Cutis

The Digital Revolution has invaded the House of Medicine, which is not really news since the invasion has been long-standing, but it seems to be generating more interest and concern in recent months. The American Medical Association recently created the Digital Health Implementation Playbook to lend guidance in developing technologies that are fundamentally altering the manner in which patients interact with health care providers.¹ The playbook lays out specific steps for developing and implementing digital health technologies such as remote patient monitoring devices. The goal of the playbook is to make certain that such devices are accurate, reliable, and validated as valuable additions to high-quality patient care.¹

In the February 2018 issue of Cutis, Masud et al² evaluated 44 patient-directed mobile applications (apps) for dermatologic conditions and developed a schematic for evaluating their value in providing valid usable information for patients. They found that most of the apps failed to live up to their purported usefulness in patient education.² I am certain we have all seen numerous examples on the Internet, many times brought to us by patients, of fallacious and inaccurate information about the diagnosis and treatment of dermatologic conditions that are actually harmful to the care of our patients.

A more upsetting trend in recent years is the proliferation of open-access journals. Although such digital journals can result in more rapid dissemination of valid scientific information, many of them do not follow a true peer-review process. So-called predatory journals from for-profit unethical publishers are increasing at an alarming rate.³

Furthermore, there is a need to present data more accurately and in formats that provide more meaningful interpretation, according to a recent Letter From the Editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.⁴ Elston⁴ wrote: “Be honest about your data and the limitations of the study design.” He cautioned further about the proper use of statistical analysis.

As dermatologists, how do we make certain that the Digital Revolution results in better care of our patients? The answer, of course, is in education of the practitioner and our young colleagues in training. Although most Cutis readers still access the print version of our journal, more and more readers are accessing our digital format. Online we are able to offer readers the peer-reviewed content you have known to trust and rely on to improve your care of patients as well as other educational tools. Furthermore, we can provide readers access to additional charts and tables pertaining to research published in the print journal.

In January 2019 the Cutis website will merge with Dermatology News, our sister news publication, to become MDedge Dermatology (www.mdedge.com/dermatology). This site will be your new one-stop destination for timely news and clinical content you can trust from both publications. This interactive site is designed to help clinicians quickly find the information they need to improve the treatment and care of patients with conditions affecting the hair, skin, and nails. You will have free access to digital resources such as procedural videos, podcasts, image quizzes, board review, and resident resources, as well as an archive of Cutis content dating back to 2000.

As we at Cutis broaden our digital footprint, we look forward to providing our readers with a larger volume of clinically relevant content in more easily accessed formats while maintaining our commitment to valid trustworthy information. In the coming months we look forward to joining with you in this new digital endeavor, and as always, we appreciate the input of our readers during this process.

The Digital Revolution has invaded the House of Medicine, which is not really news since the invasion has been long-standing, but it seems to be generating more interest and concern in recent months. The American Medical Association recently created the Digital Health Implementation Playbook to lend guidance in developing technologies that are fundamentally altering the manner in which patients interact with health care providers.¹ The playbook lays out specific steps for developing and implementing digital health technologies such as remote patient monitoring devices. The goal of the playbook is to make certain that such devices are accurate, reliable, and validated as valuable additions to high-quality patient care.¹

In the February 2018 issue of Cutis, Masud et al² evaluated 44 patient-directed mobile applications (apps) for dermatologic conditions and developed a schematic for evaluating their value in providing valid usable information for patients. They found that most of the apps failed to live up to their purported usefulness in patient education.² I am certain we have all seen numerous examples on the Internet, many times brought to us by patients, of fallacious and inaccurate information about the diagnosis and treatment of dermatologic conditions that are actually harmful to the care of our patients.

A more upsetting trend in recent years is the proliferation of open-access journals. Although such digital journals can result in more rapid dissemination of valid scientific information, many of them do not follow a true peer-review process. So-called predatory journals from for-profit unethical publishers are increasing at an alarming rate.³

Furthermore, there is a need to present data more accurately and in formats that provide more meaningful interpretation, according to a recent Letter From the Editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.⁴ Elston⁴ wrote: “Be honest about your data and the limitations of the study design.” He cautioned further about the proper use of statistical analysis.

As dermatologists, how do we make certain that the Digital Revolution results in better care of our patients? The answer, of course, is in education of the practitioner and our young colleagues in training. Although most Cutis readers still access the print version of our journal, more and more readers are accessing our digital format. Online we are able to offer readers the peer-reviewed content you have known to trust and rely on to improve your care of patients as well as other educational tools. Furthermore, we can provide readers access to additional charts and tables pertaining to research published in the print journal.

In January 2019 the Cutis website will merge with Dermatology News, our sister news publication, to become MDedge Dermatology (www.mdedge.com/dermatology). This site will be your new one-stop destination for timely news and clinical content you can trust from both publications. This interactive site is designed to help clinicians quickly find the information they need to improve the treatment and care of patients with conditions affecting the hair, skin, and nails. You will have free access to digital resources such as procedural videos, podcasts, image quizzes, board review, and resident resources, as well as an archive of Cutis content dating back to 2000.

As we at Cutis broaden our digital footprint, we look forward to providing our readers with a larger volume of clinically relevant content in more easily accessed formats while maintaining our commitment to valid trustworthy information. In the coming months we look forward to joining with you in this new digital endeavor, and as always, we appreciate the input of our readers during this process.

The Digital Revolution has invaded the House of Medicine, which is not really news since the invasion has been long-standing, but it seems to be generating more interest and concern in recent months. The American Medical Association recently created the Digital Health Implementation Playbook to lend guidance in developing technologies that are fundamentally altering the manner in which patients interact with health care providers.¹ The playbook lays out specific steps for developing and implementing digital health technologies such as remote patient monitoring devices. The goal of the playbook is to make certain that such devices are accurate, reliable, and validated as valuable additions to high-quality patient care.¹

In the February 2018 issue of Cutis, Masud et al² evaluated 44 patient-directed mobile applications (apps) for dermatologic conditions and developed a schematic for evaluating their value in providing valid usable information for patients. They found that most of the apps failed to live up to their purported usefulness in patient education.² I am certain we have all seen numerous examples on the Internet, many times brought to us by patients, of fallacious and inaccurate information about the diagnosis and treatment of dermatologic conditions that are actually harmful to the care of our patients.

A more upsetting trend in recent years is the proliferation of open-access journals. Although such digital journals can result in more rapid dissemination of valid scientific information, many of them do not follow a true peer-review process. So-called predatory journals from for-profit unethical publishers are increasing at an alarming rate.³

Furthermore, there is a need to present data more accurately and in formats that provide more meaningful interpretation, according to a recent Letter From the Editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.⁴ Elston⁴ wrote: “Be honest about your data and the limitations of the study design.” He cautioned further about the proper use of statistical analysis.

As dermatologists, how do we make certain that the Digital Revolution results in better care of our patients? The answer, of course, is in education of the practitioner and our young colleagues in training. Although most Cutis readers still access the print version of our journal, more and more readers are accessing our digital format. Online we are able to offer readers the peer-reviewed content you have known to trust and rely on to improve your care of patients as well as other educational tools. Furthermore, we can provide readers access to additional charts and tables pertaining to research published in the print journal.

In January 2019 the Cutis website will merge with Dermatology News, our sister news publication, to become MDedge Dermatology (www.mdedge.com/dermatology). This site will be your new one-stop destination for timely news and clinical content you can trust from both publications. This interactive site is designed to help clinicians quickly find the information they need to improve the treatment and care of patients with conditions affecting the hair, skin, and nails. You will have free access to digital resources such as procedural videos, podcasts, image quizzes, board review, and resident resources, as well as an archive of Cutis content dating back to 2000.

As we at Cutis broaden our digital footprint, we look forward to providing our readers with a larger volume of clinically relevant content in more easily accessed formats while maintaining our commitment to valid trustworthy information. In the coming months we look forward to joining with you in this new digital endeavor, and as always, we appreciate the input of our readers during this process.

The Diagnosis: Irritant Contact Dermatitis

The diagnosis of irritant contact dermatitis secondary to skateboarding is similar to pool palms, a benign, self-limiting irritant contact dermatitis.¹ We propose that contact with concrete surfaces during skateboarding can lead to a presentation similar to pool palms. In our case, it was likely that the finger pulpitis noted in the physical examination was due to daily skateboarding rather than once-weekly swimming. Furthermore, the fingertip contact with concrete in pool palms is similar to the rough surface exposure on the skateboard.

Pool palms is more commonly reported in children due to their participation in sports and other activities with recent exposure to rough surfaces, most commonly the floor of swimming pools.² The condition resolves after eliminating exposures.³ The frequency and duration of exposure to rough surfaces in swimming pools leading to development of this condition is unknown.

There have been mixed reports on the pathogenesis of pool palms. Some literature supports the idea that it is a wet dermatitis, a combination of prolonged water contact, friction, chemicals, and microbes leading to a chronic dermatitis. This theory states that the primary factor influencing the development of erythematous patches on the fingers, palms, and soles is the hyperhydration of the corneal layer at these sites.⁴ A different theory attributes pool palms to a mechanical origin, such as repeated microtrauma from contact with the rough concrete surfaces of swimming pools.⁵ This theory further states that the chemicals in pool water, such as chlorine and sodium hypochlorite, rarely produce irritant, allergic, or urticarial reactions.³

Based on these theories, we hypothesized that fingertip pulpitis can result from activities other than swimming (eg, skateboarding). Our case supports the latter theory on fingertip pulpitis in pool palms being a result of frictional dermatitis rather than wet dermatitis because we attributed our patient’s findings to contact with rough surfaces during skateboarding. Although the patient did swim, he only did so once weekly in the summer months, and the lesions had been persistent for 2 years consistently. His skateboarding hobby was more frequent, and he endorsed contact of the pads of the bilateral second to fifth fingers to the rough surfaces of the road and skateboard. The patient did not have lesions on the toes, further supporting the hypothesis that skateboarding led to the current presentation.

In children, hand-foot-and-mouth disease classically presents with oval-shaped, erythematous vesicles on the palmar surfaces of the hands and feet and generally is accompanied by fever and sore throat.⁶ Furthermore, unlike in our case, the viral exanthem usually would be present for up to 3 weeks and would not persist for more than 2 years. Erythema multiforme has an erythematous color and can present on the palms; however, the lesions have a classic targetoid appearance. It would be unique for erythema multiforme to present only on the fingertips rather than more diffusely on the palms or in other areas such as the face.⁷ Limited cutaneous sclerosis (scleroderma) initially can present with edematous pitted scars on the digital tips; however, with time the fingers will have a taut, white, shiny appearance that can develop into contractures and debilitating ulcerations.⁸ In our patient, the plaques did not advance to any further disease. Lastly, in contrast to our patient, punctate palmoplantar keratoderma presents as hyperkeratotic, firm, translucent, or opaque papules on the palms and soles. Over time, the papules can appear verrucous or callouslike.⁹ In our case, the plaques on the fingertips were erythematous rather than translucent or opaque papules.

Our case raises questions on whether prior reports of pool palms can be attributed to other activities involving contact with rough surfaces. More research is needed on the frequency and duration of rough surface exposure resulting in fingertip pulpitis.

The Diagnosis: Irritant Contact Dermatitis

The diagnosis of irritant contact dermatitis secondary to skateboarding is similar to pool palms, a benign, self-limiting irritant contact dermatitis.¹ We propose that contact with concrete surfaces during skateboarding can lead to a presentation similar to pool palms. In our case, it was likely that the finger pulpitis noted in the physical examination was due to daily skateboarding rather than once-weekly swimming. Furthermore, the fingertip contact with concrete in pool palms is similar to the rough surface exposure on the skateboard.

Pool palms is more commonly reported in children due to their participation in sports and other activities with recent exposure to rough surfaces, most commonly the floor of swimming pools.² The condition resolves after eliminating exposures.³ The frequency and duration of exposure to rough surfaces in swimming pools leading to development of this condition is unknown.

There have been mixed reports on the pathogenesis of pool palms. Some literature supports the idea that it is a wet dermatitis, a combination of prolonged water contact, friction, chemicals, and microbes leading to a chronic dermatitis. This theory states that the primary factor influencing the development of erythematous patches on the fingers, palms, and soles is the hyperhydration of the corneal layer at these sites.⁴ A different theory attributes pool palms to a mechanical origin, such as repeated microtrauma from contact with the rough concrete surfaces of swimming pools.⁵ This theory further states that the chemicals in pool water, such as chlorine and sodium hypochlorite, rarely produce irritant, allergic, or urticarial reactions.³

Based on these theories, we hypothesized that fingertip pulpitis can result from activities other than swimming (eg, skateboarding). Our case supports the latter theory on fingertip pulpitis in pool palms being a result of frictional dermatitis rather than wet dermatitis because we attributed our patient’s findings to contact with rough surfaces during skateboarding. Although the patient did swim, he only did so once weekly in the summer months, and the lesions had been persistent for 2 years consistently. His skateboarding hobby was more frequent, and he endorsed contact of the pads of the bilateral second to fifth fingers to the rough surfaces of the road and skateboard. The patient did not have lesions on the toes, further supporting the hypothesis that skateboarding led to the current presentation.

In children, hand-foot-and-mouth disease classically presents with oval-shaped, erythematous vesicles on the palmar surfaces of the hands and feet and generally is accompanied by fever and sore throat.⁶ Furthermore, unlike in our case, the viral exanthem usually would be present for up to 3 weeks and would not persist for more than 2 years. Erythema multiforme has an erythematous color and can present on the palms; however, the lesions have a classic targetoid appearance. It would be unique for erythema multiforme to present only on the fingertips rather than more diffusely on the palms or in other areas such as the face.⁷ Limited cutaneous sclerosis (scleroderma) initially can present with edematous pitted scars on the digital tips; however, with time the fingers will have a taut, white, shiny appearance that can develop into contractures and debilitating ulcerations.⁸ In our patient, the plaques did not advance to any further disease. Lastly, in contrast to our patient, punctate palmoplantar keratoderma presents as hyperkeratotic, firm, translucent, or opaque papules on the palms and soles. Over time, the papules can appear verrucous or callouslike.⁹ In our case, the plaques on the fingertips were erythematous rather than translucent or opaque papules.

Our case raises questions on whether prior reports of pool palms can be attributed to other activities involving contact with rough surfaces. More research is needed on the frequency and duration of rough surface exposure resulting in fingertip pulpitis.

The Diagnosis: Irritant Contact Dermatitis

The diagnosis of irritant contact dermatitis secondary to skateboarding is similar to pool palms, a benign, self-limiting irritant contact dermatitis.¹ We propose that contact with concrete surfaces during skateboarding can lead to a presentation similar to pool palms. In our case, it was likely that the finger pulpitis noted in the physical examination was due to daily skateboarding rather than once-weekly swimming. Furthermore, the fingertip contact with concrete in pool palms is similar to the rough surface exposure on the skateboard.

Pool palms is more commonly reported in children due to their participation in sports and other activities with recent exposure to rough surfaces, most commonly the floor of swimming pools.² The condition resolves after eliminating exposures.³ The frequency and duration of exposure to rough surfaces in swimming pools leading to development of this condition is unknown.

There have been mixed reports on the pathogenesis of pool palms. Some literature supports the idea that it is a wet dermatitis, a combination of prolonged water contact, friction, chemicals, and microbes leading to a chronic dermatitis. This theory states that the primary factor influencing the development of erythematous patches on the fingers, palms, and soles is the hyperhydration of the corneal layer at these sites.⁴ A different theory attributes pool palms to a mechanical origin, such as repeated microtrauma from contact with the rough concrete surfaces of swimming pools.⁵ This theory further states that the chemicals in pool water, such as chlorine and sodium hypochlorite, rarely produce irritant, allergic, or urticarial reactions.³

Based on these theories, we hypothesized that fingertip pulpitis can result from activities other than swimming (eg, skateboarding). Our case supports the latter theory on fingertip pulpitis in pool palms being a result of frictional dermatitis rather than wet dermatitis because we attributed our patient’s findings to contact with rough surfaces during skateboarding. Although the patient did swim, he only did so once weekly in the summer months, and the lesions had been persistent for 2 years consistently. His skateboarding hobby was more frequent, and he endorsed contact of the pads of the bilateral second to fifth fingers to the rough surfaces of the road and skateboard. The patient did not have lesions on the toes, further supporting the hypothesis that skateboarding led to the current presentation.

In children, hand-foot-and-mouth disease classically presents with oval-shaped, erythematous vesicles on the palmar surfaces of the hands and feet and generally is accompanied by fever and sore throat.⁶ Furthermore, unlike in our case, the viral exanthem usually would be present for up to 3 weeks and would not persist for more than 2 years. Erythema multiforme has an erythematous color and can present on the palms; however, the lesions have a classic targetoid appearance. It would be unique for erythema multiforme to present only on the fingertips rather than more diffusely on the palms or in other areas such as the face.⁷ Limited cutaneous sclerosis (scleroderma) initially can present with edematous pitted scars on the digital tips; however, with time the fingers will have a taut, white, shiny appearance that can develop into contractures and debilitating ulcerations.⁸ In our patient, the plaques did not advance to any further disease. Lastly, in contrast to our patient, punctate palmoplantar keratoderma presents as hyperkeratotic, firm, translucent, or opaque papules on the palms and soles. Over time, the papules can appear verrucous or callouslike.⁹ In our case, the plaques on the fingertips were erythematous rather than translucent or opaque papules.

Our case raises questions on whether prior reports of pool palms can be attributed to other activities involving contact with rough surfaces. More research is needed on the frequency and duration of rough surface exposure resulting in fingertip pulpitis.

To the Editor:

A 2-year-old boy was referred to our pediatric dermatology clinic by his pediatrician for an enlarging mass on the mid frontal scalp. The lesion had been present since birth and slowly enlarged. His parents thought the lesion was mostly asymptomatic; however, if it was irritated, the child would cry. He was otherwise healthy and had no history of skin conditions. There was no family history of skin conditions, birthmarks, or vascular malformations. On physical examination, we observed an isolated, approximately 3-cm, well-circumscribed, mobile, flesh-colored and violaceous nodule on the mid frontal scalp (Figure 1). At that time our differential diagnosis included a complex hemangioma or other vascular proliferation, nevus lipomatosis, or even a soft-tissue malignancy such as a sarcoma. Prior to biopsy, we ordered magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate for intracranial extension of the lesion. The MRI revealed a 3.2-cm frontal midline scalp mass with complex imaging characteristics, and the radiologist gave a differential diagnosis of hemangioma, teratoma, or less likely liposarcoma (Figure 2). Fortunately, there was no evidence of central nervous system or intracranial invasion. We then proceeded with excisional biopsy, which grossly revealed a nodular, well-circumscribed, yellow mass (Figure 3). The wound was closed with primary closure. Histologically, there was a lobulated tumor with thin, well-vascularized connective tissue septa within a myxoid stroma (Figure 4A). The tumor was composed of lipocytes in varying stages of maturity without obvious nuclear atypia (Figures 4B and 4C), leading to a diagnosis of lipoblastoma.

Lipoblastoma (also known as an embryonic lipoma) is a rare variant of lipoma. It is a benign neoplasm of immature white fat cells primarily seen in children younger than 3 years. It is reportedly twice as common in boys versus girls. Lipoblastomas present as enlarging, soft, mobile, painless nodules, usually 3 to 5 cm in diameter. The extremities are the favored location, but they also have been described on the head, neck, and trunk. Additionally, mediastinal and retroperitoneal lipoblastomas have been documented.¹ The tumors may be symptomatic, particularly when involving the neck or mediastinum. In rare instances, they may present with respiratory distress.² Multiple cases of head and neck lipoblastomas have been published in the English-language literature.³ Growing evidence supports that a chromosomal breakpoint abnormality at 8q11-q13 may be implicated in the pathogenesis.⁴

Most lipoblastomas are well circumscribed, encapsulated, and limited to the subcutis. However, lipoblastomatosis is the diffuse counterpart to lipoblastoma, affecting deeper soft tissue and often infiltrating adjacent skeletal muscle.¹

Diagnosis is made by histologic evaluation. Lipoblastoma appears as immature fat cells in varying stages of maturity with septa separating them into lobules. There should not be nuclear atypia.⁵ The histologic differential diagnosis includes other adipose tumors, most chiefly myxoid liposarcoma. These tumors have a lobular pattern without prominent septae and contain nuclear atypia with atypical mitotic figures. Myxoid liposarcoma has an infiltrating pattern similar to lipoblastomatosis and has a metastatic rate up to 60%.⁶ Imaging studies such as MRI are helpful in diagnosis, particularly in head and neck or visceral cases.³ The treatment of choice of lipoblastoma is wide excision. With complete removal, tumors rarely recur. Recurrences are more common in lipoblastomatosis or with incompletely excised primary lesions.³ A 14% to 24% recurrence rate has been recognized. Cytogenic analysis of lipomatous tumors has begun to reveal translocations in chromosome 8q11-13 region breakpoint abnormalities and translocations, specifically involving the pleomorphic adenoma gene 1, PLAG1, as the oncogenic target in lipoblastoma.⁶ Identification of these molecular mutations may provide aid in differentiating histologically similar-appearing tumors in the future.

This case illustrates a rare benign childhood tumor that can be difficult to diagnose prior to histologic examination. Our patient did not fit the typical description of a lipoblastoma, as his tumor was axially located as opposed to the more common peripheral presentation. We aim to raise awareness of this diagnosis as more cases are being recognized.

To the Editor:

A 2-year-old boy was referred to our pediatric dermatology clinic by his pediatrician for an enlarging mass on the mid frontal scalp. The lesion had been present since birth and slowly enlarged. His parents thought the lesion was mostly asymptomatic; however, if it was irritated, the child would cry. He was otherwise healthy and had no history of skin conditions. There was no family history of skin conditions, birthmarks, or vascular malformations. On physical examination, we observed an isolated, approximately 3-cm, well-circumscribed, mobile, flesh-colored and violaceous nodule on the mid frontal scalp (Figure 1). At that time our differential diagnosis included a complex hemangioma or other vascular proliferation, nevus lipomatosis, or even a soft-tissue malignancy such as a sarcoma. Prior to biopsy, we ordered magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate for intracranial extension of the lesion. The MRI revealed a 3.2-cm frontal midline scalp mass with complex imaging characteristics, and the radiologist gave a differential diagnosis of hemangioma, teratoma, or less likely liposarcoma (Figure 2). Fortunately, there was no evidence of central nervous system or intracranial invasion. We then proceeded with excisional biopsy, which grossly revealed a nodular, well-circumscribed, yellow mass (Figure 3). The wound was closed with primary closure. Histologically, there was a lobulated tumor with thin, well-vascularized connective tissue septa within a myxoid stroma (Figure 4A). The tumor was composed of lipocytes in varying stages of maturity without obvious nuclear atypia (Figures 4B and 4C), leading to a diagnosis of lipoblastoma.

Lipoblastoma (also known as an embryonic lipoma) is a rare variant of lipoma. It is a benign neoplasm of immature white fat cells primarily seen in children younger than 3 years. It is reportedly twice as common in boys versus girls. Lipoblastomas present as enlarging, soft, mobile, painless nodules, usually 3 to 5 cm in diameter. The extremities are the favored location, but they also have been described on the head, neck, and trunk. Additionally, mediastinal and retroperitoneal lipoblastomas have been documented.¹ The tumors may be symptomatic, particularly when involving the neck or mediastinum. In rare instances, they may present with respiratory distress.² Multiple cases of head and neck lipoblastomas have been published in the English-language literature.³ Growing evidence supports that a chromosomal breakpoint abnormality at 8q11-q13 may be implicated in the pathogenesis.⁴

Most lipoblastomas are well circumscribed, encapsulated, and limited to the subcutis. However, lipoblastomatosis is the diffuse counterpart to lipoblastoma, affecting deeper soft tissue and often infiltrating adjacent skeletal muscle.¹

Diagnosis is made by histologic evaluation. Lipoblastoma appears as immature fat cells in varying stages of maturity with septa separating them into lobules. There should not be nuclear atypia.⁵ The histologic differential diagnosis includes other adipose tumors, most chiefly myxoid liposarcoma. These tumors have a lobular pattern without prominent septae and contain nuclear atypia with atypical mitotic figures. Myxoid liposarcoma has an infiltrating pattern similar to lipoblastomatosis and has a metastatic rate up to 60%.⁶ Imaging studies such as MRI are helpful in diagnosis, particularly in head and neck or visceral cases.³ The treatment of choice of lipoblastoma is wide excision. With complete removal, tumors rarely recur. Recurrences are more common in lipoblastomatosis or with incompletely excised primary lesions.³ A 14% to 24% recurrence rate has been recognized. Cytogenic analysis of lipomatous tumors has begun to reveal translocations in chromosome 8q11-13 region breakpoint abnormalities and translocations, specifically involving the pleomorphic adenoma gene 1, PLAG1, as the oncogenic target in lipoblastoma.⁶ Identification of these molecular mutations may provide aid in differentiating histologically similar-appearing tumors in the future.

This case illustrates a rare benign childhood tumor that can be difficult to diagnose prior to histologic examination. Our patient did not fit the typical description of a lipoblastoma, as his tumor was axially located as opposed to the more common peripheral presentation. We aim to raise awareness of this diagnosis as more cases are being recognized.

To the Editor:

A 2-year-old boy was referred to our pediatric dermatology clinic by his pediatrician for an enlarging mass on the mid frontal scalp. The lesion had been present since birth and slowly enlarged. His parents thought the lesion was mostly asymptomatic; however, if it was irritated, the child would cry. He was otherwise healthy and had no history of skin conditions. There was no family history of skin conditions, birthmarks, or vascular malformations. On physical examination, we observed an isolated, approximately 3-cm, well-circumscribed, mobile, flesh-colored and violaceous nodule on the mid frontal scalp (Figure 1). At that time our differential diagnosis included a complex hemangioma or other vascular proliferation, nevus lipomatosis, or even a soft-tissue malignancy such as a sarcoma. Prior to biopsy, we ordered magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate for intracranial extension of the lesion. The MRI revealed a 3.2-cm frontal midline scalp mass with complex imaging characteristics, and the radiologist gave a differential diagnosis of hemangioma, teratoma, or less likely liposarcoma (Figure 2). Fortunately, there was no evidence of central nervous system or intracranial invasion. We then proceeded with excisional biopsy, which grossly revealed a nodular, well-circumscribed, yellow mass (Figure 3). The wound was closed with primary closure. Histologically, there was a lobulated tumor with thin, well-vascularized connective tissue septa within a myxoid stroma (Figure 4A). The tumor was composed of lipocytes in varying stages of maturity without obvious nuclear atypia (Figures 4B and 4C), leading to a diagnosis of lipoblastoma.

Lipoblastoma (also known as an embryonic lipoma) is a rare variant of lipoma. It is a benign neoplasm of immature white fat cells primarily seen in children younger than 3 years. It is reportedly twice as common in boys versus girls. Lipoblastomas present as enlarging, soft, mobile, painless nodules, usually 3 to 5 cm in diameter. The extremities are the favored location, but they also have been described on the head, neck, and trunk. Additionally, mediastinal and retroperitoneal lipoblastomas have been documented.¹ The tumors may be symptomatic, particularly when involving the neck or mediastinum. In rare instances, they may present with respiratory distress.² Multiple cases of head and neck lipoblastomas have been published in the English-language literature.³ Growing evidence supports that a chromosomal breakpoint abnormality at 8q11-q13 may be implicated in the pathogenesis.⁴

Most lipoblastomas are well circumscribed, encapsulated, and limited to the subcutis. However, lipoblastomatosis is the diffuse counterpart to lipoblastoma, affecting deeper soft tissue and often infiltrating adjacent skeletal muscle.¹

Diagnosis is made by histologic evaluation. Lipoblastoma appears as immature fat cells in varying stages of maturity with septa separating them into lobules. There should not be nuclear atypia.⁵ The histologic differential diagnosis includes other adipose tumors, most chiefly myxoid liposarcoma. These tumors have a lobular pattern without prominent septae and contain nuclear atypia with atypical mitotic figures. Myxoid liposarcoma has an infiltrating pattern similar to lipoblastomatosis and has a metastatic rate up to 60%.⁶ Imaging studies such as MRI are helpful in diagnosis, particularly in head and neck or visceral cases.³ The treatment of choice of lipoblastoma is wide excision. With complete removal, tumors rarely recur. Recurrences are more common in lipoblastomatosis or with incompletely excised primary lesions.³ A 14% to 24% recurrence rate has been recognized. Cytogenic analysis of lipomatous tumors has begun to reveal translocations in chromosome 8q11-13 region breakpoint abnormalities and translocations, specifically involving the pleomorphic adenoma gene 1, PLAG1, as the oncogenic target in lipoblastoma.⁶ Identification of these molecular mutations may provide aid in differentiating histologically similar-appearing tumors in the future.

This case illustrates a rare benign childhood tumor that can be difficult to diagnose prior to histologic examination. Our patient did not fit the typical description of a lipoblastoma, as his tumor was axially located as opposed to the more common peripheral presentation. We aim to raise awareness of this diagnosis as more cases are being recognized.

The Diagnosis: Blaschkitis

A punch biopsy from the right lateral hip was performed. Histopathologic examination revealed orthokeratosis overlying mild psoriasiform epidermal hyperplasia associated with a lichenoid infiltrate composed almost entirely of lymphocytes (Figure). The infiltrate did not entirely obscure the dermoepidermal junction and spared the adnexal structures. The clinical presentation along with histopathologic analysis confirmed a diagnosis of blaschkitis. The lesions were treated with triamcinolone ointment twice daily as needed, and the patient reported symptomatic and clinical improvement with this intervention at 4-week follow-up.

Described by Grosshans and Marot¹ in 1990, blaschkitis is an acquired inflammatory dermatosis following the lines of Blaschko. It predominantly is seen on the trunk and typically presents with pruritic papules and vesicles. It frequently has a relapsing course and is more commonly found in adults. Blaschkitis is considered a form of cutaneous mosaicism representing somatic mutations affecting epidermal cell growth and migration during embryogenesis. It has been proposed that these aberrant cells are not clinically apparent at birth; however, viral infection and drug or other environmental triggers can induce antigen presentation of the clone cells activating a T cell–mediated inflammatory response.^2-4

The differential diagnosis includes other acquired Blaschko-linear dermatoses such as lichen striatus, inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevus, unilateral lichen planus, linear lichen sclerosus, linear psoriasis, linear fixed drug reaction, lichen nitidus, and others.^1,4 Given the overlap in clinical and histopathological presentations of the entities in the differential, it often is difficult to discern the etiology of the papular and vesicular eruption in question. Discrimination of one etiology from the others is further confounded by the fact that these lesions can all be pruritic and initially are treated with topical corticosteroids. A degree of clinical suspicion for blaschkitis coupled with prior understanding of lesional manifestations is helpful in this circumstance. Although classic lichen planus often affects the arms, legs, flexor surfaces, and occasionally the oral mucosa, blaschkitis generally is limited to the trunk. The lesions of lichen planus generally are violaceous, flattopped, polygonal papules that tend to coalesce. They often have a thin, transparent, and adherent scale overlying the papular lesions, and they occasionally demonstrate Wickham striae, which are faint white reticulated networks typically seen in oral mucosal lesions. In the case of lichen nitidus, lesions often follow a geometric line due to the Köbner response, whereas physical trauma from scratching or injury causes lesions to form along the line of insult. Assessing patients for any newly initiated medications can help eliminate lichenoid drug eruptions. Lichen striatus perhaps has the most overlap with blaschkitis, having been described as also following the lines of Blaschko but occurring in children rather than adults. Inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevi also can be distinguished from blaschkitis on this premise, as these lesions arise during the first 5 years of life and generally affect the lower extremities.^4,5

Histopathology is somewhat variable but generally includes spongiotic dermatitis with concomitant interface
dermatitis characterized by T-cell infiltration. Spongiosis is a feature less commonly seen in lichen striatus. Lesions can progress over time from spongiotic dermatitis to spongiotic psoriasiform dermatitis and later to spongiotic psoriasiform lichenoid dermatitis.⁴ Treatment of blaschkitis should begin with reassurance of the benign nature of the dermatosis. Pruritic symptoms can be managed with a course of topical steroids.

Blaschkitis is a rare and self-limiting acquired dermatosis that should be incorporated into the differential diagnosis of Blaschko-linear dermatoses. Further investigation is needed to determine if blaschkitis and lichen striatus represent the ends of a disease spectrum or completely distinct entities.

The Diagnosis: Blaschkitis

A punch biopsy from the right lateral hip was performed. Histopathologic examination revealed orthokeratosis overlying mild psoriasiform epidermal hyperplasia associated with a lichenoid infiltrate composed almost entirely of lymphocytes (Figure). The infiltrate did not entirely obscure the dermoepidermal junction and spared the adnexal structures. The clinical presentation along with histopathologic analysis confirmed a diagnosis of blaschkitis. The lesions were treated with triamcinolone ointment twice daily as needed, and the patient reported symptomatic and clinical improvement with this intervention at 4-week follow-up.

Described by Grosshans and Marot¹ in 1990, blaschkitis is an acquired inflammatory dermatosis following the lines of Blaschko. It predominantly is seen on the trunk and typically presents with pruritic papules and vesicles. It frequently has a relapsing course and is more commonly found in adults. Blaschkitis is considered a form of cutaneous mosaicism representing somatic mutations affecting epidermal cell growth and migration during embryogenesis. It has been proposed that these aberrant cells are not clinically apparent at birth; however, viral infection and drug or other environmental triggers can induce antigen presentation of the clone cells activating a T cell–mediated inflammatory response.^2-4

The differential diagnosis includes other acquired Blaschko-linear dermatoses such as lichen striatus, inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevus, unilateral lichen planus, linear lichen sclerosus, linear psoriasis, linear fixed drug reaction, lichen nitidus, and others.^1,4 Given the overlap in clinical and histopathological presentations of the entities in the differential, it often is difficult to discern the etiology of the papular and vesicular eruption in question. Discrimination of one etiology from the others is further confounded by the fact that these lesions can all be pruritic and initially are treated with topical corticosteroids. A degree of clinical suspicion for blaschkitis coupled with prior understanding of lesional manifestations is helpful in this circumstance. Although classic lichen planus often affects the arms, legs, flexor surfaces, and occasionally the oral mucosa, blaschkitis generally is limited to the trunk. The lesions of lichen planus generally are violaceous, flattopped, polygonal papules that tend to coalesce. They often have a thin, transparent, and adherent scale overlying the papular lesions, and they occasionally demonstrate Wickham striae, which are faint white reticulated networks typically seen in oral mucosal lesions. In the case of lichen nitidus, lesions often follow a geometric line due to the Köbner response, whereas physical trauma from scratching or injury causes lesions to form along the line of insult. Assessing patients for any newly initiated medications can help eliminate lichenoid drug eruptions. Lichen striatus perhaps has the most overlap with blaschkitis, having been described as also following the lines of Blaschko but occurring in children rather than adults. Inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevi also can be distinguished from blaschkitis on this premise, as these lesions arise during the first 5 years of life and generally affect the lower extremities.^4,5

Histopathology is somewhat variable but generally includes spongiotic dermatitis with concomitant interface
dermatitis characterized by T-cell infiltration. Spongiosis is a feature less commonly seen in lichen striatus. Lesions can progress over time from spongiotic dermatitis to spongiotic psoriasiform dermatitis and later to spongiotic psoriasiform lichenoid dermatitis.⁴ Treatment of blaschkitis should begin with reassurance of the benign nature of the dermatosis. Pruritic symptoms can be managed with a course of topical steroids.

Blaschkitis is a rare and self-limiting acquired dermatosis that should be incorporated into the differential diagnosis of Blaschko-linear dermatoses. Further investigation is needed to determine if blaschkitis and lichen striatus represent the ends of a disease spectrum or completely distinct entities.

The Diagnosis: Blaschkitis

A punch biopsy from the right lateral hip was performed. Histopathologic examination revealed orthokeratosis overlying mild psoriasiform epidermal hyperplasia associated with a lichenoid infiltrate composed almost entirely of lymphocytes (Figure). The infiltrate did not entirely obscure the dermoepidermal junction and spared the adnexal structures. The clinical presentation along with histopathologic analysis confirmed a diagnosis of blaschkitis. The lesions were treated with triamcinolone ointment twice daily as needed, and the patient reported symptomatic and clinical improvement with this intervention at 4-week follow-up.

Described by Grosshans and Marot¹ in 1990, blaschkitis is an acquired inflammatory dermatosis following the lines of Blaschko. It predominantly is seen on the trunk and typically presents with pruritic papules and vesicles. It frequently has a relapsing course and is more commonly found in adults. Blaschkitis is considered a form of cutaneous mosaicism representing somatic mutations affecting epidermal cell growth and migration during embryogenesis. It has been proposed that these aberrant cells are not clinically apparent at birth; however, viral infection and drug or other environmental triggers can induce antigen presentation of the clone cells activating a T cell–mediated inflammatory response.^2-4

The differential diagnosis includes other acquired Blaschko-linear dermatoses such as lichen striatus, inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevus, unilateral lichen planus, linear lichen sclerosus, linear psoriasis, linear fixed drug reaction, lichen nitidus, and others.^1,4 Given the overlap in clinical and histopathological presentations of the entities in the differential, it often is difficult to discern the etiology of the papular and vesicular eruption in question. Discrimination of one etiology from the others is further confounded by the fact that these lesions can all be pruritic and initially are treated with topical corticosteroids. A degree of clinical suspicion for blaschkitis coupled with prior understanding of lesional manifestations is helpful in this circumstance. Although classic lichen planus often affects the arms, legs, flexor surfaces, and occasionally the oral mucosa, blaschkitis generally is limited to the trunk. The lesions of lichen planus generally are violaceous, flattopped, polygonal papules that tend to coalesce. They often have a thin, transparent, and adherent scale overlying the papular lesions, and they occasionally demonstrate Wickham striae, which are faint white reticulated networks typically seen in oral mucosal lesions. In the case of lichen nitidus, lesions often follow a geometric line due to the Köbner response, whereas physical trauma from scratching or injury causes lesions to form along the line of insult. Assessing patients for any newly initiated medications can help eliminate lichenoid drug eruptions. Lichen striatus perhaps has the most overlap with blaschkitis, having been described as also following the lines of Blaschko but occurring in children rather than adults. Inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevi also can be distinguished from blaschkitis on this premise, as these lesions arise during the first 5 years of life and generally affect the lower extremities.^4,5

Histopathology is somewhat variable but generally includes spongiotic dermatitis with concomitant interface
dermatitis characterized by T-cell infiltration. Spongiosis is a feature less commonly seen in lichen striatus. Lesions can progress over time from spongiotic dermatitis to spongiotic psoriasiform dermatitis and later to spongiotic psoriasiform lichenoid dermatitis.⁴ Treatment of blaschkitis should begin with reassurance of the benign nature of the dermatosis. Pruritic symptoms can be managed with a course of topical steroids.

Blaschkitis is a rare and self-limiting acquired dermatosis that should be incorporated into the differential diagnosis of Blaschko-linear dermatoses. Further investigation is needed to determine if blaschkitis and lichen striatus represent the ends of a disease spectrum or completely distinct entities.

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

Myth: Psoriasis Is Only a Skin Problem

Psoriasis is predominantly regarded as a skin disease because of the outward clinical presentation of the condition. However, psoriasis is a disorder of the immune system and its damage may be more than skin deep.

Psoriasis commonly presents on the skin and nails, but a growing body of evidence has suggested that psoriasis is associated with systemic comorbidities. Up to 25% of psoriasis patients develop joint inflammation, and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) may precede skin involvement. There also is a risk for cardiovascular complications. Because of the emotional distress caused by psoriasis, patients may develop psychosocial disorders. Other conditions in patients with psoriasis include diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure, Crohn disease, and the metabolic syndrome.

Results from surveys conducted by the National Psoriasis Foundation from 2003 to 2011 found that the diagnosis of psoriasis preceded PsA in the majority of patients by a mean period of 14.6 years. Patients with moderate to severe psoriasis were more likely to develop PsA than patients with mild psoriasis. Furthermore, patients with severe psoriasis were more likely to develop diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease.

In a Cutis editorial, Dr. Jeffrey Weinberg emphasizes that the role of the dermatologist “is to identify and educate patients with psoriasis who are at risk of systemic complications and ensure appropriate follow-up for their treatment and overall health.” An infographic created by the American Academy of Dermatology illustrates areas of the body that may be impacted by psoriasis beyond the skin; for example, patients may develop eye problems, weight gain, or mood changes. Consider distributing this infographic to patients to show how psoriasis can affect more than their skin.

More Cutis content is available on psoriasis comorbidities:

• Do Psoriasis Patients Engage In Vigorous Physical Activity?
• The Role of Biologic Therapy for Psoriasis in Cardiovascular Risk Reduction
• VIDEO: Psoriasis and Internal Disease
• Uveitis and Psoriasis
• VIDEO: Update on Psoriasis Comorbidities

Myth: Psoriasis Is Only a Skin Problem

Psoriasis is predominantly regarded as a skin disease because of the outward clinical presentation of the condition. However, psoriasis is a disorder of the immune system and its damage may be more than skin deep.

Psoriasis commonly presents on the skin and nails, but a growing body of evidence has suggested that psoriasis is associated with systemic comorbidities. Up to 25% of psoriasis patients develop joint inflammation, and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) may precede skin involvement. There also is a risk for cardiovascular complications. Because of the emotional distress caused by psoriasis, patients may develop psychosocial disorders. Other conditions in patients with psoriasis include diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure, Crohn disease, and the metabolic syndrome.

Results from surveys conducted by the National Psoriasis Foundation from 2003 to 2011 found that the diagnosis of psoriasis preceded PsA in the majority of patients by a mean period of 14.6 years. Patients with moderate to severe psoriasis were more likely to develop PsA than patients with mild psoriasis. Furthermore, patients with severe psoriasis were more likely to develop diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease.

In a Cutis editorial, Dr. Jeffrey Weinberg emphasizes that the role of the dermatologist “is to identify and educate patients with psoriasis who are at risk of systemic complications and ensure appropriate follow-up for their treatment and overall health.” An infographic created by the American Academy of Dermatology illustrates areas of the body that may be impacted by psoriasis beyond the skin; for example, patients may develop eye problems, weight gain, or mood changes. Consider distributing this infographic to patients to show how psoriasis can affect more than their skin.

More Cutis content is available on psoriasis comorbidities:

• Do Psoriasis Patients Engage In Vigorous Physical Activity?
• The Role of Biologic Therapy for Psoriasis in Cardiovascular Risk Reduction
• VIDEO: Psoriasis and Internal Disease
• Uveitis and Psoriasis
• VIDEO: Update on Psoriasis Comorbidities

Myth: Psoriasis Is Only a Skin Problem

Psoriasis is predominantly regarded as a skin disease because of the outward clinical presentation of the condition. However, psoriasis is a disorder of the immune system and its damage may be more than skin deep.

Psoriasis commonly presents on the skin and nails, but a growing body of evidence has suggested that psoriasis is associated with systemic comorbidities. Up to 25% of psoriasis patients develop joint inflammation, and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) may precede skin involvement. There also is a risk for cardiovascular complications. Because of the emotional distress caused by psoriasis, patients may develop psychosocial disorders. Other conditions in patients with psoriasis include diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure, Crohn disease, and the metabolic syndrome.

Results from surveys conducted by the National Psoriasis Foundation from 2003 to 2011 found that the diagnosis of psoriasis preceded PsA in the majority of patients by a mean period of 14.6 years. Patients with moderate to severe psoriasis were more likely to develop PsA than patients with mild psoriasis. Furthermore, patients with severe psoriasis were more likely to develop diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease.

In a Cutis editorial, Dr. Jeffrey Weinberg emphasizes that the role of the dermatologist “is to identify and educate patients with psoriasis who are at risk of systemic complications and ensure appropriate follow-up for their treatment and overall health.” An infographic created by the American Academy of Dermatology illustrates areas of the body that may be impacted by psoriasis beyond the skin; for example, patients may develop eye problems, weight gain, or mood changes. Consider distributing this infographic to patients to show how psoriasis can affect more than their skin.

More Cutis content is available on psoriasis comorbidities:

• Do Psoriasis Patients Engage In Vigorous Physical Activity?
• The Role of Biologic Therapy for Psoriasis in Cardiovascular Risk Reduction
• VIDEO: Psoriasis and Internal Disease
• Uveitis and Psoriasis
• VIDEO: Update on Psoriasis Comorbidities

To the Editor:

Although relatively uncommon, hypersensitivity reactions to tattoo pigment are on the rise due to the increasing popularity and prevalence of tattoos.¹ Multiple adverse events have been described in association with tattoos, including inflammatory, infectious, and neoplastic responses.² An id reaction (also known as autoeczematization or autosensitization) develops distant to an initial site of infection or sensitization. We describe a unique case of an id reaction and subsequent development of prurigo nodules associated with contact allergy to red tattoo ink.

A 40-year-old woman was referred to the New York University Skin and Cancer Unit (New York, New York) for evaluation of a pruritic eruption arising on and near sites of tattooed skin on the right foot and right upper arm of 8 months’ duration. The patient reported that she had obtained a polychromatic tattoo on the right dorsal foot 9 months prior to the current presentation. Approximately 1 month later, she developed pruritic papulonodular lesions localized to the red-pigmented areas of the tattoo. Concomitantly, the patient developed a similar eruption confined to areas of red pigment in a polychromatic tattoo on the right upper arm that she had obtained 10 years prior. She was treated with intralesional triamcinolone to several of the lesions on the right dorsal foot with some benefit; however, a few days later she developed a generalized, erythematous, pruritic eruption on the back, abdomen, arms, and legs. Her medical history was remarkable only for mild iron-deficiency anemia. She had no known drug allergies or history of atopy and was not taking any medications prior to the onset of the eruption.

Skin examination revealed multiple, well-demarcated, eczematous papulonodules with surrounding erythema confined to the red-pigmented areas of the tattoo on the right dorsal foot, with several similar lesions on the surrounding nontattooed skin (Figure 1). Linear, well-demarcated, eczematous, hyperpigmented plaques also were noted on the red-pigmented areas of the tattoo on the patient’s right upper arm (Figure 2). Eczematous plaques and scattered excoriations were noted on the back, abdomen, flanks, arms, and legs.

Patch testing with the North American Standard Series, metal series, and samples of the red pigments used in the tattoo on the foot were negative. A punch biopsy of a lesion on the dorsal right foot showed a psoriasiform spongiotic dermatitis with eosinophils (Figure 3). Periodic acid–Schiff staining with diastase failed to reveal fungal hyphae. The histologic findings were consistent with allergic contact dermatitis. A punch biopsy of the eczematous reaction on nontattooed skin on the trunk demonstrated a perivascular dermatitis with eosinophils and subtle spongiosis consistent with an id reaction.

The patient was treated with fluocinonide ointment for several months with no effect. Subsequently, she received several short courses of oral prednisone, after which the affected areas of the tattoo on the arm and foot flattened and the id reaction resolved; however, after several months, the red-pigmented areas of the tattoo on the foot again became elevated and pruritic, and the patient developed widespread prurigo nodules on nontattooed skin on the trunk, arms, and legs. She was subsequently referred to a laser specialist for a trial of fractional laser treatment to cautiously remove the red tattoo pigment. After 2 treatments, the pruritus improved and the papular lesions appeared slightly flatter; however, the prurigo nodules remained. The tattoo on the patient’s foot was surgically removed; however, the prurigo nodules remained. Ultimately, the lesions cleared with a several-month course of mycophenolate mofetil.

Systemic allergic reactions to tattoo ink are rare but can cause considerable morbidity. An id reaction, also known as autoeczematization or autosensitization, is a reaction that develops distant to an initial site of infection or sensitization. Although the pathogenesis of this reaction is not certain, it has been hypothesized that autoimmunity to skin antigens might play a role.³ Autologous epidermal cells are thought to become antigenic in the presence of acute inflammation at the primary cutaneous site. These antigenic autologous epidermal cells are postulated to enter the circulation and cause secondary eczematous lesions at distant sites. This proposed mechanism is supported by the development of positive skin reactions to autologous extracts of epidermal scaling in patients with active id reaction.³

Hematogenous dissemination of cytokines has been implicated in id reactions.⁴ Keratinocytes produce cytokines in response to conditions that are known to trigger id reactions.⁵ Epidermal cytokines released from the primary site of sensitization are thought to heighten sensitivity at distant skin areas.⁴ These cytokines regulate both cell-mediated and humoral cutaneous immune responses. Increased levels of activated HLA-DR isotype–positive T cells in patients with active autoeczemization favors a cellular-mediated immune mechanism. The presence of activated antigen-specific T cells also supports the role of allergic contact dermatitis in triggering id reactions.⁶

Allergic contact dermatitis is the most common hypersensitivity reaction to tattoo ink, with red pigments representing the most common cause of tattoo-related allergic contact dermatitis. Historically, cinnabar (mercuric sulfide) has been the most common red pigment to cause allergic contact dermatitis.⁷ More recently, mercury-free organic pigments (eg, azo dyes) have been used in polychromatic tattoos due to their ability to retain color over long periods of time⁸; however, these organic red tattoo pigments also have been implicated in allergic reactions.^8-11 The composition of these new organic red tattoo pigments varies, but chemical analysis has revealed a mixture of aromatic azo compounds (eg, quinacridone),¹⁰ heavy metals (eg, aluminum, lead, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, iron, titanium),^9,12 and intermediate reactive compounds (eg, naphthalene, 2-naphthol, chlorobenzene, benzene).⁸ Allergic contact dermatitis to red tattoo ink is well documented^8,13; however, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms tattoo and dermatitis, tattoo and allergy, tattoo and autosensitization, tattoo and id reaction, and tattoo and autoeczematization yielded only 3 other reports of a concomitant id reaction.^11,14,15

The diagnosis of id reaction associated with allergic contact dermatitis is made on the basis of clinical history, physical examination, and histopathology. Patch testing usually is not positive in cases of tattoo allergy; it is thought that the allergen is a tattoo ink byproduct possibly caused by photoinduced or metabolic change of the tattoo pigment and a haptenization process.^1,8,16 Histologically, variable reaction patterns, including eczematous, lichenoid, granulomatous, and pseudolymphomatous reactions have been reported in association with delayed-type inflammatory reactions to tattoo pigments, but the lichenoid pattern is most commonly observed.⁸

Treatment options for allergic contact dermatitis to tattoo ink include topical, intralesional, and oral steroids; topical calcineurin inhibitors; and surgical excision of the tattoo. Q-switched lasers—ruby, Nd:YAG, and alexandrite—are the gold standard for removing tattoo pigments¹⁷; however, these lasers remove tattoo pigment by selective photothermolysis, resulting in extracellular extravasation of pigment, which can precipitate a heightened immune response that can lead to localized and generalized allergic reactions.¹⁸ Therefore, Q-switched lasers should be avoided in the setting of an allergic reaction to tattoo ink. Fractional ablative laser resurfacing may be a safer alternative for removal of tattoos in the setting of an allergic reaction.¹⁷ Further studies are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of this modality for allergic tattoo ink removal.^17,18

Our case illustrates a rare cause of id reaction and the subsequent development of prurigo nodules associated with contact allergy to red tattoo ink. We present this case to raise awareness of the potential health and iatrogenic risks associated with tattoo placement. Further investigation of these color additives is warranted to better elucidate ink components responsible for these cutaneous allergic reactions.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Vitaly Terushkin, MD (West Orange, New Jersey, and New York, New York), and Arielle Kauvar, MD (New York, New York), for their contributions to the patient’s clinical care.

To the Editor:

Although relatively uncommon, hypersensitivity reactions to tattoo pigment are on the rise due to the increasing popularity and prevalence of tattoos.¹ Multiple adverse events have been described in association with tattoos, including inflammatory, infectious, and neoplastic responses.² An id reaction (also known as autoeczematization or autosensitization) develops distant to an initial site of infection or sensitization. We describe a unique case of an id reaction and subsequent development of prurigo nodules associated with contact allergy to red tattoo ink.

A 40-year-old woman was referred to the New York University Skin and Cancer Unit (New York, New York) for evaluation of a pruritic eruption arising on and near sites of tattooed skin on the right foot and right upper arm of 8 months’ duration. The patient reported that she had obtained a polychromatic tattoo on the right dorsal foot 9 months prior to the current presentation. Approximately 1 month later, she developed pruritic papulonodular lesions localized to the red-pigmented areas of the tattoo. Concomitantly, the patient developed a similar eruption confined to areas of red pigment in a polychromatic tattoo on the right upper arm that she had obtained 10 years prior. She was treated with intralesional triamcinolone to several of the lesions on the right dorsal foot with some benefit; however, a few days later she developed a generalized, erythematous, pruritic eruption on the back, abdomen, arms, and legs. Her medical history was remarkable only for mild iron-deficiency anemia. She had no known drug allergies or history of atopy and was not taking any medications prior to the onset of the eruption.

Skin examination revealed multiple, well-demarcated, eczematous papulonodules with surrounding erythema confined to the red-pigmented areas of the tattoo on the right dorsal foot, with several similar lesions on the surrounding nontattooed skin (Figure 1). Linear, well-demarcated, eczematous, hyperpigmented plaques also were noted on the red-pigmented areas of the tattoo on the patient’s right upper arm (Figure 2). Eczematous plaques and scattered excoriations were noted on the back, abdomen, flanks, arms, and legs.

Patch testing with the North American Standard Series, metal series, and samples of the red pigments used in the tattoo on the foot were negative. A punch biopsy of a lesion on the dorsal right foot showed a psoriasiform spongiotic dermatitis with eosinophils (Figure 3). Periodic acid–Schiff staining with diastase failed to reveal fungal hyphae. The histologic findings were consistent with allergic contact dermatitis. A punch biopsy of the eczematous reaction on nontattooed skin on the trunk demonstrated a perivascular dermatitis with eosinophils and subtle spongiosis consistent with an id reaction.

The patient was treated with fluocinonide ointment for several months with no effect. Subsequently, she received several short courses of oral prednisone, after which the affected areas of the tattoo on the arm and foot flattened and the id reaction resolved; however, after several months, the red-pigmented areas of the tattoo on the foot again became elevated and pruritic, and the patient developed widespread prurigo nodules on nontattooed skin on the trunk, arms, and legs. She was subsequently referred to a laser specialist for a trial of fractional laser treatment to cautiously remove the red tattoo pigment. After 2 treatments, the pruritus improved and the papular lesions appeared slightly flatter; however, the prurigo nodules remained. The tattoo on the patient’s foot was surgically removed; however, the prurigo nodules remained. Ultimately, the lesions cleared with a several-month course of mycophenolate mofetil.

Systemic allergic reactions to tattoo ink are rare but can cause considerable morbidity. An id reaction, also known as autoeczematization or autosensitization, is a reaction that develops distant to an initial site of infection or sensitization. Although the pathogenesis of this reaction is not certain, it has been hypothesized that autoimmunity to skin antigens might play a role.³ Autologous epidermal cells are thought to become antigenic in the presence of acute inflammation at the primary cutaneous site. These antigenic autologous epidermal cells are postulated to enter the circulation and cause secondary eczematous lesions at distant sites. This proposed mechanism is supported by the development of positive skin reactions to autologous extracts of epidermal scaling in patients with active id reaction.³

Hematogenous dissemination of cytokines has been implicated in id reactions.⁴ Keratinocytes produce cytokines in response to conditions that are known to trigger id reactions.⁵ Epidermal cytokines released from the primary site of sensitization are thought to heighten sensitivity at distant skin areas.⁴ These cytokines regulate both cell-mediated and humoral cutaneous immune responses. Increased levels of activated HLA-DR isotype–positive T cells in patients with active autoeczemization favors a cellular-mediated immune mechanism. The presence of activated antigen-specific T cells also supports the role of allergic contact dermatitis in triggering id reactions.⁶

Allergic contact dermatitis is the most common hypersensitivity reaction to tattoo ink, with red pigments representing the most common cause of tattoo-related allergic contact dermatitis. Historically, cinnabar (mercuric sulfide) has been the most common red pigment to cause allergic contact dermatitis.⁷ More recently, mercury-free organic pigments (eg, azo dyes) have been used in polychromatic tattoos due to their ability to retain color over long periods of time⁸; however, these organic red tattoo pigments also have been implicated in allergic reactions.^8-11 The composition of these new organic red tattoo pigments varies, but chemical analysis has revealed a mixture of aromatic azo compounds (eg, quinacridone),¹⁰ heavy metals (eg, aluminum, lead, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, iron, titanium),^9,12 and intermediate reactive compounds (eg, naphthalene, 2-naphthol, chlorobenzene, benzene).⁸ Allergic contact dermatitis to red tattoo ink is well documented^8,13; however, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms tattoo and dermatitis, tattoo and allergy, tattoo and autosensitization, tattoo and id reaction, and tattoo and autoeczematization yielded only 3 other reports of a concomitant id reaction.^11,14,15

The diagnosis of id reaction associated with allergic contact dermatitis is made on the basis of clinical history, physical examination, and histopathology. Patch testing usually is not positive in cases of tattoo allergy; it is thought that the allergen is a tattoo ink byproduct possibly caused by photoinduced or metabolic change of the tattoo pigment and a haptenization process.^1,8,16 Histologically, variable reaction patterns, including eczematous, lichenoid, granulomatous, and pseudolymphomatous reactions have been reported in association with delayed-type inflammatory reactions to tattoo pigments, but the lichenoid pattern is most commonly observed.⁸

Treatment options for allergic contact dermatitis to tattoo ink include topical, intralesional, and oral steroids; topical calcineurin inhibitors; and surgical excision of the tattoo. Q-switched lasers—ruby, Nd:YAG, and alexandrite—are the gold standard for removing tattoo pigments¹⁷; however, these lasers remove tattoo pigment by selective photothermolysis, resulting in extracellular extravasation of pigment, which can precipitate a heightened immune response that can lead to localized and generalized allergic reactions.¹⁸ Therefore, Q-switched lasers should be avoided in the setting of an allergic reaction to tattoo ink. Fractional ablative laser resurfacing may be a safer alternative for removal of tattoos in the setting of an allergic reaction.¹⁷ Further studies are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of this modality for allergic tattoo ink removal.^17,18

Our case illustrates a rare cause of id reaction and the subsequent development of prurigo nodules associated with contact allergy to red tattoo ink. We present this case to raise awareness of the potential health and iatrogenic risks associated with tattoo placement. Further investigation of these color additives is warranted to better elucidate ink components responsible for these cutaneous allergic reactions.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Vitaly Terushkin, MD (West Orange, New Jersey, and New York, New York), and Arielle Kauvar, MD (New York, New York), for their contributions to the patient’s clinical care.

To the Editor:

Although relatively uncommon, hypersensitivity reactions to tattoo pigment are on the rise due to the increasing popularity and prevalence of tattoos.¹ Multiple adverse events have been described in association with tattoos, including inflammatory, infectious, and neoplastic responses.² An id reaction (also known as autoeczematization or autosensitization) develops distant to an initial site of infection or sensitization. We describe a unique case of an id reaction and subsequent development of prurigo nodules associated with contact allergy to red tattoo ink.

A 40-year-old woman was referred to the New York University Skin and Cancer Unit (New York, New York) for evaluation of a pruritic eruption arising on and near sites of tattooed skin on the right foot and right upper arm of 8 months’ duration. The patient reported that she had obtained a polychromatic tattoo on the right dorsal foot 9 months prior to the current presentation. Approximately 1 month later, she developed pruritic papulonodular lesions localized to the red-pigmented areas of the tattoo. Concomitantly, the patient developed a similar eruption confined to areas of red pigment in a polychromatic tattoo on the right upper arm that she had obtained 10 years prior. She was treated with intralesional triamcinolone to several of the lesions on the right dorsal foot with some benefit; however, a few days later she developed a generalized, erythematous, pruritic eruption on the back, abdomen, arms, and legs. Her medical history was remarkable only for mild iron-deficiency anemia. She had no known drug allergies or history of atopy and was not taking any medications prior to the onset of the eruption.

Skin examination revealed multiple, well-demarcated, eczematous papulonodules with surrounding erythema confined to the red-pigmented areas of the tattoo on the right dorsal foot, with several similar lesions on the surrounding nontattooed skin (Figure 1). Linear, well-demarcated, eczematous, hyperpigmented plaques also were noted on the red-pigmented areas of the tattoo on the patient’s right upper arm (Figure 2). Eczematous plaques and scattered excoriations were noted on the back, abdomen, flanks, arms, and legs.

Patch testing with the North American Standard Series, metal series, and samples of the red pigments used in the tattoo on the foot were negative. A punch biopsy of a lesion on the dorsal right foot showed a psoriasiform spongiotic dermatitis with eosinophils (Figure 3). Periodic acid–Schiff staining with diastase failed to reveal fungal hyphae. The histologic findings were consistent with allergic contact dermatitis. A punch biopsy of the eczematous reaction on nontattooed skin on the trunk demonstrated a perivascular dermatitis with eosinophils and subtle spongiosis consistent with an id reaction.

The patient was treated with fluocinonide ointment for several months with no effect. Subsequently, she received several short courses of oral prednisone, after which the affected areas of the tattoo on the arm and foot flattened and the id reaction resolved; however, after several months, the red-pigmented areas of the tattoo on the foot again became elevated and pruritic, and the patient developed widespread prurigo nodules on nontattooed skin on the trunk, arms, and legs. She was subsequently referred to a laser specialist for a trial of fractional laser treatment to cautiously remove the red tattoo pigment. After 2 treatments, the pruritus improved and the papular lesions appeared slightly flatter; however, the prurigo nodules remained. The tattoo on the patient’s foot was surgically removed; however, the prurigo nodules remained. Ultimately, the lesions cleared with a several-month course of mycophenolate mofetil.

Systemic allergic reactions to tattoo ink are rare but can cause considerable morbidity. An id reaction, also known as autoeczematization or autosensitization, is a reaction that develops distant to an initial site of infection or sensitization. Although the pathogenesis of this reaction is not certain, it has been hypothesized that autoimmunity to skin antigens might play a role.³ Autologous epidermal cells are thought to become antigenic in the presence of acute inflammation at the primary cutaneous site. These antigenic autologous epidermal cells are postulated to enter the circulation and cause secondary eczematous lesions at distant sites. This proposed mechanism is supported by the development of positive skin reactions to autologous extracts of epidermal scaling in patients with active id reaction.³

Hematogenous dissemination of cytokines has been implicated in id reactions.⁴ Keratinocytes produce cytokines in response to conditions that are known to trigger id reactions.⁵ Epidermal cytokines released from the primary site of sensitization are thought to heighten sensitivity at distant skin areas.⁴ These cytokines regulate both cell-mediated and humoral cutaneous immune responses. Increased levels of activated HLA-DR isotype–positive T cells in patients with active autoeczemization favors a cellular-mediated immune mechanism. The presence of activated antigen-specific T cells also supports the role of allergic contact dermatitis in triggering id reactions.⁶

Allergic contact dermatitis is the most common hypersensitivity reaction to tattoo ink, with red pigments representing the most common cause of tattoo-related allergic contact dermatitis. Historically, cinnabar (mercuric sulfide) has been the most common red pigment to cause allergic contact dermatitis.⁷ More recently, mercury-free organic pigments (eg, azo dyes) have been used in polychromatic tattoos due to their ability to retain color over long periods of time⁸; however, these organic red tattoo pigments also have been implicated in allergic reactions.^8-11 The composition of these new organic red tattoo pigments varies, but chemical analysis has revealed a mixture of aromatic azo compounds (eg, quinacridone),¹⁰ heavy metals (eg, aluminum, lead, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, iron, titanium),^9,12 and intermediate reactive compounds (eg, naphthalene, 2-naphthol, chlorobenzene, benzene).⁸ Allergic contact dermatitis to red tattoo ink is well documented^8,13; however, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms tattoo and dermatitis, tattoo and allergy, tattoo and autosensitization, tattoo and id reaction, and tattoo and autoeczematization yielded only 3 other reports of a concomitant id reaction.^11,14,15

The diagnosis of id reaction associated with allergic contact dermatitis is made on the basis of clinical history, physical examination, and histopathology. Patch testing usually is not positive in cases of tattoo allergy; it is thought that the allergen is a tattoo ink byproduct possibly caused by photoinduced or metabolic change of the tattoo pigment and a haptenization process.^1,8,16 Histologically, variable reaction patterns, including eczematous, lichenoid, granulomatous, and pseudolymphomatous reactions have been reported in association with delayed-type inflammatory reactions to tattoo pigments, but the lichenoid pattern is most commonly observed.⁸

Treatment options for allergic contact dermatitis to tattoo ink include topical, intralesional, and oral steroids; topical calcineurin inhibitors; and surgical excision of the tattoo. Q-switched lasers—ruby, Nd:YAG, and alexandrite—are the gold standard for removing tattoo pigments¹⁷; however, these lasers remove tattoo pigment by selective photothermolysis, resulting in extracellular extravasation of pigment, which can precipitate a heightened immune response that can lead to localized and generalized allergic reactions.¹⁸ Therefore, Q-switched lasers should be avoided in the setting of an allergic reaction to tattoo ink. Fractional ablative laser resurfacing may be a safer alternative for removal of tattoos in the setting of an allergic reaction.¹⁷ Further studies are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of this modality for allergic tattoo ink removal.^17,18

Our case illustrates a rare cause of id reaction and the subsequent development of prurigo nodules associated with contact allergy to red tattoo ink. We present this case to raise awareness of the potential health and iatrogenic risks associated with tattoo placement. Further investigation of these color additives is warranted to better elucidate ink components responsible for these cutaneous allergic reactions.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Vitaly Terushkin, MD (West Orange, New Jersey, and New York, New York), and Arielle Kauvar, MD (New York, New York), for their contributions to the patient’s clinical care.

To the Editor:

Disseminated cryptococcosis is a well-known opportunistic infection in patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, but it is not frequently seen as a primary infection of the skin in immunocompetent hosts. We report a case of primary cutaneous cryptococcosis (PCC) of the lower legs in an immunocompetent Iraq War veteran.

A 28-year-old female service member presented to the dermatology clinic with progressively enlarging plaquelike lesions on the shins of 6 months’ duration. The patient had resided and worked as a deployed soldier in the lower level of a bullet hole–laden, pigeon-infested observation tower in southern Iraq 9 months prior to the current presentation. During her 7-month deployment, she reported daily exposure to pigeon excreta on equipment and frequently sustained superficial abrasions and lacerations to the legs due to the cramped and hazardous working environment. The patient noticed intensely pruritic, bugbitelike papular lesions on the shins and calves 1 month after residing in the observation tower. She sought medical treatment and was given hydrocortisone cream 1% and calamine lotion for a presumed irritant dermatitis. Over the ensuing 3 months, the pruritus worsened, and the primary lesions coalesced into annular erythematous plaques (Figure).

After returning to the United States, the patient presented again for medical care and was given ketoconazole cream 1% for presumed tinea corporis, which resulted in no improvement. A dermatologic consultation and evaluation ensued with subsequent microbial workup showing no bacterial growth on wound culture and no fungal elements on a potassium hydroxide preparation. Hematoxylin and eosin, periodic acid–Schiff, and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining did not demonstrate any organisms. Tissue cultures for bacteria and acid-fast bacilli showed no growth. A fungal tissue culture ultimately confirmed the presence of Cryptococcus neoformans. A lumbar puncture showed no evidence of Cryptococcus on DNA probe testing. Serologic testing for HIV was negative, and brain magnetic resonance imaging showed no lesions. Sputum culture and staining showed no fungal elements, and a chest radiograph was normal. A diagnosis of PCC was made and therapy with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice daily was initiated, with the intention of completing a 6-month course. During the treatment, the pruritus resolved within 3 weeks and the lesions involuted over 3 months. From the time of onset of the lesions throughout treatment, the patient showed no pulmonary, neurologic, or other systemic symptoms. She currently is healthy with no evidence of recurrence.

Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis mainly affects individuals with underlying immunosuppression, most commonly due to advanced HIV, prolonged treatment with immunosuppressive medications, or organ transplantation.¹ The most common route of inoculation is by inhalation of Cryptococcus spores with subsequent hematogenous dissemination.² Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis with skin lesions and no concomitant systemic involvement has rarely been reported, and when encountered, it usually is associated with environments that predispose patients to skin wounds with simultaneous exposure to soil or vegetative debris contaminated with bird excreta.³ Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis can present in a myriad of ways, including papules, nodules, plaques, and even necrotizing fasciitis–like skin lesions.^4,5 This variable presentation often creates clinical confusion and diagnostic delay; therefore, a high index of suspicion is required for timely diagnosis.

Due to the worldwide deployment of US military service members, exotic cutaneous infectious diseases such as PCC may be encountered in dermatology practice. Prompt clinical and histologic diagnosis is imperative to assess for systemic disease and avoid cutaneous spread and morbidity in US service members and travelers returning home from the Middle East.

To the Editor:

Disseminated cryptococcosis is a well-known opportunistic infection in patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, but it is not frequently seen as a primary infection of the skin in immunocompetent hosts. We report a case of primary cutaneous cryptococcosis (PCC) of the lower legs in an immunocompetent Iraq War veteran.

A 28-year-old female service member presented to the dermatology clinic with progressively enlarging plaquelike lesions on the shins of 6 months’ duration. The patient had resided and worked as a deployed soldier in the lower level of a bullet hole–laden, pigeon-infested observation tower in southern Iraq 9 months prior to the current presentation. During her 7-month deployment, she reported daily exposure to pigeon excreta on equipment and frequently sustained superficial abrasions and lacerations to the legs due to the cramped and hazardous working environment. The patient noticed intensely pruritic, bugbitelike papular lesions on the shins and calves 1 month after residing in the observation tower. She sought medical treatment and was given hydrocortisone cream 1% and calamine lotion for a presumed irritant dermatitis. Over the ensuing 3 months, the pruritus worsened, and the primary lesions coalesced into annular erythematous plaques (Figure).

After returning to the United States, the patient presented again for medical care and was given ketoconazole cream 1% for presumed tinea corporis, which resulted in no improvement. A dermatologic consultation and evaluation ensued with subsequent microbial workup showing no bacterial growth on wound culture and no fungal elements on a potassium hydroxide preparation. Hematoxylin and eosin, periodic acid–Schiff, and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining did not demonstrate any organisms. Tissue cultures for bacteria and acid-fast bacilli showed no growth. A fungal tissue culture ultimately confirmed the presence of Cryptococcus neoformans. A lumbar puncture showed no evidence of Cryptococcus on DNA probe testing. Serologic testing for HIV was negative, and brain magnetic resonance imaging showed no lesions. Sputum culture and staining showed no fungal elements, and a chest radiograph was normal. A diagnosis of PCC was made and therapy with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice daily was initiated, with the intention of completing a 6-month course. During the treatment, the pruritus resolved within 3 weeks and the lesions involuted over 3 months. From the time of onset of the lesions throughout treatment, the patient showed no pulmonary, neurologic, or other systemic symptoms. She currently is healthy with no evidence of recurrence.

Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis mainly affects individuals with underlying immunosuppression, most commonly due to advanced HIV, prolonged treatment with immunosuppressive medications, or organ transplantation.¹ The most common route of inoculation is by inhalation of Cryptococcus spores with subsequent hematogenous dissemination.² Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis with skin lesions and no concomitant systemic involvement has rarely been reported, and when encountered, it usually is associated with environments that predispose patients to skin wounds with simultaneous exposure to soil or vegetative debris contaminated with bird excreta.³ Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis can present in a myriad of ways, including papules, nodules, plaques, and even necrotizing fasciitis–like skin lesions.^4,5 This variable presentation often creates clinical confusion and diagnostic delay; therefore, a high index of suspicion is required for timely diagnosis.

Due to the worldwide deployment of US military service members, exotic cutaneous infectious diseases such as PCC may be encountered in dermatology practice. Prompt clinical and histologic diagnosis is imperative to assess for systemic disease and avoid cutaneous spread and morbidity in US service members and travelers returning home from the Middle East.

To the Editor:

Disseminated cryptococcosis is a well-known opportunistic infection in patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, but it is not frequently seen as a primary infection of the skin in immunocompetent hosts. We report a case of primary cutaneous cryptococcosis (PCC) of the lower legs in an immunocompetent Iraq War veteran.

A 28-year-old female service member presented to the dermatology clinic with progressively enlarging plaquelike lesions on the shins of 6 months’ duration. The patient had resided and worked as a deployed soldier in the lower level of a bullet hole–laden, pigeon-infested observation tower in southern Iraq 9 months prior to the current presentation. During her 7-month deployment, she reported daily exposure to pigeon excreta on equipment and frequently sustained superficial abrasions and lacerations to the legs due to the cramped and hazardous working environment. The patient noticed intensely pruritic, bugbitelike papular lesions on the shins and calves 1 month after residing in the observation tower. She sought medical treatment and was given hydrocortisone cream 1% and calamine lotion for a presumed irritant dermatitis. Over the ensuing 3 months, the pruritus worsened, and the primary lesions coalesced into annular erythematous plaques (Figure).

After returning to the United States, the patient presented again for medical care and was given ketoconazole cream 1% for presumed tinea corporis, which resulted in no improvement. A dermatologic consultation and evaluation ensued with subsequent microbial workup showing no bacterial growth on wound culture and no fungal elements on a potassium hydroxide preparation. Hematoxylin and eosin, periodic acid–Schiff, and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining did not demonstrate any organisms. Tissue cultures for bacteria and acid-fast bacilli showed no growth. A fungal tissue culture ultimately confirmed the presence of Cryptococcus neoformans. A lumbar puncture showed no evidence of Cryptococcus on DNA probe testing. Serologic testing for HIV was negative, and brain magnetic resonance imaging showed no lesions. Sputum culture and staining showed no fungal elements, and a chest radiograph was normal. A diagnosis of PCC was made and therapy with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice daily was initiated, with the intention of completing a 6-month course. During the treatment, the pruritus resolved within 3 weeks and the lesions involuted over 3 months. From the time of onset of the lesions throughout treatment, the patient showed no pulmonary, neurologic, or other systemic symptoms. She currently is healthy with no evidence of recurrence.

Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis mainly affects individuals with underlying immunosuppression, most commonly due to advanced HIV, prolonged treatment with immunosuppressive medications, or organ transplantation.¹ The most common route of inoculation is by inhalation of Cryptococcus spores with subsequent hematogenous dissemination.² Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis with skin lesions and no concomitant systemic involvement has rarely been reported, and when encountered, it usually is associated with environments that predispose patients to skin wounds with simultaneous exposure to soil or vegetative debris contaminated with bird excreta.³ Primary cutaneous cryptococcosis can present in a myriad of ways, including papules, nodules, plaques, and even necrotizing fasciitis–like skin lesions.^4,5 This variable presentation often creates clinical confusion and diagnostic delay; therefore, a high index of suspicion is required for timely diagnosis.

Due to the worldwide deployment of US military service members, exotic cutaneous infectious diseases such as PCC may be encountered in dermatology practice. Prompt clinical and histologic diagnosis is imperative to assess for systemic disease and avoid cutaneous spread and morbidity in US service members and travelers returning home from the Middle East.