Assessment of the 'no eosinophils' rule: Are eosinophils truly absent in pityriasis lichenoides, connective tissue disease, and graft-vs.-host disease?

Victoria R. Sharon, Thomas Konia, Keira L. Barr, Maxwell A Fung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Eosinophils are often present in the inflammatory infiltrate of an interface dermatitis, but the diagnostic specificity of eosinophils in interface dermatitis has not been formally evaluated. We retrospectively identified 97 examples of interface dermatitis with clinically confirmed diagnoses, including lupus erythematosus (LE), lichen planus, pityriasis lichenoides (PL), graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD), dermatomyositis (DM) and drug reaction. Diagnoses were clinically confirmed by at least two dermatologists. Slides were reviewed in a blinded fashion by at least two dermatopathologists. The average eosinophil count per 10 × 200 (× 20 objective) fields was lowest for PL (0.2), DM (0.3), GVHD (0.4), and LE (0.5) [defined as Group 1] and was higher for lichen planus, drug reactions, erythema multiforme (major and minor) and viral exanthems [defined as Group 2]. Distinction between Group 1 and Group 2 was maximized using an eosinophil count cutoff of 1.1. In conclusion, eosinophils are usually rare to absent in PL, DM, most forms of LE and GVHD. While final interpretation requires a composite assessment of all features, our results suggest that the presence of even a single eosinophil within nine or ten × 20 fields argues against a diagnosis of PL, DM or LE.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)413-418
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Cutaneous Pathology
Volume39
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2012

Fingerprint

Pityriasis Lichenoides
Connective Tissue Diseases
Eosinophils
Dermatomyositis
Transplants
Dermatitis
Lichen Planus
Erythema Multiforme
Exanthema
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Keywords

  • dermatomyositis
  • dermatopathology
  • eosinophils
  • interface dermatitis
  • lupus erythematosus

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dermatology
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Histology

Cite this

@article{5786083e99244899a27f2b42c39eba30,
title = "Assessment of the 'no eosinophils' rule: Are eosinophils truly absent in pityriasis lichenoides, connective tissue disease, and graft-vs.-host disease?",
abstract = "Eosinophils are often present in the inflammatory infiltrate of an interface dermatitis, but the diagnostic specificity of eosinophils in interface dermatitis has not been formally evaluated. We retrospectively identified 97 examples of interface dermatitis with clinically confirmed diagnoses, including lupus erythematosus (LE), lichen planus, pityriasis lichenoides (PL), graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD), dermatomyositis (DM) and drug reaction. Diagnoses were clinically confirmed by at least two dermatologists. Slides were reviewed in a blinded fashion by at least two dermatopathologists. The average eosinophil count per 10 × 200 (× 20 objective) fields was lowest for PL (0.2), DM (0.3), GVHD (0.4), and LE (0.5) [defined as Group 1] and was higher for lichen planus, drug reactions, erythema multiforme (major and minor) and viral exanthems [defined as Group 2]. Distinction between Group 1 and Group 2 was maximized using an eosinophil count cutoff of 1.1. In conclusion, eosinophils are usually rare to absent in PL, DM, most forms of LE and GVHD. While final interpretation requires a composite assessment of all features, our results suggest that the presence of even a single eosinophil within nine or ten × 20 fields argues against a diagnosis of PL, DM or LE.",
keywords = "dermatomyositis, dermatopathology, eosinophils, interface dermatitis, lupus erythematosus",
author = "Sharon, {Victoria R.} and Thomas Konia and Barr, {Keira L.} and Fung, {Maxwell A}",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1111/j.1600-0560.2012.01891.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "413--418",
journal = "Journal of Cutaneous Pathology",
issn = "0303-6987",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of the 'no eosinophils' rule

T2 - Are eosinophils truly absent in pityriasis lichenoides, connective tissue disease, and graft-vs.-host disease?

AU - Sharon, Victoria R.

AU - Konia, Thomas

AU - Barr, Keira L.

AU - Fung, Maxwell A

PY - 2012/4

Y1 - 2012/4

N2 - Eosinophils are often present in the inflammatory infiltrate of an interface dermatitis, but the diagnostic specificity of eosinophils in interface dermatitis has not been formally evaluated. We retrospectively identified 97 examples of interface dermatitis with clinically confirmed diagnoses, including lupus erythematosus (LE), lichen planus, pityriasis lichenoides (PL), graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD), dermatomyositis (DM) and drug reaction. Diagnoses were clinically confirmed by at least two dermatologists. Slides were reviewed in a blinded fashion by at least two dermatopathologists. The average eosinophil count per 10 × 200 (× 20 objective) fields was lowest for PL (0.2), DM (0.3), GVHD (0.4), and LE (0.5) [defined as Group 1] and was higher for lichen planus, drug reactions, erythema multiforme (major and minor) and viral exanthems [defined as Group 2]. Distinction between Group 1 and Group 2 was maximized using an eosinophil count cutoff of 1.1. In conclusion, eosinophils are usually rare to absent in PL, DM, most forms of LE and GVHD. While final interpretation requires a composite assessment of all features, our results suggest that the presence of even a single eosinophil within nine or ten × 20 fields argues against a diagnosis of PL, DM or LE.

AB - Eosinophils are often present in the inflammatory infiltrate of an interface dermatitis, but the diagnostic specificity of eosinophils in interface dermatitis has not been formally evaluated. We retrospectively identified 97 examples of interface dermatitis with clinically confirmed diagnoses, including lupus erythematosus (LE), lichen planus, pityriasis lichenoides (PL), graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD), dermatomyositis (DM) and drug reaction. Diagnoses were clinically confirmed by at least two dermatologists. Slides were reviewed in a blinded fashion by at least two dermatopathologists. The average eosinophil count per 10 × 200 (× 20 objective) fields was lowest for PL (0.2), DM (0.3), GVHD (0.4), and LE (0.5) [defined as Group 1] and was higher for lichen planus, drug reactions, erythema multiforme (major and minor) and viral exanthems [defined as Group 2]. Distinction between Group 1 and Group 2 was maximized using an eosinophil count cutoff of 1.1. In conclusion, eosinophils are usually rare to absent in PL, DM, most forms of LE and GVHD. While final interpretation requires a composite assessment of all features, our results suggest that the presence of even a single eosinophil within nine or ten × 20 fields argues against a diagnosis of PL, DM or LE.

KW - dermatomyositis

KW - dermatopathology

KW - eosinophils

KW - interface dermatitis

KW - lupus erythematosus

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859080593&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859080593&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1600-0560.2012.01891.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1600-0560.2012.01891.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 22443393

AN - SCOPUS:84859080593

VL - 39

SP - 413

EP - 418

JO - Journal of Cutaneous Pathology

JF - Journal of Cutaneous Pathology

SN - 0303-6987

IS - 4

ER -