Smarter Decisions,
Better Care

UpToDate synthesizes the most recent medical information into evidence-based practical recommendations clinicians trust to make the right point-of-care decisions.

  • Rigorous editorial process: Evidence-based treatment recommendations
  • World-Renowned physician authors: over 5,100 physician authors and editors around the globe
  • Innovative technology: integrates into the workflow; access from EMRs

Choose from the list below to learn more about subscriptions for a:


Subscribers log in here


Peripheral lymphadenopathy in children: Evaluation and diagnostic approach

INTRODUCTION

Lymphadenopathy is common and usually not clinically important in and of itself. However, it can represent serious underlying disease. The challenge for clinicians is to avoid aggressive evaluation and biopsy of most children, while making timely, specific diagnoses when appropriate. This topic will provide guidelines for evaluating peripheral lymphadenopathy in children. The guidelines are intended to supplement clinical judgment in the absence of research that directly addresses how children with unexplained lymphadenopathy should be evaluated. The causes of peripheral lymphadenopathy and cervical lymphadenitis in children are discussed separately. (See "Peripheral lymphadenopathy in children: Etiology" and "Cervical lymphadenitis in children: Etiology and clinical manifestations".)

The causes and evaluation of peripheral lymphadenopathy in adults also are discussed separately. (See "Evaluation of peripheral lymphadenopathy in adults".)

EVALUATION

Overview — The cause of lymphadenopathy often is obvious after a complete history and physical examination. Important aspects of the history and examination include symptoms and signs suggestive of infection and/or systemic disease, and the location, size, consistency, fixation, and tenderness of the lymph nodes.

For most children seen in primary care settings, lymphadenopathy is self-limited and does not require laboratory diagnosis. In contrast, prompt and extensive evaluation may be warranted for children seen in referral centers, especially those with rapidly changing nodes and other worrisome symptoms and signs. Laboratory testing can be used to confirm a diagnosis that is suspected on the basis of the history and physical examination (eg, throat culture for group A streptococcal pharyngitis, heterophile antibodies or specific titers for Epstein-Barr virus or cytomegalovirus mononucleosis, serology for Bartonella henselae for cat scratch disease). For cases in which the lymphadenopathy remains unexplained after the initial history, examination, and laboratory tests, additional laboratory tests and lymph node biopsy may be necessary (algorithm 1 and algorithm 2 and algorithm 3 and algorithm 4).

Treatment with glucocorticoids must be avoided before a definitive diagnosis is made. Glucocorticoid treatment could mask or delay the histologic diagnosis of leukemia or lymphoma. Glucocorticoids typically are used during the induction phase of chemotherapy for these disorders, and patients who are pre-treated are assigned to a higher risk category or may be ineligible for a clinical trial. (See "Overview of the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children and adolescents" and "Overview of Hodgkin lymphoma in children and adolescents".)

                      

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Jul 2014. | This topic last updated: Feb 5, 2014.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2014 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Soldes OS, Younger JG, Hirschl RB. Predictors of malignancy in childhood peripheral lymphadenopathy. J Pediatr Surg 1999; 34:1447.
  2. Slap GB, Brooks JS, Schwartz JS. When to perform biopsies of enlarged peripheral lymph nodes in young patients. JAMA 1984; 252:1321.
  3. Niedzielska G, Kotowski M, Niedzielski A, et al. Cervical lymphadenopathy in children--incidence and diagnostic management. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 71:51.
  4. Malley, R. Lymphadenopathy. In: Textbook of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, 5th ed, Fleisher, GR, Ludwig, S, Henretig, FM (Eds), Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia 2006. p.421.
  5. Malley R. Lymphadenopathy. In: Textbook of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, 5th ed, Fleisher GR, Ludwig S, Henretig FM (Eds), Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia 2006. p.421.
  6. Margileth AM. Sorting out the causes of lymphadenopathy. Contemp Pediatr 1995; 12:23.
  7. Knight PJ, Mulne AF, Vassy LE. When is lymph node biopsy indicated in children with enlarged peripheral nodes? Pediatrics 1982; 69:391.
  8. Morland B. Lymphadenopathy. Arch Dis Child 1995; 73:476.
  9. Greenfield S, Jordan MC. The clinical investigation of lymphadenopathy in primary care practice. JAMA 1978; 240:1388.
  10. Herzog LW. Prevalence of lymphadenopathy of the head and neck in infants and children. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1983; 22:485.
  11. Lake AM, Oski FA. Peripheral lymphadenopathy in childhood. Ten-year experience with excisional biopsy. Am J Dis Child 1978; 132:357.
  12. Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB, et al. Report of a committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin's disease: Cotswolds meeting. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7:1630.
  13. Ying M, Ahuja AT, Evans R, et al. Cervical lymphadenopathy: sonographic differentiation between tuberculous nodes and nodal metastases from non-head and neck carcinomas. J Clin Ultrasound 1998; 26:383.
  14. Steinkamp HJ, Mueffelmann M, Böck JC, et al. Differential diagnosis of lymph node lesions: a semiquantitative approach with colour Doppler ultrasound. Br J Radiol 1998; 71:828.
  15. Wu CH, Chang YL, Hsu WC, et al. Usefulness of Doppler spectral analysis and power Doppler sonography in the differentiation of cervical lymphadenopathies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:503.
  16. Tschammler A, Ott G, Schang T, et al. Lymphadenopathy: differentiation of benign from malignant disease--color Doppler US assessment of intranodal angioarchitecture. Radiology 1998; 208:117.
  17. Abdel Razek AA, Soliman NY, Elkhamary S, et al. Role of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in cervical lymphadenopathy. Eur Radiol 2006; 16:1468.
  18. Yu M, Liu Q, Song HP, et al. Clinical application of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in diagnosis of superficial lymphadenopathy. J Ultrasound Med 2010; 29:735.
  19. Puesken M, Buerke B, Gerss J, et al. Prediction of lymph node manifestations in malignant lymphoma: significant role of volumetric compared with established metric lymph node analysis in multislice computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2010; 34:564.
  20. Panesar J, Higgins K, Daya H, et al. Nontuberculous mycobacterial cervical adenitis: a ten-year retrospective review. Laryngoscope 2003; 113:149.
  21. Kanlikama M, Mumbuç S, Bayazit Y, Sirikçi A. Management strategy of mycobacterial cervical lymphadenitis. J Laryngol Otol 2000; 114:274.
  22. Schaad UB, Votteler TP, McCracken GH Jr, Nelson JD. Management of atypical mycobacterial lymphadenitis in childhood: a review based on 380 cases. J Pediatr 1979; 95:356.
  23. Tunkel DE. Surgery for cervicofacial nontuberculous mycobacterial adenitis in children: an update. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999; 125:1109.
  24. Steel BL, Schwartz MR, Ramzy I. Fine needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy in 1,103 patients. Role, limitations and analysis of diagnostic pitfalls. Acta Cytol 1995; 39:76.