Lymphadenopathy is a common clinical finding, affecting patients of all ages. The majority of lymphadenopathies are reactive processes of lymph nodes in response to a variety of exogenous and endogenous stimulants. They are non-neoplastic conditions that can mimic lymphoma and other malignant tumors. Therefore their recognition and differential diagnosis is of great importance in order to rule-out the neoplastic disease. Signs of malignant etiology include lymph nodes >1,5cm in diameter, supraclavicular localization and generalized lymphadenopathy. A metastatic carcinoma is always in the differential diagnosis of localized lympadenophaty in older individuals. In case of generalized lymphadenopathy lymphomas, metastatic solid tumors and various benign etiologies need to be considered. The reactive lymphadenopathies are grouped into four major categories according to their predominant architectural histologic pattern: follicular-nodular, sinus, interfollicular or mixed, and diffuse. As reactive conditions of the lymph nodes are dynamic processes the predominant pattern may differ depending on when during the course of the disease the biopsy is performed. The most common reactive lymphadenopaties are follicular hyperplasia and toxoplasmic lymphadenitis. Nowdays some lymphadenopathies with foreign-body reaction are side effects of silicone prostheses (silicone lymphadenopathy) and various contrast media (lipid lymphadenopathy). A specific diagnosis and differentiation from neoplastic disease often requires correlation among the morphologic features, the clinical history, serologic studies, immunohistochemistry and molecular genetic analysis.
Fijten G, Blijham G. Unexplained lymphadenopathy in family practice. an evaluation of the probability of malignant causes and the effectiveness of physicians. workup j Fam Pract. 1988;(4):373–6.
2.
Chau I, Kelleher M, Cunningham D, Norman Ar, Wotherspoon A, Trott P, Rhys-Evans P, Della Rovere Q, et al. rapid access multidisciplinary lymph node diagnostic clinic: analysis of 550 patients. Br j Cancer. 2003;(3):354–61.
3.
Ferrer R. Lymphadenopathy: differential diagnosis and evaluation. am Fam Physician. 1998;(6):1313–20.
4.
Brown. Clinical mimics of lymphoma. Oncologist. 2004;(4):406–16.
Good dj, Gascoyne rd. atypical lymphoid hyperplasia mimicking lymphoma. Hematol Oncol Clin North am. 2009;(4):729–45.
7.
Habermann T, Lymphadenopathy. Mayo Clin Proc. 2000;(7):723–32.
8.
Bs W. Pitfalls in lymphoma pathology: avoiding errors in diagnosis of lymphoid tissues. j Clin Pathol. 2011;(6):466–76.
9.
Weiss L, Loera, Bacchi C. Immunoglobulin light chain immunohistochemistry revisited, with emphasis on reactive follicular hyperplasia vs. Follicular lymphoma appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2010;(3):199–205.
10.
Jh Van Krieken, Langerak E, Macintyre M, Kneba E, Hodges G, Morgan, et al. Leukemia. 2007;(2):201–6.
11.
Langerak Aw M, Tj, Lavender F, Pearson D, Flohr T, Van Dongen Jj, Van Krieken Jh. Polymerase chain reaction-based clonality testing in tissue samples with reactive lymphoproliferations: usefulness and pitfalls. a report of the BIOMEd-2 Concerted action MH4-CT98-3936. Leukemia. 2007;(2):222–9.
12.
Sevilla Dw, Murty V, Sun X, Nandula Sv, Mansukhani M, Bhagat B, et al. Cytogenetic abnormalities in reactive lymphoid hyperplasia: byproducts of the germinal centre reaction or indicators of lymphoma? Hematol Oncol. 2011;(2):81–90.
13.
Kongres udruženja patologa i citologa srbije sa međunarodnim učešćem. 2012;14–6.
14.
14 th Congress of serbian association of Pathologists and Cytologists with international participation.
15.
Loi T, Campain, Bryant, Tj M, Lutherborrow M, Yang T, et al. discriminating lymphomas and reactive lymphadenopathy in lymph node biopsies by gene expression profiling. BMC Med Genomics. 2011;27.
16.
Bobić O, Klun B, I. Toxoplasmosis in serbia: time for an action plan. Parasite. 2010;(3):187–92.
17.
Bobić B, Nikolić. Đurković-Đaković O. Identifikacija faktora rizika za infekciju parazitom toxoplasma gondii u srbiji kao osnov programa prevencije kongenitalne toksoplazmoze. srp arh Celok Lek. 2003;(3–4):162–7.
18.
Eapen M, Mathew C. Evidence based criteria for the histopathological diagnosis of toxoplasmic lymphadenopathy. Clin Pathol. 2005;(11):1143–6.
19.
Lin M, Kuo T. specificity of the histopathological triad for the diagnosis of toxoplasmic lymphadenitis: polymerase chain reaction study. Pathol Int. 2001;(8):619–23.
20.
Wintsh W, Clodius L. Local and regional lymph node response to ruptured gel-filled mammary protheses. Br j Plast surg. 1978;349–52.
21.
Péoc’h M, Grice G. Fabre-Bocquentin B, Gressin r, Pasquier B. silicone lymphadenopathy mimicking a lymphoma in a patient with a metatarsophalangeal joint prosthesis. Clin Pathol. 2000;(7):549–51.
22.
Van Diest Pj, Beekman W, Hage Jj. Pathology of silicone leakage from breast implants. Clin Pathol. 1998;(7):493–7.
23.
Smith T. Fatty replacment of lymph nodes mimicking lymphoma relapse. Cancer. 1986;2686–8.
Citation
Copyright
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
