AIMS: To determine the utility of clinical, morphological and phenotypical features in the differential diagnosis of plasmablastic lymphoma and myeloma with plasmablastic features. METHODS: All plasmablastic neoplasms identified from a 15-year retrospective search were reviewed and classified into 'lymphoma', 'myeloma' or 'indeterminate'. The classification was then compared with the previously established clinical diagnosis. Lessons learned from this review were used to design a diagnostic algorithm for pathologists to use in the absence of known clinical history. RESULTS: The classification was possible in 10 of 11 cases, 8 lymphomas and 2 myelomas (n=2). No distinctive morphological or phenotypical features were identified. The most useful histopathological parameter was a positive Epstein-Barr virus in situ hybridisation. Presence of associated lymphadenopathy and/or oral mass in the absence of complete myeloma-defining signs was used to favour a diagnosis of lymphoma in 4 of 8 cases. CONCLUSIONS: The distinction between plasmablastic lymphoma from plasmablastic myeloma warrants detailed knowledge of clinical, radiological and laboratorial findings. New studies identifying distinctive phenotypical or genetic features are needed to improve the histopathological differentiation of plasmablastic neoplasms. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
AIMS: To determine the utility of clinical, morphological and phenotypical features in the differential diagnosis of plasmablastic lymphoma and myeloma with plasmablastic features. METHODS: All plasmablastic neoplasms identified from a 15-year retrospective search were reviewed and classified into 'lymphoma', 'myeloma' or 'indeterminate'. The classification was then compared with the previously established clinical diagnosis. Lessons learned from this review were used to design a diagnostic algorithm for pathologists to use in the absence of known clinical history. RESULTS: The classification was possible in 10 of 11 cases, 8 lymphomas and 2 myelomas (n=2). No distinctive morphological or phenotypical features were identified. The most useful histopathological parameter was a positive Epstein-Barr virus in situ hybridisation. Presence of associated lymphadenopathy and/or oral mass in the absence of complete myeloma-defining signs was used to favour a diagnosis of lymphoma in 4 of 8 cases. CONCLUSIONS: The distinction between plasmablastic lymphoma from plasmablastic myeloma warrants detailed knowledge of clinical, radiological and laboratorial findings. New studies identifying distinctive phenotypical or genetic features are needed to improve the histopathological differentiation of plasmablastic neoplasms. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Janice S Ahn; Ali Al-Habib; Jeffrey A Vos; Aliyah R Sohani; Oralia Barboza-Quintana; Juan P Flores; Sijin Wen; Flavia G Rosado Journal: Ann Clin Lab Sci Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 1.256
Authors: Austin L Gray; Daniel Ding; Ziphezinhle Ncube; Kaushik Mukherjee; Justin Kerstetter; Yan Liu; Jun Wang Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2022-06
Authors: Majd Al Shaarani; Rodney E Shackelford; Samip R Master; Glenn M Mills; Yasir AlZubaidi; Ahmed Mamilly; Eric X Wei Journal: Case Rep Hematol Date: 2019-09-02