Oral epithelial dysplasia with lymphocytic immune response: clinicopathological characterisation of 44 cases
Ivan J Stojanov,Joud Omari,Ibrahim Akeel,Ahmed S Sultan,Sook‐Bin Woo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/his.15171
2024-03-20
Histopathology
Abstract:Oral epithelial dysplasia may contain a diagnostically challenging host immune response that resembles lichenoid mucositis histopathologically, but has a clinical appearance typical of keratinising dysplasia with no lichenoid features. Pathologist review of clinical photographs represents opportunity to grossly evaluate biopsied oral disease and may facilitate diagnostic accuracy in this setting. Aims Oral epithelial dysplasia (OED) often exhibits a lymphocytic/lichenoid immune response (LIR), imparting histological resemblance to lichenoid mucositis and rendering diagnosis challenging. The clinical appearances of OED and lichenoid inflammatory processes are generally divergent, presenting as well‐demarcated hyperkeratotic plaques and diffuse white and/or red mucosal change with variably prominent Wickham striae, respectively. To date, clinicopathological characterisation of OED with LIR, including clinical/gross appearance, has not been depicted. Methods and results Cases of solitary OED with LIR for which a clinical photograph was available were identified in the authors' institutional files. Clinical and histological features were documented. In 44 identified cases, dysplasia was mild (19 of 44, 43.2%), moderate (19 of 44, 43.2%) and severe (six of 44, 13.6%). Clinically/grossly, all 44 cases (100.0%), presented as well‐demarcated hyperkeratotic plaques lacking diffuse white‐and‐red mucosal change or Wickham striae. Histologically, OED with LIR exhibited numerous 'lichenoid' features beyond the lymphocytic band in the superficial lamina propria, including: leucocyte transmigration (38 of 44, 86.4%), spongiosis (37 of 44, 84.1%), Civatte/colloid bodies (36 of 44, 81.8%), basal cell degeneration (29 of 45, 65.9%), sawtooth rete ridges (11 of 44, 25.0%) and subepithelial clefting (7 of 44, 15.9%). Conclusions Virtually any lichenoid histological feature may be seen in OED with LIR, representing a significant diagnostic pitfall. The typical clinical appearance of OED with LIR is of a well‐demarcated hyperkeratotic plaque, characteristic of keratinising dysplasia and devoid of lichenoid features. This suggests that pathologist access to clinical photographs during diagnostic interpretation of biopsied white lesions, which represents opportunity to perform gross examination of the disease process, may reduce interobserver variability and improve diagnostic accuracy in this challenging differential diagnosis.
pathology,cell biology