SLE is a chronic autoimmune disorder which is characterized by inflammation of blood vessels and connective tissue involving multiple systems and presence of circulating autoantibodies especially ANA and Anti-dsDNA antibodies. SLE is relatively uncommon in children and estimated incidence ranges from 10 to 20 per 100 000 children depending on the ethnic population [6].
Children and adolescents represent 15-20% of all patients with SLE [7]. Females are affected three to five times more often than males [8]. SLE is well known to present with a wide variety of clinical manifestations. Children with SLE may present with constitutional symptoms (fatigue, myalgia, weakness, weight loss), skin rashes, especially malar rash or arthralgia/arthritis that may precede the detection of organ-specific lesion [8].
Prevalence of lymphadenopathy has been reported in 23-34% of patients with SLE [9] with a female preponderance [10]. Despite being frequent manifestation, lymphadenopathy is not included in the ACR criteria for the diagnosis of SLE. Lymphadenopathy has even been reported as the first clinical manifestation of SLE in children [11–14]. Lymphadenopathy is very common in children due to variety of etiologies and hence may pose a delay in the diagnosis of SLE.
Lymph nodes in SLE are usually soft, non tender, mobile, generalized and of varying size [15, 16]. We also observed similar findings in our patient. On histopathology, coagulative necrosis with hematoxylin bodies is specific to lupus lymphadenitis but is rarely observed [10]. More commonly lymph node biopsies in SLE show reactive follicular hyperplasia which is considered a nonspecific feature. Atypical lymphoproliferation found in the lymph node biopsies of SLE were classified as reactive follicular hyperplasia with giant follicles, aspects similar to Castelman’s disease, atypical paracortical hyperplasia with lymphoid follicles, and atypical immunoblastic and lymphoplasmacytic proliferation [10]. A classification system with three patterns of histopathological features of lupus lymphadenitis had been proposed, however they did not appear to be highly specific for SLE [17]. The occurrence of variety of histopathological features poses diagnostic difficulty and should be differentiated from lymphoproliferative disorders. This patient had undergone bone marrow examination which was normal.
The histopathological feature of lymph node in our patient was epithelioid granuloma admixed with several eosinophils, lymphocytes and plasma cells along with other areas showing features of reactive lymphadenitis. Earlier reports described non-caseating epithelioid cell granulomas consisting of central zone of epithelioid cells surrounded by dense infiltrate of histiocytes without giant cells in necropsy specimens of patients with SLE [3, 4]. Similarly several granulomas consisting of large epithelioid cells and histiocytes with granular and fibrinoid appearance in the center without caseation were observed in a pleural biopsy of a patient with SLE [5]. The presence of granuloma in lymph node biopsy and FNAC is suggestive of tuberculosis which is highly prevalent in our geographical region. However there was no caseous necrosis or Langhan type of multinucleated giant cells that are usually seen in tubercular lymph node histopathology. Furthermore, Ziehl Neelsen stain for AFB and AFB cultures were negative in this patient. Hence tuberculosis was considered unlikely and sequential evolution of features confirmed SLE in this patient. However, there are cases where anti-tubercular treatment has been initiated in patient with lupus lymphadenopathy when there was a sequential absence of symptoms [14]. Lupus nephritis is considered a risk factor for tuberculosis and some patients develop disseminated tuberculosis even before use of corticosteroids [18]. This patient did not receive anti-tubercular treatment and did not develop flare up of symptoms in spite of corticosteroid treatment. Therefore, the possibility of tuberculosis was considered highly unlikely in this patient.
With the presence of a non-caseating granuloma, the other possible diagnosis was sarcoidosis. However, serum calcium level was normal and confluent granulomas, multinucleated giant cells containing Schaumann bodies, and Asteroid bodies were not seen in this patient [19]. Skin biopsy was not considered as malar rash in this patient was very typical of SLE. In addition, renal biopsy also confirmed lupus nephritis.
Pathogenesis of granuloma formation in SLE is still unclear. It was regarded as a response to tissue injury and considered as a manifestation of allergic tissue reaction [3]. Although SLE is considered type III hypersensitivity reaction which has been extensively studied in patients with lupus nephritis, type IV mediated mechanism also may play a role in autoimmune nephritis [20]. Animal studies revealed presence of high levels of expression of IFN-γ and IL-12, as well as exacerbation of lupus disease after administration of IFN-γ to NZB/W F1 mice [21–23].
Defective clearance of apoptotic bodies by the complement system along with a reduced number of macrophages and capacity for phagocytosis lead to a high level of apoptotic bodies in patients with SLE [24–26]. Hence, persistence of these apoptotic bodies may stimulate granuloma formation.
Formation of granuloma occurs in response to a persistent stimulus and has also been linked with TNF and induction of host matrix metalloproteinase (MMPs) production in tuberculosis [27]. Animal studies showed proliferative glomerulonephritis was associated with infiltrating kidney macrophages, renal expression of IFN-inducible genes and MMPs which were mediated IFN [28]. Granuloma formation in SLE may be due to persistence of apoptotic bodies and/or various cytokines and MMPs. It may also support the role of type IV mediated injury in the pathogenesis of SLE. However, detailed studies are needed.
The association of lymphadenopathy with severe disease activity, more constitutional symptoms as well as hepatomegaly and splenomegaly has been correlated in patients with SLE [9], which was also noted in this patient.
All the symptoms of SLE required to fulfill ACR criteria may not appear at the same time, and it took almost three years from initial presentation of generalized lymphadenopathy to reach the final diagnosis and institute definite treatment for SLE in this patient. Hence, strong clinical suspicion and close follow up is essential for early diagnosis and treatment as well as to improve outcomes in children with SLE. In conclusion, generalized lymphadenopathy may be the presenting feature of SLE and it may preceed other symptoms of SLE by many years as illustrated by this patient. Reactive follicular hyperplasia is commonly observed on histopathology of lymph nodes in SLE, and on rare occasions, there may be presence of granulomas in lymph node biopsies. Pathogenesis of this granuloma formation is still unclear and may possibly support the role of type IV reaction playing an additional role in the pathogenesis of SLE. Therefore, in children who present with generalized lymphadenopathy along with prolonged fever and constitutional symptoms, though uncommon, non-infectious causes like SLE should also be considered as a diagnostic possibility.
Consent
Written informed consent was obtained from the parent of the patient for publication of this Case Report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.
