Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
A 44-year-old female with the primary diagnosis of classic (nodular sclerosing) Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) was referred for further diagnostic work-up. Whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) revealed multiple nodal HL manifestations in the right external iliac and inguinal regions (Ann Arbor II, red arrow).
Subsequently, the patient underwent chemotherapy with two cycles of escalated BEACOPP, resulting in CT-based partial response. Therefore, two cycles of ABVD and local radiotherapy were added in curative intent.
While the formerly affected lymph nodes showed a complete metabolic response at end-of-treatment PET/CT (Deauville score: 2), newly enlarged mediastinal and bilateral hilar lymph nodes with increased FDG-uptake as well as several hypermetabolic bone lesions were detected (red stars, insert B–D). A biopsy from a tracer-avid lesion in the anterior superior iliac spine was obtained. Histology revealed only non-caseating epitheloid cells and giant cells (black stars, insert A) adjacent to blood vessels (black arrows, insert A), indicative of sarcoidosis. Since bronchoalveolar lavage and endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration did not reveal malignant cells either, no further therapy was initiated. Due to the absence of clinical symptoms, a sarcoid-like reaction was favored over actual sarcoidosis as the possible diagnosis.
After 3 months, follow-up PET/CT showed almost complete remission of the lymphadenopathy and bone lesions (Deauville score: 2) supporting the hypothesis of a tumor-related sarcoid-like reaction.
Sarcoid-like reactions are observed in up to 13.8% of HL patients and should be taken into account as a differential diagnosis for hilar and/or mediastinal lymphadenopathy in patients with a history of malignancy [1,2,3]. In case of uncertainty, a tissue biopsy is recommended to differentiate between the two entities and to avoid misdiagnosis.
References
Brincker H. Sarcoid reactions in malignant tumours. Cancer Treat Rev. 1986;13:147–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-7372(86)90002-2.
Cheshire SC, Board RE, Lewis AR, Gudur LD, Dobson MJ. Pembrolizumab-induced sarcoid-like reactions during treatment of metastatic melanoma. Radiology. 2018;289:564–7. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180572.
Mitchell MA, Hogan K, Amjadi K. Atezolizumab-induced sarcoid-like granulomatous reaction in a patient with urothelial cell carcinoma. Immunotherapy. 2018;10:1189–92. https://doi.org/10.2217/imt-2018-0035.
Funding
Open Access funding provided by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Informed consent from the patient for publication of this case study was obtained.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Oncology - General
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Gebrekidan, S., Schaller, T., Rank, A. et al. Sarcoid-like reactions: a potential pitfall in oncologic imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48, 931–932 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04960-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04960-2