4.7 Article

Nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma with nodules resembling T-cell/histiocyte-rich B-cell lymphoma:: differential diagnosis between nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma and T-cell/histiocyte-rich B-cell lymphoma

期刊

BLOOD
卷 102, 期 10, 页码 3753-3758

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2003-02-0626

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) and T-cell/histiocyte-rich B-cell lymphoma (T/HRBCL) are distinct tumors and are treated differently. They are linked by a morphologic and probably a biologic continuum, which renders the differential diagnosis difficult. To develop criteria to distinguish the entities along the morphologic continuum, we correlated the lymph node architecture and immunophenotype of both tumor cells and reactive components of 235 neoplasms in the spectrum of NLPHL and T/HRBCL with clinical data. Two hundred and eighteen cases fitted the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria of NLPHL (139) or T/HRBCL (79). While tumor cells in both entities were immunophenotypically similar, background composition differed: in NLPHL small B cells and CD3(+)CD4(+)CD57(+) T cells were common, whereas in T/HRBCL, CD8(+) cytotoxic T cells and histiocytes dominated. Follicular dendritic cells (FDCs) formed expanded meshworks in NLPHL, whereas they were absent in T/HRBCL. Seventeen cases represented a gray zone: within FDC meshworks, neoplastic B cells resided in a background depleted of small B cells but rich in T cells and histiocytes. Tumor cells either were loosely scattered or formed clusters, thus resembling areas of either T/HRBCL or inflammatory diffuse large BCL (DLBCL) within the nodules. Patients with these NLPHLs with T-cell/histiocyte-rich nodules presented at a high stage and with B symptoms, as in T/HRBCL, but had an excellent survival, as in NLPHL. This morphologic pattern suggests a biologic continuum between NLPHL and T/HRBCL. (C) 2003 by The American Society of Hematology.

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

4.7
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