{"title":"Severe persistent hypereosinophilia of undetermined significance: diagnostic challenges in clinical practice and two-year follow-up.","authors":"Polliana Mihaela Leru, Vlad Florin Anton, Daniela Georgeta Georgescu","doi":"10.2478/rjim-2026-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hypereosinophilia of undetermined significance (HE-US) represents a rare subtype of hypereosinophilia (HE) defined by a persistent absolute eosinophil count (AEC) ≥ 1500/uL without an identifiable reactive or clonal cause, and importantly, without evidence of eosinophil-mediated end-organ damage. Long-term structured follow-up is essential due to its unpredictable outcome and the risk of transition into overt hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) or occult malignancies.</p><p><strong>Case presentation: </strong>We report the case of a 47-year-old woman with severe, persistent blood hypereosinophilia (up to 13600/uL) accompanied by chronic inconstant fixed erythematous-violaceous skin lesions. Extensive diagnostic evaluation for secondary, autoimmune, and clonal etiologies was negative, including fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for FIP1L1-PDGFRA mutation. Bone marrow biopsy showed granulocytic hyperplasia with eosinophils <10% and mild reticulin fibrosis (MF-1). Whole-body computed tomography (CT) revealed small generalized lymphadenopathy (≤ 11 mm) without parenchymal infiltration. The patient declined lymph-node biopsy. Although skin biopsy revealed eosinophilic infiltration, it was characterized as a non-specific reactive pattern without objective evidence of eosinophil-mediated cytotoxicity. The case was provisionally diagnosed as HE-US, acknowledging that lymphoproliferative disease could not be definitively excluded in the absence of the lymph-node biopsy. Intermittent systemic corticosteroids provide rapid hematologic response, but prompted immediate recurrence when tapered.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The reported case underscores the diagnostic complexity and difficulties in managing hypereosinophilia of undetermined significance in clinical practice. While current evidence suggests a generally benign course, rare progression to hypereosinophilic syndrome or other malignancies requires structured long-term monitoring and individualized therapeutic decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":21463,"journal":{"name":"Romanian Journal of Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"221-229"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Romanian Journal of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/rjim-2026-0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Hypereosinophilia of undetermined significance (HE-US) represents a rare subtype of hypereosinophilia (HE) defined by a persistent absolute eosinophil count (AEC) ≥ 1500/uL without an identifiable reactive or clonal cause, and importantly, without evidence of eosinophil-mediated end-organ damage. Long-term structured follow-up is essential due to its unpredictable outcome and the risk of transition into overt hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) or occult malignancies.
Case presentation: We report the case of a 47-year-old woman with severe, persistent blood hypereosinophilia (up to 13600/uL) accompanied by chronic inconstant fixed erythematous-violaceous skin lesions. Extensive diagnostic evaluation for secondary, autoimmune, and clonal etiologies was negative, including fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for FIP1L1-PDGFRA mutation. Bone marrow biopsy showed granulocytic hyperplasia with eosinophils <10% and mild reticulin fibrosis (MF-1). Whole-body computed tomography (CT) revealed small generalized lymphadenopathy (≤ 11 mm) without parenchymal infiltration. The patient declined lymph-node biopsy. Although skin biopsy revealed eosinophilic infiltration, it was characterized as a non-specific reactive pattern without objective evidence of eosinophil-mediated cytotoxicity. The case was provisionally diagnosed as HE-US, acknowledging that lymphoproliferative disease could not be definitively excluded in the absence of the lymph-node biopsy. Intermittent systemic corticosteroids provide rapid hematologic response, but prompted immediate recurrence when tapered.
Conclusion: The reported case underscores the diagnostic complexity and difficulties in managing hypereosinophilia of undetermined significance in clinical practice. While current evidence suggests a generally benign course, rare progression to hypereosinophilic syndrome or other malignancies requires structured long-term monitoring and individualized therapeutic decision-making.