BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2015 / Article
Special Issue

Cutaneous Oncology: From Research to Diagnosis and Management

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2015 |Article ID 629587 | 10 pages |

Single-Fraction Radiotherapy for CD30+ Lymphoproliferative Disorders

Academic Editor: Emmanuella Guenova
Received22 Jun 2015
Accepted31 Aug 2015
Published04 Oct 2015


Objectives. CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder is a rare variant of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Sustained complete response following first-line treatments is rare. This retrospective review evaluates the response of refractory or recurrent lesions to palliative radiation therapy. Methods. The records of 6 patients with 12 lesions, treated with radiation therapy, were reviewed. All patients received previous first-line treatments. Patients with clinical and pathological evidence of symptomatic CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder, with no history of other cutaneous T-cell lymphoma variants, and with no prior radiation therapy to the index site were included. Results. The median age of patients was 50.5 years (range, 15–83 years). Median size of the treated lesions was 2.5 cm (range, 2–7 cm). Four sites were treated with a single fraction of 750–800 cGy () and 8 sites were treated with 4000–4500 cGy in 200–250 cGy fractions (). Radiation therapy was administered with electrons and bolus. Median follow-up was 113 months (range, 16–147 months). For all sites, there was 100% complete response with acute grade 1-2 dermatitis. Conclusions. For recurrent and symptomatic radiation-naïve CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder lesions, palliative radiation therapy shows excellent response. A single fraction of 750–800 cGy is as effective as a multifractionated course and more convenient.

1. Introduction

Primary cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCLs) are relatively rare, with an annual incidence of 7 in 1,000,000 [1]. Primary cutaneous CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorders (LPD) represent 25–30% of CTCLs and are the second most common form after mycosis fungoides (MF [2]). CD30+ LPD can be divided further into lymphomatoid papulosis (LYP) and primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (CALCL) with substantial overlap between the two diagnoses resulting in a spectrum of disease. Although molecular markers and genetic rearrangements can be used to aid in diagnosis, histology alone can be insufficient and clinical course is often used to determine diagnosis and treatment [3, 4].

There are five histological subtypes of LYP with A being the most common presentation and B, C, and D resembling MF, CALCL, and CD8+ cytotoxic T-cell lymphoma, respectively [4]. There is also a recently described rare angioinvasive variant of LYP designated as histological subtype E [5]. Immunohistochemistry often shows CD30+ expression with large pleomorphic or anaplastic T cells. LYP is a chronic indolent disease with recurrent papulonodular lesions that present over a course of years to decades and may spontaneously regress after weeks to months. LYP has an excellent prognosis with a 5-year disease specific survival of 100% [2]. Patients with LYP, however, are at greater risk of second cutaneous or nodal lymphoid malignancies that precede, follow, or are associated with other lymphomas such as MF, cutaneous, or nodal anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and Hodgkin’s Lymphoma [3, 6, 7]. It has been described that LYP, Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, and CTCL can be derived from a single T-cell clone and a t(8:9) genetic translocation may be involved in the pathogenesis of LYP or its progression to malignant disease [8].

Similar to LYP, CD30+ expression is seen in >75% of CALCL cells, which have a large anaplastic, pleomorphic appearance [2]. CALCL presents as rapidly growing solitary or localized nodules that are rarely multifocal, with the appearance of large ulcerating tumors or thick plaques. Spontaneous complete resolution or partial regression is commonly reported in >40% of patients [4]. Skin relapse is common, with extracutaneous dissemination to mainly regional lymph nodes occurring in approximately 10% of patients. 10-year disease specific survival for patients without lymph node involvement is >90% [2].

There have been many therapeutic approaches for LYP including topical steroids, psoralen plus ultraviolet light therapy (PUVA), and low-dose methotrexate, which may show high response rates [9, 10]. CALCL lesions are often treated with radiation therapy (RT) or surgery for localized disease or low-dose methotrexate. In the case of rapidly progressive or extracutaneous disease, treatment is with multiagent doxorubicin-based chemotherapy and more recently brentuximab vedotin [2, 11]. There is often spontaneous complete regression of smaller LYP lesions, but with larger lesions (>1-2 cm), a diagnosis of CALCL is more seriously considered and regression becomes less predictable. Relapse after dose reduction or withdrawal of treatment is at least 40% and often much higher with LYP lesions in particular, and often these patients have lifelong disease with frequent relapse [4]. Due to high relapse rates, maintenance therapy may be used but may be accompanied by long-term complications including a higher incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer and possible development of hepatic complications from chronic methotrexate use [12]. In addition, misinterpretation of the clinical presentation of CD30+ LPD for a more aggressive disease (i.e., lymphoma, melanoma, or carcinoma) and the increased incidence of secondary lymphoid neoplasms in LYP patients have led to treatment with systemic chemotherapy or even bone marrow transplantation [3, 13]. Kempf et al. [4] consensus guidelines for the treatment of CD30+ LPD recommend consideration of RT for persistent, larger lesions greater than 2 cm.

Yu et al. [14] have described the treatment of CALCL with RT as an effective treatment modality. Outcomes of LYP patients treated with RT, however, have been sparse and inconsistent. There are no known prospective studies, and much of the published data is anecdotal or from small case studies. Total skin electron beam therapy (TSEBT) and localized fractionated RT have been used with variable response [1523]. There is limited information on RT details and follow-up [3, 24]. Many of these reports included patients with synchronous or antecedent cutaneous lymphomas making assessment of response of LYP lesions challenging. In addition, there are no studies of single-fraction palliative RT for LYP or CALCL.

Since 1999, we have treated a small series of patients with refractory or recurrent symptomatic CD30+ LPD lesions using both multifractionated and single-fraction RT. This retrospective analysis describes the largest series of patients with CD30+ LPD treated with localized radiation for palliation.

2. Materials and Methods

After approval by the Institutional Review Board, our department records were examined and a comprehensive chart review was performed yielding 6 patients with CD30+ LPD who were treated with localized single or multifractionated palliative RT to 12 individual lesions between October 1999 and July 2012. Distinction among CD30+ LPD and borderline cases can be challenging; thus patients were carefully selected so that borderline diagnoses were excluded. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)/International Society for Cutaneous Lymphoma (ISCL)/United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium (USCLC) consensus recommendations on primary cutaneous CD30+ LPD were used to confirm the diagnosis of all patients [4]. The TNM staging system for primary cutaneous lymphomas other than MF and Sézary syndrome as proposed by the ISCL/EORTC was retroactively used for staging [25]. Patient and tumor characteristics were assessed at initial consultation. All patients had disease refractory to prior topical and/or systemic treatment and no history of other CTCLs or skin disorders and had not received prior RT to the index site. Date of last follow-up was defined as the last encounter by a radiation oncologist, medical oncologist, or dermatologist where response to the treated lesion had been documented. Patients were seen in follow-up 1 month following treatment and scheduled at 3–6-month intervals thereafter. Death was confirmed by search of public death records. Pathology reports were reviewed with the dermatopathologist in order to determine the immunophenotype and histological type for the six patients (see Figure 2).

Each lesion receiving RT was categorized based on its location. Parameters of RT assessed included total dose, dose per fraction, energy, and bolus thickness. Response was defined in a manner consistent with that put forth by the EORTC/ISCL/USCLC consensus recommendations on primary cutaneous CD30+ LPD [4]; a CR was defined as 100% clearance of the skin lesion treated, a partial response (PR) was defined as a reduction in lesion size of more than 50% but less than 100%, and stable disease (SD) was defined as a less than 50% reduction in size of the lesion. Relapse was defined as any disease recurrence in those with CR. All patients had a CR; thus no patient or tumor characteristics were studied for correlation with response. There were no identified relapses.

The RT regimen consisted of 750–800 cGy delivered in a single fraction to 4 lesions or 200–250 cGy delivered in multiple fractions for a total of 4000–4600 cGy to 8 lesions in the earlier years. En face electron technique was used for superficial lesions on flatter surfaces. Electron energy consisted of 10 or 12 MeV. Bolus was used for all of the lesions with a 0.5 or 1 cm thick material in order to increase radiation dosage to the skin. Electron dose was prescribed to the 90–95% isodose line.

3. Results

Using the strict criteria described above, 6 patients with 12 localized, CD30+ LPD lesions were treated with palliative RT.

This study consisted of 3 female and 3 male patients with a total of 12 lesions. The median age was 50.5 years (range, 15–83 years) at initial time of RT treatment (Table 1). The median diameter of the lesion was 2.5 cm (range, 2–7 cm). All patients had a history of biopsy proven CD30+ LPD; six of the 12 lesions had pathological confirmation while the remainder of patients were described as having lesions that waxed and waned or recurrent papulonodular lesions refractory to first-line therapy consistent with their history of CD30+ LPD. All lesions continued to progress following first-line or other therapies and were symptomatic and none of the lesions had evidence of spontaneous regression. One patient received oral methotrexate prior to RT and another patient in the earlier years received CHOP chemotherapy prior to RT for a synchronous diagnosis of subcutaneous Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. All patients presented with generalized skin involvement consistent with T3 disease [25]. Of the 6 lesions with pathological confirmation, all showed a CD4+/CD30+ immunophenotype. Three lesions were of type C LYP histology and 1 lesion was of type A LYP histology with the remainder not specified.

PatientSex/age (y) at presentationAntecedent or synchronous lymphomaTNM stage at presentationNumber of lesions treated with RTLocation of lesionDate of completion of RTClinical or pathologic diagnosisHistological typeImmunophenotypePrior therapiesTotal dose (Gy)/dose per fraction/energy/
Response at RT siteLR/follow-up (m)

1M/48n/aT3b1Right lower extremity08/15/11Path.n/sCD4+/CD30+Oral/IL methotrexate, topical imiquimod8/8, 12 MeV e, 1 cm bolus, 90% IDLCRN/16

2 M/60Synchronous subcutaneous NHL T3b 6Left groin12/26/02Clin.CHOP × 6c45/2.5, 10 MeV e, 1 cm bolus, 90% IDLCRN/131
Right femoral region12/26/02Clin.45/2.5, 10 MeV e, 1 cm bolus, 90% IDLCRN/131
Right axilla12/26/02Path.CCD4+/CD30+45/2.5, 10 MeV e, 1 cm bolus, 90% IDLCRN/131
Left axilla12/26/02Clin.45/2.5, 10 MeV e, 1 cm bolus, 90% IDLCRN/131
Right neck4/7/03Path.n/sCD4+/CD30+45/2.5, 10 MeV e, 1 cm bolus, 90% IDLCRN/127
Right elbow3/01/06Clin.45/2.5, 10 MeV e, 1 cm bolus, 90% IDLCRN/99

3 F/83Antecedent HL T3b 2Left lateral thigh11/12/10Path.n/sCD4+/CD30+IL methotrexate, IL triamcinolone acetonide8/8, 10 MeV e, 1 cm bolus, 95% IDLCRN/37
Left calf09/07/11Path.CCD4+/CD30+IL steroids8/8, 12 MeV e, 1 cm bolus, 90% IDLCRN/27

4F/53n/aT3a1Upper lip10/21/99Path.An/s42/2, 10 MeV e, 0.5 cm bolus, 90% IDLCRN/146

5F/34n/aT3b1Left forearm7/23/12Path.CCD4+/CD30+Topical methotrexate, PUVA, triamcinolone acetonide7.5/7.5, 12 MeV e, 1 cm bolus, 90% IDLCRN/18

6M/15n/aT3b1Left back9/28/08Clin.RT, prednisone, minocycline40/2, 12 MeV e, 1 cm bolus, 95% IDLCRN/66

Staging per Kim et al., 2007 [25].
HL = Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, NHL = Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, n/s = not specified, IL = intralesional, e = electron, IDL = isodose line, CR = complete response, AWD = alive with disease, LR = local recurrence, and N = none.

All patients had a CR to radiation (Table 2; Figure 1). RT was well tolerated, with the only recorded toxicity being grade 1-2 dermatitis. Median follow-up was 113 months (range, 16–146 months) for the group as a whole. For the patients receiving a single fraction of RT, the median follow-up was 22.5 months (range, 16–37 months). For the patients receiving a multifractionated course of RT in the earlier years, the median follow-up was 131 months (range, 66–146 months). All of the 6 patients were alive with disease at last follow-up with no evidence of relapse at the treatment site.

Author [ref.]Study typeNumber of LYP patients treated with RTNumber of LYP lesions treatedAssociated lymphomaLocations of treated lesionTNM stage at presentationOther treatmentsRT detailsCR rateLRTime to LR (m)Follow-up (m)

Thomsen and Schmidt [21]E11MFn/sT3bN0Topical 5-FU, topical steroids, PUVALocalized RT100%Yn/s

Willemze et al. [15] R 1 2 LCLn/sTSEBR, 40 Gy, 4 MeV100%Y3
n/sLocalized RT, 25 Gy, 100 kV100%Y5

Sanchez et al. [16] R 4MFn/sT3aN0Topical corticosteroids, photochemotherapy, chlorambucil, prednisone, combination chemotherapyTSEBR, 30 Gy, 6 MeV e0%N
MFn/sT3aN0Topical nitrogen mustardLocalized RT0%N
HLn/sMustine HCL, vincristine, sulfate, prednisone, procarbazine HCL100%Yn/s
MLn/sLocalized RT0%N

Sina and Burnett
R 2 2Left thighT3bN0Localized RT, 6/2 Gy, 15 kV, 30 mm HVL100%N14
n/sT3bN0Localized RT100%N36

et al. [19]
R 1 2Right forearmT1bN0Localized RT, 35/2–2.5 Gy, 6 MeV e, 0.5 cm bolus, 90% IDL100%N
Right fingerLocalized RT, 30/2 Gy, 6 MeV e100%N

Wilson et al. [18]R3n/sT1-3NxTopical steroids, PUVA, topical nitrogen mustardTSEBR/6 fields, 36/1 Gy, 6 MeV e, supplemented 20/1 Gy, 120 kV to perineum, soles of feet and 6/2 Gy, 120 kV to apical scalp100%Y4.8; 3-year DFS 20%44.1 (median)

J. Breneman and D. Breneman
E5MFn/sn/s; 1 patient received concurrent CHOPTSEBR/modified Stanford, 36 Gy80%N12, 48, 61, and 70

Christensen et al. [24]R66n/sLocalized RT100%N

Cabanillas et al. [3]R4CTCL/MF/ LCLn/s0%Yn/s

et al. [20]
R14Right forearm, left forearm ×3T1bN0Localized RT, 30/2 Gy, 6 MeV e, 0.5 cm bolus daily100%N45

Scarisbrick et al. [23] R 2 2Left flankT2aN0Localized RT, 8/2 Gy, 100 kV0% (100% with retreatment)Y612
Lower abdomenT2aN0Localized RT, 8/2 Gy, 100 kV100%N12

Retrospective staging according to Kim et al., 2007 [25].
E = editorial, R = retrospective, MF = mycosis fungoides, LCL = large-cell lymphoma, HL = Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, ML = malignant lymphoma NOS, CTCL = cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, PUVA = psoralen and ultraviolet A therapy, n/a = not applicable, n/s = not specified, TSEBR = total skin electron beam radiotherapy, e = electron, HVL = half value layer, LR = local recurrence, and DFS = disease-free survival.

4. Discussion

Cutaneous CD30+ LPD is an indolent, recurrent variant of CTCL that has been shown to be radiosensitive. Recent consensus recommendations include surgical excision or RT for larger (defined as >2 cm in diameter) persistent lesions as an alternative approach to waiting for spontaneous regression [4]. In regard to this recommendation, however, there is little recent published evidence as to the clinical efficacy of local radiation or the recommended dose, fractionation scheme, technique, or long-term follow-up, especially with regard to LYP. Diagnosis by histology alone remains challenging and clinical presentation is often important. This small retrospective series represents the largest series to date specifically reporting localized RT outcomes for CD30+ LPD using a multifractionated and single-fraction approach.

A critical review of the literature (Table 2) showed that all studies used a multifractionated course of RT for treatment of LYP, with total doses of 8–40 Gy administered through either TSEBT or localized superficial RT. Willemze et al. [15] treated one patient with two separate lesions. The first lesion was treated with TSEBR to a total dose of 40 Gy; the patient experienced a CR but locally recurred within 3 months. A second lesion was treated with localized RT to a total dose of 25 Gy; again the patient initially experienced a CR but locally recurred within 5 months. The patient went on to develop a systemic lymphoma. Sanchez et al. [16] treated 4 of 31 patients with LYP using various radiation therapies including TSEBR to a total dose of 30 Gy and reported no response in 3 of 4 patients. Kaufmann et al. [19] treated 1 of 2 patients with localized RT to a total dose of 35 Gy in 2.0 Gy fractions using 6 MeV electrons and reported a durable CR, although follow-up was not specified. Wilson et al. [18] reported that treatment of 3 of 161 patients with LYP/CTCL with TSEBR to a total dose of 30 Gy resulted in a 3-year DFS of 20%; all patients had relapsed by 4.8 months. J. Breneman and D. Breneman, [17] in an editorial response to this study, shared anecdotal results of 5 patients treated with TSEBR to a total dose of 36 Gy with a CR rate of 80% and no relapse at a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Kaufmann et al. [20] also reported a favorable outcome in one patient treated with localized RT to 30 Gy in 2.0 Gy fractions using 6 MeV electrons with a CR and no recurrence at a follow-up of 45 months. Taken together, results for LYP treated with a multifractionated course of RT resulted in a 69% CR rate, but relapse was approximately 45% at a follow-up of 3-4 months.

In addition, Yu et al. [14] showed a 100% CR rate for 8 patients with CALCL treated with a multifractionated course of RT ranging from 34 to 44 Gy in 2.0 Gy fractions with a median follow-up of 12 months. Other retrospective studies have shown excellent CR rates for CALCL patients; however, data for patients treated with RT alone is lacking, especially with regard to specific RT dose, technique, and long-term follow-up [14].

There have been few studies where a few fractions of low-dose RT were given to treat LYP. Sina and Burnett [22] treated 2 of 5 patients with a course of 6 Gy in 2.0 Gy fractions, resulting in 100% CR rate and no relapse at 14 and 36 months. Scarisbrick et al. [23] treated 2 of 4 patients with 8 Gy in 2.0 Gy fractions; although there was a 50% CR rate, the first patient showed a CR with an additional 8 Gy. The remainder of studies lacked sufficient information on total dose, fractionation scheme, technique, or follow-up [3, 21, 24]. In our study, there was a 100% CR rate, supporting our data for single-fraction RT for palliation of CD30+ LPD. Moreover, Thomas et al. [26] have shown a 94.4% CR rate for primarily MF lesions treated with a single fraction of localized palliative RT at a mean follow-up of 41.3 months.

CD30+ LPD is more likely to be multifocal, presenting as a recurrent, self-healing papulonodular eruption that often spontaneously resolves without treatment over weeks to months. All patients were referred for treatment of lesions that had not shown spontaneous regression with continued growth following first-line or other therapies and, thus, were concerning for a diagnosis of CD30+ LPD. Given that all patients had a durable CR at the RT site with sufficient follow-up, these response rates are likely to be reflective of treatment itself and not due to the spontaneous regression of the lesions. A second criticism may be that, given the overlap of CD30+ LPD with CALCL, as well as the tendency toward progression or concurrent MF or Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, unambiguous histological diagnosis may be difficult [5, 2729].

5. Conclusion

CD30+ LPD is a radiosensitive CTCL variant. In addition to a multifractionated course of RT, a single fraction of 750–800 cGy is effective in inducing a durable CR with minimal acute side effects. Longer follow-up is necessary before conclusions regarding local control can be made especially for patients treated with a single fraction. This study is the largest retrospective series reporting palliative RT dose, technique, treatment outcomes, and long-term follow-up supporting palliative localized RT for symptomatic CD30+ LPD refractory or recurrent to other therapies.


CALCL:Cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma
CR:Complete response
DFS:Disease-free survival
EORTC:European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer
ISCL:International Society for Cutaneous Lymphoma
LPD:Lymphoproliferative disorders
LYP:Lymphomatoid papulosis
MF:Mycosis fungoides
CTCLs:Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas
PR:Partial response
PUVA:Psoralen plus ultraviolet light therapy
RT:Radiation therapy
SD:Stable disease
TSEBT:Total skin electron beam therapy
USCLC:United States Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium.


This paper was presented in abstract form at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting 2012.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare they have no conflict of interests.

Authors’ Contribution

Michelle S. Gentile carried out data collection and analysis and drafted the paper; Maria Estela Martinez-Escala participated in data collection and analysis and helped to draft the paper; Tarita O. Thomas carried out data collection and analysis; Joan Guitart participated in project design, coordinated data collection, and helped edit the paper; Steven Rosen participated in project design and helped edit the paper; Timothy Kuzel participated in project design and helped edit the paper; Bharat B. Mittal conceived of the study, project design, oversaw data collection and analysis, and helped edit the paper. All authors read and approved the final paper.


  1. P. T. Bradford, S. S. Devesa, W. F. Anderson, and J. R. Toro, “Cutaneous lymphoma incidence patterns in the United States: a population-based study of 3884 cases,” Blood, vol. 113, no. 21, pp. 5064–5073, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. R. Willemze, E. S. Jaffe, G. Burg et al., “WHO-EORTC classification for cutaneous lymphomas,” Blood, vol. 105, no. 10, pp. 3768–3785, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. F. Cabanillas, J. Armitage, W. C. Pugh, D. Weisenburger, and M. Duvic, “Lymphomatoid papulosis: a T-cell dyscrasia with a propensity to transform into malignant lymphoma,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 122, no. 3, pp. 210–217, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. W. Kempf, K. Pfaltz, M. H. Vermeer et al., “EORTC, ISCL and USCLC consensus recommendations for the treatment of primary cutaneous CD30-positive lymphoproliferative disorders: lymphomatoid papulosis and primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma,” Blood, vol. 118, no. 15, pp. 4024–4035, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. W. Kempf, D. V. Kazakov, L. Schärer et al., “Angioinvasive lymphomatoid papulosis: a new variant simulating aggressive lymphomas,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. M. W. Bekkenk, F. A. M. J. Geelen, P. C. van Voorst Vader et al., “Primary and secondary cutaneous CD30+ lymphoproliterative disorders: a report from the Dutch Cutaneous Lymphoma Group on the long-term follow-up data of 219 patients and guidelines for diagnosis and treatment,” Blood, vol. 95, no. 12, pp. 3653–3661, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  7. M. E. Kadin, “Current management of primary cutaneous CD30+ T-cell lymphoproliferative disorders,” Oncology, vol. 23, no. 13, pp. 1158–1164, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  8. T. H. Davis, C. C. Morton, R. Miller-Cassman, S. P. Balk, and M. E. Kadin, “Hodgkin's disease, lymphomatoid papulosis, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma derived from a common T-cell clone,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 326, no. 17, pp. 1115–1122, 1992. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. G. Lange Wantzin and K. Thomsen, “PUVA-treatment in lymphomatoid papulosis,” British Journal of Dermatology, vol. 107, no. 6, pp. 687–690, 1982. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. M. A. Paul, D. P. Krowchuk, M. G. Hitchcock, and J. L. Jorizzo, “Lymphomatoid papulosis: successful weekly pulse superpotent topical corticosteroid therapy in three pediatric patients,” Pediatric Dermatology, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 501–506, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. A. Broccoli, E. Derenzini, C. Pellegrini et al., “Complete response of relapsed systemic and cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma using brentuximab vedotin: 2 case reports,” Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 493–495, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. H. Fujita, T. Nagatani, M. Miyazawa et al., “Primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma successfully treated with low-dose oral methotrexate,” European Journal of Dermatology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 360–361, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. S. Laube, F. Shah, and J. Marsden, “Consequences of misdiagnosis of lymphomatoid papulosis,” European Journal of Cancer Care, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 194–198, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. J. B. Yu, J. M. McNiff, M. W. Lund, and L. D. Wilson, “Treatment of primary cutaneous CD30+ anaplastic large cell lymphoma with radiation therapy,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 1542–1545, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. R. Willemze, C. J. L. M. Meyer, W. A. Van Vloten, and E. Scheffer, “The clinical and histological spectrum of lymphomatoid papulosis,” British Journal of Dermatology, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 131–144, 1982. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. N. P. Sanchez, M. R. Pittelkow, S. A. Muller, P. M. Banks, and R. K. Winkelmann, “The clinicopathologic spectrum of lymphomatoid papulosis: study of 31 cases,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 81–94, 1983. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. J. Breneman and D. Breneman, “Response to total skin irradiation for mycosis fungoides associated with lymphomatoid papulosis: editorial,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 32, no. 1, p. 274, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  18. L. D. Wilson, D. L. Cooper, A. L. Goodrich et al., “Impact of non-CTCL dermatologic diagnoses and adjuvant therapies on cutaneous T-cell lymphoma patients treated with total skin electron beam radiation therapy,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 829–837, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. T. Kaufmann, L. Z. Nisce, and R. T. Silver, “Lymphomatoid papulosis: case report of a patient managed with radiation therapy and review of the literature,” American Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 412–416, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  20. T. P. Kaufmann, M. Coleman, and L. Z. Nisce, “Ki-1 skin lymphoproliferative disorders: management with radiation therapy,” Cancer Investigation, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 91–98, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. K. Thomsen and H. Schmidt, “Response to cutaneous T-cell lymphomas: the Sezary syndrome, mycosis fungoides and related disorders: editorial,” Archives of Dermatology, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 232–233, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  22. B. Sina and J. W. Burnett, “Lymphomatoid papulosis: case reports and literature review,” Archives of Dermatology, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 189–197, 1983. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. J. J. Scarisbrick, A. V. Evans, A. J. Woolford, M. M. Black, and R. Russell-Jones, “Regional lymphomatoid papulosis: a report of four cases,” British Journal of Dermatology, vol. 141, no. 6, pp. 1125–1128, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. H. K. Christensen, K. Thomsen, and G. L. Vejlsgaard, “Lymphomatoid papulosis: a follow-up study of 41 patients,” Seminars in Dermatology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 197–201, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  25. Y. H. Kim, R. Willemze, N. Pimpinelli et al., “TNM classification system for primary cutaneous lymphomas other than mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome: a proposal of the International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas (ISCL) and the Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force of the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC),” Blood, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 479–484, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. T. O. Thomas, P. Agrawal, J. Guitart et al., “Outcome of patients treated with a single-fraction dose of palliative radiation for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 747–753, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. H. L. Liu, R. T. Hoppe, S. Kohler, J. D. Harvell, S. Reddy, and Y. H. Kim, “CD30+ cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders: the Stanford experience in lymphomatoid papulosis and primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1049–1058, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. R. C. Beljaards and R. Willemze, “The prognosis of patients with lymphomatoid papulosis associated with malignant lymphomas,” British Journal of Dermatology, vol. 126, no. 6, pp. 596–602, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  29. H. H. Wang, T. Myers, L. J. Lach, C.-C. Hsieh, and M. E. Kadin, “Increased risk of lymphoid and nonlymphoid malignancies in patients with lymphomatoid papulosis,” Cancer, vol. 86, no. 7, pp. 1240–1245, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2015 Michelle S. Gentile et al. 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.

More related articles

770 Views | 320 Downloads | 6 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.