Cutis

As dermatology residents, we have a lot on our plates. With so many diagnoses to learn and treatments to understand, the sheer volume of knowledge we are expected to be familiar with sometimes can be overwhelming. The thought of adding yet another thing to the list of many things we already need to know—least of all a topic such as dermatoethics—may be unappealing. This article will discuss the importance of ethics training in dermatology residency as well as provide helpful resources for how this training can be achieved.

Professionalism as a Core Competency

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) considers professionalism as 1 of its 6 core competencies.¹ These competencies provide a conceptual framework detailing the domains physicians should be proficient in before they can enter autonomous practice. When it comes to professionalism, residents are expected to demonstrate compassion, integrity, and respect for others; honesty with patients; respect for patient confidentiality and autonomy; appropriate relationships with patients; accountability to patients, society, and the profession; and a sensitivity and responsiveness to diverse patient population.¹

The ACGME milestones are intended to assess resident development within the 6 competencies with more specific parameters for evaluation.² Those pertaining to professionalism evaluate a resident’s ability to demonstrate professional behavior, an understanding of ethical principles, accountability, and conscientiousness, as well as self-awareness and the ability to seek help for personal or professional well-being. The crux of the kinds of activities that constitute acquisition of these professional skills are specialty specific. The ACGME ultimately believes that having a working knowledge of professionalism and ethical principles prepares residents for practicing medicine in the real world. Because of these requirements, residency programs are expected to provide resources for residents to explore ethical problems faced by dermatologists.

Beyond “Passing” Residency

The reality is that learning about medical ethics and practicing professional behavior is not just about ticking boxes to get ACGME accreditation or to “pass” residency. The data suggest that having a strong foundation in these principles is good for overall personal well-being, job satisfaction, and patient care. Studies have shown that unprofessional behavior in medical school is correlated to disciplinary action by state licensing boards against practicing physicians.^3,4 In fact, a study found that in one cohort of physicians (N=68), 95% of disciplinary actions were for lapses in professionalism, which included activities such as sexual misconduct and inappropriate prescribing.⁴ Behaving appropriately protects your license to practice medicine.

Thinking through these problematic ethical scenarios also goes beyond coming up with the right answer. Exploring ethical conundrums is thought to develop analytical skills that can help one navigate future tricky situations that can be morally distressing and can lead to burnout. Introspection and self-awareness coupled with these skills ideally will help physicians think through sensitive and difficult situations with the courage to hold true to their convictions and ultimately uphold the professionalism of the specialty.⁵

Self-awareness has the additional bonus of empowering physicians to acknowledge personal and professional limitations with the goal of seeking help when it is needed before it is too late. It comes as no surprise that how we feel as physicians directly impacts how we treat our patients. One study found that depressed residents were more than 6 times more likely to make medication errors compared to nondepressed colleagues.⁶ Regularly taking stock of our professional and personal reserves can go a long way to improving overall well-being.

Resources for Dermatoethics Training

The best starting point for developing a robust dermatoethics curriculum is the material provided by the American Board of Dermatology, which is available online.⁷ An ad hoc subcommittee of the American Board of Dermatology composed of experts in dermatoethics and resident education reviewed relevant ethics literature and identified 6 core domains considered fundamental to dermatology resident education in ethics and professionalism.⁸ This team also provided a thorough list of relevant background readings for each topic. To cover pertinent material, the subcommittee recommended a 60-minute teaching session every other month with the intent of covering all the material over a 3-year period. If your program directors are not aware of this great resource and you feel your own ethics training may be lacking, bringing this up as a template might be helpful. A detailed description of an innovative dermatoethics curriculum organized at the Department of Dermatology at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University (Providence, Rhode Island) in 2001 also may serve as a guide for programs hoping to design their own approach.⁵

For those interested in self-study, there is an excellent text dedicated to dermatoethics, which is aptly entitled Dermatoethics: Contemporary Ethics and Professionalism in Dermatology.⁹ This book offers superb case-based discussions on a wide range of ethical quandaries that dermatologists may face, ranging from unsolicited dermatologic advice (eg, Is it wrong to tell the person next to you in the grocery store that they might have a melanoma?) to research and publication ethics. This text provides a toolkit for handling tough situations in the clinic and beyond. The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology publishes an Ethics Journal Club for which contributors can submit real-life practical ethical dilemmas, and the journal solicits a resolution or response from a dermatoethicist.

Additionally, a pilot curriculum project out of the University of Utah (Salt Lake City, Utah), of which I am a team member, currently is designing and testing several dermatoethics PowerPoint modules with the intention of making this material widely available through medical education portals.

The Hidden Curriculum

A formal curriculum can only provide so much when it comes to ethics training. In truth, much of what we learn as ethically minded dermatologists comes from our day-to-day practice.¹⁰ Paying attention to the more informal curriculum that we are immersed in during routine as well as unusual encounters also is important for achieving milestones. Teaching moments for thinking through ethical dilemmas abound, and this approach easily can be incorporated into routine workflow.¹¹ Next time you encounter an ethical situation that gives you pause (eg, Can I biopsy an intubated patient without getting appropriate consent?), talk it through with your supervisor. Gems of autonomous practice often can be mined from these off-the-cuff conversations.

Can Professionalism Be Taught?

Finally, it is worth mentioning that while the number of resources available to dermatology residents for honing their ethics skills is increasing, ways of measuring the impact of this additional training in vivo are not.¹² There are no good tools available to determine how ethics training influences resident behaviors. Similarly, there is no good evidence for what constitutes the most effective method for teaching medical ethics to trainees. It is a growing field with lots of room for more robust research. For now, the overall goal of a dermatoethics curriculum is to provide a mix of curriculum opportunities, ranging from formal lectures and readings to more informal conversations, with the hope of providing residents a toolbox for dealing with ethical dilemmas and a working knowledge of professionalism.

Final Thoughts

There are several resources available for dermatology programs to provide quality dermatoethics training to their residents. These can be mixed and matched to create a tailored formal curriculum alongside the more informal ethics training that happens in the clinic and on the wards. Providing this education is about more than just fulfilling accreditation requirements. Understanding ethical principles and how they can be applied to navigate sensitive situations is ultimately good for both professional and personal well-being.

As dermatology residents, we have a lot on our plates. With so many diagnoses to learn and treatments to understand, the sheer volume of knowledge we are expected to be familiar with sometimes can be overwhelming. The thought of adding yet another thing to the list of many things we already need to know—least of all a topic such as dermatoethics—may be unappealing. This article will discuss the importance of ethics training in dermatology residency as well as provide helpful resources for how this training can be achieved.

Professionalism as a Core Competency

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) considers professionalism as 1 of its 6 core competencies.¹ These competencies provide a conceptual framework detailing the domains physicians should be proficient in before they can enter autonomous practice. When it comes to professionalism, residents are expected to demonstrate compassion, integrity, and respect for others; honesty with patients; respect for patient confidentiality and autonomy; appropriate relationships with patients; accountability to patients, society, and the profession; and a sensitivity and responsiveness to diverse patient population.¹

The ACGME milestones are intended to assess resident development within the 6 competencies with more specific parameters for evaluation.² Those pertaining to professionalism evaluate a resident’s ability to demonstrate professional behavior, an understanding of ethical principles, accountability, and conscientiousness, as well as self-awareness and the ability to seek help for personal or professional well-being. The crux of the kinds of activities that constitute acquisition of these professional skills are specialty specific. The ACGME ultimately believes that having a working knowledge of professionalism and ethical principles prepares residents for practicing medicine in the real world. Because of these requirements, residency programs are expected to provide resources for residents to explore ethical problems faced by dermatologists.

Beyond “Passing” Residency

The reality is that learning about medical ethics and practicing professional behavior is not just about ticking boxes to get ACGME accreditation or to “pass” residency. The data suggest that having a strong foundation in these principles is good for overall personal well-being, job satisfaction, and patient care. Studies have shown that unprofessional behavior in medical school is correlated to disciplinary action by state licensing boards against practicing physicians.^3,4 In fact, a study found that in one cohort of physicians (N=68), 95% of disciplinary actions were for lapses in professionalism, which included activities such as sexual misconduct and inappropriate prescribing.⁴ Behaving appropriately protects your license to practice medicine.

Thinking through these problematic ethical scenarios also goes beyond coming up with the right answer. Exploring ethical conundrums is thought to develop analytical skills that can help one navigate future tricky situations that can be morally distressing and can lead to burnout. Introspection and self-awareness coupled with these skills ideally will help physicians think through sensitive and difficult situations with the courage to hold true to their convictions and ultimately uphold the professionalism of the specialty.⁵

Self-awareness has the additional bonus of empowering physicians to acknowledge personal and professional limitations with the goal of seeking help when it is needed before it is too late. It comes as no surprise that how we feel as physicians directly impacts how we treat our patients. One study found that depressed residents were more than 6 times more likely to make medication errors compared to nondepressed colleagues.⁶ Regularly taking stock of our professional and personal reserves can go a long way to improving overall well-being.

Resources for Dermatoethics Training

The best starting point for developing a robust dermatoethics curriculum is the material provided by the American Board of Dermatology, which is available online.⁷ An ad hoc subcommittee of the American Board of Dermatology composed of experts in dermatoethics and resident education reviewed relevant ethics literature and identified 6 core domains considered fundamental to dermatology resident education in ethics and professionalism.⁸ This team also provided a thorough list of relevant background readings for each topic. To cover pertinent material, the subcommittee recommended a 60-minute teaching session every other month with the intent of covering all the material over a 3-year period. If your program directors are not aware of this great resource and you feel your own ethics training may be lacking, bringing this up as a template might be helpful. A detailed description of an innovative dermatoethics curriculum organized at the Department of Dermatology at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University (Providence, Rhode Island) in 2001 also may serve as a guide for programs hoping to design their own approach.⁵

For those interested in self-study, there is an excellent text dedicated to dermatoethics, which is aptly entitled Dermatoethics: Contemporary Ethics and Professionalism in Dermatology.⁹ This book offers superb case-based discussions on a wide range of ethical quandaries that dermatologists may face, ranging from unsolicited dermatologic advice (eg, Is it wrong to tell the person next to you in the grocery store that they might have a melanoma?) to research and publication ethics. This text provides a toolkit for handling tough situations in the clinic and beyond. The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology publishes an Ethics Journal Club for which contributors can submit real-life practical ethical dilemmas, and the journal solicits a resolution or response from a dermatoethicist.

Additionally, a pilot curriculum project out of the University of Utah (Salt Lake City, Utah), of which I am a team member, currently is designing and testing several dermatoethics PowerPoint modules with the intention of making this material widely available through medical education portals.

The Hidden Curriculum

A formal curriculum can only provide so much when it comes to ethics training. In truth, much of what we learn as ethically minded dermatologists comes from our day-to-day practice.¹⁰ Paying attention to the more informal curriculum that we are immersed in during routine as well as unusual encounters also is important for achieving milestones. Teaching moments for thinking through ethical dilemmas abound, and this approach easily can be incorporated into routine workflow.¹¹ Next time you encounter an ethical situation that gives you pause (eg, Can I biopsy an intubated patient without getting appropriate consent?), talk it through with your supervisor. Gems of autonomous practice often can be mined from these off-the-cuff conversations.

Can Professionalism Be Taught?

Finally, it is worth mentioning that while the number of resources available to dermatology residents for honing their ethics skills is increasing, ways of measuring the impact of this additional training in vivo are not.¹² There are no good tools available to determine how ethics training influences resident behaviors. Similarly, there is no good evidence for what constitutes the most effective method for teaching medical ethics to trainees. It is a growing field with lots of room for more robust research. For now, the overall goal of a dermatoethics curriculum is to provide a mix of curriculum opportunities, ranging from formal lectures and readings to more informal conversations, with the hope of providing residents a toolbox for dealing with ethical dilemmas and a working knowledge of professionalism.

Final Thoughts

There are several resources available for dermatology programs to provide quality dermatoethics training to their residents. These can be mixed and matched to create a tailored formal curriculum alongside the more informal ethics training that happens in the clinic and on the wards. Providing this education is about more than just fulfilling accreditation requirements. Understanding ethical principles and how they can be applied to navigate sensitive situations is ultimately good for both professional and personal well-being.

As dermatology residents, we have a lot on our plates. With so many diagnoses to learn and treatments to understand, the sheer volume of knowledge we are expected to be familiar with sometimes can be overwhelming. The thought of adding yet another thing to the list of many things we already need to know—least of all a topic such as dermatoethics—may be unappealing. This article will discuss the importance of ethics training in dermatology residency as well as provide helpful resources for how this training can be achieved.

Professionalism as a Core Competency

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) considers professionalism as 1 of its 6 core competencies.¹ These competencies provide a conceptual framework detailing the domains physicians should be proficient in before they can enter autonomous practice. When it comes to professionalism, residents are expected to demonstrate compassion, integrity, and respect for others; honesty with patients; respect for patient confidentiality and autonomy; appropriate relationships with patients; accountability to patients, society, and the profession; and a sensitivity and responsiveness to diverse patient population.¹

The ACGME milestones are intended to assess resident development within the 6 competencies with more specific parameters for evaluation.² Those pertaining to professionalism evaluate a resident’s ability to demonstrate professional behavior, an understanding of ethical principles, accountability, and conscientiousness, as well as self-awareness and the ability to seek help for personal or professional well-being. The crux of the kinds of activities that constitute acquisition of these professional skills are specialty specific. The ACGME ultimately believes that having a working knowledge of professionalism and ethical principles prepares residents for practicing medicine in the real world. Because of these requirements, residency programs are expected to provide resources for residents to explore ethical problems faced by dermatologists.

Beyond “Passing” Residency

The reality is that learning about medical ethics and practicing professional behavior is not just about ticking boxes to get ACGME accreditation or to “pass” residency. The data suggest that having a strong foundation in these principles is good for overall personal well-being, job satisfaction, and patient care. Studies have shown that unprofessional behavior in medical school is correlated to disciplinary action by state licensing boards against practicing physicians.^3,4 In fact, a study found that in one cohort of physicians (N=68), 95% of disciplinary actions were for lapses in professionalism, which included activities such as sexual misconduct and inappropriate prescribing.⁴ Behaving appropriately protects your license to practice medicine.

Thinking through these problematic ethical scenarios also goes beyond coming up with the right answer. Exploring ethical conundrums is thought to develop analytical skills that can help one navigate future tricky situations that can be morally distressing and can lead to burnout. Introspection and self-awareness coupled with these skills ideally will help physicians think through sensitive and difficult situations with the courage to hold true to their convictions and ultimately uphold the professionalism of the specialty.⁵

Self-awareness has the additional bonus of empowering physicians to acknowledge personal and professional limitations with the goal of seeking help when it is needed before it is too late. It comes as no surprise that how we feel as physicians directly impacts how we treat our patients. One study found that depressed residents were more than 6 times more likely to make medication errors compared to nondepressed colleagues.⁶ Regularly taking stock of our professional and personal reserves can go a long way to improving overall well-being.

Resources for Dermatoethics Training

The best starting point for developing a robust dermatoethics curriculum is the material provided by the American Board of Dermatology, which is available online.⁷ An ad hoc subcommittee of the American Board of Dermatology composed of experts in dermatoethics and resident education reviewed relevant ethics literature and identified 6 core domains considered fundamental to dermatology resident education in ethics and professionalism.⁸ This team also provided a thorough list of relevant background readings for each topic. To cover pertinent material, the subcommittee recommended a 60-minute teaching session every other month with the intent of covering all the material over a 3-year period. If your program directors are not aware of this great resource and you feel your own ethics training may be lacking, bringing this up as a template might be helpful. A detailed description of an innovative dermatoethics curriculum organized at the Department of Dermatology at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University (Providence, Rhode Island) in 2001 also may serve as a guide for programs hoping to design their own approach.⁵

For those interested in self-study, there is an excellent text dedicated to dermatoethics, which is aptly entitled Dermatoethics: Contemporary Ethics and Professionalism in Dermatology.⁹ This book offers superb case-based discussions on a wide range of ethical quandaries that dermatologists may face, ranging from unsolicited dermatologic advice (eg, Is it wrong to tell the person next to you in the grocery store that they might have a melanoma?) to research and publication ethics. This text provides a toolkit for handling tough situations in the clinic and beyond. The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology publishes an Ethics Journal Club for which contributors can submit real-life practical ethical dilemmas, and the journal solicits a resolution or response from a dermatoethicist.

Additionally, a pilot curriculum project out of the University of Utah (Salt Lake City, Utah), of which I am a team member, currently is designing and testing several dermatoethics PowerPoint modules with the intention of making this material widely available through medical education portals.

The Hidden Curriculum

A formal curriculum can only provide so much when it comes to ethics training. In truth, much of what we learn as ethically minded dermatologists comes from our day-to-day practice.¹⁰ Paying attention to the more informal curriculum that we are immersed in during routine as well as unusual encounters also is important for achieving milestones. Teaching moments for thinking through ethical dilemmas abound, and this approach easily can be incorporated into routine workflow.¹¹ Next time you encounter an ethical situation that gives you pause (eg, Can I biopsy an intubated patient without getting appropriate consent?), talk it through with your supervisor. Gems of autonomous practice often can be mined from these off-the-cuff conversations.

Can Professionalism Be Taught?

Finally, it is worth mentioning that while the number of resources available to dermatology residents for honing their ethics skills is increasing, ways of measuring the impact of this additional training in vivo are not.¹² There are no good tools available to determine how ethics training influences resident behaviors. Similarly, there is no good evidence for what constitutes the most effective method for teaching medical ethics to trainees. It is a growing field with lots of room for more robust research. For now, the overall goal of a dermatoethics curriculum is to provide a mix of curriculum opportunities, ranging from formal lectures and readings to more informal conversations, with the hope of providing residents a toolbox for dealing with ethical dilemmas and a working knowledge of professionalism.

Final Thoughts

There are several resources available for dermatology programs to provide quality dermatoethics training to their residents. These can be mixed and matched to create a tailored formal curriculum alongside the more informal ethics training that happens in the clinic and on the wards. Providing this education is about more than just fulfilling accreditation requirements. Understanding ethical principles and how they can be applied to navigate sensitive situations is ultimately good for both professional and personal well-being.

The Diagnosis: Platelike Osteoma Cutis 

Histopathologic examination revealed extensive cutaneous ossification in the dermis and subcutis with dermal fibrosis and minimal surrounding inflammation (Figure 1). There was no evidence of infection or neoplasm. Further evaluation did not demonstrate any additional physical dysmorphia, and there were no imbalances of calcium-phosphate metabolism or abnormalities in parathyroid hormone or thyroid hormone function. A diagnosis of platelike osteoma cutis (PLOC) was favored. Computed tomography of the head showed material at the posterior skull of similar density to the adjacent calvarial skull and centered within the dermis, consistent with osteoma cutis (Figure 2). 

Osteoma cutis describes the formation of bone within the skin. It occurs when hydroxyapatite crystals in a proteinaceous matrix are deposited within the skin, ultimately leading to the formation of bone ultrastructure. Ossification of the skin most often occurs secondary to trauma, inflammation, or neoplasm; however, it rarely may be a primary event.^1,2 

Platelike osteoma cutis is a rare form of primary cutaneous ossification in which bone forms within the skin in a platelike manner. It most frequently affects the scalp but also has been observed on the trunk and extremities.¹ A driving metabolic or endocrine abnormality typically is not identified.² 

Platelike osteoma cutis can occur as an isolated finding or as a feature of Albright hereditary osteodystrophy (AHO) or progressive osseous heteroplasia (POH). In addition to cutaneous ossification, AHO involves short stature, endocrinopathy, obesity, shortened fourth and fifth metacarpals, and mental retardation. Progressive osseous heteroplasia is characterized by progressive ossification of the skin and deeper tissues such as muscle and fascia, leading to severe movement restriction; it is believed to be a localized nonprogressive variant of POH.^3,4 Mutations in the guanine nucleotide binding protein, alpha stimulating activity polypeptide 1 gene, GNAS1, a key regulatory gene involved in AHO and POH, have been found in several cases of PLOC.³ Our patient lacked any dysmorphic features or laboratory abnormalities suggestive of AHO or POH. Moreover, testing of the tissue and blood for the GNAS1 mutation was negative. Treatment of PLOC often is difficult. Our patient underwent a trial of ablative fractional laser resurfacing, which failed to lead to perceivable improvement.  

The differential diagnoses include a kerion, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, folliculitis decalvans, and acne keloidalis nuchae. A kerion is a manifestation of tinea capitis characterized by an inflammatory plaque, often with pain or tenderness. Kerions most frequently occur in children aged 5 to 10 years.⁵ Failure to treat a kerion may result in scarring alopecia. Treatment consists of oral antifungals.  

Dissecting cellulitis of the scalp is thought to occur secondary to follicular occlusion. It is characterized by boggy suppurative nodules primarily on the posterior and vertex scalp. Patchy hair loss is present and typically progresses to cicatricial alopecia. Histology characteristically shows areas of dense, predominantly neutrophilic, perifollicular dermal infiltrates.⁶ 

Folliculitis decalvans is a primary neutrophilic cicatricial alopecia that primarily occurs in adults. Patients with folliculitis decalvans tend to have multiple pustules on the periphery of confluent areas of scarring alopecia. It is theorized that an immune response to staphylococcal superantigens contributes to this disease process.⁷  

The clinical findings of acne keloidalis nuchae include inflammatory pustules and papules with keloidlike plaques on the posterior neck and scalp. It occurs predominantly in teenaged and adult males of African ancestry.⁸ Treatment is aimed at reducing inflammation and preventing exacerbating factors. Severe disease courses may lead to scarring alopecia.

The Diagnosis: Platelike Osteoma Cutis 

Histopathologic examination revealed extensive cutaneous ossification in the dermis and subcutis with dermal fibrosis and minimal surrounding inflammation (Figure 1). There was no evidence of infection or neoplasm. Further evaluation did not demonstrate any additional physical dysmorphia, and there were no imbalances of calcium-phosphate metabolism or abnormalities in parathyroid hormone or thyroid hormone function. A diagnosis of platelike osteoma cutis (PLOC) was favored. Computed tomography of the head showed material at the posterior skull of similar density to the adjacent calvarial skull and centered within the dermis, consistent with osteoma cutis (Figure 2). 

Osteoma cutis describes the formation of bone within the skin. It occurs when hydroxyapatite crystals in a proteinaceous matrix are deposited within the skin, ultimately leading to the formation of bone ultrastructure. Ossification of the skin most often occurs secondary to trauma, inflammation, or neoplasm; however, it rarely may be a primary event.^1,2 

Platelike osteoma cutis is a rare form of primary cutaneous ossification in which bone forms within the skin in a platelike manner. It most frequently affects the scalp but also has been observed on the trunk and extremities.¹ A driving metabolic or endocrine abnormality typically is not identified.² 

Platelike osteoma cutis can occur as an isolated finding or as a feature of Albright hereditary osteodystrophy (AHO) or progressive osseous heteroplasia (POH). In addition to cutaneous ossification, AHO involves short stature, endocrinopathy, obesity, shortened fourth and fifth metacarpals, and mental retardation. Progressive osseous heteroplasia is characterized by progressive ossification of the skin and deeper tissues such as muscle and fascia, leading to severe movement restriction; it is believed to be a localized nonprogressive variant of POH.^3,4 Mutations in the guanine nucleotide binding protein, alpha stimulating activity polypeptide 1 gene, GNAS1, a key regulatory gene involved in AHO and POH, have been found in several cases of PLOC.³ Our patient lacked any dysmorphic features or laboratory abnormalities suggestive of AHO or POH. Moreover, testing of the tissue and blood for the GNAS1 mutation was negative. Treatment of PLOC often is difficult. Our patient underwent a trial of ablative fractional laser resurfacing, which failed to lead to perceivable improvement.  

The differential diagnoses include a kerion, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, folliculitis decalvans, and acne keloidalis nuchae. A kerion is a manifestation of tinea capitis characterized by an inflammatory plaque, often with pain or tenderness. Kerions most frequently occur in children aged 5 to 10 years.⁵ Failure to treat a kerion may result in scarring alopecia. Treatment consists of oral antifungals.  

Dissecting cellulitis of the scalp is thought to occur secondary to follicular occlusion. It is characterized by boggy suppurative nodules primarily on the posterior and vertex scalp. Patchy hair loss is present and typically progresses to cicatricial alopecia. Histology characteristically shows areas of dense, predominantly neutrophilic, perifollicular dermal infiltrates.⁶ 

Folliculitis decalvans is a primary neutrophilic cicatricial alopecia that primarily occurs in adults. Patients with folliculitis decalvans tend to have multiple pustules on the periphery of confluent areas of scarring alopecia. It is theorized that an immune response to staphylococcal superantigens contributes to this disease process.⁷  

The clinical findings of acne keloidalis nuchae include inflammatory pustules and papules with keloidlike plaques on the posterior neck and scalp. It occurs predominantly in teenaged and adult males of African ancestry.⁸ Treatment is aimed at reducing inflammation and preventing exacerbating factors. Severe disease courses may lead to scarring alopecia.

The Diagnosis: Platelike Osteoma Cutis 

Histopathologic examination revealed extensive cutaneous ossification in the dermis and subcutis with dermal fibrosis and minimal surrounding inflammation (Figure 1). There was no evidence of infection or neoplasm. Further evaluation did not demonstrate any additional physical dysmorphia, and there were no imbalances of calcium-phosphate metabolism or abnormalities in parathyroid hormone or thyroid hormone function. A diagnosis of platelike osteoma cutis (PLOC) was favored. Computed tomography of the head showed material at the posterior skull of similar density to the adjacent calvarial skull and centered within the dermis, consistent with osteoma cutis (Figure 2). 

Osteoma cutis describes the formation of bone within the skin. It occurs when hydroxyapatite crystals in a proteinaceous matrix are deposited within the skin, ultimately leading to the formation of bone ultrastructure. Ossification of the skin most often occurs secondary to trauma, inflammation, or neoplasm; however, it rarely may be a primary event.^1,2 

Platelike osteoma cutis is a rare form of primary cutaneous ossification in which bone forms within the skin in a platelike manner. It most frequently affects the scalp but also has been observed on the trunk and extremities.¹ A driving metabolic or endocrine abnormality typically is not identified.² 

Platelike osteoma cutis can occur as an isolated finding or as a feature of Albright hereditary osteodystrophy (AHO) or progressive osseous heteroplasia (POH). In addition to cutaneous ossification, AHO involves short stature, endocrinopathy, obesity, shortened fourth and fifth metacarpals, and mental retardation. Progressive osseous heteroplasia is characterized by progressive ossification of the skin and deeper tissues such as muscle and fascia, leading to severe movement restriction; it is believed to be a localized nonprogressive variant of POH.^3,4 Mutations in the guanine nucleotide binding protein, alpha stimulating activity polypeptide 1 gene, GNAS1, a key regulatory gene involved in AHO and POH, have been found in several cases of PLOC.³ Our patient lacked any dysmorphic features or laboratory abnormalities suggestive of AHO or POH. Moreover, testing of the tissue and blood for the GNAS1 mutation was negative. Treatment of PLOC often is difficult. Our patient underwent a trial of ablative fractional laser resurfacing, which failed to lead to perceivable improvement.  

The differential diagnoses include a kerion, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, folliculitis decalvans, and acne keloidalis nuchae. A kerion is a manifestation of tinea capitis characterized by an inflammatory plaque, often with pain or tenderness. Kerions most frequently occur in children aged 5 to 10 years.⁵ Failure to treat a kerion may result in scarring alopecia. Treatment consists of oral antifungals.  

Dissecting cellulitis of the scalp is thought to occur secondary to follicular occlusion. It is characterized by boggy suppurative nodules primarily on the posterior and vertex scalp. Patchy hair loss is present and typically progresses to cicatricial alopecia. Histology characteristically shows areas of dense, predominantly neutrophilic, perifollicular dermal infiltrates.⁶ 

Folliculitis decalvans is a primary neutrophilic cicatricial alopecia that primarily occurs in adults. Patients with folliculitis decalvans tend to have multiple pustules on the periphery of confluent areas of scarring alopecia. It is theorized that an immune response to staphylococcal superantigens contributes to this disease process.⁷  

The clinical findings of acne keloidalis nuchae include inflammatory pustules and papules with keloidlike plaques on the posterior neck and scalp. It occurs predominantly in teenaged and adult males of African ancestry.⁸ Treatment is aimed at reducing inflammation and preventing exacerbating factors. Severe disease courses may lead to scarring alopecia.

To the Editor:

Argyria is a rare disease caused by chronic exposure to products with high silver content (eg, oral ingestion, inhalation, percutaneous absorption). With time, the blood levels of silver surpass the body’s renal and hepatic excretory capacities that lead to silver granules being deposited in the skin and internal organs, including the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, and bone marrow.¹ The cutaneous deposition results in a blue or blue-gray pigmentation of the skin, mucous membranes, and nails. Intervals of exposure that span from 8 months to 5 years prior to symptom onset have been described in the literature.² The discoloration that results often is permanent, with no established way of effectively removing silver deposits from the tissue.³

A 22-year-old autistic man, who was completely dependent on his mother’s care, presented to the emergency department with a primary concern of abdominal pain. The mother reported that he was indicating abdominal pain by motioning to his stomach for the last 5 days. The mother also reported he did not have a bowel movement during this time, and she noticed his hands were shaking. Prior to presentation, the mother had given him 2 enemas and had him on a 3-day strict liquid fast consisting of water, lemon juice, cayenne pepper, honey, and orange juice. Notably, the mother had a strong history of using naturopathic remedies for treatment of her son’s ailments.

On admission, the patient was stable. There was a 2-point decrease in the patient’s body mass index over the last month. Initial serum electrolytes were highly abnormal with a serum sodium level of 124 mEq/L (reference range, 135–145 mEq/L), blood urea nitrogen of 3 mg/dL (reference range, 7–20 mg/dL), creatinine of 0.77 mg/dL (reference range, 0.74–1.35 mg/dL), and lactic acid of 2.1 mEq/L (reference range, 0.5–1 mEq/L). Serum osmolality was 272 mOsm/kg (reference range, 275–295 mOsm/kg). Urine osmolality was 114 mOsm/kg (reference range, 500–850 mOsm/kg) with a low-normal urine sodium level of 41 mmol/24 hr (reference range, 40–220 mmol/24 hr). Abnormalities were felt to be secondary to malnutrition from the strict liquid diet (blood urea nitrogen and creatinine ratio of 3:1 suggestive of notable protein calorie malnutrition). The patient was given 1 L of normal saline in the emergency department, with further fluids held so as not to increase serum sodium level too rapidly. A regular diet was started.

Physical examination revealed dry mucosal membranes but otherwise was unremarkable. Active bowel sounds were noted, as well as a soft, nontender, and nondistended abdomen; however, when examining the patient’s hands for reported shaking, a distinct abnormality of the nails was noticed. The patient had slate blue discoloration of the lunula, along with hyperpigmented violaceous discoloration of the proximal nail bed on all 10 fingernails (Figure 1). No abnormalities were seen on the toenails. The mother had a distinct bluish gray discoloration of the face as well as similar nail findings (Figure 2), strongly suggestive of colloidal silver use. An urgent serum silver level was ordered on the patient as well as a heavy metal panel. The mother was found applying numerous “natural remedies” to the patient’s skin while in the hospital, including a liquid spray and lotion, both in unmarked bottles. At that time, the mother was informed that no external supplements should be applied to her son. The serum silver level was elevated substantially at 94.3 ng/mL (reference range, <1.0 ng/mL). When the mother was confronted, she initially denied use of silver but later admitted to notable silver content in the cream she was applying to her son’s skin. The mother reported that she read online that colloidal silver had been historically used to cure numerous ailments and she was ordering products from an online company. She was counseled on the dangers of both topical application and ingestion of silver, and all supplements were removed from the home.

Initial differential diagnoses for altered nail pigmentation include drug-induced causes, systemic diseases, cyanosis, and exposure to metals.⁷ The most commonly indicated medications resulting in blue nail pigment changes include antimalarials, minocycline, zidovudine, and phenothiazine. Systemic diseases that may cause blue nail color change include Wilson disease, hemochromatosis, Addison disease, methemoglobinemia, and alkaptonuria.⁷ Metals include gold, mercury, arsenic, bismuth, lead, and silver.⁴ After a thorough review of the patient’s medications and lack of support for any underlying disease process, contact with metals, particularly silver, was ranked highly on our differential list. In support of this theory, the mother’s bluish gray facial skin led to high clinical suspicion that she was ingesting colloidal silver and also was exposing her son to silver.

Treatment of argyria is challenging but first and foremost involves discontinuation of the source of chronic silver exposure. Unfortunately, the discoloration of generalized argyria often is permanent. Sunscreen can be used to help prevent any further darkening of pigment. The pigment in localized argyria has been reported to slowly fade with time, and there also have been reports of successful treatment using a low-fluence Q-switched 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser.⁸

To the Editor:

Argyria is a rare disease caused by chronic exposure to products with high silver content (eg, oral ingestion, inhalation, percutaneous absorption). With time, the blood levels of silver surpass the body’s renal and hepatic excretory capacities that lead to silver granules being deposited in the skin and internal organs, including the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, and bone marrow.¹ The cutaneous deposition results in a blue or blue-gray pigmentation of the skin, mucous membranes, and nails. Intervals of exposure that span from 8 months to 5 years prior to symptom onset have been described in the literature.² The discoloration that results often is permanent, with no established way of effectively removing silver deposits from the tissue.³

A 22-year-old autistic man, who was completely dependent on his mother’s care, presented to the emergency department with a primary concern of abdominal pain. The mother reported that he was indicating abdominal pain by motioning to his stomach for the last 5 days. The mother also reported he did not have a bowel movement during this time, and she noticed his hands were shaking. Prior to presentation, the mother had given him 2 enemas and had him on a 3-day strict liquid fast consisting of water, lemon juice, cayenne pepper, honey, and orange juice. Notably, the mother had a strong history of using naturopathic remedies for treatment of her son’s ailments.

On admission, the patient was stable. There was a 2-point decrease in the patient’s body mass index over the last month. Initial serum electrolytes were highly abnormal with a serum sodium level of 124 mEq/L (reference range, 135–145 mEq/L), blood urea nitrogen of 3 mg/dL (reference range, 7–20 mg/dL), creatinine of 0.77 mg/dL (reference range, 0.74–1.35 mg/dL), and lactic acid of 2.1 mEq/L (reference range, 0.5–1 mEq/L). Serum osmolality was 272 mOsm/kg (reference range, 275–295 mOsm/kg). Urine osmolality was 114 mOsm/kg (reference range, 500–850 mOsm/kg) with a low-normal urine sodium level of 41 mmol/24 hr (reference range, 40–220 mmol/24 hr). Abnormalities were felt to be secondary to malnutrition from the strict liquid diet (blood urea nitrogen and creatinine ratio of 3:1 suggestive of notable protein calorie malnutrition). The patient was given 1 L of normal saline in the emergency department, with further fluids held so as not to increase serum sodium level too rapidly. A regular diet was started.

Physical examination revealed dry mucosal membranes but otherwise was unremarkable. Active bowel sounds were noted, as well as a soft, nontender, and nondistended abdomen; however, when examining the patient’s hands for reported shaking, a distinct abnormality of the nails was noticed. The patient had slate blue discoloration of the lunula, along with hyperpigmented violaceous discoloration of the proximal nail bed on all 10 fingernails (Figure 1). No abnormalities were seen on the toenails. The mother had a distinct bluish gray discoloration of the face as well as similar nail findings (Figure 2), strongly suggestive of colloidal silver use. An urgent serum silver level was ordered on the patient as well as a heavy metal panel. The mother was found applying numerous “natural remedies” to the patient’s skin while in the hospital, including a liquid spray and lotion, both in unmarked bottles. At that time, the mother was informed that no external supplements should be applied to her son. The serum silver level was elevated substantially at 94.3 ng/mL (reference range, <1.0 ng/mL). When the mother was confronted, she initially denied use of silver but later admitted to notable silver content in the cream she was applying to her son’s skin. The mother reported that she read online that colloidal silver had been historically used to cure numerous ailments and she was ordering products from an online company. She was counseled on the dangers of both topical application and ingestion of silver, and all supplements were removed from the home.

Initial differential diagnoses for altered nail pigmentation include drug-induced causes, systemic diseases, cyanosis, and exposure to metals.⁷ The most commonly indicated medications resulting in blue nail pigment changes include antimalarials, minocycline, zidovudine, and phenothiazine. Systemic diseases that may cause blue nail color change include Wilson disease, hemochromatosis, Addison disease, methemoglobinemia, and alkaptonuria.⁷ Metals include gold, mercury, arsenic, bismuth, lead, and silver.⁴ After a thorough review of the patient’s medications and lack of support for any underlying disease process, contact with metals, particularly silver, was ranked highly on our differential list. In support of this theory, the mother’s bluish gray facial skin led to high clinical suspicion that she was ingesting colloidal silver and also was exposing her son to silver.

Treatment of argyria is challenging but first and foremost involves discontinuation of the source of chronic silver exposure. Unfortunately, the discoloration of generalized argyria often is permanent. Sunscreen can be used to help prevent any further darkening of pigment. The pigment in localized argyria has been reported to slowly fade with time, and there also have been reports of successful treatment using a low-fluence Q-switched 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser.⁸

To the Editor:

Argyria is a rare disease caused by chronic exposure to products with high silver content (eg, oral ingestion, inhalation, percutaneous absorption). With time, the blood levels of silver surpass the body’s renal and hepatic excretory capacities that lead to silver granules being deposited in the skin and internal organs, including the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, and bone marrow.¹ The cutaneous deposition results in a blue or blue-gray pigmentation of the skin, mucous membranes, and nails. Intervals of exposure that span from 8 months to 5 years prior to symptom onset have been described in the literature.² The discoloration that results often is permanent, with no established way of effectively removing silver deposits from the tissue.³

A 22-year-old autistic man, who was completely dependent on his mother’s care, presented to the emergency department with a primary concern of abdominal pain. The mother reported that he was indicating abdominal pain by motioning to his stomach for the last 5 days. The mother also reported he did not have a bowel movement during this time, and she noticed his hands were shaking. Prior to presentation, the mother had given him 2 enemas and had him on a 3-day strict liquid fast consisting of water, lemon juice, cayenne pepper, honey, and orange juice. Notably, the mother had a strong history of using naturopathic remedies for treatment of her son’s ailments.

On admission, the patient was stable. There was a 2-point decrease in the patient’s body mass index over the last month. Initial serum electrolytes were highly abnormal with a serum sodium level of 124 mEq/L (reference range, 135–145 mEq/L), blood urea nitrogen of 3 mg/dL (reference range, 7–20 mg/dL), creatinine of 0.77 mg/dL (reference range, 0.74–1.35 mg/dL), and lactic acid of 2.1 mEq/L (reference range, 0.5–1 mEq/L). Serum osmolality was 272 mOsm/kg (reference range, 275–295 mOsm/kg). Urine osmolality was 114 mOsm/kg (reference range, 500–850 mOsm/kg) with a low-normal urine sodium level of 41 mmol/24 hr (reference range, 40–220 mmol/24 hr). Abnormalities were felt to be secondary to malnutrition from the strict liquid diet (blood urea nitrogen and creatinine ratio of 3:1 suggestive of notable protein calorie malnutrition). The patient was given 1 L of normal saline in the emergency department, with further fluids held so as not to increase serum sodium level too rapidly. A regular diet was started.

Physical examination revealed dry mucosal membranes but otherwise was unremarkable. Active bowel sounds were noted, as well as a soft, nontender, and nondistended abdomen; however, when examining the patient’s hands for reported shaking, a distinct abnormality of the nails was noticed. The patient had slate blue discoloration of the lunula, along with hyperpigmented violaceous discoloration of the proximal nail bed on all 10 fingernails (Figure 1). No abnormalities were seen on the toenails. The mother had a distinct bluish gray discoloration of the face as well as similar nail findings (Figure 2), strongly suggestive of colloidal silver use. An urgent serum silver level was ordered on the patient as well as a heavy metal panel. The mother was found applying numerous “natural remedies” to the patient’s skin while in the hospital, including a liquid spray and lotion, both in unmarked bottles. At that time, the mother was informed that no external supplements should be applied to her son. The serum silver level was elevated substantially at 94.3 ng/mL (reference range, <1.0 ng/mL). When the mother was confronted, she initially denied use of silver but later admitted to notable silver content in the cream she was applying to her son’s skin. The mother reported that she read online that colloidal silver had been historically used to cure numerous ailments and she was ordering products from an online company. She was counseled on the dangers of both topical application and ingestion of silver, and all supplements were removed from the home.

Initial differential diagnoses for altered nail pigmentation include drug-induced causes, systemic diseases, cyanosis, and exposure to metals.⁷ The most commonly indicated medications resulting in blue nail pigment changes include antimalarials, minocycline, zidovudine, and phenothiazine. Systemic diseases that may cause blue nail color change include Wilson disease, hemochromatosis, Addison disease, methemoglobinemia, and alkaptonuria.⁷ Metals include gold, mercury, arsenic, bismuth, lead, and silver.⁴ After a thorough review of the patient’s medications and lack of support for any underlying disease process, contact with metals, particularly silver, was ranked highly on our differential list. In support of this theory, the mother’s bluish gray facial skin led to high clinical suspicion that she was ingesting colloidal silver and also was exposing her son to silver.

Treatment of argyria is challenging but first and foremost involves discontinuation of the source of chronic silver exposure. Unfortunately, the discoloration of generalized argyria often is permanent. Sunscreen can be used to help prevent any further darkening of pigment. The pigment in localized argyria has been reported to slowly fade with time, and there also have been reports of successful treatment using a low-fluence Q-switched 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser.⁸

Squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma (SEDC) is an aggressive underrecognized cutaneous malignancy of unknown etiology.¹ It is most likely to occur in sun-exposed areas of the body, most commonly the head and neck. Risk factors include male sex, increased age, and chronic immunosuppression.^1-4 Current reports suggest that SEDC is likely a high-grade subtype of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) with a high risk for local recurrence (25%) and metastasis (13%).^1,3,5,6 There are as few as 56 cases of SEDC reported in the literature; however, the number of cases may be closer to 100 due to SEDC being classified as either adenosquamous carcinoma of the skin or ductal eccrine carcinoma with squamous differentiation.¹

Clinically, SEDC mimics keratinocyte carcinomas. Histologically, SEDC is biphasic, with a superficial portion resembling well-differentiated SCC and a deeply invasive portion having infiltrative irregular cords with ductal differentiation. Perineural invasion (PNI) frequently is present. Multiple connections to the overlying epidermis also can be seen, serving as a subtle clue to the diagnosis on broad superficial specimens.^1-3 Due to superficial sampling, approximately 50% of reported cases are misdiagnosed as SCC during the initial biopsy.⁴ The diagnosis of SEDC often is made during complete excision when deeper tissue is sampled. Establishing an accurate diagnosis is important given the more aggressive nature of SEDC compared with SCC and its proclivity for PNI.^1,3,6 The purpose of this review is to increase awareness of this underrecognized entity and describe the histologic findings that help distinguish SEDC from SCC.

Patient Chart Review

We reviewed chart notes as well as frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections from all 5 patients diagnosed with SEDC at a single institution between November 2018 and May 2020. The mean age of patients was 81 years, and 4 were male. Four of the patients presented for MMS with a preoperative diagnosis of SCC per the original biopsy results. Only 1 patient had a preoperative diagnosis of SEDC. The details of each case are recorded in the Table. All tumors were greater than 2 cm in diameter on initial presentation, were located on the head, and clinically resembled keratinocyte carcinoma with either a nodular or plaquelike appearance (Figure 1).

Intraoperative histologic examination of the excised tissue revealed a biphasic pattern consisting of superficial SCC features overlying deeper dermal and subcutaneous infiltrative malignant ductal elements with gland formation in all 5 patients (Figures 2–4). Immunohistochemical staining with cytokeratin AE1/AE3 revealed thin strands of carcinoma in the mid to deeper dermis with squamous differentiation and eccrine ductal differentiation (Figure 5), thus confirming the diagnosis in all 5 patients.

Literature Review

A PubMed review of the literature using the search term squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma resulted in 28 articles, 19 of which were included in the review based on inclusion criteria (original articles available in English, in full text, and pertained to SEDC). Our review yielded 56 cases of SEDC.^1-19 The mean age of patients with SEDC was 72 years. The number of male and female cases was 52% (29/56) and 48% (27/56), respectively. The most common location of SEDC was on the head or neck (71% [40/56]), followed by the extremities (19% [11/56]). Immunosuppression was noted in 9% (5/56) of cases. Wide local excision was the most commonly employed treatment modality (91% [51/56]), with MMS being used in 4 patients (7%). Adjuvant radiation was reported in 5% (3/56) of cases. Perineural invasion was reported in 34% (19/56) of cases. Recurrence was seen in 23% (13/56) of cases, with a mean time to recurrence of 10.4 months. Metastasis to regional lymph nodes was observed in 13% (7/56) of cases, with 7% (4/56) of those cases having distant metastases.

Comment

Squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma was successfully treated with MMS in all 5 of the patients we reviewed. Recognition of a distinct biphasic pattern consisting of squamous differentiation superficially with epidermal connection overlying deeper dermal and subcutaneous infiltrative malignant ductal elements with gland formation should lead to consideration of this diagnosis. A thorough inspection for PNI also should be performed, as this finding was present in all of 5 cases and in 34% of reported cases in our literature review.

The differential diagnosis for SEDC includes SCC, metastatic adenocarcinoma with squamoid features, and eccrine tumors, including eccrine poroma, microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC), and porocarcinoma with squamous differentiation. The combination of histologic features with the immunoexpression profile of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, and p63 can effectively exclude the other entities in the differential and confirm the diagnosis of SEDC.^1,3,4 While the diagnosis of SEDC relies on the specific histologic features of multiple surface attachments and superficial squamoid changes with deep ductular elements, immunohistochemistry can nonetheless be adjunctive in difficult cases. Positive immunohistochemical staining for CEA and EMA can help to highlight and delineate true glandular elements, whereas CK5/6 highlights the overall contour of the tumor, displaying more clearly the multiple epidermal attachments and the subtle infiltrative nature of the deeper components of invasive cords and ducts. In addition, the combination of CK5/6 and p63 positivity supports the primary cutaneous nature of the lesion rather than metastatic adenocarcinoma.^13,20 Other markers of eccrine secretory coils, such as CK7, CAM5.2, and S100, also are sometimes used for confirmation, some of which can aid in distinction from noneccrine sweat gland differentiation, as CK7 and CAM5.2 are negative in both luminal and basal cells of the dermal duct while being positive within the secretory coil, and S100 protein is expressed within eccrine secretory coil but negative within the apocrine sweat glands.^2,4,21

The clinical findings from our chart review corroborated those reported in the literature. The mean age of SEDC in the 5 patients we reviewed was 81 years, and all cases presented on the head, consistent with the findings observed in the literature. Although 4 of our cases were male, there may not be a difference in risk based on sex as previously thought.¹ Our literature review revealed an almost equivalent percentage of male and female cases, with 52% being male.

Immunosuppression has been associated with an increased risk for SEDC. Our literature review revealed that approximately 9% (5/56) of cases occurred in immunosuppressed individuals. Two of these reported cases were in the setting of underlying chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 2 in individuals with a history of organ transplant, and 1 treated with azathioprine for myasthenia gravis.^2,4,10,12,13 Our chart review supported this correlation, as all 5 patients had a medical history potentially consistent with being in an immunocompromised state (Table). Notably, patient 5 represents a unique case of SEDC occurring in the setting of HIV. The patient had HIV for 33 years, with his most recent CD4⁺ count of 794 mm³ and HIV-1 RNA load of 35 copies/mL. Given that HIV-positive individuals may have more than a 2-fold increased risk of SCC, a greater degree of suspicion for SEDC should be maintained for these patients.^22,23

The etiology of SEDC is controversial but is thought to be either an SCC arising from eccrine glands or a variant of eccrine carcinoma with extensive squamoid differentiation.^{4,6,13,14,17,24} While SEDC certainly appears to share the proclivity for PNI with the malignant eccrine tumor MAC, it is simultaneously quite distinct, demonstrating nuclear pleomorphism and mitotic activity, both of which are lacking in the bland nature of MACs.^12,25

The exact prevalence of SEDC is difficult to ascertain because of its frequent misdiagnosis and variable nomenclature used within the literature. Most reported cases of SEDC are mistakenly diagnosed as SCC on the initial shave or punch biopsy because of superficial sampling. This also was the case in 4 of the patients we reviewed. In addition, there are reported cases of SEDC that were referred to by the investigators as cutaneous adenosquamous carcinoma (cASC), among other descriptors, such as ductal eccrine carcinoma with squamous differentiation, adnexal carcinoma with squamous and ductal differentiation, and syringoid eccrine carcinoma.^26-32 While the World Health Organization classifies SEDC as a distinct variant of cASC, which is a rare variant of SCC in itself, the 2 can be differentiated. Despite the similar clinical and histologic features shared between cASC and SEDC, the neoplastic aggregates in SEDC exhibit ductal differentiation containing lumina positive for CEA and EMA.⁴ Overall, we favor the term squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma, as there has recently been more uniformity for the designation of this disease entity as such.

It is unclear whether the high incidence of local recurrence (23% [13/56]) of SEDC reported in the literature is related to the treatment modality employed (ie, wide local excision) or due to the innate aggressiveness of SEDC.^1,3,5 The literature has shown that MMS has lower recurrence rates than other treatments at 5-year follow-up for SCC (3.1%–5%) and eccrine carcinomas (0%–5%).^33,34 Although studies assessing tumor behavior or comparing treatment modalities are limited because of the rarity and underrecognition of SEDC, MMS has been used several times for SEDC with only 1 recurrence reported.^4,13,17,24 Given that all 5 of the patients we reviewed required more than 1 Mohs stage for complete tumor clearance and none demonstrated evidence of recurrence or metastasis (Table), we recommend MMS as the treatment of choice for SEDC.

Conclusion

Squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma is a rare but likely underdiagnosed cutaneous tumor of uncertain etiology. Because of its propensity for recurrence and metastasis, excision of SEDC with complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment with close follow-up is recommended.

Squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma (SEDC) is an aggressive underrecognized cutaneous malignancy of unknown etiology.¹ It is most likely to occur in sun-exposed areas of the body, most commonly the head and neck. Risk factors include male sex, increased age, and chronic immunosuppression.^1-4 Current reports suggest that SEDC is likely a high-grade subtype of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) with a high risk for local recurrence (25%) and metastasis (13%).^1,3,5,6 There are as few as 56 cases of SEDC reported in the literature; however, the number of cases may be closer to 100 due to SEDC being classified as either adenosquamous carcinoma of the skin or ductal eccrine carcinoma with squamous differentiation.¹

Clinically, SEDC mimics keratinocyte carcinomas. Histologically, SEDC is biphasic, with a superficial portion resembling well-differentiated SCC and a deeply invasive portion having infiltrative irregular cords with ductal differentiation. Perineural invasion (PNI) frequently is present. Multiple connections to the overlying epidermis also can be seen, serving as a subtle clue to the diagnosis on broad superficial specimens.^1-3 Due to superficial sampling, approximately 50% of reported cases are misdiagnosed as SCC during the initial biopsy.⁴ The diagnosis of SEDC often is made during complete excision when deeper tissue is sampled. Establishing an accurate diagnosis is important given the more aggressive nature of SEDC compared with SCC and its proclivity for PNI.^1,3,6 The purpose of this review is to increase awareness of this underrecognized entity and describe the histologic findings that help distinguish SEDC from SCC.

Patient Chart Review

We reviewed chart notes as well as frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections from all 5 patients diagnosed with SEDC at a single institution between November 2018 and May 2020. The mean age of patients was 81 years, and 4 were male. Four of the patients presented for MMS with a preoperative diagnosis of SCC per the original biopsy results. Only 1 patient had a preoperative diagnosis of SEDC. The details of each case are recorded in the Table. All tumors were greater than 2 cm in diameter on initial presentation, were located on the head, and clinically resembled keratinocyte carcinoma with either a nodular or plaquelike appearance (Figure 1).

Intraoperative histologic examination of the excised tissue revealed a biphasic pattern consisting of superficial SCC features overlying deeper dermal and subcutaneous infiltrative malignant ductal elements with gland formation in all 5 patients (Figures 2–4). Immunohistochemical staining with cytokeratin AE1/AE3 revealed thin strands of carcinoma in the mid to deeper dermis with squamous differentiation and eccrine ductal differentiation (Figure 5), thus confirming the diagnosis in all 5 patients.

Literature Review

A PubMed review of the literature using the search term squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma resulted in 28 articles, 19 of which were included in the review based on inclusion criteria (original articles available in English, in full text, and pertained to SEDC). Our review yielded 56 cases of SEDC.^1-19 The mean age of patients with SEDC was 72 years. The number of male and female cases was 52% (29/56) and 48% (27/56), respectively. The most common location of SEDC was on the head or neck (71% [40/56]), followed by the extremities (19% [11/56]). Immunosuppression was noted in 9% (5/56) of cases. Wide local excision was the most commonly employed treatment modality (91% [51/56]), with MMS being used in 4 patients (7%). Adjuvant radiation was reported in 5% (3/56) of cases. Perineural invasion was reported in 34% (19/56) of cases. Recurrence was seen in 23% (13/56) of cases, with a mean time to recurrence of 10.4 months. Metastasis to regional lymph nodes was observed in 13% (7/56) of cases, with 7% (4/56) of those cases having distant metastases.

Comment

Squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma was successfully treated with MMS in all 5 of the patients we reviewed. Recognition of a distinct biphasic pattern consisting of squamous differentiation superficially with epidermal connection overlying deeper dermal and subcutaneous infiltrative malignant ductal elements with gland formation should lead to consideration of this diagnosis. A thorough inspection for PNI also should be performed, as this finding was present in all of 5 cases and in 34% of reported cases in our literature review.

The differential diagnosis for SEDC includes SCC, metastatic adenocarcinoma with squamoid features, and eccrine tumors, including eccrine poroma, microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC), and porocarcinoma with squamous differentiation. The combination of histologic features with the immunoexpression profile of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, and p63 can effectively exclude the other entities in the differential and confirm the diagnosis of SEDC.^1,3,4 While the diagnosis of SEDC relies on the specific histologic features of multiple surface attachments and superficial squamoid changes with deep ductular elements, immunohistochemistry can nonetheless be adjunctive in difficult cases. Positive immunohistochemical staining for CEA and EMA can help to highlight and delineate true glandular elements, whereas CK5/6 highlights the overall contour of the tumor, displaying more clearly the multiple epidermal attachments and the subtle infiltrative nature of the deeper components of invasive cords and ducts. In addition, the combination of CK5/6 and p63 positivity supports the primary cutaneous nature of the lesion rather than metastatic adenocarcinoma.^13,20 Other markers of eccrine secretory coils, such as CK7, CAM5.2, and S100, also are sometimes used for confirmation, some of which can aid in distinction from noneccrine sweat gland differentiation, as CK7 and CAM5.2 are negative in both luminal and basal cells of the dermal duct while being positive within the secretory coil, and S100 protein is expressed within eccrine secretory coil but negative within the apocrine sweat glands.^2,4,21

The clinical findings from our chart review corroborated those reported in the literature. The mean age of SEDC in the 5 patients we reviewed was 81 years, and all cases presented on the head, consistent with the findings observed in the literature. Although 4 of our cases were male, there may not be a difference in risk based on sex as previously thought.¹ Our literature review revealed an almost equivalent percentage of male and female cases, with 52% being male.

Immunosuppression has been associated with an increased risk for SEDC. Our literature review revealed that approximately 9% (5/56) of cases occurred in immunosuppressed individuals. Two of these reported cases were in the setting of underlying chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 2 in individuals with a history of organ transplant, and 1 treated with azathioprine for myasthenia gravis.^2,4,10,12,13 Our chart review supported this correlation, as all 5 patients had a medical history potentially consistent with being in an immunocompromised state (Table). Notably, patient 5 represents a unique case of SEDC occurring in the setting of HIV. The patient had HIV for 33 years, with his most recent CD4⁺ count of 794 mm³ and HIV-1 RNA load of 35 copies/mL. Given that HIV-positive individuals may have more than a 2-fold increased risk of SCC, a greater degree of suspicion for SEDC should be maintained for these patients.^22,23

The etiology of SEDC is controversial but is thought to be either an SCC arising from eccrine glands or a variant of eccrine carcinoma with extensive squamoid differentiation.^{4,6,13,14,17,24} While SEDC certainly appears to share the proclivity for PNI with the malignant eccrine tumor MAC, it is simultaneously quite distinct, demonstrating nuclear pleomorphism and mitotic activity, both of which are lacking in the bland nature of MACs.^12,25

The exact prevalence of SEDC is difficult to ascertain because of its frequent misdiagnosis and variable nomenclature used within the literature. Most reported cases of SEDC are mistakenly diagnosed as SCC on the initial shave or punch biopsy because of superficial sampling. This also was the case in 4 of the patients we reviewed. In addition, there are reported cases of SEDC that were referred to by the investigators as cutaneous adenosquamous carcinoma (cASC), among other descriptors, such as ductal eccrine carcinoma with squamous differentiation, adnexal carcinoma with squamous and ductal differentiation, and syringoid eccrine carcinoma.^26-32 While the World Health Organization classifies SEDC as a distinct variant of cASC, which is a rare variant of SCC in itself, the 2 can be differentiated. Despite the similar clinical and histologic features shared between cASC and SEDC, the neoplastic aggregates in SEDC exhibit ductal differentiation containing lumina positive for CEA and EMA.⁴ Overall, we favor the term squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma, as there has recently been more uniformity for the designation of this disease entity as such.

It is unclear whether the high incidence of local recurrence (23% [13/56]) of SEDC reported in the literature is related to the treatment modality employed (ie, wide local excision) or due to the innate aggressiveness of SEDC.^1,3,5 The literature has shown that MMS has lower recurrence rates than other treatments at 5-year follow-up for SCC (3.1%–5%) and eccrine carcinomas (0%–5%).^33,34 Although studies assessing tumor behavior or comparing treatment modalities are limited because of the rarity and underrecognition of SEDC, MMS has been used several times for SEDC with only 1 recurrence reported.^4,13,17,24 Given that all 5 of the patients we reviewed required more than 1 Mohs stage for complete tumor clearance and none demonstrated evidence of recurrence or metastasis (Table), we recommend MMS as the treatment of choice for SEDC.

Conclusion

Squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma is a rare but likely underdiagnosed cutaneous tumor of uncertain etiology. Because of its propensity for recurrence and metastasis, excision of SEDC with complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment with close follow-up is recommended.

Squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma (SEDC) is an aggressive underrecognized cutaneous malignancy of unknown etiology.¹ It is most likely to occur in sun-exposed areas of the body, most commonly the head and neck. Risk factors include male sex, increased age, and chronic immunosuppression.^1-4 Current reports suggest that SEDC is likely a high-grade subtype of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) with a high risk for local recurrence (25%) and metastasis (13%).^1,3,5,6 There are as few as 56 cases of SEDC reported in the literature; however, the number of cases may be closer to 100 due to SEDC being classified as either adenosquamous carcinoma of the skin or ductal eccrine carcinoma with squamous differentiation.¹

Clinically, SEDC mimics keratinocyte carcinomas. Histologically, SEDC is biphasic, with a superficial portion resembling well-differentiated SCC and a deeply invasive portion having infiltrative irregular cords with ductal differentiation. Perineural invasion (PNI) frequently is present. Multiple connections to the overlying epidermis also can be seen, serving as a subtle clue to the diagnosis on broad superficial specimens.^1-3 Due to superficial sampling, approximately 50% of reported cases are misdiagnosed as SCC during the initial biopsy.⁴ The diagnosis of SEDC often is made during complete excision when deeper tissue is sampled. Establishing an accurate diagnosis is important given the more aggressive nature of SEDC compared with SCC and its proclivity for PNI.^1,3,6 The purpose of this review is to increase awareness of this underrecognized entity and describe the histologic findings that help distinguish SEDC from SCC.

Patient Chart Review

We reviewed chart notes as well as frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections from all 5 patients diagnosed with SEDC at a single institution between November 2018 and May 2020. The mean age of patients was 81 years, and 4 were male. Four of the patients presented for MMS with a preoperative diagnosis of SCC per the original biopsy results. Only 1 patient had a preoperative diagnosis of SEDC. The details of each case are recorded in the Table. All tumors were greater than 2 cm in diameter on initial presentation, were located on the head, and clinically resembled keratinocyte carcinoma with either a nodular or plaquelike appearance (Figure 1).

Intraoperative histologic examination of the excised tissue revealed a biphasic pattern consisting of superficial SCC features overlying deeper dermal and subcutaneous infiltrative malignant ductal elements with gland formation in all 5 patients (Figures 2–4). Immunohistochemical staining with cytokeratin AE1/AE3 revealed thin strands of carcinoma in the mid to deeper dermis with squamous differentiation and eccrine ductal differentiation (Figure 5), thus confirming the diagnosis in all 5 patients.

Literature Review

A PubMed review of the literature using the search term squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma resulted in 28 articles, 19 of which were included in the review based on inclusion criteria (original articles available in English, in full text, and pertained to SEDC). Our review yielded 56 cases of SEDC.^1-19 The mean age of patients with SEDC was 72 years. The number of male and female cases was 52% (29/56) and 48% (27/56), respectively. The most common location of SEDC was on the head or neck (71% [40/56]), followed by the extremities (19% [11/56]). Immunosuppression was noted in 9% (5/56) of cases. Wide local excision was the most commonly employed treatment modality (91% [51/56]), with MMS being used in 4 patients (7%). Adjuvant radiation was reported in 5% (3/56) of cases. Perineural invasion was reported in 34% (19/56) of cases. Recurrence was seen in 23% (13/56) of cases, with a mean time to recurrence of 10.4 months. Metastasis to regional lymph nodes was observed in 13% (7/56) of cases, with 7% (4/56) of those cases having distant metastases.

Comment

Squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma was successfully treated with MMS in all 5 of the patients we reviewed. Recognition of a distinct biphasic pattern consisting of squamous differentiation superficially with epidermal connection overlying deeper dermal and subcutaneous infiltrative malignant ductal elements with gland formation should lead to consideration of this diagnosis. A thorough inspection for PNI also should be performed, as this finding was present in all of 5 cases and in 34% of reported cases in our literature review.

The differential diagnosis for SEDC includes SCC, metastatic adenocarcinoma with squamoid features, and eccrine tumors, including eccrine poroma, microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC), and porocarcinoma with squamous differentiation. The combination of histologic features with the immunoexpression profile of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, and p63 can effectively exclude the other entities in the differential and confirm the diagnosis of SEDC.^1,3,4 While the diagnosis of SEDC relies on the specific histologic features of multiple surface attachments and superficial squamoid changes with deep ductular elements, immunohistochemistry can nonetheless be adjunctive in difficult cases. Positive immunohistochemical staining for CEA and EMA can help to highlight and delineate true glandular elements, whereas CK5/6 highlights the overall contour of the tumor, displaying more clearly the multiple epidermal attachments and the subtle infiltrative nature of the deeper components of invasive cords and ducts. In addition, the combination of CK5/6 and p63 positivity supports the primary cutaneous nature of the lesion rather than metastatic adenocarcinoma.^13,20 Other markers of eccrine secretory coils, such as CK7, CAM5.2, and S100, also are sometimes used for confirmation, some of which can aid in distinction from noneccrine sweat gland differentiation, as CK7 and CAM5.2 are negative in both luminal and basal cells of the dermal duct while being positive within the secretory coil, and S100 protein is expressed within eccrine secretory coil but negative within the apocrine sweat glands.^2,4,21

The clinical findings from our chart review corroborated those reported in the literature. The mean age of SEDC in the 5 patients we reviewed was 81 years, and all cases presented on the head, consistent with the findings observed in the literature. Although 4 of our cases were male, there may not be a difference in risk based on sex as previously thought.¹ Our literature review revealed an almost equivalent percentage of male and female cases, with 52% being male.

Immunosuppression has been associated with an increased risk for SEDC. Our literature review revealed that approximately 9% (5/56) of cases occurred in immunosuppressed individuals. Two of these reported cases were in the setting of underlying chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 2 in individuals with a history of organ transplant, and 1 treated with azathioprine for myasthenia gravis.^2,4,10,12,13 Our chart review supported this correlation, as all 5 patients had a medical history potentially consistent with being in an immunocompromised state (Table). Notably, patient 5 represents a unique case of SEDC occurring in the setting of HIV. The patient had HIV for 33 years, with his most recent CD4⁺ count of 794 mm³ and HIV-1 RNA load of 35 copies/mL. Given that HIV-positive individuals may have more than a 2-fold increased risk of SCC, a greater degree of suspicion for SEDC should be maintained for these patients.^22,23

The etiology of SEDC is controversial but is thought to be either an SCC arising from eccrine glands or a variant of eccrine carcinoma with extensive squamoid differentiation.^{4,6,13,14,17,24} While SEDC certainly appears to share the proclivity for PNI with the malignant eccrine tumor MAC, it is simultaneously quite distinct, demonstrating nuclear pleomorphism and mitotic activity, both of which are lacking in the bland nature of MACs.^12,25

The exact prevalence of SEDC is difficult to ascertain because of its frequent misdiagnosis and variable nomenclature used within the literature. Most reported cases of SEDC are mistakenly diagnosed as SCC on the initial shave or punch biopsy because of superficial sampling. This also was the case in 4 of the patients we reviewed. In addition, there are reported cases of SEDC that were referred to by the investigators as cutaneous adenosquamous carcinoma (cASC), among other descriptors, such as ductal eccrine carcinoma with squamous differentiation, adnexal carcinoma with squamous and ductal differentiation, and syringoid eccrine carcinoma.^26-32 While the World Health Organization classifies SEDC as a distinct variant of cASC, which is a rare variant of SCC in itself, the 2 can be differentiated. Despite the similar clinical and histologic features shared between cASC and SEDC, the neoplastic aggregates in SEDC exhibit ductal differentiation containing lumina positive for CEA and EMA.⁴ Overall, we favor the term squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma, as there has recently been more uniformity for the designation of this disease entity as such.

It is unclear whether the high incidence of local recurrence (23% [13/56]) of SEDC reported in the literature is related to the treatment modality employed (ie, wide local excision) or due to the innate aggressiveness of SEDC.^1,3,5 The literature has shown that MMS has lower recurrence rates than other treatments at 5-year follow-up for SCC (3.1%–5%) and eccrine carcinomas (0%–5%).^33,34 Although studies assessing tumor behavior or comparing treatment modalities are limited because of the rarity and underrecognition of SEDC, MMS has been used several times for SEDC with only 1 recurrence reported.^4,13,17,24 Given that all 5 of the patients we reviewed required more than 1 Mohs stage for complete tumor clearance and none demonstrated evidence of recurrence or metastasis (Table), we recommend MMS as the treatment of choice for SEDC.

Conclusion

Squamoid eccrine ductal carcinoma is a rare but likely underdiagnosed cutaneous tumor of uncertain etiology. Because of its propensity for recurrence and metastasis, excision of SEDC with complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment with close follow-up is recommended.

Granuloma annulare (GA) is a benign, cutaneous, granulomatous disease of unclear etiology. Typically, GA presents in young adults as asymptomatic, annular, flesh-colored to pink papules and plaques, commonly on the upper and lower extremities. Histologically, GA is characterized by mucin deposition, palisading or an interstitial granulomatous pattern, and collagen and elastic fiber degeneration.¹

Granuloma annulare has been associated with various medications and medical conditions, including diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, thyroid disease, and HIV.¹ More recently, immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been reported to trigger GA.² We report a case of nivolumab-induced GA in a 54-year-old woman.

Case Report

A 54-year-old woman presented with an itchy rash on the upper extremities, face, and chest of 4 months’ duration. The patient noted that the rash started on the hands and progressed to include the arms, face, and chest. She also reported associated mild tenderness. She had a history of stage IV non–small-cell lung carcinoma with metastases to the ribs and adrenal glands. She had been started on biweekly intravenous infusions of the ICI nivolumab by her oncologist approximately 1 year prior to the current presentation after failing a course of conventional chemotherapy. The most recent positron emission tomography–computed tomography scan 1 month prior to presentation showed a stable lung mass with radiologic disappearance of metastases, indicating a favorable response to nivolumab. The patient also had a history of hypothyroidism and depression, which were treated with oral levothyroxine 75 μg once daily and oral sertraline 50 mg once daily, respectively, both for longer than 5 years.

Physical examination revealed annular, erythematous, flat-topped papules, some with surmounting fine scale, coalescing into larger plaques along the dorsal surface of the hands and arms (Figure 1) as well as the forehead and chest. A biopsy of a papule on the dorsal aspect of the left hand revealed nodules of histiocytes admixed with Langerhans giant cells within the dermis; mucin was noted centrally within some nodules (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative for fungal elements compared to control. Polarization of the specimen was negative for foreign bodies. The biopsy findings therefore were consistent with a diagnosis of GA.

Comment

Discovery of specific immune checkpoints in tumor-induced immunosuppression revolutionized oncologic therapy. An example is the programmed cell-death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor that is expressed on activated immune cells, including T cells and macrophages.^3,4 Upon binding to the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), T-cell proliferation is inhibited, resulting in downregulation of the immune response. As a result, tumor cells have evolved to overexpress PD-L1 to evade immunologic detection.³ Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 antibody to PD-1, has emerged along with other ICIs as effective treatments for numerous cancers, including melanoma and non–small-cell lung cancer. By disrupting downregulation of T cells, ICIs improve immune-mediated antitumor activity.³

However, the resulting immunologic disturbance by ICIs has been reported to induce various cutaneous and systemic immune-mediated adverse reactions, including granulomatous reactions such as sarcoidosis, GA, and a cutaneous sarcoidlike granulomatous reaction.^1,2,5,6 Our patient represents a rare case of nivolumab-induced GA.

Recent evidence suggests that GA might be caused in part by a cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction that is regulated by a helper T cell subset 1 inflammatory reaction. Through release of cytokines by activated CD4⁺ T cells, macrophages are recruited, forming the granulomatous pattern and secreting enzymes that can degrade connective tissue. Nivolumab and other ICIs can thus trigger this reaction because their blockade of PD-1 enhances T cell–mediated immune reactions.² In addition, because macrophages themselves also express PD-1, ICIs can directly enhance macrophage recruitment and proliferation, further increasing the risk of a granulomatous reaction.⁴

Interestingly, cutaneous adverse reactions to nivolumab have been associated with improved survival in melanoma patients.⁷ The nature of this association with granulomatous reactions in general and with GA specifically remains to be determined.

Conclusion

Since the approval of the first PD-1 inhibitors, pembrolizumab and nivolumab, in 2014, other ICIs targeting the immune checkpoint pathway have been developed. Newer agents targeting PD-L1 (avelumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab) were recently approved. Additionally, cemiplimab, another PD-1 inhibitor, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.⁸ Indications for all ICIs also have expanded considerably.³ Therefore, the incidence of immune-mediated adverse reactions, including GA, is bound to increase. Physicians should be cognizant of this association to accurately diagnose and effectively treat adverse reactions in patients who are taking ICIs.

Granuloma annulare (GA) is a benign, cutaneous, granulomatous disease of unclear etiology. Typically, GA presents in young adults as asymptomatic, annular, flesh-colored to pink papules and plaques, commonly on the upper and lower extremities. Histologically, GA is characterized by mucin deposition, palisading or an interstitial granulomatous pattern, and collagen and elastic fiber degeneration.¹

Granuloma annulare has been associated with various medications and medical conditions, including diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, thyroid disease, and HIV.¹ More recently, immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been reported to trigger GA.² We report a case of nivolumab-induced GA in a 54-year-old woman.

Case Report

A 54-year-old woman presented with an itchy rash on the upper extremities, face, and chest of 4 months’ duration. The patient noted that the rash started on the hands and progressed to include the arms, face, and chest. She also reported associated mild tenderness. She had a history of stage IV non–small-cell lung carcinoma with metastases to the ribs and adrenal glands. She had been started on biweekly intravenous infusions of the ICI nivolumab by her oncologist approximately 1 year prior to the current presentation after failing a course of conventional chemotherapy. The most recent positron emission tomography–computed tomography scan 1 month prior to presentation showed a stable lung mass with radiologic disappearance of metastases, indicating a favorable response to nivolumab. The patient also had a history of hypothyroidism and depression, which were treated with oral levothyroxine 75 μg once daily and oral sertraline 50 mg once daily, respectively, both for longer than 5 years.

Physical examination revealed annular, erythematous, flat-topped papules, some with surmounting fine scale, coalescing into larger plaques along the dorsal surface of the hands and arms (Figure 1) as well as the forehead and chest. A biopsy of a papule on the dorsal aspect of the left hand revealed nodules of histiocytes admixed with Langerhans giant cells within the dermis; mucin was noted centrally within some nodules (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative for fungal elements compared to control. Polarization of the specimen was negative for foreign bodies. The biopsy findings therefore were consistent with a diagnosis of GA.

Comment

Discovery of specific immune checkpoints in tumor-induced immunosuppression revolutionized oncologic therapy. An example is the programmed cell-death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor that is expressed on activated immune cells, including T cells and macrophages.^3,4 Upon binding to the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), T-cell proliferation is inhibited, resulting in downregulation of the immune response. As a result, tumor cells have evolved to overexpress PD-L1 to evade immunologic detection.³ Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 antibody to PD-1, has emerged along with other ICIs as effective treatments for numerous cancers, including melanoma and non–small-cell lung cancer. By disrupting downregulation of T cells, ICIs improve immune-mediated antitumor activity.³

However, the resulting immunologic disturbance by ICIs has been reported to induce various cutaneous and systemic immune-mediated adverse reactions, including granulomatous reactions such as sarcoidosis, GA, and a cutaneous sarcoidlike granulomatous reaction.^1,2,5,6 Our patient represents a rare case of nivolumab-induced GA.

Recent evidence suggests that GA might be caused in part by a cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction that is regulated by a helper T cell subset 1 inflammatory reaction. Through release of cytokines by activated CD4⁺ T cells, macrophages are recruited, forming the granulomatous pattern and secreting enzymes that can degrade connective tissue. Nivolumab and other ICIs can thus trigger this reaction because their blockade of PD-1 enhances T cell–mediated immune reactions.² In addition, because macrophages themselves also express PD-1, ICIs can directly enhance macrophage recruitment and proliferation, further increasing the risk of a granulomatous reaction.⁴

Interestingly, cutaneous adverse reactions to nivolumab have been associated with improved survival in melanoma patients.⁷ The nature of this association with granulomatous reactions in general and with GA specifically remains to be determined.

Conclusion

Since the approval of the first PD-1 inhibitors, pembrolizumab and nivolumab, in 2014, other ICIs targeting the immune checkpoint pathway have been developed. Newer agents targeting PD-L1 (avelumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab) were recently approved. Additionally, cemiplimab, another PD-1 inhibitor, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.⁸ Indications for all ICIs also have expanded considerably.³ Therefore, the incidence of immune-mediated adverse reactions, including GA, is bound to increase. Physicians should be cognizant of this association to accurately diagnose and effectively treat adverse reactions in patients who are taking ICIs.

Granuloma annulare (GA) is a benign, cutaneous, granulomatous disease of unclear etiology. Typically, GA presents in young adults as asymptomatic, annular, flesh-colored to pink papules and plaques, commonly on the upper and lower extremities. Histologically, GA is characterized by mucin deposition, palisading or an interstitial granulomatous pattern, and collagen and elastic fiber degeneration.¹

Granuloma annulare has been associated with various medications and medical conditions, including diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, thyroid disease, and HIV.¹ More recently, immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been reported to trigger GA.² We report a case of nivolumab-induced GA in a 54-year-old woman.

Case Report

A 54-year-old woman presented with an itchy rash on the upper extremities, face, and chest of 4 months’ duration. The patient noted that the rash started on the hands and progressed to include the arms, face, and chest. She also reported associated mild tenderness. She had a history of stage IV non–small-cell lung carcinoma with metastases to the ribs and adrenal glands. She had been started on biweekly intravenous infusions of the ICI nivolumab by her oncologist approximately 1 year prior to the current presentation after failing a course of conventional chemotherapy. The most recent positron emission tomography–computed tomography scan 1 month prior to presentation showed a stable lung mass with radiologic disappearance of metastases, indicating a favorable response to nivolumab. The patient also had a history of hypothyroidism and depression, which were treated with oral levothyroxine 75 μg once daily and oral sertraline 50 mg once daily, respectively, both for longer than 5 years.

Physical examination revealed annular, erythematous, flat-topped papules, some with surmounting fine scale, coalescing into larger plaques along the dorsal surface of the hands and arms (Figure 1) as well as the forehead and chest. A biopsy of a papule on the dorsal aspect of the left hand revealed nodules of histiocytes admixed with Langerhans giant cells within the dermis; mucin was noted centrally within some nodules (Figure 2). Periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative for fungal elements compared to control. Polarization of the specimen was negative for foreign bodies. The biopsy findings therefore were consistent with a diagnosis of GA.

Comment

Discovery of specific immune checkpoints in tumor-induced immunosuppression revolutionized oncologic therapy. An example is the programmed cell-death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor that is expressed on activated immune cells, including T cells and macrophages.^3,4 Upon binding to the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), T-cell proliferation is inhibited, resulting in downregulation of the immune response. As a result, tumor cells have evolved to overexpress PD-L1 to evade immunologic detection.³ Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 antibody to PD-1, has emerged along with other ICIs as effective treatments for numerous cancers, including melanoma and non–small-cell lung cancer. By disrupting downregulation of T cells, ICIs improve immune-mediated antitumor activity.³

However, the resulting immunologic disturbance by ICIs has been reported to induce various cutaneous and systemic immune-mediated adverse reactions, including granulomatous reactions such as sarcoidosis, GA, and a cutaneous sarcoidlike granulomatous reaction.^1,2,5,6 Our patient represents a rare case of nivolumab-induced GA.

Recent evidence suggests that GA might be caused in part by a cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction that is regulated by a helper T cell subset 1 inflammatory reaction. Through release of cytokines by activated CD4⁺ T cells, macrophages are recruited, forming the granulomatous pattern and secreting enzymes that can degrade connective tissue. Nivolumab and other ICIs can thus trigger this reaction because their blockade of PD-1 enhances T cell–mediated immune reactions.² In addition, because macrophages themselves also express PD-1, ICIs can directly enhance macrophage recruitment and proliferation, further increasing the risk of a granulomatous reaction.⁴

Interestingly, cutaneous adverse reactions to nivolumab have been associated with improved survival in melanoma patients.⁷ The nature of this association with granulomatous reactions in general and with GA specifically remains to be determined.

Conclusion

Since the approval of the first PD-1 inhibitors, pembrolizumab and nivolumab, in 2014, other ICIs targeting the immune checkpoint pathway have been developed. Newer agents targeting PD-L1 (avelumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab) were recently approved. Additionally, cemiplimab, another PD-1 inhibitor, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.⁸ Indications for all ICIs also have expanded considerably.³ Therefore, the incidence of immune-mediated adverse reactions, including GA, is bound to increase. Physicians should be cognizant of this association to accurately diagnose and effectively treat adverse reactions in patients who are taking ICIs.

The Comparison

A Pink scaling plaques and erythematous erosions in the antecubital fossae of a 6-year-old White boy.

B Violaceous, hyperpigmented, nummular plaques on the back and extensor surface of the right arm of a 16-month-old Black girl.

C Atopic dermatitis and follicular prominence/accentuation on the neck of a young Black girl.

Epidemiology

People of African descent have the highest atopic dermatitis prevalence and severity.

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• follicular prominence
• papular morphology
• prurigo nodules
• hyperpigmented, violaceous-brown or gray plaques instead of erythematous plaques
• lichenification
• treatment resistant.^1,2

Worth noting
Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and postinflammatory hypopigmentation may be more distressing to the patient/family than the atopic dermatitis itself.

Health disparity highlight
In the United States, patients with skin of color are more likely to be hospitalized with severe atopic dermatitis, have more substantial out-ofpocket costs, be underinsured, and have an increased number of missed days of work. Limited access to outpatient health care plays a role in exacerbating this health disparity.^3,4

The Comparison

A Pink scaling plaques and erythematous erosions in the antecubital fossae of a 6-year-old White boy.

B Violaceous, hyperpigmented, nummular plaques on the back and extensor surface of the right arm of a 16-month-old Black girl.

C Atopic dermatitis and follicular prominence/accentuation on the neck of a young Black girl.

Epidemiology

People of African descent have the highest atopic dermatitis prevalence and severity.

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• follicular prominence
• papular morphology
• prurigo nodules
• hyperpigmented, violaceous-brown or gray plaques instead of erythematous plaques
• lichenification
• treatment resistant.^1,2

Worth noting
Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and postinflammatory hypopigmentation may be more distressing to the patient/family than the atopic dermatitis itself.

Health disparity highlight
In the United States, patients with skin of color are more likely to be hospitalized with severe atopic dermatitis, have more substantial out-ofpocket costs, be underinsured, and have an increased number of missed days of work. Limited access to outpatient health care plays a role in exacerbating this health disparity.^3,4

The Comparison

A Pink scaling plaques and erythematous erosions in the antecubital fossae of a 6-year-old White boy.

B Violaceous, hyperpigmented, nummular plaques on the back and extensor surface of the right arm of a 16-month-old Black girl.

C Atopic dermatitis and follicular prominence/accentuation on the neck of a young Black girl.

Epidemiology

People of African descent have the highest atopic dermatitis prevalence and severity.

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• follicular prominence
• papular morphology
• prurigo nodules
• hyperpigmented, violaceous-brown or gray plaques instead of erythematous plaques
• lichenification
• treatment resistant.^1,2

Worth noting
Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and postinflammatory hypopigmentation may be more distressing to the patient/family than the atopic dermatitis itself.

Health disparity highlight
In the United States, patients with skin of color are more likely to be hospitalized with severe atopic dermatitis, have more substantial out-ofpocket costs, be underinsured, and have an increased number of missed days of work. Limited access to outpatient health care plays a role in exacerbating this health disparity.^3,4

The Diagnosis: Degos Disease 

The pathophysiology of Degos disease (malignant atrophic papulosis) is unknown.¹ Histopathology demonstrates a wedge-shaped area of dermal necrosis with edema and mucin deposition extending from the papillary dermis to the deep reticular dermis. Occluded vessels, thrombosis, and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates also may be seen, particularly at the dermal subcutaneous junction and at the periphery of the wedge-shaped infarction. The vascular damage that occurs may be the result of vasculitis, coagulopathy, or endothelial cell dysfunction.¹  

Patients typically present with small, round, erythematous papules that eventually develop atrophic porcelain white centers and telangiectatic rims. These lesions most commonly occur on the trunk and arms. In the benign form of atrophic papulosis, only the skin is involved; however, systemic involvement of the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system can occur, resulting in bowel perforation and stroke, respectively.¹ Although there is no definitive treatment of Degos disease, successful therapy with aspirin or dipyridamole has been reported.¹ Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds C5, and treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog, are emerging treatment options.^2,3 The differential diagnosis of Degos disease may include granuloma annulare, guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus, livedoid vasculopathy, and lymphomatoid papulosis.  

Granuloma annulare may clinically mimic the erythematous papules seen in early Degos disease, and histopathology can be used to distinguish between these two disease processes. Localized granuloma annulare is the most common variant and clinically presents as pink papules and plaques in an annular configuration.⁴ Histopathology demonstrates an unremarkable epidermis; however, the dermis contains degenerated collagen surrounded by palisading histiocytes as well as lymphocytes. Similar to Degos disease, increased mucin is seen within these areas of degeneration, but occluded vessels and thrombosis typically are not seen (Figure 1).^4,5  

Guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus initially presents as polygonal, bluish white papules that coalesce into plaques.⁶ Over time, these lesions become more atrophic and may mimic Degos disease but appear differently on histopathology. Histopathology of lichen sclerosus classically demonstrates atrophy of the epidermis with loss of the rete ridges and vacuolar surface changes. Homogenization of the superficial/papillary dermis with an underlying bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate also is seen (Figure 2).⁶

Livedoid vasculopathy is characterized by chronic recurrent ulceration of the legs secondary to thrombosis and subsequent ischemia. In the initial phase of this disease, livedo reticularis is seen followed by the development of ulcerations. As these ulcerations heal, they leave behind porcelain white scars referred to as atrophie blanche.⁷ The areas of scarring in livedoid vasculopathy are broad and angulated, differentiating them from the small, round, porcelain white macules in end-stage Degos disease. Histopathology demonstrates thrombosis and fibrin occlusion of the upper and mid dermal vessels. Very minimal perivascular infiltrate typically is seen, but when it is present, the infiltrate mostly is lymphocytic. Hyalinization of the vessel walls also is seen, particularly in the atrophie blanche stage (Figure 3).⁷  

Lymphomatoid papulosis classically presents with pruritic red papules that often spontaneously involute. After resolution of the primary lesions, atrophic varioliform scars may be left behind that can resemble Degos disease.⁸ Classically, there are 5 histopathologic subtypes: A, B, C, D, and E. Type A is the most common type of lymphomatoid papulosis, and histopathology demonstrates a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate that consists of cells arranged in small clusters. Numerous medium- to large-sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli and abundant cytoplasm are seen, and mitotic figures are common (Figure 4).⁸ 

Our case was particularly interesting because the patient was 2 to 3 weeks pregnant. Degos disease in pregnancy appears to be quite exceptional. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Degos disease and pregnancy revealed only 4 other cases reported in the literature.^9-12 With the exception of a single case that was complicated by severe abdominal pain requiring labor induction, the other reported cases resulted in uncomplicated pregnancies.^9-12 Conversely, our patient's pregnancy was complicated by gestational hypertension and fetal hydrops requiring a preterm cesarean delivery. Furthermore, the infant had multiple complications, which were attributed to both placental insufficiency and a coagulopathic state.  

Our patient also was found to have a heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation on workup. A PubMed search using the terms factor V Leiden mutation and Degos disease revealed 2 other cases of factor V Leiden mutation-associated Degos disease.^13,14 The importance of factor V Leiden mutations in patients with Degos disease currently is unclear. 

The Diagnosis: Degos Disease 

The pathophysiology of Degos disease (malignant atrophic papulosis) is unknown.¹ Histopathology demonstrates a wedge-shaped area of dermal necrosis with edema and mucin deposition extending from the papillary dermis to the deep reticular dermis. Occluded vessels, thrombosis, and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates also may be seen, particularly at the dermal subcutaneous junction and at the periphery of the wedge-shaped infarction. The vascular damage that occurs may be the result of vasculitis, coagulopathy, or endothelial cell dysfunction.¹  

Patients typically present with small, round, erythematous papules that eventually develop atrophic porcelain white centers and telangiectatic rims. These lesions most commonly occur on the trunk and arms. In the benign form of atrophic papulosis, only the skin is involved; however, systemic involvement of the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system can occur, resulting in bowel perforation and stroke, respectively.¹ Although there is no definitive treatment of Degos disease, successful therapy with aspirin or dipyridamole has been reported.¹ Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds C5, and treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog, are emerging treatment options.^2,3 The differential diagnosis of Degos disease may include granuloma annulare, guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus, livedoid vasculopathy, and lymphomatoid papulosis.  

Granuloma annulare may clinically mimic the erythematous papules seen in early Degos disease, and histopathology can be used to distinguish between these two disease processes. Localized granuloma annulare is the most common variant and clinically presents as pink papules and plaques in an annular configuration.⁴ Histopathology demonstrates an unremarkable epidermis; however, the dermis contains degenerated collagen surrounded by palisading histiocytes as well as lymphocytes. Similar to Degos disease, increased mucin is seen within these areas of degeneration, but occluded vessels and thrombosis typically are not seen (Figure 1).^4,5  

Guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus initially presents as polygonal, bluish white papules that coalesce into plaques.⁶ Over time, these lesions become more atrophic and may mimic Degos disease but appear differently on histopathology. Histopathology of lichen sclerosus classically demonstrates atrophy of the epidermis with loss of the rete ridges and vacuolar surface changes. Homogenization of the superficial/papillary dermis with an underlying bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate also is seen (Figure 2).⁶

Livedoid vasculopathy is characterized by chronic recurrent ulceration of the legs secondary to thrombosis and subsequent ischemia. In the initial phase of this disease, livedo reticularis is seen followed by the development of ulcerations. As these ulcerations heal, they leave behind porcelain white scars referred to as atrophie blanche.⁷ The areas of scarring in livedoid vasculopathy are broad and angulated, differentiating them from the small, round, porcelain white macules in end-stage Degos disease. Histopathology demonstrates thrombosis and fibrin occlusion of the upper and mid dermal vessels. Very minimal perivascular infiltrate typically is seen, but when it is present, the infiltrate mostly is lymphocytic. Hyalinization of the vessel walls also is seen, particularly in the atrophie blanche stage (Figure 3).⁷  

Lymphomatoid papulosis classically presents with pruritic red papules that often spontaneously involute. After resolution of the primary lesions, atrophic varioliform scars may be left behind that can resemble Degos disease.⁸ Classically, there are 5 histopathologic subtypes: A, B, C, D, and E. Type A is the most common type of lymphomatoid papulosis, and histopathology demonstrates a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate that consists of cells arranged in small clusters. Numerous medium- to large-sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli and abundant cytoplasm are seen, and mitotic figures are common (Figure 4).⁸ 

Our case was particularly interesting because the patient was 2 to 3 weeks pregnant. Degos disease in pregnancy appears to be quite exceptional. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Degos disease and pregnancy revealed only 4 other cases reported in the literature.^9-12 With the exception of a single case that was complicated by severe abdominal pain requiring labor induction, the other reported cases resulted in uncomplicated pregnancies.^9-12 Conversely, our patient's pregnancy was complicated by gestational hypertension and fetal hydrops requiring a preterm cesarean delivery. Furthermore, the infant had multiple complications, which were attributed to both placental insufficiency and a coagulopathic state.  

Our patient also was found to have a heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation on workup. A PubMed search using the terms factor V Leiden mutation and Degos disease revealed 2 other cases of factor V Leiden mutation-associated Degos disease.^13,14 The importance of factor V Leiden mutations in patients with Degos disease currently is unclear. 

The Diagnosis: Degos Disease 

The pathophysiology of Degos disease (malignant atrophic papulosis) is unknown.¹ Histopathology demonstrates a wedge-shaped area of dermal necrosis with edema and mucin deposition extending from the papillary dermis to the deep reticular dermis. Occluded vessels, thrombosis, and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates also may be seen, particularly at the dermal subcutaneous junction and at the periphery of the wedge-shaped infarction. The vascular damage that occurs may be the result of vasculitis, coagulopathy, or endothelial cell dysfunction.¹  

Patients typically present with small, round, erythematous papules that eventually develop atrophic porcelain white centers and telangiectatic rims. These lesions most commonly occur on the trunk and arms. In the benign form of atrophic papulosis, only the skin is involved; however, systemic involvement of the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system can occur, resulting in bowel perforation and stroke, respectively.¹ Although there is no definitive treatment of Degos disease, successful therapy with aspirin or dipyridamole has been reported.¹ Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds C5, and treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog, are emerging treatment options.^2,3 The differential diagnosis of Degos disease may include granuloma annulare, guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus, livedoid vasculopathy, and lymphomatoid papulosis.  

Granuloma annulare may clinically mimic the erythematous papules seen in early Degos disease, and histopathology can be used to distinguish between these two disease processes. Localized granuloma annulare is the most common variant and clinically presents as pink papules and plaques in an annular configuration.⁴ Histopathology demonstrates an unremarkable epidermis; however, the dermis contains degenerated collagen surrounded by palisading histiocytes as well as lymphocytes. Similar to Degos disease, increased mucin is seen within these areas of degeneration, but occluded vessels and thrombosis typically are not seen (Figure 1).^4,5  

Guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus initially presents as polygonal, bluish white papules that coalesce into plaques.⁶ Over time, these lesions become more atrophic and may mimic Degos disease but appear differently on histopathology. Histopathology of lichen sclerosus classically demonstrates atrophy of the epidermis with loss of the rete ridges and vacuolar surface changes. Homogenization of the superficial/papillary dermis with an underlying bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate also is seen (Figure 2).⁶

Livedoid vasculopathy is characterized by chronic recurrent ulceration of the legs secondary to thrombosis and subsequent ischemia. In the initial phase of this disease, livedo reticularis is seen followed by the development of ulcerations. As these ulcerations heal, they leave behind porcelain white scars referred to as atrophie blanche.⁷ The areas of scarring in livedoid vasculopathy are broad and angulated, differentiating them from the small, round, porcelain white macules in end-stage Degos disease. Histopathology demonstrates thrombosis and fibrin occlusion of the upper and mid dermal vessels. Very minimal perivascular infiltrate typically is seen, but when it is present, the infiltrate mostly is lymphocytic. Hyalinization of the vessel walls also is seen, particularly in the atrophie blanche stage (Figure 3).⁷  

Lymphomatoid papulosis classically presents with pruritic red papules that often spontaneously involute. After resolution of the primary lesions, atrophic varioliform scars may be left behind that can resemble Degos disease.⁸ Classically, there are 5 histopathologic subtypes: A, B, C, D, and E. Type A is the most common type of lymphomatoid papulosis, and histopathology demonstrates a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate that consists of cells arranged in small clusters. Numerous medium- to large-sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli and abundant cytoplasm are seen, and mitotic figures are common (Figure 4).⁸ 

Our case was particularly interesting because the patient was 2 to 3 weeks pregnant. Degos disease in pregnancy appears to be quite exceptional. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Degos disease and pregnancy revealed only 4 other cases reported in the literature.^9-12 With the exception of a single case that was complicated by severe abdominal pain requiring labor induction, the other reported cases resulted in uncomplicated pregnancies.^9-12 Conversely, our patient's pregnancy was complicated by gestational hypertension and fetal hydrops requiring a preterm cesarean delivery. Furthermore, the infant had multiple complications, which were attributed to both placental insufficiency and a coagulopathic state.  

Our patient also was found to have a heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation on workup. A PubMed search using the terms factor V Leiden mutation and Degos disease revealed 2 other cases of factor V Leiden mutation-associated Degos disease.^13,14 The importance of factor V Leiden mutations in patients with Degos disease currently is unclear. 

To the Editor:

In an interesting analysis, Brady and Hossler¹ (Cutis. 2020;106:315-317) highlighted the limitations of histopathologic biopsy margin evaluation for cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Taking into consideration the high prevalence of BCC and its medical and economic impact on the health care system, the issue raised by the authors is an important one. They proposed that pathologists may omit reporting margins or clarify the limitations in their reports. It is a valid suggestion; however, in practice, margin evaluation is not always a simple process and is influenced by a number of factors.

The subject of optimum margins for BCC has been debated over decades now; however, ambiguity and lack of definitive guidelines on certain aspects still remain, leading to a lack of standardization and variability in reporting, which opens potential for error. In anatomical pathology, the biopsies for malignancies are interpreted to confirm diagnosis and perform risk assessment, with evaluation of margins generally reserved for subsequent definitive resections. Typically, margins are not required by clinicians or reported by pathologists in common endoscopic (eg, stomach, colon) or needle core (eg, prostate, breast) biopsies. Skin holds a rather unique position in which margin evaluation is not just limited to excisions. With the exception of samples generated from electrodesiccation and curettage, it is common practice by some laboratories to report margins on most specimens of cutaneous malignancies.

In simple terms, when margins are labeled negative there should be no residual disease, and when they are deemed positive there should be disease still persisting in the patient. Margin evaluation for BCC on biopsies falls short on both fronts. In one analysis, 24% (34/143) of shave biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in ensuing re-excisions (negative predictive value: 76%).² Standard bread-loafing, en-face margins and inking for orientation utilized to provide a thorough margin evaluation of excisions cannot be optimally achieved on small skin biopsies. Microscopic sections for analysis are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional structures. Slides prepared can miss deeply embedded outermost margins, positioned parallel to the plane of sectioning, thereby creating blind spots where margins cannot be precisely assessed and generating an inherent limitation in evaluation. Exhaustive deeper levels done routinely can address this issue to a certain degree; however, it can be an impractical solution with cost implications and delay in turnaround time.

Conversely, it also is common to encounter absence of residual BCC in re-excisions in which the original biopsy margins were labeled positive. In one analysis, 49% of BCC patients (n=100) with positive biopsy margins did not display residual neoplasm on following re-excisions.³ Localized biopsy site immune response as a cause of postbiopsy regression of residual tumor has been hypothesized to produce this phenomenon. Moreover, initial biopsies may eliminate the majority of the tumor with only minimal disease persisting. Re-excisions submitted in toto allow for a systematic examination; however, areas in between sections still remain where minute residual tumor may hide. Searching for such occult foci generally is not aggressively pursued via deeper levels unless the margins of re-excision are in question.

Superficial-type BCC (or superficial multifocal BCC) is a major factor in precluding precise biopsy margin evaluation. In a study where initial biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in subsequent re-excisions, 91% (31/34) of residual BCCs were of superficial variety.² Clinically, superficial BCC frequently has indistinct borders with subtle subclinical peripheral progression. It has a tendency to expand radially, with the clinical appearance deceptively smaller than its true extent. In a plane of histopathologic section, superficial BCC may exhibit skip zones within the epidermis. Even though the margin may seem uninvolved on the slide, a noncontiguous focus may still emerge beyond the “negative” margin. Because superficial pattern is not unusual as one of the components of mixed histology (composite) BCC, this issue is not just limited to tumors specifically designated as superficial type.⁴

The intent of a procedure is important to recognize. If a biopsy is done with the intention of diagnosis only, the pathologic assessment can be limited to tumor identification and core data elements, with margin evaluation reserved for excisions done with therapeutic intent. However, the intent is not always clear, which adds to ambiguity on when to report margins. It is not uncommon to find saucerization shaves or large punch biopsies for BCC carried out with a therapeutic intent. The status of margin is desired in such samples; however, the intent is not always clearly communicated on requisitions. To avoid any gaps in communication, some pathologists may err on the side of caution and start routinely reporting margins on biopsies.

Taking into account the inaccuracy of margin assessment in biopsies, an argument for omitting margin reporting is plausible. Although dermatologists are the major contributors of skin samples, pathology laboratories cater to a broader clientele. Other physicians from different surgical and medical specialities also perform skin biopsies, and catering to a variety of specialities adds another layer of complexity. A dermatologist may appreciate the debate regarding reliability of margins; however, a physician from another speciality who is not as familiar with the diseases of the integument may lack proper understanding. Omitting margin reporting may lead to misinterpretations or false assumptions, such as, “The margins must be uninvolved, otherwise the pathologist would have said something.” This also can generate additional phone or email inquiries and second review requests. Rather than completely omitting them, another strategy can be to report margins in more quantitative terms. One reporting approach is to have 3 categories of involved, uninvolved, and uninvolved but close for margins less than 1 mm. The cases in the third category may require greater scrutiny by deeper levels or an added caveat in the comment addressing the limitation. If the status of margins is not reported due to a certain reason, a short comment can be added to explain the reason.

In sum, clinicians should recognize that “margin negative” on skin biopsy does not always equate to “completely excised.” Margin status on biopsies is a data item that essentially provides a probability of margin clearance. Completely omitting the margin status on all biopsies may not be the most prudent approach; however, improved guidelines and modifications to enhance the reporting are definitely required.

References

1. Brady MC, Hossler EW. Reliability of biopsy margin status for basal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study. Cutis. 2020;106:315-317.
    
2. Willardson HB, Lombardo J, Raines M, et al. Predictive value of basal cell carcinoma biopsies with negative margins: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:42-46.
    
3. Yuan Y, Duff ML, Sammons DL, et al. Retrospective chart review of skin cancer presence in the wide excisions. World J Clin Cases. 2014;2:52-56.
    
4. Cohen PR, Schulze KE, Nelson BR. Basal cell carcinoma with mixed histology: a possible pathogenesis for recurrent skin cancer. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:542-551.

Continue to: Author's Response...

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the thorough and thoughtful comments in the Letter to the Editor. We agree with the author’s assertion that negative margins on skin specimens does not equate to “completely excised” and that the intent of the clinician is not always clear, even when the pathologist has ready access to the clinician’s notes, as was the case for the majority of specimens included in our study.

There is already variability in how pathologists report margins, including the specific verbiage used, at least for melanocytic lesions.¹ The choice of whether or not to report margins and the meaning of those margins is complex due to the uncertainty inherent in margin assessment. Quantifying this uncertainty was the main reason for our study. Ultimately, the pathologist’s decision on whether and how to report margins should be focused on improving patient outcomes. There are benefits and drawbacks to all approaches, and our goal is to provide more information for clinicians and pathologists so that they may better care for their patients. Understanding the limitations of margins on submitted skin specimens—whether margins are reported or not—can only serve to guide improve clinical decision-making. 

We also agree that the breadth of specialties of submitting clinicians make reporting of margins difficult, and there is likely similar breadth in their understanding of the nuances of margin assessment and reports. The solution to this problem is adequate education regarding the limitations of a pathology report, and specifically what is meant when margins are (or are not) reported on skin specimens. How to best educate the myriad clinicians who submit biopsies is, of course, the ultimate challenge.

We hope that our study adds information to this ongoing debate regarding margin status reporting, and we appreciate the discussion points raised by the author.

Eric Hossler, MD; Mary Brady, MD

From the Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Reference

1. Sellheyer K, Bergfeld WF, Stewart E, et al. Evaluation of surgical margins in melanocytic lesions: a survey among 152 dermatopathologists.J Cutan Pathol. 2005;32:293-299.

To the Editor:

In an interesting analysis, Brady and Hossler¹ (Cutis. 2020;106:315-317) highlighted the limitations of histopathologic biopsy margin evaluation for cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Taking into consideration the high prevalence of BCC and its medical and economic impact on the health care system, the issue raised by the authors is an important one. They proposed that pathologists may omit reporting margins or clarify the limitations in their reports. It is a valid suggestion; however, in practice, margin evaluation is not always a simple process and is influenced by a number of factors.

The subject of optimum margins for BCC has been debated over decades now; however, ambiguity and lack of definitive guidelines on certain aspects still remain, leading to a lack of standardization and variability in reporting, which opens potential for error. In anatomical pathology, the biopsies for malignancies are interpreted to confirm diagnosis and perform risk assessment, with evaluation of margins generally reserved for subsequent definitive resections. Typically, margins are not required by clinicians or reported by pathologists in common endoscopic (eg, stomach, colon) or needle core (eg, prostate, breast) biopsies. Skin holds a rather unique position in which margin evaluation is not just limited to excisions. With the exception of samples generated from electrodesiccation and curettage, it is common practice by some laboratories to report margins on most specimens of cutaneous malignancies.

In simple terms, when margins are labeled negative there should be no residual disease, and when they are deemed positive there should be disease still persisting in the patient. Margin evaluation for BCC on biopsies falls short on both fronts. In one analysis, 24% (34/143) of shave biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in ensuing re-excisions (negative predictive value: 76%).² Standard bread-loafing, en-face margins and inking for orientation utilized to provide a thorough margin evaluation of excisions cannot be optimally achieved on small skin biopsies. Microscopic sections for analysis are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional structures. Slides prepared can miss deeply embedded outermost margins, positioned parallel to the plane of sectioning, thereby creating blind spots where margins cannot be precisely assessed and generating an inherent limitation in evaluation. Exhaustive deeper levels done routinely can address this issue to a certain degree; however, it can be an impractical solution with cost implications and delay in turnaround time.

Conversely, it also is common to encounter absence of residual BCC in re-excisions in which the original biopsy margins were labeled positive. In one analysis, 49% of BCC patients (n=100) with positive biopsy margins did not display residual neoplasm on following re-excisions.³ Localized biopsy site immune response as a cause of postbiopsy regression of residual tumor has been hypothesized to produce this phenomenon. Moreover, initial biopsies may eliminate the majority of the tumor with only minimal disease persisting. Re-excisions submitted in toto allow for a systematic examination; however, areas in between sections still remain where minute residual tumor may hide. Searching for such occult foci generally is not aggressively pursued via deeper levels unless the margins of re-excision are in question.

Superficial-type BCC (or superficial multifocal BCC) is a major factor in precluding precise biopsy margin evaluation. In a study where initial biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in subsequent re-excisions, 91% (31/34) of residual BCCs were of superficial variety.² Clinically, superficial BCC frequently has indistinct borders with subtle subclinical peripheral progression. It has a tendency to expand radially, with the clinical appearance deceptively smaller than its true extent. In a plane of histopathologic section, superficial BCC may exhibit skip zones within the epidermis. Even though the margin may seem uninvolved on the slide, a noncontiguous focus may still emerge beyond the “negative” margin. Because superficial pattern is not unusual as one of the components of mixed histology (composite) BCC, this issue is not just limited to tumors specifically designated as superficial type.⁴

The intent of a procedure is important to recognize. If a biopsy is done with the intention of diagnosis only, the pathologic assessment can be limited to tumor identification and core data elements, with margin evaluation reserved for excisions done with therapeutic intent. However, the intent is not always clear, which adds to ambiguity on when to report margins. It is not uncommon to find saucerization shaves or large punch biopsies for BCC carried out with a therapeutic intent. The status of margin is desired in such samples; however, the intent is not always clearly communicated on requisitions. To avoid any gaps in communication, some pathologists may err on the side of caution and start routinely reporting margins on biopsies.

Taking into account the inaccuracy of margin assessment in biopsies, an argument for omitting margin reporting is plausible. Although dermatologists are the major contributors of skin samples, pathology laboratories cater to a broader clientele. Other physicians from different surgical and medical specialities also perform skin biopsies, and catering to a variety of specialities adds another layer of complexity. A dermatologist may appreciate the debate regarding reliability of margins; however, a physician from another speciality who is not as familiar with the diseases of the integument may lack proper understanding. Omitting margin reporting may lead to misinterpretations or false assumptions, such as, “The margins must be uninvolved, otherwise the pathologist would have said something.” This also can generate additional phone or email inquiries and second review requests. Rather than completely omitting them, another strategy can be to report margins in more quantitative terms. One reporting approach is to have 3 categories of involved, uninvolved, and uninvolved but close for margins less than 1 mm. The cases in the third category may require greater scrutiny by deeper levels or an added caveat in the comment addressing the limitation. If the status of margins is not reported due to a certain reason, a short comment can be added to explain the reason.

In sum, clinicians should recognize that “margin negative” on skin biopsy does not always equate to “completely excised.” Margin status on biopsies is a data item that essentially provides a probability of margin clearance. Completely omitting the margin status on all biopsies may not be the most prudent approach; however, improved guidelines and modifications to enhance the reporting are definitely required.

References

1. Brady MC, Hossler EW. Reliability of biopsy margin status for basal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study. Cutis. 2020;106:315-317.
    
2. Willardson HB, Lombardo J, Raines M, et al. Predictive value of basal cell carcinoma biopsies with negative margins: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:42-46.
    
3. Yuan Y, Duff ML, Sammons DL, et al. Retrospective chart review of skin cancer presence in the wide excisions. World J Clin Cases. 2014;2:52-56.
    
4. Cohen PR, Schulze KE, Nelson BR. Basal cell carcinoma with mixed histology: a possible pathogenesis for recurrent skin cancer. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:542-551.

Continue to: Author's Response...

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the thorough and thoughtful comments in the Letter to the Editor. We agree with the author’s assertion that negative margins on skin specimens does not equate to “completely excised” and that the intent of the clinician is not always clear, even when the pathologist has ready access to the clinician’s notes, as was the case for the majority of specimens included in our study.

There is already variability in how pathologists report margins, including the specific verbiage used, at least for melanocytic lesions.¹ The choice of whether or not to report margins and the meaning of those margins is complex due to the uncertainty inherent in margin assessment. Quantifying this uncertainty was the main reason for our study. Ultimately, the pathologist’s decision on whether and how to report margins should be focused on improving patient outcomes. There are benefits and drawbacks to all approaches, and our goal is to provide more information for clinicians and pathologists so that they may better care for their patients. Understanding the limitations of margins on submitted skin specimens—whether margins are reported or not—can only serve to guide improve clinical decision-making. 

We also agree that the breadth of specialties of submitting clinicians make reporting of margins difficult, and there is likely similar breadth in their understanding of the nuances of margin assessment and reports. The solution to this problem is adequate education regarding the limitations of a pathology report, and specifically what is meant when margins are (or are not) reported on skin specimens. How to best educate the myriad clinicians who submit biopsies is, of course, the ultimate challenge.

We hope that our study adds information to this ongoing debate regarding margin status reporting, and we appreciate the discussion points raised by the author.

Eric Hossler, MD; Mary Brady, MD

From the Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Reference

1. Sellheyer K, Bergfeld WF, Stewart E, et al. Evaluation of surgical margins in melanocytic lesions: a survey among 152 dermatopathologists.J Cutan Pathol. 2005;32:293-299.

To the Editor:

In an interesting analysis, Brady and Hossler¹ (Cutis. 2020;106:315-317) highlighted the limitations of histopathologic biopsy margin evaluation for cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Taking into consideration the high prevalence of BCC and its medical and economic impact on the health care system, the issue raised by the authors is an important one. They proposed that pathologists may omit reporting margins or clarify the limitations in their reports. It is a valid suggestion; however, in practice, margin evaluation is not always a simple process and is influenced by a number of factors.

The subject of optimum margins for BCC has been debated over decades now; however, ambiguity and lack of definitive guidelines on certain aspects still remain, leading to a lack of standardization and variability in reporting, which opens potential for error. In anatomical pathology, the biopsies for malignancies are interpreted to confirm diagnosis and perform risk assessment, with evaluation of margins generally reserved for subsequent definitive resections. Typically, margins are not required by clinicians or reported by pathologists in common endoscopic (eg, stomach, colon) or needle core (eg, prostate, breast) biopsies. Skin holds a rather unique position in which margin evaluation is not just limited to excisions. With the exception of samples generated from electrodesiccation and curettage, it is common practice by some laboratories to report margins on most specimens of cutaneous malignancies.

In simple terms, when margins are labeled negative there should be no residual disease, and when they are deemed positive there should be disease still persisting in the patient. Margin evaluation for BCC on biopsies falls short on both fronts. In one analysis, 24% (34/143) of shave biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in ensuing re-excisions (negative predictive value: 76%).² Standard bread-loafing, en-face margins and inking for orientation utilized to provide a thorough margin evaluation of excisions cannot be optimally achieved on small skin biopsies. Microscopic sections for analysis are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional structures. Slides prepared can miss deeply embedded outermost margins, positioned parallel to the plane of sectioning, thereby creating blind spots where margins cannot be precisely assessed and generating an inherent limitation in evaluation. Exhaustive deeper levels done routinely can address this issue to a certain degree; however, it can be an impractical solution with cost implications and delay in turnaround time.

Conversely, it also is common to encounter absence of residual BCC in re-excisions in which the original biopsy margins were labeled positive. In one analysis, 49% of BCC patients (n=100) with positive biopsy margins did not display residual neoplasm on following re-excisions.³ Localized biopsy site immune response as a cause of postbiopsy regression of residual tumor has been hypothesized to produce this phenomenon. Moreover, initial biopsies may eliminate the majority of the tumor with only minimal disease persisting. Re-excisions submitted in toto allow for a systematic examination; however, areas in between sections still remain where minute residual tumor may hide. Searching for such occult foci generally is not aggressively pursued via deeper levels unless the margins of re-excision are in question.

Superficial-type BCC (or superficial multifocal BCC) is a major factor in precluding precise biopsy margin evaluation. In a study where initial biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in subsequent re-excisions, 91% (31/34) of residual BCCs were of superficial variety.² Clinically, superficial BCC frequently has indistinct borders with subtle subclinical peripheral progression. It has a tendency to expand radially, with the clinical appearance deceptively smaller than its true extent. In a plane of histopathologic section, superficial BCC may exhibit skip zones within the epidermis. Even though the margin may seem uninvolved on the slide, a noncontiguous focus may still emerge beyond the “negative” margin. Because superficial pattern is not unusual as one of the components of mixed histology (composite) BCC, this issue is not just limited to tumors specifically designated as superficial type.⁴

The intent of a procedure is important to recognize. If a biopsy is done with the intention of diagnosis only, the pathologic assessment can be limited to tumor identification and core data elements, with margin evaluation reserved for excisions done with therapeutic intent. However, the intent is not always clear, which adds to ambiguity on when to report margins. It is not uncommon to find saucerization shaves or large punch biopsies for BCC carried out with a therapeutic intent. The status of margin is desired in such samples; however, the intent is not always clearly communicated on requisitions. To avoid any gaps in communication, some pathologists may err on the side of caution and start routinely reporting margins on biopsies.

Taking into account the inaccuracy of margin assessment in biopsies, an argument for omitting margin reporting is plausible. Although dermatologists are the major contributors of skin samples, pathology laboratories cater to a broader clientele. Other physicians from different surgical and medical specialities also perform skin biopsies, and catering to a variety of specialities adds another layer of complexity. A dermatologist may appreciate the debate regarding reliability of margins; however, a physician from another speciality who is not as familiar with the diseases of the integument may lack proper understanding. Omitting margin reporting may lead to misinterpretations or false assumptions, such as, “The margins must be uninvolved, otherwise the pathologist would have said something.” This also can generate additional phone or email inquiries and second review requests. Rather than completely omitting them, another strategy can be to report margins in more quantitative terms. One reporting approach is to have 3 categories of involved, uninvolved, and uninvolved but close for margins less than 1 mm. The cases in the third category may require greater scrutiny by deeper levels or an added caveat in the comment addressing the limitation. If the status of margins is not reported due to a certain reason, a short comment can be added to explain the reason.

In sum, clinicians should recognize that “margin negative” on skin biopsy does not always equate to “completely excised.” Margin status on biopsies is a data item that essentially provides a probability of margin clearance. Completely omitting the margin status on all biopsies may not be the most prudent approach; however, improved guidelines and modifications to enhance the reporting are definitely required.

References

1. Brady MC, Hossler EW. Reliability of biopsy margin status for basal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study. Cutis. 2020;106:315-317.
    
2. Willardson HB, Lombardo J, Raines M, et al. Predictive value of basal cell carcinoma biopsies with negative margins: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:42-46.
    
3. Yuan Y, Duff ML, Sammons DL, et al. Retrospective chart review of skin cancer presence in the wide excisions. World J Clin Cases. 2014;2:52-56.
    
4. Cohen PR, Schulze KE, Nelson BR. Basal cell carcinoma with mixed histology: a possible pathogenesis for recurrent skin cancer. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:542-551.

Continue to: Author's Response...

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the thorough and thoughtful comments in the Letter to the Editor. We agree with the author’s assertion that negative margins on skin specimens does not equate to “completely excised” and that the intent of the clinician is not always clear, even when the pathologist has ready access to the clinician’s notes, as was the case for the majority of specimens included in our study.

There is already variability in how pathologists report margins, including the specific verbiage used, at least for melanocytic lesions.¹ The choice of whether or not to report margins and the meaning of those margins is complex due to the uncertainty inherent in margin assessment. Quantifying this uncertainty was the main reason for our study. Ultimately, the pathologist’s decision on whether and how to report margins should be focused on improving patient outcomes. There are benefits and drawbacks to all approaches, and our goal is to provide more information for clinicians and pathologists so that they may better care for their patients. Understanding the limitations of margins on submitted skin specimens—whether margins are reported or not—can only serve to guide improve clinical decision-making. 

We also agree that the breadth of specialties of submitting clinicians make reporting of margins difficult, and there is likely similar breadth in their understanding of the nuances of margin assessment and reports. The solution to this problem is adequate education regarding the limitations of a pathology report, and specifically what is meant when margins are (or are not) reported on skin specimens. How to best educate the myriad clinicians who submit biopsies is, of course, the ultimate challenge.

We hope that our study adds information to this ongoing debate regarding margin status reporting, and we appreciate the discussion points raised by the author.

Eric Hossler, MD; Mary Brady, MD

From the Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Reference

1. Sellheyer K, Bergfeld WF, Stewart E, et al. Evaluation of surgical margins in melanocytic lesions: a survey among 152 dermatopathologists.J Cutan Pathol. 2005;32:293-299.

To the Editor:

With a trend toward increasing pass/fail medical school curricula, residency program directors (PDs) have relied on the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 as an objective measurement of applicant achievement, which is particularly true in competitive subspecialties such as dermatology, plastic surgery, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, and neurosurgery, in which reported Step 1 scores are consistently the highest among matched applicants.¹ Program directors in dermatology have indicated that Step 1 scores are a priority when considering an applicant.² However, among PDs, the general perception of plans to change Step 1 scores to pass/fail has largely been negative.³ Although the impact of this change on the dermatology residency selection process remains unknown, we undertook a study to determine dermatology PDs’ perspectives on the scoring change and discuss its potential implications among all competitive specialties.

A 19-question survey was designed that assessed PD demographics and opinions of the changes and potential implications of the Step 1 scoring change (eTable). A list of current US dermatology PDs at osteopathic and allopathic programs was obtained through the 2019-2020 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education list of accredited programs. Surveys were piloted at our institution to assess for internal validity and misleading questions, and then were distributed electronically through REDCap software (https://www.project-redcap.org/). All responses were kept anonymous. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Variables were assessed with means, proportions, and CIs. Results were deemed statistically significant with nonoverlapping 99% CIs (P<.01).

In dermatology and other competitive specialties, in which USMLE Step 1 scores have become an important consideration, PDs and residency programs will need to identify additional metrics to compare applicants. Examples include research productivity, grades on relevant rotations, and shelf examination scores. Although more reliable subjective measures, such as interviews and performance on away rotations, are already important, they may become of greater significance.

The findings of our survey suggest that PDs are skeptical about changes to Step 1 and more diligence is necessary to maintain a fair and impartial selection process. Increased emphasis on other objective measurements, such as shelf examination scores, graded curricular components, and research productivity, could help maintain an unbiased approach. With changes to USMLE Step 1 expected to be implemented in the 2022 application cycle, programs may need to explore additional options to maintain reliable and transparent applicant review practices.

To the Editor:

With a trend toward increasing pass/fail medical school curricula, residency program directors (PDs) have relied on the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 as an objective measurement of applicant achievement, which is particularly true in competitive subspecialties such as dermatology, plastic surgery, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, and neurosurgery, in which reported Step 1 scores are consistently the highest among matched applicants.¹ Program directors in dermatology have indicated that Step 1 scores are a priority when considering an applicant.² However, among PDs, the general perception of plans to change Step 1 scores to pass/fail has largely been negative.³ Although the impact of this change on the dermatology residency selection process remains unknown, we undertook a study to determine dermatology PDs’ perspectives on the scoring change and discuss its potential implications among all competitive specialties.

A 19-question survey was designed that assessed PD demographics and opinions of the changes and potential implications of the Step 1 scoring change (eTable). A list of current US dermatology PDs at osteopathic and allopathic programs was obtained through the 2019-2020 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education list of accredited programs. Surveys were piloted at our institution to assess for internal validity and misleading questions, and then were distributed electronically through REDCap software (https://www.project-redcap.org/). All responses were kept anonymous. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Variables were assessed with means, proportions, and CIs. Results were deemed statistically significant with nonoverlapping 99% CIs (P<.01).

In dermatology and other competitive specialties, in which USMLE Step 1 scores have become an important consideration, PDs and residency programs will need to identify additional metrics to compare applicants. Examples include research productivity, grades on relevant rotations, and shelf examination scores. Although more reliable subjective measures, such as interviews and performance on away rotations, are already important, they may become of greater significance.

The findings of our survey suggest that PDs are skeptical about changes to Step 1 and more diligence is necessary to maintain a fair and impartial selection process. Increased emphasis on other objective measurements, such as shelf examination scores, graded curricular components, and research productivity, could help maintain an unbiased approach. With changes to USMLE Step 1 expected to be implemented in the 2022 application cycle, programs may need to explore additional options to maintain reliable and transparent applicant review practices.

To the Editor:

With a trend toward increasing pass/fail medical school curricula, residency program directors (PDs) have relied on the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 as an objective measurement of applicant achievement, which is particularly true in competitive subspecialties such as dermatology, plastic surgery, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, and neurosurgery, in which reported Step 1 scores are consistently the highest among matched applicants.¹ Program directors in dermatology have indicated that Step 1 scores are a priority when considering an applicant.² However, among PDs, the general perception of plans to change Step 1 scores to pass/fail has largely been negative.³ Although the impact of this change on the dermatology residency selection process remains unknown, we undertook a study to determine dermatology PDs’ perspectives on the scoring change and discuss its potential implications among all competitive specialties.

A 19-question survey was designed that assessed PD demographics and opinions of the changes and potential implications of the Step 1 scoring change (eTable). A list of current US dermatology PDs at osteopathic and allopathic programs was obtained through the 2019-2020 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education list of accredited programs. Surveys were piloted at our institution to assess for internal validity and misleading questions, and then were distributed electronically through REDCap software (https://www.project-redcap.org/). All responses were kept anonymous. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Variables were assessed with means, proportions, and CIs. Results were deemed statistically significant with nonoverlapping 99% CIs (P<.01).

In dermatology and other competitive specialties, in which USMLE Step 1 scores have become an important consideration, PDs and residency programs will need to identify additional metrics to compare applicants. Examples include research productivity, grades on relevant rotations, and shelf examination scores. Although more reliable subjective measures, such as interviews and performance on away rotations, are already important, they may become of greater significance.

The findings of our survey suggest that PDs are skeptical about changes to Step 1 and more diligence is necessary to maintain a fair and impartial selection process. Increased emphasis on other objective measurements, such as shelf examination scores, graded curricular components, and research productivity, could help maintain an unbiased approach. With changes to USMLE Step 1 expected to be implemented in the 2022 application cycle, programs may need to explore additional options to maintain reliable and transparent applicant review practices.

Practice Gap

Many cutaneous surgery wounds can be closed primarily; however, in certain cases, other repair options might be appropriate and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with input from the patient. Defects on the dorsal aspect of the hands—where nonmelanoma skin cancer is common and reserve tissue is limited—often heal by secondary intention with good cosmetic and functional results. Patients often express a desire to reduce the time spent in the surgical suite and restrictions on postoperative activity, making secondary intention healing more appealing. An additional advantage is obviation of the need to remove additional tissue in the form of Burow triangles, which would lead to a longer wound. The major disadvantage of secondary intention healing is longer time to wound maturity; we often minimize this disadvantage with purse-string closure to decrease the size of the wound defect, which can be done quickly and without removing additional tissue.

The Technique

An elderly man had 3 nonmelanoma skin cancers—all on the dorsal aspect of the left hand—that were treated on the same day, leaving 3 similar wound defects after Mohs micrographic surgery. The wound defects (distal to proximal) measured 12 mm, 12 mm, and 10 mm in diameter (Figure 1) and were repaired by primary closure, secondary intention, and purse-string circumferential closure, respectively. Purse-string closure¹ was performed with a 4-0 polyglactin 901 suture and left to heal without external sutures (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the 3 types of repairs immediately following closure. All wounds healed with excellent and essentially equivalent cosmetic results, with excellent patient satisfaction at 6-month follow-up (Figure 4).

Practical Implications

Our case illustrates different modalities of wound repair during precisely the same time frame and essentially on the same location. Skin of the dorsal hand often is tight; depending on the size of the defect, large primary closure can be tedious to perform, can lead to increased wound tension and risk of dehiscence, and can be uncomfortable for the patient during healing. However, primary closure typically will lead to faster healing.

Secondary intention healing and purse-string closure require less surgery and therefore cost less; these modalities yield similar cosmesis and satisfaction. In the appropriate context, secondary intention has been highlighted as a suitable alternative to primary closure^2-4; in our experience (and that of others⁵), patient satisfaction is not diminished with healing by secondary intention. Purse-string closure also can minimize wound size and healing time.

For small shallow wounds on the dorsal hand, dermatologic surgeons should have confidence that secondary intention healing, with or without wound reduction using purse-string repair, likely will lead to acceptable cosmetic and functional results. Of course, repair should be tailored to the circumstances and wishes of the individual patient.

Practice Gap

Many cutaneous surgery wounds can be closed primarily; however, in certain cases, other repair options might be appropriate and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with input from the patient. Defects on the dorsal aspect of the hands—where nonmelanoma skin cancer is common and reserve tissue is limited—often heal by secondary intention with good cosmetic and functional results. Patients often express a desire to reduce the time spent in the surgical suite and restrictions on postoperative activity, making secondary intention healing more appealing. An additional advantage is obviation of the need to remove additional tissue in the form of Burow triangles, which would lead to a longer wound. The major disadvantage of secondary intention healing is longer time to wound maturity; we often minimize this disadvantage with purse-string closure to decrease the size of the wound defect, which can be done quickly and without removing additional tissue.

The Technique

An elderly man had 3 nonmelanoma skin cancers—all on the dorsal aspect of the left hand—that were treated on the same day, leaving 3 similar wound defects after Mohs micrographic surgery. The wound defects (distal to proximal) measured 12 mm, 12 mm, and 10 mm in diameter (Figure 1) and were repaired by primary closure, secondary intention, and purse-string circumferential closure, respectively. Purse-string closure¹ was performed with a 4-0 polyglactin 901 suture and left to heal without external sutures (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the 3 types of repairs immediately following closure. All wounds healed with excellent and essentially equivalent cosmetic results, with excellent patient satisfaction at 6-month follow-up (Figure 4).

Practical Implications

Our case illustrates different modalities of wound repair during precisely the same time frame and essentially on the same location. Skin of the dorsal hand often is tight; depending on the size of the defect, large primary closure can be tedious to perform, can lead to increased wound tension and risk of dehiscence, and can be uncomfortable for the patient during healing. However, primary closure typically will lead to faster healing.

Secondary intention healing and purse-string closure require less surgery and therefore cost less; these modalities yield similar cosmesis and satisfaction. In the appropriate context, secondary intention has been highlighted as a suitable alternative to primary closure^2-4; in our experience (and that of others⁵), patient satisfaction is not diminished with healing by secondary intention. Purse-string closure also can minimize wound size and healing time.

For small shallow wounds on the dorsal hand, dermatologic surgeons should have confidence that secondary intention healing, with or without wound reduction using purse-string repair, likely will lead to acceptable cosmetic and functional results. Of course, repair should be tailored to the circumstances and wishes of the individual patient.

Practice Gap

Many cutaneous surgery wounds can be closed primarily; however, in certain cases, other repair options might be appropriate and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with input from the patient. Defects on the dorsal aspect of the hands—where nonmelanoma skin cancer is common and reserve tissue is limited—often heal by secondary intention with good cosmetic and functional results. Patients often express a desire to reduce the time spent in the surgical suite and restrictions on postoperative activity, making secondary intention healing more appealing. An additional advantage is obviation of the need to remove additional tissue in the form of Burow triangles, which would lead to a longer wound. The major disadvantage of secondary intention healing is longer time to wound maturity; we often minimize this disadvantage with purse-string closure to decrease the size of the wound defect, which can be done quickly and without removing additional tissue.

The Technique

An elderly man had 3 nonmelanoma skin cancers—all on the dorsal aspect of the left hand—that were treated on the same day, leaving 3 similar wound defects after Mohs micrographic surgery. The wound defects (distal to proximal) measured 12 mm, 12 mm, and 10 mm in diameter (Figure 1) and were repaired by primary closure, secondary intention, and purse-string circumferential closure, respectively. Purse-string closure¹ was performed with a 4-0 polyglactin 901 suture and left to heal without external sutures (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the 3 types of repairs immediately following closure. All wounds healed with excellent and essentially equivalent cosmetic results, with excellent patient satisfaction at 6-month follow-up (Figure 4).

Practical Implications

Our case illustrates different modalities of wound repair during precisely the same time frame and essentially on the same location. Skin of the dorsal hand often is tight; depending on the size of the defect, large primary closure can be tedious to perform, can lead to increased wound tension and risk of dehiscence, and can be uncomfortable for the patient during healing. However, primary closure typically will lead to faster healing.

Secondary intention healing and purse-string closure require less surgery and therefore cost less; these modalities yield similar cosmesis and satisfaction. In the appropriate context, secondary intention has been highlighted as a suitable alternative to primary closure^2-4; in our experience (and that of others⁵), patient satisfaction is not diminished with healing by secondary intention. Purse-string closure also can minimize wound size and healing time.

For small shallow wounds on the dorsal hand, dermatologic surgeons should have confidence that secondary intention healing, with or without wound reduction using purse-string repair, likely will lead to acceptable cosmetic and functional results. Of course, repair should be tailored to the circumstances and wishes of the individual patient.