4.4 Article

Histologic findings in lung biopsies in patients with suspected graft-versus-host disease

期刊

HUMAN PATHOLOGY
卷 44, 期 7, 页码 1233-1240

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2012.11.012

关键词

Graft-versus-host; Bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome; Stem cell transplant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The histopathologic features of pulmonary graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) status post bone marrow transplant are not well described. Lung biopsies from patients with clinically suspected GVHD were studied. There were 17 biopsies from 9 men and 5 women. Alveolar changes were classified as acute lung injury with intra-alveolar fibrin, organizing pneumonia (OP), and chronic interstitial pneumonia (CIP). Intraepithelial bronchiolar T cells were increased in 16 of 17 biopsies within bronchiolar mucosa (56 +/- 30 per 100 epithelial cells). Atypical pneumocytes were present in 10 biopsies, and atypia was marked in 2 biopsies. Reactive bronchiolar cells were also seen in all 3 groups and showed mild atypia in 5 and marked atypia in 1, mimicking viral cytopathic effect. Apoptosis of bronchiolar epithelium and interstitium was seen in all but 1 case and was most marked in the acute injury and OP patterns. Perivenular cuffing was present in 11 of 17 biopsies. All 3 patients with acute injury died of acute respiratory distress syndrome; 1 patient with OP died of systemic GVHD; and 1 patient with CIP pattern died of opportunistic infection. Obstructive lung disease with obliterative bronchiolitis developed in 3 patients, all of whom stabilized with treatment and were alive at last followup (mean, 25 months). All 3 histologic patterns of pulmonary GVHD are characterized by intrabronchiolar T cells, apoptosis, and perivenulitis, which help to distinguish GVHD from infections. The acute lung injury pattern has a poor prognosis, and bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome develops in a subset of patients with CIP histologic pattern. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据