?, In: WA van Vloten, R Willemze, G Lange Vejlsgaard and K Thomsen, Eds., Cutaneous Lymphoma, Current Problems in Dermatology, vol. 19 (H Honigsmann, Ed.), Karger, Basel, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. Burg G, M Santucci, AC Feller and É Szabó, 1992. Diagnostic problems in minimal lymphoproliferative skin infiltrates. Am. J. Dermatopathol., 14Google Scholar
  4. Caro WA, 1978. Biopsy in suspected malignant lymphoma of the skin. Cutis, 21: 197.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Everett MA, 1985. Early diagnosis of mycosis fungoides: Vacuolar interface dermatitis. J. Cutan. Pathol., 12: 271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Everett MA, 1986. Questions to the Editorial Board and Other Authorities. Am. J. Dermatopathol., 8: 536.Google Scholar
  7. Freeman RG, 1986. Questions to the Editorial Board and Other Authorities. Am. J. Dermatopathol., 8: 536.Google Scholar
  8. Graham JH, Johnson WC, and Helwig EB, 1972. Dermal Pathology, Harper & Row, Hagerstown, MD.Google Scholar
  9. Jones RE, 1986. Questions to the Editorial Board and Other Authorities. Am. J. Dermatopathol., 8: 536.Google Scholar
  10. King-Ismael D and AB Ackerman, 1992. Guttate parapsoriasis/digitate dermatosis (small plaque parapsoriasis) is mycosis fungoides. Am. J. Dermatopathol., 14: 518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. LeBoit PE and TG Parslow, 1987. Gene rearrangements in lymphoma. Applications to dermatopathology, Am. J. Dermatopathol., 9: 212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. LeBoit PE, and Epstein BA, 1990. A vase-like shape characterizes the epidermal-mononuclear cell collections seen in spongiotic dermatitis. Am. J. Dermatopathol., 12: 612.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. LeBoit PE, 1991. Variants of mycosis fungoides and related cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. Semin. Diagn. Pathol., 8: 73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lever WF, and G Schaumburg-Lever, 1987. Histopathology of the Skin, 6th ed., JB Lippincott Co., Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  15. Montgomery H, 1967. Dermatopathology, Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Nickoloff BJ, 1988. Light-microscopic assessment of 100 patients with patch/plaque-stage mycosis fungoides. Am. J. Dermatopathol., 10: 469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ralfkiaer E, 1991. Immunohistological markers for the diagnosis of cutaneous lymphomas. Semin. Diagn. Pathol., 8: 62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Reed R, 1986. Questions to the Editorial Board and Other Authorities. Am. J. Dermatopathol., 8: 536.Google Scholar
  19. Rijlaarsdam U and R Willemze, 1991. Cutaneous pseudo-T cell lymphomas. Semin. Diagn. Pathol., 8: 102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Slater DN, 1987. Recent developments in cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders. J. Pathol., 153: 5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Samman PD, 1972. The natural history of parapsoriasis en plaques (chronic superficial dermatitis) and prereticulotic poikiloderma. Br. J. Dermatol., 87: 405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sanchez JL and AB Ackerman, 1979. The patch stage of mycosis fungoides. Criteria for histologic diagnosis. Am. J. Dermatopathol., 1: 5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Suchi T, K Lennert, L-Y Tu, M Kikuchi, E Sato, AG Stansfeld, and AC Feller, 1987. Histopathology and immunohistochemistry of peripheral T cell lymphomas: A proposal for their classification. J. Clin. Pathol., 40: 995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Volkenandt M, HP Soyer, H Kerl and JR Bertino, 1991. Development of a highly specific and sensitive molecular probe for detection of cutaneous lymphoma. J. Invest. Dermatol., 97: 137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Santucci
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Morbid Anatomy and HistopathologyUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations