Cutaneous T‑cell lymphoma (CTCL) is difficult to diagnose at an early stage. Current diagnostic tools include clinical examination, histomorphologic analysis, immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry of peripheral blood and/or lesional tissue, and evaluation of T‑cell receptor (TCR) clonality by gene rearrangement analysis (TCRGR). Advances in genomic sequencing, including high‑throughput sequencing (HTS), can be used to identify specific clones of rearranged TCR genes. Even with all of these tools, CTCL can take as long as a decade to definitively diagnose, potentially delaying treatment options and causing patient anxiety. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the various ancillary testing modalities used to diagnose early‑stage CTCL. In a subset of patients the performance of HTS was compared to flow cytometry and conventional TCRGR analysis via polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Fifty‑five patients, with a total of 68 skin biopsies and peripheral blood draws, were evaluated using flow cytometry, PCR‑TCRGR, and HTS‑TCRGR to determine the sensitivity and specificity of each ancillary test. In tissue biopsies, flow cytometry (64%), PCR (71%) and HTS (69%) shared similar sensitivities; flow cytometry had the highest specificity (93%), followed by HTS (86%) and PCR (76.9%). However, flow cytometry and PCR had insufficient DNA quantities in 29 and 15% of the specimens, respectively. Peripheral blood testing was less sensitive than tissue testing (flow cytometry 14%, PCR 41%, HTS 33%); in peripheral blood, HTS was the most specific test (flow cytometry, 70%; PCR, 62.5%; and HTS, 100%). HTS is a highly specific molecular test for identifying CTCL in peripheral blood and skin biopsy specimens; however, our findings suggest a need for a continued search for more sensitive tests for early‑stage CTCL.
Keywords: cutaneous T‑cell lymphoma; pathologic diagnosis; gene rearrangement analysis; T‑cell receptor sequencing; flow cytometry.