rss
J Clin Pathol doi:10.1136/jcp.2007.053389

The histological diagnosis of leprosy Type 1 reactions: identification of key variables and an analysis of the process of histological diagnosis

  1. Diana NJ Lockwood (diana.lockwood{at}lshtm.ac.uk)
  1. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom
    1. Sebastian B Lucas
    1. King's College London School of Medicine, United Kingdom
      1. KV Desikan
      1. Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, India
        1. Gigi Ebenezer
        1. Johns Hopkins University, United States
          1. Sujai Suneetha
          1. Nireekshana, India
            1. Peter Nicholls
            1. University of Southampton, United Kingdom
              • Published Online First 6 March 2008

              Abstract

              Type 1 leprosy reactions (T1R) are a major inflammatory complication of leprosy affecting 30 % of patients with borderline leprosy but there has been no diagnostic evaluation of the histological diagnosis of this entity. In a prospective study based in India skin biopsies were taken from 99 patients with clinically diagnosed reactions and 52 non-reactional controls. These were assessed histologically by four histopathologists whose assessments were then compared. Reactions were under-diagnosed with 32-62% of clinically diagnosed reactions being given that histological diagnosis. The pathologists had good specifities (range 72%- 93%) but much poorer sensitivities (range 42-78%). The most commonly reported histological features of TIR were cell maturity, oedema and giant cells. Five key variables were identified that the pathologists use in diagnosing a reaction: intra-granuloma oedema, giant cell size, giant cell numbers, dermal oedema and HLA-DR expression. A predictive model for the diagnosis of T1R was developed using stepwise logistic regression analysis with clinical diagnosis of reaction as an outcome and then identifying the key variables that each pathologist used in making the diagnosis of T1R. 34-53% of the variation between pathologists could be accounted for. The four pathologists used a similar diagnostic model and for all of them their estimations of epithelioid cell granuloma oedema, dermal oedema, plasma cells and Granuloma fraction estimation were significant variables in the diagnosis of T1R. Each pathologist then added in variables that were specific to them. This study has identified T1R as being under-diagnosed in comparison with clinical assessments. Key variables for diagnosing T1R have been established. This comparative masked study highlights the need for such studies in other inflammatory conditions.

              Latest from JCP Education

              Latest from JCP Education

              Register for free content


              Free sample
              This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of JCP.
              View free sample issue >>

              Free archive
              The full back archive is now available for JCP. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
              Register to access the free archive >>

              Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

            1. Latest Pathology jobs

              Latest Pathology jobs