Jessner's lymphocytic infiltrate and probable discoid lupus erythematosus occurring separately in two sisters

Could Jessner’s Lymphocytic Infiltrate of the Skin Be a Dermal Variant of Lupus Erythematosus? An Analysis of 210 Cases

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between Jessner's lymphocytic infiltration of the skin (JLI) and lupus erythematosus (LE), which has been the subject of debate since its initial description in 1953.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study including all patients with a histopathologically ascertained diagnosis of JLI performed at the Laboratoire d'Histopathologie Cutanée of the Strasbourg University Hospital between 1993 and 2003. Information about patient characteristics and follow-up data were retrieved between 2004 and 2005. Special attention was paid to features indicative of LE.

RESULTS

210 consecutive patients (102 women and 108 men) with a mean age 42 years were diagnosed with JLI in the reference period. 175 patients (83%) had multiple lesions and 32 patients (15%) had only a single lesion at the time of diagnosis (data not available in 3 patients). The head, neck and upper part of the thorax were involved in 171 patients (81%). An annular or arciform configuration and/or arrangement were present in 111 patients (53%). Lesions consisted of red (100%) papules or plaques (98%). Mean follow-up was 4 years. Sixteen patients (7.6%) had proven LE. Only 2 patients (1%) developed >4 ACR criteria of systemic LE. Furthermore, 1 patient had antiphospholipid antibody syndrome and 2 patients had rheumatoid arthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

This high frequency of patients with typical features of LE strongly argues that JLI could be a dermal variant of LE and not an autonomous entity. It might be the cutaneous marker of a subset of LE patients with excellent prognosis.

Jessner’s Lymphocytic Infiltration of the Skin: A CD8+ Polyclonal Reactive Skin Condition

BACKGROUND

Jessner's lymphocytic infiltration of the skin (JLIS) is a clinically and histologically distinct disease entity. Conflicting results have been reported concerning its differentiation from cutaneous lupus erythematosus and polymorphous light eruption, its relationship to palpable migratory arciform erythema and its classification as a B-cell or a CD4+ T-cell lymphoproliferative disease.

OBJECTIVE

Our study was performed in order to re-evaluate JLIS clinically and by immunohistochemical and molecular analyses.

METHODS

Stringent inclusion/exclusion criteria were used to collect a cohort of 34 patients with JLIS that did not overlap with lupus erythematosus or polymorphous light eruption. Clinical data were analysed, and immunohistochemical and molecular studies were performed including TCR-gamma PCR GeneScan software analysis of tissue and peripheral blood samples.

RESULTS

In the majority of the patients, the lesions consisted only of papules and plaques while in 12% annular lesions were also seen. The lesions were found on the face (38%), on the trunk and arms (50%) or at both sites (12%). Immunohistochemical analyses revealed a clear predominance of T cells in all patients, and of CD8+ T cells in 77% of the patients. As judged by TCR-gamma PCR GeneScan analysis, 98 and 79% of the tissue and peripheral blood samples, respectively, showed a polyclonal T-cell population; identical T-cell clones were not detected concomitantly in both the skin and the peripheral blood of the same patient.

CONCLUSIONS

JLIS occurs at 2 major predilection sites, that is the face and trunk. Therefore introduction of palpable migratory arciform erythema as a separate entity is not justified. The lymphoid infiltrates are dominated immunohistochemically by CD8+ T cells that do not show clonality on molecular analysis. Thus, JLIS represents a characteristic CD8+ polyclonal reactive skin condition.

Histopathologic findings in lupus erythematosus tumidus: review of 80 patients

BACKGROUND

In a recent study, we demonstrated that lupus erythematosus (LE) tumidus (LET) is a distinct subset of cutaneous LE (CLE), which is clinically characterized by erythematous, urticaria-like, nonscarring plaques in sun-exposed areas.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to analyze skin biopsy specimens from 80 patients with this disease and to determine whether it could be differentiated from other variants of CLE on histopathologic grounds.

METHODS

Skin biopsy specimens from 53 primary and 38 UVA- and/or UVB-induced lesions of 80 patients with LET were examined and compared with skin biopsy specimens from patients with discoid LE (DLE) and subacute CLE (SCLE).

RESULTS

Specimens from LET lesions showed a characteristic and diagnostic pattern of perivascular and periadnexal cellular infiltrates in the papillary and reticular dermis composed almost entirely of lymphocytes. In some cases, few scattered neutrophils were present. Furthermore, interstitial mucin deposition was observed in all specimens, as confirmed by colloidal iron staining. In contrast to discoid LE and subacute CLE lesions, epidermal atrophy or alteration at the dermoepidermal junction was not detected.

CONCLUSION

Skin lesions of patients with LET present with specific histopathologic features, and the differences compared with subacute CLE and discoid LE further support the concept to consider LET as a separate entity of CLE.

Lymphocytic infiltration of the skin is a photosensitive variant of lupus erythematosus: evidence by phototesting

BACKGROUND

Lymphocytic infiltration of the skin (LIS) is a disorder in which photosensitivity has been suspected but never proven.

OBJECTIVES

To carry out a systematic photobiological investigation in patients with LIS and to compare the photobiological features of LIS with those of other photosensitive disorders.

METHODS

We performed provocative phototesting with ultraviolet (UV) A and UVB in 10 patients with active LIS.

RESULTS

In all patients, UVA and/or UVB elicited abnormal papular phototest reactions resembling lesions of LIS both clinically and histologically. Lesions typically developed 3--6 days (mean +/- SD 100.8 +/- 20.9 h) after the first UV exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

This characteristic latency interval together with certain clinical features, i.e. onset in summer, predilection for the face and persistence of the lesions, indicate that LIS is a photosensitive disorder distinct from polymorphic light eruption but indistinct from lupus erythematosus (LE). Both our photobiological findings and the effective treatment with hydroxychloroquine in half of our patients strengthen the proposal that the two entities LIS and LE tumidus are identical. As diagnosis cannot be made by histological, immunofluorescence or laboratory criteria, provocative phototesting may be a diagnostic aid in this disorder.