Evaluation of the histologic characteristics of patch test confirmed allergic contact dermatitis
- PMID: 12894072
- DOI: 10.1067/s0190-9622(03)00865-x
Evaluation of the histologic characteristics of patch test confirmed allergic contact dermatitis
Abstract
Background: Microscopic features of experimentally induced allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) have been reported; however, the histologic characteristics of environmentally induced ACD have not been definitively elucidated.
Objective: This pilot study was conducted to describe the histologic features most useful in differentiating ACD from other forms of eczematous dermatitis.
Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent evaluation for contact dermatitis was performed. The results of skin biopsy were reviewed in a blinded manner, and two subgroups were compared: gold standard ACD cases and control cases (eczematous dermatitis with negative results of patch testing).
Results: Of 317 cases reviewed, 39 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Many histologic similarities were noted: both subgroups had substantial acanthosis and lymphocytic infiltration. In addition, present to a moderate degree in both groups were hyperkeratosis, spongiosis, eosinophils, and dermal dendritic fibrohistiocytic (DFH) cells. However, compared with the control cases, eosinophilic spongiosis and multinucleate dermal DFH cells were found to a considerably greater degree in the standard ACD cases.
Conclusions: Eosinophilic spongiosis and multinucleate dermal DFH cells, in the presence of acanthosis, lymphocytic infiltrate, dermal eosinophils, and hyperkeratosis, are particularly suggestive of ACD. While such findings alone are not diagnostic of ACD, the presence of these combined histologic features supports the pursuit of patch testing in cases of chronic eczematous dermatitis.
Similar articles
-
Epidermal spongiotic Langerhans cell collections, but not eosinophils, are a clue to the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis: A series of 170 clinically- and patch test-confirmed cases.J Am Acad Dermatol. 2025 Apr;92(4):853-860. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2024.11.062. Epub 2024 Dec 19. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2025. PMID: 39709083
-
Langerhans cell collections, but not eosinophils, are clues to a diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis in appropriate skin biopsies.J Cutan Pathol. 2016 Jun;43(6):498-504. doi: 10.1111/cup.12707. Epub 2016 Apr 13. J Cutan Pathol. 2016. PMID: 26990596
-
Histomorphology and Immunophenotype of Eczematous Skin Lesions Revisited-Skin Biopsies Are Not Reliable in Differentiating Allergic Contact Dermatitis, Irritant Contact Dermatitis, and Atopic Dermatitis.Am J Dermatopathol. 2018 Jan;40(1):7-16. doi: 10.1097/DAD.0000000000000842. Am J Dermatopathol. 2018. PMID: 28296664
-
Allergic contact dermatitis: clinical aspects.Rev Environ Health. 2014;29(3):185-94. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2014-0055. Rev Environ Health. 2014. PMID: 25241725 Review.
-
Allergic Contact Dermatitis.Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2017 Feb;37(1):141-152. doi: 10.1016/j.iac.2016.08.014. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2017. PMID: 27886903 Review.
Cited by
-
Contact Dermatitis, Patch Testing, and Allergen Avoidance.Mo Med. 2015 Jul-Aug;112(4):296-300. Mo Med. 2015. PMID: 26455061 Free PMC article.
-
What Is New in Occupational Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Year of the COVID Pandemic?Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2021 Mar 29;21(4):26. doi: 10.1007/s11882-021-01000-3. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2021. PMID: 33779825 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical