Kempf, Werner

ABSTRACTBackgroundPrimary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (pcALCL) and lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) are indolent CD30‐positive lymphoproliferative disorders that rarely express TCR‐γδ. However, primary cutaneous gamma‐delta T‐cell lymphoma (pcGDTCL), characterized by TCR‐γδ expression on neoplastic cells, is a rare, aggressive cutaneous T‐cell lymphoma with a poor prognosis. Accurate differentiation is essential due to distinct clinical behavior and treatment.MethodsWe identified 11 TCR‐γδ‐positive pcALCL cases from internal and consultation files, verified by two cutaneous lymphoma experts, with clinicopathologic data recorded.ResultsThe median age was 68 years (range 38–95). Most cases presented as a single dermal lesion on the upper extremities. All were ALK‐negative, CD30‐positive (> 90% tumor cells), TCR‐βF1‐negative, and diffusely TCR‐γδ‐positive. CD4−/CD8− (54.5%) and CD4+/CD8− (45.5%) immunophenotypes were observed. CD2 (63.6%) and CD3 (54.5%) were the most common T‐cell antigens. Ulceration, inflammation (both 45.5%), and necrosis (36.4%) were frequent. Angiotropism, angiocentricity, and myxoid stroma appeared in one case; epidermotropism in two. Four of ten tested were DUSP22‐rearranged, and TP63 was negative in all eight tested.ConclusionsMost ALK‐negative TCR‐γδ‐positive pcALCL were CD4−/CD8−, followed by CD4+/CD8−. DUSP22 rearrangement occurred in 40% of cases, similar to reports in typical pcALCL. Its prognosis and the role of DUSP22 are yet to be clarified.

Lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) has several histopathologic presentations. LyP featuring gamma-delta (γδ) T-cell receptor expression may masquerade as and may be misdiagnosed as aggressive cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, particularly primary cutaneous γδ T-cell lymphoma (PCGDTL) or γδ mycosis fungoides. We performed a clinicopathologic analysis of the largest series of LyP featuring γδ T-cell expression. We identified 26 patients with a diagnosis of LyP with γδ T cells from our institutions, as well as through a comprehensive review of the literature, and characterized these cases. Most cases were treated with topical steroids or not treated at all. The majority of cases showed a CD4-CD8+ phenotype and featured at least one cytotoxic marker. Histopathologic features included an intraepidermal or dermal infiltrate with large cells and frequent angiotropism. One case was initially misdiagnosed as PCGDTL, requiring further therapy. Our case series, the largest international cohort of γδ T cell predominant LyP cases, confirms marked clinicopathologic heterogeneity that may contribute to misdiagnosis, reasserting the need to identify classic clinical features, CD30+ T-cell components, and markers of cytotoxicity when dealing with this differential diagnosis. A limitation of this study includes somewhat limited follow-up, histologic, and immunophenotypic information for some cases.

Abstract The number of patients with primary cutaneous lymphoma (PCL) relative to other non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs) is small and the number of subtypes large. Although clinical trial guidelines have been published for mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome, the most common type of PCL, none exist for the other PCLs. In addition, staging of the PCLs has been evolving based on new data on potential prognostic factors, diagnosis, and assessment methods of both skin and extracutaneous disease and a desire to align the latter with the Lugano guidelines for all NHLs. The International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas (ISCL), the United States Cutaneous LymphomaConsortium (USCLC), and the Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) now propose updated staging and guidelines for the study design, assessment, endpoints, and response criteria in clinical trials for all the PCLs in alignment with that of the Lugano guidelines. These recommendations provide standardized methodology that should facilitate planning and regulatory approval of new treatments for these lymphomas worldwide, encourage cooperative investigator-initiated trials, and help to assess the comparative efficacy of therapeutic agents tested across sites and studies.

This pathology PILOT study aims to define the role and feasibility of centralized pathology review in a cohort of 75 patients from different centers in the United States and Europe using digital slide scanning. The pathologic material from 75 patients who had been diagnosed with mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome and were clinically staged as IIb or above was retrieved from 11 participating centers. Each pathology reviewer was provided with the pathologic diagnosis (by the referring pathologist), and the following list of histopathologic criteria (presence or absence) from the initial report: epidermotropism, folliculotropism (FT), large cell transformation, syringotropism, and granulomas. Patients with advance stage were selected for this study as this is a population where there is significant variability in the diagnosis of pathologic prognostic and predictive biomarkers. The slides were digitally scanned with an Aperio scanner and consensus review of cases occurred when major or minor discrepancies between the referral diagnosis and central pathology review occurred. Among the 75 cases, 70 (93.3%) had a final consensus diagnosis between the 3 central review pathologists. The overall agreement between the consensus review and the referring pathologist was 60%. The overall agreement was also higher between the reviewers and consensus review, compared with the referring pathologist and consensus. 65.3% of cases had some type of discrepancy (major or minor) between the outside and consensus review. Major discrepancies were seen in 34 of 73 cases (46.6%; 73 cases indicated a yes or no response). Minor discrepancies were seen in 32 of 75 (42.7%) of cases. Most of the major discrepancies were accounted by a difference in interpretation in the presence or absence of large cell transformation or FT. Most minor discrepancies were explained by a different interpretation in the expression of CD30. We found digital slide scanning to be a beneficial, reliable, and practical for a methodical approach to perform central pathology review in the context of a large clinical prospective study.

AbstractMany clinical trials have been conducted on the treatment of pityriasis rosea (PR). Our aim was to establish a position statement for the management of adults withPRbased on the best available evidence. We searchedPubMedfor all reports on randomized controlled trials for the treatment ofPRpublished in the past 30 years. We retrieved 14 articles reporting randomized controlled trials, and found five which met our quality requirements for in‐depth analyses. Erythromycin was found in a well‐conducted triple‐blind study to cast significant impacts on clinical outcomes. However, adverse gastrointestinal effects were fairly common. Another well‐conducted study on azithromycin reported no significant benefit. It was reported in three well‐conducted studies on oral acyclovir in low dose (400 mg three times daily for 7 days or 400 mg five times daily for 7 days) and high dose (800 mg five times daily for 7 days), that acyclovir is effective in attaining rash regression and lessening the pruritus. When compared against each other, the high‐dose regimen demonstrated no benefit over the low‐dose regimens. Our statement comprises the follows: (i) The diagnosis ofPRshould be ascertained; (ii) The patients should be assessed for rash severity and impacts on quality of life; (iii)PRis a self‐limiting disease, and most patients do not necessitate any treatment; (iv) For patients necessitating active treatment, oral acyclovir as 400 mg three times daily for 7 days can be considered; (v) Attention should be given to adverse effects and contraindications of acyclovir; (vi) WhenPRoccurs in early pregnancy, oral antiviral therapy could be considered after consulting experienced clinicians; (vii) Inadequate information exists in the use of acyclovir to treatmentPRin children and breastfeeding women; and (viii) TreatingPRis an off‐label use of acyclovir, and this has to be discussed with experienced colleagues and the patients.