Key result
Intravascular null-cell lymphoma manifests as recurrent cerebrovascular accidents in a canine case.
Why the study?
Intravascular lymphoma is rare, difficult to diagnose ante-mortem, and veterinary reports are few.
Case Report (n=1)
Intravascular lymphoma is a rare and difficult-to-diagnose cause of recurrent cerebrovascular accidents in dogs.
Rare intravascular CNS lymphoma merits consideration in canine recurrent strokes; extends the differential but leaves antemortem diagnosis open.
An eight-year-old, neutered male labrador was presented with recent recurrent vestibular episodes. MRI was consistent with multiple lacunar ischaemic infarcts in the thalamus and medulla oblongata. The imaging diagnosis was supported by a markedly elevated D-dimer concentration. Despite a comprehensive diagnostic workup (including fine needle cytology of cutaneous and subcutaneous nodules, complete bloodwork, urinalysis, thoracic and abdominal imaging, cerebrospinal fluid analysis, serial blood pressure measurements, echocardiography, electrocardiography and brainstem auditory evoked response testing), no underlying cause was found. After a partial response to 2 mg/kg clopidogrel once a day and 1 mg/kg prednisolone once a day, the dog acutely deteriorated and repeated MRI of the brain revealed an intra-axial haemorrhagic mass. Euthanasia was elected and postmortem examination revealed the presence of an intravascular null-cell lymphoma, exclusively in the central nervous system. Intravascular lymphoma is rare, difficult to diagnose ante-mortem and reports in veterinary literature are few.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sánchez et al. (2018) conducted a case report in Recurrent cerebrovascular accidents caused by intravascular lymphoma (n=1). Clopidogrel and prednisolone was evaluated. An eight-year-old labrador with recurrent cerebrovascular accidents was diagnosed post-mortem with intravascular null-cell lymphoma exclusively in the central nervous system.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: