Clinicopathologic Diagnostic Criteria for Vulvar Lichen Planus. Issue 3 (July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Day, Tania; Wilkinson, Edward; Rowan, Darion; Scurry, James
• Is Part Of: Journal of lower genital tract disease. Volume 24:Issue 3(2020:Jul.)
• Publication Date: 2020-07
• Subjects: vulva -- vagina -- erosive lichen planus -- classic lichen planus -- hypertrophic lichen planus -- regenerative -- degenerative; Generative organs, Female -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cervix uteri -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Generative organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Sexually transmitted diseases -- Periodicals; 618.1
• DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000532
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1089-2591

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: The aim of the study was to describe the clinical and histopathologic features required for a clinicopathologic diagnosis of vulvar lichen planus (LP), which is divided into 3 types: erosive, classic, and hypertrophic. Materials and Methods: The International Society of the Study of Vulvovaginal Diseases tasked the Difficult Pathologic Diagnoses committee with development of a consensus document for the clinicopathologic diagnosis of vulvar LP, lichen sclerosus, and differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia. The LP subgroup reviewed the literature and formulated diagnostic criteria, then approved by the International Society of the Study of Vulvovaginal Diseases membership. Results: The clinicopathologic diagnosis of erosive LP incorporates 5 criteria: ( a ) a well-demarcated, glazed red macule or patch at labia minora, vestibule, and/or vagina, ( b ) disease affects hairless skin, mucocutaneous junction, and/or nonkeratinized squamous epithelium, ( c ) evidence of basal layer damage, categorized as degenerative or regenerative, ( d ) a closely applied band-like lymphocytic infiltrate, and ( e ) absent subepithelial sclerosis. The clinicopathologic diagnoses of classic and hypertrophic LP each require a characteristic clinical appearance accompanied by hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, acanthosis, basal layer degeneration, a closely applied lymphocytic infiltrate, and absent dermal sclerosis, with hypertrophic LP showing marked epithelial abnormality compared with classic LP. Conclusions: Clinicopathological correlation yields the most reliable diagnosis of vulvar LP. Disease appearance overlaps with other physiologic, dermatologic, infectious, and neoplastic entities; a low threshold for biopsy at all morphologically distinct areas is recommended. Use of the histopathologic criteria described in this document may reduce the nondiagnostic biopsy rate for clinically diagnosed LP.