ArticleEuropean journal of haematology2025
The Clinicopathologic Spectrum of Rosai-Dorfman-Destombes Disease in Adults: An Analysis of 16 Cases.
Article in European journal of haematology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multifocal osseous and cutaneous Rosai-Dorfman-Destombes disease presenting as an aggressive intramedullary femoral lesion.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Article
- The Clinicopathologic Spectrum of Rosai-Dorfman-Destombes Disease in Adults: An Analysis of 16 Cases.European journal of haematology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rosai-Dorfman-Destombes disease (RDD) is a rare histiocytic proliferation with protean clinical manifestations, resulting from the accumulation of activated histiocytes within nodal and extra-nodal tissues. The diagnosis can be missed, particularly when biopsies are obtained from extra-nodal sites, where histological features may be less specific than those observed in nodal specimens. Here, we examined a case series of 16 adults diagnosed with RDD from Vancouver, Canada between 2015 and 2025. Cases were classified as diagnostically challenging if the time to a definitive pathologic diagnosis exceeded 60 days from the initial biopsy for RDD-related clinical symptoms and > 1 pathologic sampling was required to establish a diagnosis. Eight of 16 patients (50%) were classified as having diagnostically challenging cases. The median number of independent pathological samples required to establish a diagnosis of RDD was 2.0 (interquartile range: 2.3), with five patients needing three or more independent specimens. The median timeto final diagnosis was 12 days for non-diagnostically challenging cases (IQR: 15 days) and 240 days for diagnostically challenging cases (IQR: 138 days). Notably, diagnostically challenging cases tended to have specimen sampling from atypical anatomical sites (62.5% vs. 37.5%), utilized suboptimal pathological sampling techniques (87.5% vs. 25.0%; e.g., cytology), and delayed or absent consultation with hematolymphoid-specialized pathologists (25.0% vs. 87.5%). Together, this study underscores the extreme clinical heterogeneity of extra-nodal RDD, emphasizes the critical role of expert hematolymphoid pathology expertise in its diagnosis, and suggests practical strategies-such as liberal use of immunohistochemistry on atypical histiocyte-rich infiltrates-to avoid premature exclusion of RDD from the differential diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.