Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How to tell canine pemphigus foliaceus from superficial pyoderma
By Spriggs, Tyler S et al.·Published in Veterinary dermatology·2024·College of Veterinary Medicine, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of selected cytomorphological features of canine pemphigus foliaceus and superficial pyoderma.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A 5-year-old Golden Retriever was brought in for skin problems, including crusty lesions and hair loss. The veterinarian suspected either pemphigus foliaceus, an autoimmune skin condition, or superficial pyoderma, a type of skin infection. By examining samples from the dog's skin, the vet found that the characteristics of the cells indicated pemphigus foliaceus rather than the infection. With this diagnosis, the dog was treated with immunosuppressive medication, which helped clear up the skin lesions and improve the dog's condition significantly.
People also search for: dog skin problems crusty lesions · pemphigus foliaceus treatment for dogs · dog hair loss causes
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytological detection of acantholytic keratinocytes (acantholytic cells [AC]) helps to identify canine pemphigus foliaceus (cPF) yet AC also occurs in superficial pyoderma (SP), the main differential diagnosis. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: To compare selected cytomorphological features of cPF and SP and to establish cytological diagnostic criteria that could differentiate cPF from SP. ANIMALS: 40 and 51 client-owned dogs with PF and SP, respectively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Impression smears from cPF (64), impetigo (40) and exfoliative superficial pyoderma (ESP) (17) samples were stained with Romanowsky stain, randomised, blinded and evaluated by two investigators independently. The entire sample was screened (×500 or ×1000 magnification) for round (AC1), boat (AC2) and raft AC, eosinophils and bacteria. Interobserver agreements were calculated. RESULTS: The average number of the 10 highest ×500 fields for AC1 and AC2 was significantly higher in PF than SP (p < 0.0001; Kruskal-Wallis test). Rafts and eosinophils were more common in PF than SP (p < 0.0001; chi-square test), while bacteria were rare in PF (5%; p < 0.0001; chi-square test). Observations between the experienced and novice investigators were highly correlated. An ROC analysis identified five AC1/×500-magnification field as a suitable cut-off value for predicting PF diagnosis. This cut-off value was tested by two additional investigators, who identified sensitivity of 84%-100%, specificity of 95%-97% and accuracy of 95%-96% for the diagnosis of cPF. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Criterion-based impression smear cytological evaluation can provide strong evidence to support the clinical diagnosis. Acantholytic cell morphology varies in cPF and SP, and experience can improve accuracy in cytological differentiation.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38840462/