This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Myles S. Jerdan, MD; Antoinette F. Hood, MD; G. William Moore, MD, PhD; Jeffrey P. Callen, MD

Arch Dermatol. 1990;126(1):52-55.

Abstract
• A recent study by Bangert et al suggests that there are quantitative histologic differences that distinguish discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) and subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE). Utilizing criteria proposed by these authors, we examined 77 biopsy specimens from 63 patients with various forms of lupus erythematosus, but we were unable to predict the correct clinical subset. Using the clinical diagnosis of DLE as a positive reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity for the overall pathologic diagnosis of DLE were 55% and 42%, respectively. Statistically significant histologic factors favoring the diagnosis of DLE over SCLE in the present study were pilosebaceous atrophy, hyperkeratosis, parakeratosis, basement membrane thickening around the follicles, subepidermal edema, and vascular ectasia. These histologic variables were entered into a forward stepwise multivariate regression analysis to determine distinct predictors of DLE vs SCLE. This analysis showed that pilosebaceous atrophy was the only distinct significant predictor of DLE vs SCLE. These results suggest that the histologic differentiation of clinically defined DLE and SCLE cannot be established from the histologic features examined.

(Arch Dermatol. 1990;126:52-55)

Author Affiliations
From the Departments of Dermatology (Drs Jerdan and Hood) and Pathology (Dr Moore), The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Md, and the Division of Dermatology, University of Louisville (Ky) (Dr Callen).

Footnotes
Accepted for publication September 5, 1989.

Presented, in part, at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Investigative Dermatology, Washington, DC, May 2, 1986.

Reprints not available.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Optical coherence tomography of cutaneous lupus erythematosus correlates with histopathology
Gambichler et al.
Lupus 2007;16:35-38.
ABSTRACT  

Pathology, immunopathology, and immunohistochemistry in cutaneous lupus erythematosus
David-Bajar and Davis
Lupus 1997;6:145-157.
 

The Relationship Between Discoid and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Provost
Arch Dermatol 1994;130:1308-1310.
ABSTRACT  

Histopathologic Findings in Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus
Bielsa et al.
Arch Dermatol 1994;130:54-58.
ABSTRACT  

Figurate Erythema, Photosensitivity, and Conjunctival Irritation of Recent Onset
Naldi et al.
Arch Dermatol 1992;128:1265-1266.
ABSTRACT  

Histology of Lupus Erythematosus
Jessop et al.
Arch Dermatol 1990;126:1651-1651.
ABSTRACT