Kimura病和上皮样血管瘤的临床病理学观察

目的探讨Kimura病和上皮样血管瘤的临床病理学特征、免疫学表型及两者的鉴别诊断。方法分析和观察9例Kimura病和3例上皮样血管瘤的临床资料和组织学形态,应用免疫组织化学(SP法)研究其免疫表型,所用抗体包括CD43、CD3、CD45RO(UCHL-1)、CD20、CD79α、Ki-67、CD31、CD34、第Ⅷ因子相关抗原(FⅧRAg)、CD68(KP-1)和细胞角蛋白(AE1／AE3)。结果临床上,Kimura病多见于男性患者,而上皮样血管瘤多见于女性。两者均好发于头颈部,但Kimura病多表现为皮下多发性结节或局部肿胀,部分病例伴有区域淋巴结肿大,而上皮样血管瘤则多表现为皮肤单发的小结节或丘疹样病变。组织学上,两者均可位于真皮内或皮下,但Kimura病均以增生的淋巴组织为主,其中7例可见淋巴滤泡形成,内含活跃的生发中心,滤泡问可见大量增生的毛细血管后微静脉型血管,其内皮呈肿胀状或扁平状,血管周围和滤泡旁可见大量的嗜酸性粒细胞浸润,3例内可见嗜酸性微脓疡形成。3例上皮样血管瘤均以成簇增生的血管为主,其中2例为毛细血管型,1例为小至中等大的血管型。血管内衬胞质丰富、深嗜伊红染的上皮样内皮细胞。除内衬管腔外,内皮细胞还可在血管腔内生长或在血管周围呈实性片状增生或排列成条索状,部分细胞的胞质内含有空泡,拟形成原始血管腔。2例的问质内可见多少不等的慢性炎症细胞反应,但不见淋巴滤泡形成,嗜酸性粒细胞浸润也远不如Kimura病明显。免疫组织化学显示,Kimura病中的淋巴滤泡表达B细胞抗原,滤泡间的淋巴细胞多表达T细胞标记,而上皮样血管瘤中的内皮细胞强阳性表达CD31和FⅧRAg等内皮标记。结论Kimura病和上皮样血管瘤是两种完全不同的病种,前者是一种淋巴组织的增生,而后者则是一种良性的血管瘤,掌握两者的临床特点和组织学形态对避免将两者相互混淆具有十分重要的意义。

Kimura disease and epithelioid hemangioma: a comparative study of 12 cases

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinicopathologic features, immunophenotypes and differential diagnosis of Kimura's disease (KD) and epithelioid hemangioma (EH). METHODS: Nine cases of KD and three cases of EH were evaluated by light microscopy and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: In this series, KD occurred predominantly in males, whereas EH had a female predilection. Both KD and EH arose most frequently in the head and neck region. However, KD usually presented as multiple subcutaneous nodules or swellings and was accompanied by lymphadenopathy in some cases. On the other hand, EH appeared only as a small skin nodule or red plaque. Histologically, both lesions may involve the dermis or subcutis. All the 9 KD cases displayed florid hyperplasia of lymphoid tissue, of which, 7 cases exhibited formation of lymphoid follicles and active germinal centers. Proliferation of post-capillary venules were seen between follicles. They were lined by plump or attenuated endothelial cells. Large number of eosinophils aggregated around the vessels or adjacent to the follicles, formation of microabscesses were observed in 3 cases. All the 3 EH cases showed prominent proliferation of vessels (capillary-sized in 2 cases and small to medium-sized in 1 case). The vessels were lined by epithelioid endothelial cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm. The endothelial cells also proliferated within the lumen in 1 case and grew in sheets or cords adjacent to the vessel walls in 2 cases. Some endothelial cells contained intracytoplasmic vacuoles, suggesting formation of primitive vessels. Associated inflammatory component was noted in 2 cases. Lymphoid follicles however were not present and eosinophil infiltration was not as prominent as in KD. Immunohistochemical study in KD revealed B cells in the lymphoid follicles and mostly T cells in the interfollicular regions. In EH, the epithelioid endothelial cells showed strong reactivity to CD31 and factor VIII-related antigen. CONCLUSIONS: KD and EH are two distinctive entities. The former represents a lymphoid hyperplasia and the latter represents a benign vascular tumor. Recognition of the clinical characteristics and morphologic features of KD and EH is very important in making this distinction.