Cutis

Adult-onset Still disease (AOSD) is a systemic inflammatory condition that clinically manifests as spiking fevers, arthralgia, evanescent skin rash, and lymphadenopathy. ¹ The most commonly used criteria for diagnosing AOSD are the Yamaguchi criteria. ² The major criteria include high fever for more than 1 week, arthralgia for more than 2 weeks, leukocytosis, and an evanescent skin rash. The minor criteria consist of sore throat, lymphadenopathy and/or splenomegaly, liver dysfunction, and negative rheumatoid factor and antinuclear antibodies. Classically, the skin rash is described as an evanescent, salmon-colored erythema involving the extremities. Nevertheless, unusual cutaneous eruptions have been reported in AOSD, including persistent pruritic papules and plaques. ³ Importantly, this atypical rash demonstrates specific histologic findings that are not found on routine histopathology of a typical evanescent rash. We describe 2 patients with this atypical cutaneous eruption along with the unique histopathologic findings of AOSD.

Case Reports

Patient 1
A 23-year-old Chinese woman presented with periodic fevers, persistent rash, and joint pain of 2 years’ duration. Her medical history included splenectomy for hepatosplenomegaly as well as evaluation by hematology for lymphadenopathy; a cervical lymph node biopsy showed lymphoid and follicular hyperplasia.

Twenty days later, the patient was referred to the dermatology department for evaluation of the persistent rash. The patient described a history of flushing of the face, severe joint pain in both arms and legs, aching muscles, and persistent sore throat. The patient did not report any history of drug ingestion. Physical examination revealed a fever (temperature, 39.2°C); swollen nontender lymph nodes in the neck, axillae, and groin; and salmon-colored and hyperpigmented patches and thin plaques over the neck, chest, abdomen, and arms (Figure 1). A splenectomy scar also was noted. Peripheral blood was collected for laboratory analyses, which revealed transaminitis and moderate hyperferritinemia (Table). An autoimmune panel was negative for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibodies, and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies. The patient was admitted to the hospital, and a skin biopsy was performed. Histology showed superficial dyskeratotic keratinocytes and sparse perivascular infiltration of neutrophils in the upper dermis (Figure 2).

The patient was diagnosed with AOSD based on fulfillment of the Yamaguchi criteria.² She was treated with methylprednisolone 60 mg daily and was discharged 14 days later. At 16-month follow-up, the patient demonstrated complete resolution of symptoms with a maintenance dose of prednisolone (7.5 mg daily).

Patient 2
A 23-year-old black woman presented to the emergency department 3 months postpartum with recurrent high fevers, worsening joint pain, and persistent itchy rash of 2 months’ duration. The patient had no history of travel, autoimmune disease, or sick contacts. She occasionally took aspirin for joint pain. Physical examination revealed a fever (temperature, 39.1°C) along with hyperpigmented patches and thin scaly hyperpigmented papules coalescing into a poorly demarcated V-shaped plaque on the upper back and posterior neck, extending to the chest in a shawl-like distribution (Figure 3). Submental lymphadenopathy was present. The spleen was not palpable.

Peripheral blood was collected for laboratory analysis and demonstrated transaminitis and a markedly high ferritin level (Table). An autoimmune panel was negative for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibodies, and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies. Skin biopsy was performed and demonstrated many necrotic keratinocytes, singly and in aggregates, distributed from the spinous layer to the stratum corneum. A neutrophilic infiltrate was present in the papillary dermis (Figure 4).

The patient met the Yamaguchi criteria and was subsequently diagnosed with AOSD. She was treated with intravenous methylprednisolone 20 mg every 8 hours and was discharged 1 week later on oral prednisone 60 mg daily to be tapered over a period of months. At 2-week follow-up, the patient continued to experience rash and joint pain; oral methotrexate 10 mg weekly was added to her regimen, as well as vitamin D, calcium, and folic acid supplementation. At the next 2-week follow-up the patient noted improvement in the rash as well as the joint pain, but both still persisted. Prednisone was decreased to 50 mg daily and methotrexate was increased to 15 mg weekly. The patient continued to show improvement over the subsequent 3 months, during which prednisone was tapered to 10 mg daily and methotrexate was increased to 20 mg weekly. The patient showed resolution of symptoms at 3-month follow-up on this regimen, with plans to continue the prednisone taper and maintain methotrexate dosing.

Comment

Adult-onset Still disease is a systemic inflammatory condition that clinically manifests as spiking fevers, arthralgia, salmon-pink evanescent erythema, and lymphadenopathy.² The condition also can cause liver dysfunction, splenomegaly, pericarditis, pleuritis, renal dysfunction, and a reactive hemophagocytic syndrome.¹ Furthermore, one review of the literature described an association with delayed-onset malignancy.⁴ Early diagnosis is important yet challenging, as AOSD is a diagnosis of exclusion. The Yamaguchi criteria are the most widely used method of diagnosis and demonstrate more than 90% sensitivity.In addition to the Yamaguchi criteria, marked hyperferritinemia is characteristic of AOSD and can act as an indicator of disease activity.⁵ Interestingly, both of our patients had elevated ferritin levels, with patient 2 showing marked elevation (Table). In both patients, all major criteria were fulfilled, except the typical skin rash.

The skin rash in AOSD, classically consisting of an evanescent, salmon-pink erythema predominantly involving the extremities, has been observed in up to 87% of AOSD patients.⁵ The histology of the typical evanescent rash is nonspecific, characterized by a relatively sparse, perivascular, mixed inflammatory infiltrate. Notably, other skin manifestations may be found in patients with AOSD.^1,2,5-16 Persistent pruritic papules and plaques are the most commonly reported nonclassical rash, presenting as erythematous, slightly scaly papules and plaques with a linear configuration typically on the trunk.² Both of our patients presented with this atypical eruption. Importantly, the histopathology of this unique rash displays distinctive features, which can aid in early diagnosis. Findings include dyskeratotic keratinocytes in the cornified layers as well as in the epidermis, and a sparse neutrophilic and/or lymphocytic infiltrate in the papillary dermis without vasculitis. These findings were evident in both histopathologic studies of our patients (Figures 2 and 4). Although not present in our patients, dermal mucin deposition has been demonstrated in some reports.^1,13,15

A 2015 review of the literature yielded 30 cases of AOSD with pruritic persistent papules and plaques.⁴ The study confirmed a linear, erythematous or brown rash on the back and neck in the majority of cases. Histologic findings were congruent with those reported in our 2 cases: necrotic keratinocytes in the upper epidermis with a neutrophilic infiltrate in the upper dermis without vasculitis. Most patients showed rapid resolution of the rash and symptoms with the use of prednisone, prednisolone, or intravenous pulsed methylprednisolone. Interestingly, a range of presentations were noted, including prurigo pigmentosalike urticarial papules; lichenoid papules; and dermatographismlike, dermatomyositislike, and lichen amyloidosis–like rashes.⁴ In our report, patient 2 presented with a rash in a dermat-omyositislike shawl distribution. It has been suggested that patients with dermatomyositislike rashes require more potent immunotherapy as compared to patients with other rash morphologies.⁴ The need for methotrexate in addition to a prednisone taper in the clinical course of patient 2 lends further support to this observation.

Conclusion

A clinically and pathologically distinct form of cutaneous disease—AOSD with persistent pruritic papules and plaques—was observed in our 2 patients. These histopathologic findings facilitated timely diagnosis in both patients. A range of clinical morphologies may exist in AOSD, an awareness of which is paramount. Adult-onset Still disease should be included in the differential diagnosis of a dermatomyositislike presentation in a shawl distribution. Prompt diagnosis is essential to ensure adequate therapy.

Adult-onset Still disease (AOSD) is a systemic inflammatory condition that clinically manifests as spiking fevers, arthralgia, evanescent skin rash, and lymphadenopathy. ¹ The most commonly used criteria for diagnosing AOSD are the Yamaguchi criteria. ² The major criteria include high fever for more than 1 week, arthralgia for more than 2 weeks, leukocytosis, and an evanescent skin rash. The minor criteria consist of sore throat, lymphadenopathy and/or splenomegaly, liver dysfunction, and negative rheumatoid factor and antinuclear antibodies. Classically, the skin rash is described as an evanescent, salmon-colored erythema involving the extremities. Nevertheless, unusual cutaneous eruptions have been reported in AOSD, including persistent pruritic papules and plaques. ³ Importantly, this atypical rash demonstrates specific histologic findings that are not found on routine histopathology of a typical evanescent rash. We describe 2 patients with this atypical cutaneous eruption along with the unique histopathologic findings of AOSD.

Case Reports

Patient 1
A 23-year-old Chinese woman presented with periodic fevers, persistent rash, and joint pain of 2 years’ duration. Her medical history included splenectomy for hepatosplenomegaly as well as evaluation by hematology for lymphadenopathy; a cervical lymph node biopsy showed lymphoid and follicular hyperplasia.

Twenty days later, the patient was referred to the dermatology department for evaluation of the persistent rash. The patient described a history of flushing of the face, severe joint pain in both arms and legs, aching muscles, and persistent sore throat. The patient did not report any history of drug ingestion. Physical examination revealed a fever (temperature, 39.2°C); swollen nontender lymph nodes in the neck, axillae, and groin; and salmon-colored and hyperpigmented patches and thin plaques over the neck, chest, abdomen, and arms (Figure 1). A splenectomy scar also was noted. Peripheral blood was collected for laboratory analyses, which revealed transaminitis and moderate hyperferritinemia (Table). An autoimmune panel was negative for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibodies, and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies. The patient was admitted to the hospital, and a skin biopsy was performed. Histology showed superficial dyskeratotic keratinocytes and sparse perivascular infiltration of neutrophils in the upper dermis (Figure 2).

The patient was diagnosed with AOSD based on fulfillment of the Yamaguchi criteria.² She was treated with methylprednisolone 60 mg daily and was discharged 14 days later. At 16-month follow-up, the patient demonstrated complete resolution of symptoms with a maintenance dose of prednisolone (7.5 mg daily).

Patient 2
A 23-year-old black woman presented to the emergency department 3 months postpartum with recurrent high fevers, worsening joint pain, and persistent itchy rash of 2 months’ duration. The patient had no history of travel, autoimmune disease, or sick contacts. She occasionally took aspirin for joint pain. Physical examination revealed a fever (temperature, 39.1°C) along with hyperpigmented patches and thin scaly hyperpigmented papules coalescing into a poorly demarcated V-shaped plaque on the upper back and posterior neck, extending to the chest in a shawl-like distribution (Figure 3). Submental lymphadenopathy was present. The spleen was not palpable.

Peripheral blood was collected for laboratory analysis and demonstrated transaminitis and a markedly high ferritin level (Table). An autoimmune panel was negative for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibodies, and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies. Skin biopsy was performed and demonstrated many necrotic keratinocytes, singly and in aggregates, distributed from the spinous layer to the stratum corneum. A neutrophilic infiltrate was present in the papillary dermis (Figure 4).

The patient met the Yamaguchi criteria and was subsequently diagnosed with AOSD. She was treated with intravenous methylprednisolone 20 mg every 8 hours and was discharged 1 week later on oral prednisone 60 mg daily to be tapered over a period of months. At 2-week follow-up, the patient continued to experience rash and joint pain; oral methotrexate 10 mg weekly was added to her regimen, as well as vitamin D, calcium, and folic acid supplementation. At the next 2-week follow-up the patient noted improvement in the rash as well as the joint pain, but both still persisted. Prednisone was decreased to 50 mg daily and methotrexate was increased to 15 mg weekly. The patient continued to show improvement over the subsequent 3 months, during which prednisone was tapered to 10 mg daily and methotrexate was increased to 20 mg weekly. The patient showed resolution of symptoms at 3-month follow-up on this regimen, with plans to continue the prednisone taper and maintain methotrexate dosing.

Comment

Adult-onset Still disease is a systemic inflammatory condition that clinically manifests as spiking fevers, arthralgia, salmon-pink evanescent erythema, and lymphadenopathy.² The condition also can cause liver dysfunction, splenomegaly, pericarditis, pleuritis, renal dysfunction, and a reactive hemophagocytic syndrome.¹ Furthermore, one review of the literature described an association with delayed-onset malignancy.⁴ Early diagnosis is important yet challenging, as AOSD is a diagnosis of exclusion. The Yamaguchi criteria are the most widely used method of diagnosis and demonstrate more than 90% sensitivity.In addition to the Yamaguchi criteria, marked hyperferritinemia is characteristic of AOSD and can act as an indicator of disease activity.⁵ Interestingly, both of our patients had elevated ferritin levels, with patient 2 showing marked elevation (Table). In both patients, all major criteria were fulfilled, except the typical skin rash.

The skin rash in AOSD, classically consisting of an evanescent, salmon-pink erythema predominantly involving the extremities, has been observed in up to 87% of AOSD patients.⁵ The histology of the typical evanescent rash is nonspecific, characterized by a relatively sparse, perivascular, mixed inflammatory infiltrate. Notably, other skin manifestations may be found in patients with AOSD.^1,2,5-16 Persistent pruritic papules and plaques are the most commonly reported nonclassical rash, presenting as erythematous, slightly scaly papules and plaques with a linear configuration typically on the trunk.² Both of our patients presented with this atypical eruption. Importantly, the histopathology of this unique rash displays distinctive features, which can aid in early diagnosis. Findings include dyskeratotic keratinocytes in the cornified layers as well as in the epidermis, and a sparse neutrophilic and/or lymphocytic infiltrate in the papillary dermis without vasculitis. These findings were evident in both histopathologic studies of our patients (Figures 2 and 4). Although not present in our patients, dermal mucin deposition has been demonstrated in some reports.^1,13,15

A 2015 review of the literature yielded 30 cases of AOSD with pruritic persistent papules and plaques.⁴ The study confirmed a linear, erythematous or brown rash on the back and neck in the majority of cases. Histologic findings were congruent with those reported in our 2 cases: necrotic keratinocytes in the upper epidermis with a neutrophilic infiltrate in the upper dermis without vasculitis. Most patients showed rapid resolution of the rash and symptoms with the use of prednisone, prednisolone, or intravenous pulsed methylprednisolone. Interestingly, a range of presentations were noted, including prurigo pigmentosalike urticarial papules; lichenoid papules; and dermatographismlike, dermatomyositislike, and lichen amyloidosis–like rashes.⁴ In our report, patient 2 presented with a rash in a dermat-omyositislike shawl distribution. It has been suggested that patients with dermatomyositislike rashes require more potent immunotherapy as compared to patients with other rash morphologies.⁴ The need for methotrexate in addition to a prednisone taper in the clinical course of patient 2 lends further support to this observation.

Conclusion

A clinically and pathologically distinct form of cutaneous disease—AOSD with persistent pruritic papules and plaques—was observed in our 2 patients. These histopathologic findings facilitated timely diagnosis in both patients. A range of clinical morphologies may exist in AOSD, an awareness of which is paramount. Adult-onset Still disease should be included in the differential diagnosis of a dermatomyositislike presentation in a shawl distribution. Prompt diagnosis is essential to ensure adequate therapy.

Adult-onset Still disease (AOSD) is a systemic inflammatory condition that clinically manifests as spiking fevers, arthralgia, evanescent skin rash, and lymphadenopathy. ¹ The most commonly used criteria for diagnosing AOSD are the Yamaguchi criteria. ² The major criteria include high fever for more than 1 week, arthralgia for more than 2 weeks, leukocytosis, and an evanescent skin rash. The minor criteria consist of sore throat, lymphadenopathy and/or splenomegaly, liver dysfunction, and negative rheumatoid factor and antinuclear antibodies. Classically, the skin rash is described as an evanescent, salmon-colored erythema involving the extremities. Nevertheless, unusual cutaneous eruptions have been reported in AOSD, including persistent pruritic papules and plaques. ³ Importantly, this atypical rash demonstrates specific histologic findings that are not found on routine histopathology of a typical evanescent rash. We describe 2 patients with this atypical cutaneous eruption along with the unique histopathologic findings of AOSD.

Case Reports

Patient 1
A 23-year-old Chinese woman presented with periodic fevers, persistent rash, and joint pain of 2 years’ duration. Her medical history included splenectomy for hepatosplenomegaly as well as evaluation by hematology for lymphadenopathy; a cervical lymph node biopsy showed lymphoid and follicular hyperplasia.

Twenty days later, the patient was referred to the dermatology department for evaluation of the persistent rash. The patient described a history of flushing of the face, severe joint pain in both arms and legs, aching muscles, and persistent sore throat. The patient did not report any history of drug ingestion. Physical examination revealed a fever (temperature, 39.2°C); swollen nontender lymph nodes in the neck, axillae, and groin; and salmon-colored and hyperpigmented patches and thin plaques over the neck, chest, abdomen, and arms (Figure 1). A splenectomy scar also was noted. Peripheral blood was collected for laboratory analyses, which revealed transaminitis and moderate hyperferritinemia (Table). An autoimmune panel was negative for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibodies, and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies. The patient was admitted to the hospital, and a skin biopsy was performed. Histology showed superficial dyskeratotic keratinocytes and sparse perivascular infiltration of neutrophils in the upper dermis (Figure 2).

The patient was diagnosed with AOSD based on fulfillment of the Yamaguchi criteria.² She was treated with methylprednisolone 60 mg daily and was discharged 14 days later. At 16-month follow-up, the patient demonstrated complete resolution of symptoms with a maintenance dose of prednisolone (7.5 mg daily).

Patient 2
A 23-year-old black woman presented to the emergency department 3 months postpartum with recurrent high fevers, worsening joint pain, and persistent itchy rash of 2 months’ duration. The patient had no history of travel, autoimmune disease, or sick contacts. She occasionally took aspirin for joint pain. Physical examination revealed a fever (temperature, 39.1°C) along with hyperpigmented patches and thin scaly hyperpigmented papules coalescing into a poorly demarcated V-shaped plaque on the upper back and posterior neck, extending to the chest in a shawl-like distribution (Figure 3). Submental lymphadenopathy was present. The spleen was not palpable.

Peripheral blood was collected for laboratory analysis and demonstrated transaminitis and a markedly high ferritin level (Table). An autoimmune panel was negative for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibodies, and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies. Skin biopsy was performed and demonstrated many necrotic keratinocytes, singly and in aggregates, distributed from the spinous layer to the stratum corneum. A neutrophilic infiltrate was present in the papillary dermis (Figure 4).

The patient met the Yamaguchi criteria and was subsequently diagnosed with AOSD. She was treated with intravenous methylprednisolone 20 mg every 8 hours and was discharged 1 week later on oral prednisone 60 mg daily to be tapered over a period of months. At 2-week follow-up, the patient continued to experience rash and joint pain; oral methotrexate 10 mg weekly was added to her regimen, as well as vitamin D, calcium, and folic acid supplementation. At the next 2-week follow-up the patient noted improvement in the rash as well as the joint pain, but both still persisted. Prednisone was decreased to 50 mg daily and methotrexate was increased to 15 mg weekly. The patient continued to show improvement over the subsequent 3 months, during which prednisone was tapered to 10 mg daily and methotrexate was increased to 20 mg weekly. The patient showed resolution of symptoms at 3-month follow-up on this regimen, with plans to continue the prednisone taper and maintain methotrexate dosing.

Comment

Adult-onset Still disease is a systemic inflammatory condition that clinically manifests as spiking fevers, arthralgia, salmon-pink evanescent erythema, and lymphadenopathy.² The condition also can cause liver dysfunction, splenomegaly, pericarditis, pleuritis, renal dysfunction, and a reactive hemophagocytic syndrome.¹ Furthermore, one review of the literature described an association with delayed-onset malignancy.⁴ Early diagnosis is important yet challenging, as AOSD is a diagnosis of exclusion. The Yamaguchi criteria are the most widely used method of diagnosis and demonstrate more than 90% sensitivity.In addition to the Yamaguchi criteria, marked hyperferritinemia is characteristic of AOSD and can act as an indicator of disease activity.⁵ Interestingly, both of our patients had elevated ferritin levels, with patient 2 showing marked elevation (Table). In both patients, all major criteria were fulfilled, except the typical skin rash.

The skin rash in AOSD, classically consisting of an evanescent, salmon-pink erythema predominantly involving the extremities, has been observed in up to 87% of AOSD patients.⁵ The histology of the typical evanescent rash is nonspecific, characterized by a relatively sparse, perivascular, mixed inflammatory infiltrate. Notably, other skin manifestations may be found in patients with AOSD.^1,2,5-16 Persistent pruritic papules and plaques are the most commonly reported nonclassical rash, presenting as erythematous, slightly scaly papules and plaques with a linear configuration typically on the trunk.² Both of our patients presented with this atypical eruption. Importantly, the histopathology of this unique rash displays distinctive features, which can aid in early diagnosis. Findings include dyskeratotic keratinocytes in the cornified layers as well as in the epidermis, and a sparse neutrophilic and/or lymphocytic infiltrate in the papillary dermis without vasculitis. These findings were evident in both histopathologic studies of our patients (Figures 2 and 4). Although not present in our patients, dermal mucin deposition has been demonstrated in some reports.^1,13,15

A 2015 review of the literature yielded 30 cases of AOSD with pruritic persistent papules and plaques.⁴ The study confirmed a linear, erythematous or brown rash on the back and neck in the majority of cases. Histologic findings were congruent with those reported in our 2 cases: necrotic keratinocytes in the upper epidermis with a neutrophilic infiltrate in the upper dermis without vasculitis. Most patients showed rapid resolution of the rash and symptoms with the use of prednisone, prednisolone, or intravenous pulsed methylprednisolone. Interestingly, a range of presentations were noted, including prurigo pigmentosalike urticarial papules; lichenoid papules; and dermatographismlike, dermatomyositislike, and lichen amyloidosis–like rashes.⁴ In our report, patient 2 presented with a rash in a dermat-omyositislike shawl distribution. It has been suggested that patients with dermatomyositislike rashes require more potent immunotherapy as compared to patients with other rash morphologies.⁴ The need for methotrexate in addition to a prednisone taper in the clinical course of patient 2 lends further support to this observation.

Conclusion

A clinically and pathologically distinct form of cutaneous disease—AOSD with persistent pruritic papules and plaques—was observed in our 2 patients. These histopathologic findings facilitated timely diagnosis in both patients. A range of clinical morphologies may exist in AOSD, an awareness of which is paramount. Adult-onset Still disease should be included in the differential diagnosis of a dermatomyositislike presentation in a shawl distribution. Prompt diagnosis is essential to ensure adequate therapy.

To the Editor:

Vemurafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, is a chemotherapeutic agent used in the treatment of metastatic melanoma with BRAF mutations. It has been associated with various cutaneous side effects. We report a case of metastatic melanoma with acquired plantar hyperkeratosis secondary to vemurafenib therapy.

A 49-year-old man presented for evaluation of a pigmented plaque on the left pretibial region that had been enlarging over the last 2 months. The lesion had been diagnosed as folliculitis by his primary care physician 1 month prior to the current presentation and was being treated with oral antibiotics. The patient reported occasional bleeding from the lesion but denied other symptoms. Physical examination revealed a 1.4-cm pigmented plaque distributed over the left shin. Excisional biopsy was performed to rule out melanoma. Histopathology revealed well-circumscribed and symmetric proliferation of nested and single atypical melanocytes throughout all layers to the deep reticular dermis, confirming a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. The lesion demonstrated angiolymphatic invasion, mitotic activity, and a Breslow depth of 2.5 mm. The patient underwent wide local excision with 3-cm margins and left inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy; 2 of 14 lymph nodes were positive for melanoma. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography was negative for further metastatic disease. The patient underwent isolated limb perfusion with ipilimumab, but treatment was discontinued due to regional progression of multiple cutaneous metastases that were positive for the BRAF V600E mutation.

The patient was then started on vemurafenib therapy. Within 2 weeks, the patient reported various cutaneous symptoms, including morbilliform drug eruption covering approximately 70% of the body surface area that resolved with topical steroids and oral antihistamines, as well as the appearance of melanocytic nevi on the posterior neck, back, and abdomen. After 5 months of vemurafenib therapy, the patient began to develop hyperkeratosis of the bilateral soles of the feet (Figure). A diagnosis of acquired plantar hyperkeratosis secondary to vemurafenib therapy was made. Treatment with keratolytics was initiated and vemurafenib was not discontinued. The patient died approximately 1 year after therapy was started.

Metastatic melanoma is challenging to treat and continues to have a high mortality rate; however, newer chemotherapeutic agents targeting specific mutations found in melanoma, including the BRAF V600E mutation, are promising.

The US Food and Drug Administration first approved vemurafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, in 2011 for treatment of metastatic melanoma. Activating BRAF mutations have been detected in up to 60% of cutaneous melanomas.¹ In the majority of these mutations, valine (V) is inserted at codon 600 instead of glutamic acid (E); therefore, the mutation is named V600E.² In a phase 3 trial of 675 metastatic melanoma patients with positive V600E who were randomized to receive either vemurafenib or dacarbazine, the overall survival rate in the vemurafenib group improved by 84% versus 64% in the dacarbazine group at 6 months.³

Vemurafenib and other BRAF inhibitors have been associated with multiple cutaneous side effects, including rash, alopecia, squamous cell carcinoma, photosensitivity, evolution of existing nevi, and less commonly palmoplantar hyperkeratosis.^2-5 Constitutional symptoms including arthralgia, nausea, and fatigue also have been commonly reported.^2-5 In several large studies comprising 1138 patients, cutaneous side effects were seen in 92% to 95% of patients.^3,5 Adverse effects caused interruption or modification of therapy in 38% of patients.³

Palmoplantar keratoderma is a known side effect of vemurafenib therapy, but it is less commonly reported than other cutaneous adverse effects. It is believed that vemurafenib has the ability to paradoxically activate the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, leading to keratinocyte proliferation in cells without BRAF mutations.^6-8 In the phase 3 trial, approximately 23% to 30% of patients developed some form of hyperkeratosis.⁵ Comparatively, 64% of patients developed a rash and 23% developed cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Incidence of palmoplantar hyperkeratosis was similar in the vemurafenib and dabrafenib groups (6% vs 8%).^3,9 Development of keratoderma also has been associated with other multikinase inhibitors (eg, sorafenib, sunitinib).^10,11

In our case, the patient displayed multiple side effects while undergoing vemurafenib therapy. Within the first 2 weeks of therapy, he experienced a drug eruption that affected approximately 70% of the body surface area. The eruption resolved with topical steroids and oral antihistamines. The patient also noted the appearance of several new melanocytic nevi on the posterior neck as well as several evolving nevi on the back and abdomen. Five months into the treatment cycle, the patient began to develop hyperkeratosis on the bilateral plantar feet. Treatment consisted of keratolytics. Vemurafenib therapy was not discontinued secondary to any adverse effects.

Vemurafenib and other BRAF inhibitors are efficacious in the treatment of metastatic melanoma with V600E mutations. The use of these therapies is likely to continue and increase in the future. BRAF inhibitors have been associated with a variety of side effects, including palmoplantar hyperkeratosis. Awareness of and appropriate response to adverse reactions is essential to proper patient care and continuation of potentially life-extending therapies.

To the Editor:

Vemurafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, is a chemotherapeutic agent used in the treatment of metastatic melanoma with BRAF mutations. It has been associated with various cutaneous side effects. We report a case of metastatic melanoma with acquired plantar hyperkeratosis secondary to vemurafenib therapy.

A 49-year-old man presented for evaluation of a pigmented plaque on the left pretibial region that had been enlarging over the last 2 months. The lesion had been diagnosed as folliculitis by his primary care physician 1 month prior to the current presentation and was being treated with oral antibiotics. The patient reported occasional bleeding from the lesion but denied other symptoms. Physical examination revealed a 1.4-cm pigmented plaque distributed over the left shin. Excisional biopsy was performed to rule out melanoma. Histopathology revealed well-circumscribed and symmetric proliferation of nested and single atypical melanocytes throughout all layers to the deep reticular dermis, confirming a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. The lesion demonstrated angiolymphatic invasion, mitotic activity, and a Breslow depth of 2.5 mm. The patient underwent wide local excision with 3-cm margins and left inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy; 2 of 14 lymph nodes were positive for melanoma. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography was negative for further metastatic disease. The patient underwent isolated limb perfusion with ipilimumab, but treatment was discontinued due to regional progression of multiple cutaneous metastases that were positive for the BRAF V600E mutation.

The patient was then started on vemurafenib therapy. Within 2 weeks, the patient reported various cutaneous symptoms, including morbilliform drug eruption covering approximately 70% of the body surface area that resolved with topical steroids and oral antihistamines, as well as the appearance of melanocytic nevi on the posterior neck, back, and abdomen. After 5 months of vemurafenib therapy, the patient began to develop hyperkeratosis of the bilateral soles of the feet (Figure). A diagnosis of acquired plantar hyperkeratosis secondary to vemurafenib therapy was made. Treatment with keratolytics was initiated and vemurafenib was not discontinued. The patient died approximately 1 year after therapy was started.

Metastatic melanoma is challenging to treat and continues to have a high mortality rate; however, newer chemotherapeutic agents targeting specific mutations found in melanoma, including the BRAF V600E mutation, are promising.

The US Food and Drug Administration first approved vemurafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, in 2011 for treatment of metastatic melanoma. Activating BRAF mutations have been detected in up to 60% of cutaneous melanomas.¹ In the majority of these mutations, valine (V) is inserted at codon 600 instead of glutamic acid (E); therefore, the mutation is named V600E.² In a phase 3 trial of 675 metastatic melanoma patients with positive V600E who were randomized to receive either vemurafenib or dacarbazine, the overall survival rate in the vemurafenib group improved by 84% versus 64% in the dacarbazine group at 6 months.³

Vemurafenib and other BRAF inhibitors have been associated with multiple cutaneous side effects, including rash, alopecia, squamous cell carcinoma, photosensitivity, evolution of existing nevi, and less commonly palmoplantar hyperkeratosis.^2-5 Constitutional symptoms including arthralgia, nausea, and fatigue also have been commonly reported.^2-5 In several large studies comprising 1138 patients, cutaneous side effects were seen in 92% to 95% of patients.^3,5 Adverse effects caused interruption or modification of therapy in 38% of patients.³

Palmoplantar keratoderma is a known side effect of vemurafenib therapy, but it is less commonly reported than other cutaneous adverse effects. It is believed that vemurafenib has the ability to paradoxically activate the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, leading to keratinocyte proliferation in cells without BRAF mutations.^6-8 In the phase 3 trial, approximately 23% to 30% of patients developed some form of hyperkeratosis.⁵ Comparatively, 64% of patients developed a rash and 23% developed cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Incidence of palmoplantar hyperkeratosis was similar in the vemurafenib and dabrafenib groups (6% vs 8%).^3,9 Development of keratoderma also has been associated with other multikinase inhibitors (eg, sorafenib, sunitinib).^10,11

In our case, the patient displayed multiple side effects while undergoing vemurafenib therapy. Within the first 2 weeks of therapy, he experienced a drug eruption that affected approximately 70% of the body surface area. The eruption resolved with topical steroids and oral antihistamines. The patient also noted the appearance of several new melanocytic nevi on the posterior neck as well as several evolving nevi on the back and abdomen. Five months into the treatment cycle, the patient began to develop hyperkeratosis on the bilateral plantar feet. Treatment consisted of keratolytics. Vemurafenib therapy was not discontinued secondary to any adverse effects.

Vemurafenib and other BRAF inhibitors are efficacious in the treatment of metastatic melanoma with V600E mutations. The use of these therapies is likely to continue and increase in the future. BRAF inhibitors have been associated with a variety of side effects, including palmoplantar hyperkeratosis. Awareness of and appropriate response to adverse reactions is essential to proper patient care and continuation of potentially life-extending therapies.

To the Editor:

Vemurafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, is a chemotherapeutic agent used in the treatment of metastatic melanoma with BRAF mutations. It has been associated with various cutaneous side effects. We report a case of metastatic melanoma with acquired plantar hyperkeratosis secondary to vemurafenib therapy.

A 49-year-old man presented for evaluation of a pigmented plaque on the left pretibial region that had been enlarging over the last 2 months. The lesion had been diagnosed as folliculitis by his primary care physician 1 month prior to the current presentation and was being treated with oral antibiotics. The patient reported occasional bleeding from the lesion but denied other symptoms. Physical examination revealed a 1.4-cm pigmented plaque distributed over the left shin. Excisional biopsy was performed to rule out melanoma. Histopathology revealed well-circumscribed and symmetric proliferation of nested and single atypical melanocytes throughout all layers to the deep reticular dermis, confirming a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. The lesion demonstrated angiolymphatic invasion, mitotic activity, and a Breslow depth of 2.5 mm. The patient underwent wide local excision with 3-cm margins and left inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy; 2 of 14 lymph nodes were positive for melanoma. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography was negative for further metastatic disease. The patient underwent isolated limb perfusion with ipilimumab, but treatment was discontinued due to regional progression of multiple cutaneous metastases that were positive for the BRAF V600E mutation.

The patient was then started on vemurafenib therapy. Within 2 weeks, the patient reported various cutaneous symptoms, including morbilliform drug eruption covering approximately 70% of the body surface area that resolved with topical steroids and oral antihistamines, as well as the appearance of melanocytic nevi on the posterior neck, back, and abdomen. After 5 months of vemurafenib therapy, the patient began to develop hyperkeratosis of the bilateral soles of the feet (Figure). A diagnosis of acquired plantar hyperkeratosis secondary to vemurafenib therapy was made. Treatment with keratolytics was initiated and vemurafenib was not discontinued. The patient died approximately 1 year after therapy was started.

Metastatic melanoma is challenging to treat and continues to have a high mortality rate; however, newer chemotherapeutic agents targeting specific mutations found in melanoma, including the BRAF V600E mutation, are promising.

The US Food and Drug Administration first approved vemurafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, in 2011 for treatment of metastatic melanoma. Activating BRAF mutations have been detected in up to 60% of cutaneous melanomas.¹ In the majority of these mutations, valine (V) is inserted at codon 600 instead of glutamic acid (E); therefore, the mutation is named V600E.² In a phase 3 trial of 675 metastatic melanoma patients with positive V600E who were randomized to receive either vemurafenib or dacarbazine, the overall survival rate in the vemurafenib group improved by 84% versus 64% in the dacarbazine group at 6 months.³

Vemurafenib and other BRAF inhibitors have been associated with multiple cutaneous side effects, including rash, alopecia, squamous cell carcinoma, photosensitivity, evolution of existing nevi, and less commonly palmoplantar hyperkeratosis.^2-5 Constitutional symptoms including arthralgia, nausea, and fatigue also have been commonly reported.^2-5 In several large studies comprising 1138 patients, cutaneous side effects were seen in 92% to 95% of patients.^3,5 Adverse effects caused interruption or modification of therapy in 38% of patients.³

Palmoplantar keratoderma is a known side effect of vemurafenib therapy, but it is less commonly reported than other cutaneous adverse effects. It is believed that vemurafenib has the ability to paradoxically activate the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, leading to keratinocyte proliferation in cells without BRAF mutations.^6-8 In the phase 3 trial, approximately 23% to 30% of patients developed some form of hyperkeratosis.⁵ Comparatively, 64% of patients developed a rash and 23% developed cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Incidence of palmoplantar hyperkeratosis was similar in the vemurafenib and dabrafenib groups (6% vs 8%).^3,9 Development of keratoderma also has been associated with other multikinase inhibitors (eg, sorafenib, sunitinib).^10,11

In our case, the patient displayed multiple side effects while undergoing vemurafenib therapy. Within the first 2 weeks of therapy, he experienced a drug eruption that affected approximately 70% of the body surface area. The eruption resolved with topical steroids and oral antihistamines. The patient also noted the appearance of several new melanocytic nevi on the posterior neck as well as several evolving nevi on the back and abdomen. Five months into the treatment cycle, the patient began to develop hyperkeratosis on the bilateral plantar feet. Treatment consisted of keratolytics. Vemurafenib therapy was not discontinued secondary to any adverse effects.

Vemurafenib and other BRAF inhibitors are efficacious in the treatment of metastatic melanoma with V600E mutations. The use of these therapies is likely to continue and increase in the future. BRAF inhibitors have been associated with a variety of side effects, including palmoplantar hyperkeratosis. Awareness of and appropriate response to adverse reactions is essential to proper patient care and continuation of potentially life-extending therapies.

Cutaneous metastasis of internal malignancy is a relatively uncommon phenomenon, with an overall incidence of 5.3% in cancer patients.¹ Cutaneous involvement typically occurs late in the course of disease but can occasionally be the first extranodal sign of metastatic disease. Breast cancer has the highest rate of cutaneous metastasis, most often involving the chest wall¹; however, cutaneous metastasis to the acral sites is exceedingly rare. The hand is the site of 0.1% of all metastatic lesions, with only 10% of these being cutaneous lesions and the remaining 90% being osseous metastases.² Herein, we report a case of multiple cutaneous metastases to acral sites involving the palmar and plantar surfaces of the hands and feet.

Case Report

A 54-year-old black woman with a history of stage IV carcinoma of the breast was admitted to the university medical center with exquisitely painful cutaneous nodules on the hands and feet of 5 weeks’ duration that had started to cause difficulty with walking and daily activities. The patient reported that the breast carcinoma had initially been diagnosed in Nigeria 2 years prior, but she did not receive treatment until moving to the United States. She received a total of 4 cycles of chemotherapy with paclitaxel and bevacizumab, which was discontinued 6 weeks prior to admission due to pain in the lower extremities that was thought to be secondary to neuropathy. One week after discontinuation of chemotherapy, the patient reported increasing pain in the extremities and new-onset painful nodules on the hands and feet. Treatment with gabapentin as well as several courses of antibiotics failed to improve the condition.

She was admitted for symptomatic pain control and a dermatology consultation. Physical examination revealed multiple firm, tender, subcutaneous nodules on the volar surfaces of the soles, toes, palms, and fingertips (Figure 1). A nodule also was noted on the scalp. A punch biopsy of a nodule on the right fourth finger revealed a dermal carcinoma (Figure 2). On immunohistochemistry, the tumor stained positive for cytokeratin 5/6, cytokeratin 7, and gross cystic disease fluid protein 15. It did not demonstrate connection to the epidermis or adnexal structures. Although the tumor did not express estrogen or progesterone receptors, the findings were compatible with metastasis from the patient’s primary breast carcinoma with poor differentiation. A biopsy of the primary breast carcinoma was not available for review from Nigeria.

Comment

The majority of cases reporting acral cutaneous metastasis from internal malignancies are unilateral, involving only one extremity. Several hypotheses have been provided, including spread from localized trauma, which causes disruption of blood vessels and consequent extravasation and localization of tumor cells into the extravascular space.³ The distal extremities are particularly vulnerable to trauma, making this hypothesis plausible.

Considering the overall rarity of metastases to acral sites, it is interesting that our patient developed multiple distal nodules on both the hands and feet. The rapid onset of cutaneous nodules shortly after a course of chemotherapy led the team to consider the physiologic effects of paclitaxel and bevacizumab in the etiology of the acral cutaneous metastases. Karamouzis et al³ described a similar case of multiple cutaneous metastases with a bilateral acral distribution. This case also was associated with chemotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer. The authors proposed hand-foot syndrome, a chemotherapy-related eruption localized to acral skin, as a possible mechanism for hematogenous spread of malignant cells.³ The pathogenesis of hand-foot syndrome is not well understood, but the unique anatomy and physiology of acral skin including temperature gradients, rapidly dividing epidermal cells, absence of hair follicles and sebaceous glands, wide dermal papillae, and exposure to high pressures from carrying body weight and repetitive minor trauma may contribute to the localization of signs and symptoms.^3,4 Our case supports a chemotherapy-related etiology of acral cutaneous metastasis of a primary breast cancer; however, our patient did not have apparent signs or symptoms of hand-foot syndrome during the course of treatment. We propose that effects of bevacizumab on acral skin may have contributed to the development of our patient’s metastatic pattern.

Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor A, has well-known vascular side effects. Unlike the inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor A provided by the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib and sunitinib, bevacizumab typically is not associated with hand-foot syndrome.⁵ However, several cases have been reported with chemotherapy-associated palmoplantar eruptions that resolved after withholding bevacizumab while continuing other chemotherapeutic agents, suggesting that bevacizumab-induced changes in acral skin contributed to the eruption.⁶ Specific factors that could contribute to acral metastasis in patients taking bevacizumab are endothelial dysfunction and capillary rarefaction of the acral skin, as well as hemorrhage, decreased wound healing, and changes in vascular permeability.^5,7

We present a rare case of acral cutaneous metastasis associated with bevacizumab, one of few reported cases associated with a taxane chemotherapeutic agent.³ More cases need to be identified and reported to establish a causative association, if indeed existent, between acral cutaneous metastasis of breast carcinoma and the use of bevacizumab as well as other chemotherapeutic drugs.

Cutaneous metastasis of internal malignancy is a relatively uncommon phenomenon, with an overall incidence of 5.3% in cancer patients.¹ Cutaneous involvement typically occurs late in the course of disease but can occasionally be the first extranodal sign of metastatic disease. Breast cancer has the highest rate of cutaneous metastasis, most often involving the chest wall¹; however, cutaneous metastasis to the acral sites is exceedingly rare. The hand is the site of 0.1% of all metastatic lesions, with only 10% of these being cutaneous lesions and the remaining 90% being osseous metastases.² Herein, we report a case of multiple cutaneous metastases to acral sites involving the palmar and plantar surfaces of the hands and feet.

Case Report

A 54-year-old black woman with a history of stage IV carcinoma of the breast was admitted to the university medical center with exquisitely painful cutaneous nodules on the hands and feet of 5 weeks’ duration that had started to cause difficulty with walking and daily activities. The patient reported that the breast carcinoma had initially been diagnosed in Nigeria 2 years prior, but she did not receive treatment until moving to the United States. She received a total of 4 cycles of chemotherapy with paclitaxel and bevacizumab, which was discontinued 6 weeks prior to admission due to pain in the lower extremities that was thought to be secondary to neuropathy. One week after discontinuation of chemotherapy, the patient reported increasing pain in the extremities and new-onset painful nodules on the hands and feet. Treatment with gabapentin as well as several courses of antibiotics failed to improve the condition.

She was admitted for symptomatic pain control and a dermatology consultation. Physical examination revealed multiple firm, tender, subcutaneous nodules on the volar surfaces of the soles, toes, palms, and fingertips (Figure 1). A nodule also was noted on the scalp. A punch biopsy of a nodule on the right fourth finger revealed a dermal carcinoma (Figure 2). On immunohistochemistry, the tumor stained positive for cytokeratin 5/6, cytokeratin 7, and gross cystic disease fluid protein 15. It did not demonstrate connection to the epidermis or adnexal structures. Although the tumor did not express estrogen or progesterone receptors, the findings were compatible with metastasis from the patient’s primary breast carcinoma with poor differentiation. A biopsy of the primary breast carcinoma was not available for review from Nigeria.

Comment

The majority of cases reporting acral cutaneous metastasis from internal malignancies are unilateral, involving only one extremity. Several hypotheses have been provided, including spread from localized trauma, which causes disruption of blood vessels and consequent extravasation and localization of tumor cells into the extravascular space.³ The distal extremities are particularly vulnerable to trauma, making this hypothesis plausible.

Considering the overall rarity of metastases to acral sites, it is interesting that our patient developed multiple distal nodules on both the hands and feet. The rapid onset of cutaneous nodules shortly after a course of chemotherapy led the team to consider the physiologic effects of paclitaxel and bevacizumab in the etiology of the acral cutaneous metastases. Karamouzis et al³ described a similar case of multiple cutaneous metastases with a bilateral acral distribution. This case also was associated with chemotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer. The authors proposed hand-foot syndrome, a chemotherapy-related eruption localized to acral skin, as a possible mechanism for hematogenous spread of malignant cells.³ The pathogenesis of hand-foot syndrome is not well understood, but the unique anatomy and physiology of acral skin including temperature gradients, rapidly dividing epidermal cells, absence of hair follicles and sebaceous glands, wide dermal papillae, and exposure to high pressures from carrying body weight and repetitive minor trauma may contribute to the localization of signs and symptoms.^3,4 Our case supports a chemotherapy-related etiology of acral cutaneous metastasis of a primary breast cancer; however, our patient did not have apparent signs or symptoms of hand-foot syndrome during the course of treatment. We propose that effects of bevacizumab on acral skin may have contributed to the development of our patient’s metastatic pattern.

Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor A, has well-known vascular side effects. Unlike the inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor A provided by the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib and sunitinib, bevacizumab typically is not associated with hand-foot syndrome.⁵ However, several cases have been reported with chemotherapy-associated palmoplantar eruptions that resolved after withholding bevacizumab while continuing other chemotherapeutic agents, suggesting that bevacizumab-induced changes in acral skin contributed to the eruption.⁶ Specific factors that could contribute to acral metastasis in patients taking bevacizumab are endothelial dysfunction and capillary rarefaction of the acral skin, as well as hemorrhage, decreased wound healing, and changes in vascular permeability.^5,7

We present a rare case of acral cutaneous metastasis associated with bevacizumab, one of few reported cases associated with a taxane chemotherapeutic agent.³ More cases need to be identified and reported to establish a causative association, if indeed existent, between acral cutaneous metastasis of breast carcinoma and the use of bevacizumab as well as other chemotherapeutic drugs.

Cutaneous metastasis of internal malignancy is a relatively uncommon phenomenon, with an overall incidence of 5.3% in cancer patients.¹ Cutaneous involvement typically occurs late in the course of disease but can occasionally be the first extranodal sign of metastatic disease. Breast cancer has the highest rate of cutaneous metastasis, most often involving the chest wall¹; however, cutaneous metastasis to the acral sites is exceedingly rare. The hand is the site of 0.1% of all metastatic lesions, with only 10% of these being cutaneous lesions and the remaining 90% being osseous metastases.² Herein, we report a case of multiple cutaneous metastases to acral sites involving the palmar and plantar surfaces of the hands and feet.

Case Report

A 54-year-old black woman with a history of stage IV carcinoma of the breast was admitted to the university medical center with exquisitely painful cutaneous nodules on the hands and feet of 5 weeks’ duration that had started to cause difficulty with walking and daily activities. The patient reported that the breast carcinoma had initially been diagnosed in Nigeria 2 years prior, but she did not receive treatment until moving to the United States. She received a total of 4 cycles of chemotherapy with paclitaxel and bevacizumab, which was discontinued 6 weeks prior to admission due to pain in the lower extremities that was thought to be secondary to neuropathy. One week after discontinuation of chemotherapy, the patient reported increasing pain in the extremities and new-onset painful nodules on the hands and feet. Treatment with gabapentin as well as several courses of antibiotics failed to improve the condition.

She was admitted for symptomatic pain control and a dermatology consultation. Physical examination revealed multiple firm, tender, subcutaneous nodules on the volar surfaces of the soles, toes, palms, and fingertips (Figure 1). A nodule also was noted on the scalp. A punch biopsy of a nodule on the right fourth finger revealed a dermal carcinoma (Figure 2). On immunohistochemistry, the tumor stained positive for cytokeratin 5/6, cytokeratin 7, and gross cystic disease fluid protein 15. It did not demonstrate connection to the epidermis or adnexal structures. Although the tumor did not express estrogen or progesterone receptors, the findings were compatible with metastasis from the patient’s primary breast carcinoma with poor differentiation. A biopsy of the primary breast carcinoma was not available for review from Nigeria.

Comment

The majority of cases reporting acral cutaneous metastasis from internal malignancies are unilateral, involving only one extremity. Several hypotheses have been provided, including spread from localized trauma, which causes disruption of blood vessels and consequent extravasation and localization of tumor cells into the extravascular space.³ The distal extremities are particularly vulnerable to trauma, making this hypothesis plausible.

Considering the overall rarity of metastases to acral sites, it is interesting that our patient developed multiple distal nodules on both the hands and feet. The rapid onset of cutaneous nodules shortly after a course of chemotherapy led the team to consider the physiologic effects of paclitaxel and bevacizumab in the etiology of the acral cutaneous metastases. Karamouzis et al³ described a similar case of multiple cutaneous metastases with a bilateral acral distribution. This case also was associated with chemotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer. The authors proposed hand-foot syndrome, a chemotherapy-related eruption localized to acral skin, as a possible mechanism for hematogenous spread of malignant cells.³ The pathogenesis of hand-foot syndrome is not well understood, but the unique anatomy and physiology of acral skin including temperature gradients, rapidly dividing epidermal cells, absence of hair follicles and sebaceous glands, wide dermal papillae, and exposure to high pressures from carrying body weight and repetitive minor trauma may contribute to the localization of signs and symptoms.^3,4 Our case supports a chemotherapy-related etiology of acral cutaneous metastasis of a primary breast cancer; however, our patient did not have apparent signs or symptoms of hand-foot syndrome during the course of treatment. We propose that effects of bevacizumab on acral skin may have contributed to the development of our patient’s metastatic pattern.

Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor A, has well-known vascular side effects. Unlike the inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor A provided by the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib and sunitinib, bevacizumab typically is not associated with hand-foot syndrome.⁵ However, several cases have been reported with chemotherapy-associated palmoplantar eruptions that resolved after withholding bevacizumab while continuing other chemotherapeutic agents, suggesting that bevacizumab-induced changes in acral skin contributed to the eruption.⁶ Specific factors that could contribute to acral metastasis in patients taking bevacizumab are endothelial dysfunction and capillary rarefaction of the acral skin, as well as hemorrhage, decreased wound healing, and changes in vascular permeability.^5,7

We present a rare case of acral cutaneous metastasis associated with bevacizumab, one of few reported cases associated with a taxane chemotherapeutic agent.³ More cases need to be identified and reported to establish a causative association, if indeed existent, between acral cutaneous metastasis of breast carcinoma and the use of bevacizumab as well as other chemotherapeutic drugs.

The Diagnosis: Herpes Simplex Virus Infection

Viral culture of the ulcer was positive for herpes simplex virus type 2 (HHV-2). Bacterial culture grew enteric flora. The patient was started on intravenous acyclovir 5 mg/kg every 8 hours for 7 days and then transitioned to oral acyclovir for chronic suppressive therapy. One month later, there was near-complete reepithelialization with 2 remaining 1-cm shallow ulcers. The verrucous lesions had dried up and were flaking off (Figure). At 6-month follow-up, the ulcers and verrucous lesions had completely resolved.

Herpes simplex virus type 2 is the most common cause of genital and perianal ulcers in immunocompromised individuals.¹ Patients classically present with painful grouped vesicles followed by painful superficial ulcers that may rapidly progress to extensive confluent ulceration. A hypertrophic variant of genital herpes characterized by anogenital verrucous lesions, similar to condyloma acuminata, also can be seen in immunocompromised individuals.² This form has almost exclusively been observed in patients with human immunodeficiency virus and may occur in isolation or together with the ulcerative form.^1-5 A case of vegetative HHV infection of the genital area in a patient with common variable immunodeficiency has been reported.⁶ Verrucous lesions of the mouth secondary to HHV have been observed in Hodgkin lymphoma, acute myelogenous leukemia, and individuals on immunosuppressive medications.^7-10

Perianal involvement of Crohn disease typically presents with fistulas, ulcers, abscesses, strictures, and skin tags in some cases. Invasive squamous cell carcinoma may arise within a chronic ulcer of the anogenital area or may itself manifest as an ulcer or anal fissure. Perianal ulcerative skin tuberculosis has been reported in the literature as a rare manifestation of extrapulmonary tuberculosis and should be considered in a patient with an appropriate clinical history. Pyoderma gangrenosum classically pre-sents as a large ulcer with irregular rolled borders, though a rare variant of vegetative pyoderma gangrenosum may manifest as a nodular or verrucous plaque.

Studies to diagnose HHV include viral cell culture, HHV polymerase chain reaction testing, HHV serology, and direct fluorescent antibody testing. Skin biopsy may be necessary to rule out underlying malignancy. Treatment of perianal HHV infection includes acyclovir, valacyclovir, or famciclovir.^1,5,6 Hypertrophic lesions often are refractory to first-line antiviral therapy and may require surgical resection or treatment with alternative medications such as imiquimod, a topical immunomodulator.^3,5,6,11

The Diagnosis: Herpes Simplex Virus Infection

Viral culture of the ulcer was positive for herpes simplex virus type 2 (HHV-2). Bacterial culture grew enteric flora. The patient was started on intravenous acyclovir 5 mg/kg every 8 hours for 7 days and then transitioned to oral acyclovir for chronic suppressive therapy. One month later, there was near-complete reepithelialization with 2 remaining 1-cm shallow ulcers. The verrucous lesions had dried up and were flaking off (Figure). At 6-month follow-up, the ulcers and verrucous lesions had completely resolved.

Herpes simplex virus type 2 is the most common cause of genital and perianal ulcers in immunocompromised individuals.¹ Patients classically present with painful grouped vesicles followed by painful superficial ulcers that may rapidly progress to extensive confluent ulceration. A hypertrophic variant of genital herpes characterized by anogenital verrucous lesions, similar to condyloma acuminata, also can be seen in immunocompromised individuals.² This form has almost exclusively been observed in patients with human immunodeficiency virus and may occur in isolation or together with the ulcerative form.^1-5 A case of vegetative HHV infection of the genital area in a patient with common variable immunodeficiency has been reported.⁶ Verrucous lesions of the mouth secondary to HHV have been observed in Hodgkin lymphoma, acute myelogenous leukemia, and individuals on immunosuppressive medications.^7-10

Perianal involvement of Crohn disease typically presents with fistulas, ulcers, abscesses, strictures, and skin tags in some cases. Invasive squamous cell carcinoma may arise within a chronic ulcer of the anogenital area or may itself manifest as an ulcer or anal fissure. Perianal ulcerative skin tuberculosis has been reported in the literature as a rare manifestation of extrapulmonary tuberculosis and should be considered in a patient with an appropriate clinical history. Pyoderma gangrenosum classically pre-sents as a large ulcer with irregular rolled borders, though a rare variant of vegetative pyoderma gangrenosum may manifest as a nodular or verrucous plaque.

Studies to diagnose HHV include viral cell culture, HHV polymerase chain reaction testing, HHV serology, and direct fluorescent antibody testing. Skin biopsy may be necessary to rule out underlying malignancy. Treatment of perianal HHV infection includes acyclovir, valacyclovir, or famciclovir.^1,5,6 Hypertrophic lesions often are refractory to first-line antiviral therapy and may require surgical resection or treatment with alternative medications such as imiquimod, a topical immunomodulator.^3,5,6,11

The Diagnosis: Herpes Simplex Virus Infection

Viral culture of the ulcer was positive for herpes simplex virus type 2 (HHV-2). Bacterial culture grew enteric flora. The patient was started on intravenous acyclovir 5 mg/kg every 8 hours for 7 days and then transitioned to oral acyclovir for chronic suppressive therapy. One month later, there was near-complete reepithelialization with 2 remaining 1-cm shallow ulcers. The verrucous lesions had dried up and were flaking off (Figure). At 6-month follow-up, the ulcers and verrucous lesions had completely resolved.

Herpes simplex virus type 2 is the most common cause of genital and perianal ulcers in immunocompromised individuals.¹ Patients classically present with painful grouped vesicles followed by painful superficial ulcers that may rapidly progress to extensive confluent ulceration. A hypertrophic variant of genital herpes characterized by anogenital verrucous lesions, similar to condyloma acuminata, also can be seen in immunocompromised individuals.² This form has almost exclusively been observed in patients with human immunodeficiency virus and may occur in isolation or together with the ulcerative form.^1-5 A case of vegetative HHV infection of the genital area in a patient with common variable immunodeficiency has been reported.⁶ Verrucous lesions of the mouth secondary to HHV have been observed in Hodgkin lymphoma, acute myelogenous leukemia, and individuals on immunosuppressive medications.^7-10

Perianal involvement of Crohn disease typically presents with fistulas, ulcers, abscesses, strictures, and skin tags in some cases. Invasive squamous cell carcinoma may arise within a chronic ulcer of the anogenital area or may itself manifest as an ulcer or anal fissure. Perianal ulcerative skin tuberculosis has been reported in the literature as a rare manifestation of extrapulmonary tuberculosis and should be considered in a patient with an appropriate clinical history. Pyoderma gangrenosum classically pre-sents as a large ulcer with irregular rolled borders, though a rare variant of vegetative pyoderma gangrenosum may manifest as a nodular or verrucous plaque.

Studies to diagnose HHV include viral cell culture, HHV polymerase chain reaction testing, HHV serology, and direct fluorescent antibody testing. Skin biopsy may be necessary to rule out underlying malignancy. Treatment of perianal HHV infection includes acyclovir, valacyclovir, or famciclovir.^1,5,6 Hypertrophic lesions often are refractory to first-line antiviral therapy and may require surgical resection or treatment with alternative medications such as imiquimod, a topical immunomodulator.^3,5,6,11

Livedo reticularis (LR) is a common dermatologic finding consisting of diffuse, reticulated, violaceous patches. It often is a benign physical finding known as cutis marmorata; however, LR can be associated with other medical conditions as well as with the use of some medications.^1,2 Amantadine is a common cause of LR in Parkinson disease patients.^3,4 We present a rare case of amantadine-induced LR in a pediatric patient and highlight the off-label use of this medication in children.

Case Report

An 8-year-old boy presented with a diffuse rash on the trunk, arms, and legs of 9 months’ duration. The patient denied any associated symptoms as well as alleviating or exacerbating factors. He also denied any changes with temperature. He had no recent international travel and no prior drug allergies. His medical history was remarkable for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, and autism spectrum disorder. His previously prescribed medications included atomoxetine, quetiapine, and valproic acid. The only new medication that had been started within the last year was amantadine. Physical examination revealed a diffuse, reticulated, erythematous to violaceous, blanching rash that was most notable on the legs (Figure 1A) but also was present on the trunk (Figure 1B) and arms (Figure 1C). The clinical examination was consistent with LR, which was presumed to be secondary to amantadine use. Given the multiple psychiatric diagnoses and medication history in this young patient, a consultation with child psychiatry was facilitated. His medications and diagnosis were reviewed, and amantadine was discontinued. At a follow-up visit 5 months later, the patient’s LR had improved (Figure 2).

Comment

Amantadine has a well-documented association with LR in patients with Parkinson disease,^3,4 which has been reported in up to 40% of those taking amantadine.² More recently, amantadine has been used off label to treat neurobehavioral disorders in children due to beneficial effects including improvement in attention and concentration, distractibility, and fatigue.⁵ Our patient was being treated off label with amantadine for ADHD and bipolar disorder. Amantadine acts as a noncompetitive antagonist of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor, enhancing dopamine release to reduce symptoms of ADHD.^5,6 Additionally, amantadine can cause a depletion of catecholamines in the peripheral nerve terminals, which may lead to dilatation of dermal vessels.^4,6 This sequence of events has been proposed as a possible mechanism contributing to amantadine-induced LR, though the pathophysiology is not fully understood.^1,3,4

Our case of LR likely was induced by amantadine given the temporal relationship between initiation of the medication, onset of the rash, and the considerable improvement of the rash upon discontinuation of amantadine. Barrera and Browning⁶ reported another case of amantadine-induced LR in a pediatric patient. Because amantadine is increasingly being used off label to treat childhood neurobehavioral disorders, amantadine-induced LR may become more prevalent in patients who do not have Parkinson disease; therefore, physicians who treat pediatric patients must be aware of this side effect.⁵

Livedo reticularis (LR) is a common dermatologic finding consisting of diffuse, reticulated, violaceous patches. It often is a benign physical finding known as cutis marmorata; however, LR can be associated with other medical conditions as well as with the use of some medications.^1,2 Amantadine is a common cause of LR in Parkinson disease patients.^3,4 We present a rare case of amantadine-induced LR in a pediatric patient and highlight the off-label use of this medication in children.

Case Report

An 8-year-old boy presented with a diffuse rash on the trunk, arms, and legs of 9 months’ duration. The patient denied any associated symptoms as well as alleviating or exacerbating factors. He also denied any changes with temperature. He had no recent international travel and no prior drug allergies. His medical history was remarkable for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, and autism spectrum disorder. His previously prescribed medications included atomoxetine, quetiapine, and valproic acid. The only new medication that had been started within the last year was amantadine. Physical examination revealed a diffuse, reticulated, erythematous to violaceous, blanching rash that was most notable on the legs (Figure 1A) but also was present on the trunk (Figure 1B) and arms (Figure 1C). The clinical examination was consistent with LR, which was presumed to be secondary to amantadine use. Given the multiple psychiatric diagnoses and medication history in this young patient, a consultation with child psychiatry was facilitated. His medications and diagnosis were reviewed, and amantadine was discontinued. At a follow-up visit 5 months later, the patient’s LR had improved (Figure 2).

Comment

Amantadine has a well-documented association with LR in patients with Parkinson disease,^3,4 which has been reported in up to 40% of those taking amantadine.² More recently, amantadine has been used off label to treat neurobehavioral disorders in children due to beneficial effects including improvement in attention and concentration, distractibility, and fatigue.⁵ Our patient was being treated off label with amantadine for ADHD and bipolar disorder. Amantadine acts as a noncompetitive antagonist of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor, enhancing dopamine release to reduce symptoms of ADHD.^5,6 Additionally, amantadine can cause a depletion of catecholamines in the peripheral nerve terminals, which may lead to dilatation of dermal vessels.^4,6 This sequence of events has been proposed as a possible mechanism contributing to amantadine-induced LR, though the pathophysiology is not fully understood.^1,3,4

Our case of LR likely was induced by amantadine given the temporal relationship between initiation of the medication, onset of the rash, and the considerable improvement of the rash upon discontinuation of amantadine. Barrera and Browning⁶ reported another case of amantadine-induced LR in a pediatric patient. Because amantadine is increasingly being used off label to treat childhood neurobehavioral disorders, amantadine-induced LR may become more prevalent in patients who do not have Parkinson disease; therefore, physicians who treat pediatric patients must be aware of this side effect.⁵

Livedo reticularis (LR) is a common dermatologic finding consisting of diffuse, reticulated, violaceous patches. It often is a benign physical finding known as cutis marmorata; however, LR can be associated with other medical conditions as well as with the use of some medications.^1,2 Amantadine is a common cause of LR in Parkinson disease patients.^3,4 We present a rare case of amantadine-induced LR in a pediatric patient and highlight the off-label use of this medication in children.

Case Report

An 8-year-old boy presented with a diffuse rash on the trunk, arms, and legs of 9 months’ duration. The patient denied any associated symptoms as well as alleviating or exacerbating factors. He also denied any changes with temperature. He had no recent international travel and no prior drug allergies. His medical history was remarkable for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, and autism spectrum disorder. His previously prescribed medications included atomoxetine, quetiapine, and valproic acid. The only new medication that had been started within the last year was amantadine. Physical examination revealed a diffuse, reticulated, erythematous to violaceous, blanching rash that was most notable on the legs (Figure 1A) but also was present on the trunk (Figure 1B) and arms (Figure 1C). The clinical examination was consistent with LR, which was presumed to be secondary to amantadine use. Given the multiple psychiatric diagnoses and medication history in this young patient, a consultation with child psychiatry was facilitated. His medications and diagnosis were reviewed, and amantadine was discontinued. At a follow-up visit 5 months later, the patient’s LR had improved (Figure 2).

Comment

Amantadine has a well-documented association with LR in patients with Parkinson disease,^3,4 which has been reported in up to 40% of those taking amantadine.² More recently, amantadine has been used off label to treat neurobehavioral disorders in children due to beneficial effects including improvement in attention and concentration, distractibility, and fatigue.⁵ Our patient was being treated off label with amantadine for ADHD and bipolar disorder. Amantadine acts as a noncompetitive antagonist of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor, enhancing dopamine release to reduce symptoms of ADHD.^5,6 Additionally, amantadine can cause a depletion of catecholamines in the peripheral nerve terminals, which may lead to dilatation of dermal vessels.^4,6 This sequence of events has been proposed as a possible mechanism contributing to amantadine-induced LR, though the pathophysiology is not fully understood.^1,3,4

Our case of LR likely was induced by amantadine given the temporal relationship between initiation of the medication, onset of the rash, and the considerable improvement of the rash upon discontinuation of amantadine. Barrera and Browning⁶ reported another case of amantadine-induced LR in a pediatric patient. Because amantadine is increasingly being used off label to treat childhood neurobehavioral disorders, amantadine-induced LR may become more prevalent in patients who do not have Parkinson disease; therefore, physicians who treat pediatric patients must be aware of this side effect.⁵

The Diagnosis: Hailey-Hailey Disease (Benign Familial Chronic Pemphigus)

Our patient had a long-standing history of Hailey-Hailey disease, as confirmed by multiple prior skin biopsies at outside institutions as well as our affiliated site. He began treatment with oral doxycycline 50 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, triamcinolone cream 0.1% twice daily to the affected region, and aluminum acetate solution soaks and chlorhexidine wash daily along with petroleum jelly, which resulted in good control of the disease. The differential diagnosis of eroded plaques, particularly in the axillary, crural, and inframammary folds, is broad and includes candidiasis, inverse psoriasis, contact dermatitis, dermatophyte infection, pemphigus vegetans or foliaceus, and granular parakeratosis.

Hailey-Hailey disease is a genetic disorder with a prevalence of 1 in 50,000 individuals. Most patients develop symptoms during the second or third decades of life.1 Hailey-Hailey disease exhibits an autosomal-dominant pattern of inheritance secondary to mutation in the human ATP2C1 gene, which codes for the ATPase secretory pathway of the Ca²⁺ transporting pump type 1 (SPCA1) localized in the Golgi apparatus.² Altered SPCA1 protein reduces concentration of Ca²⁺ within the Golgi lumen, which in turn impairs the processing of junctional proteins needed for normal cell-to-cell adhesion.¹

Clinically, Hailey-Hailey disease is characterized by vesicular or erosive plaques that have a predilection for intertriginous areas of the body.¹ The primary lesions often are flaccid vesicles that easily rupture, leaving behind crusted erosions that spread peripherally. The lesions also can appear as macerated plaques resembling torn tissue paper, as in our case. Friction, heat, and sweat exacerbate the disease. Complications occur from secondary bacterial, fungal, and viral colonization. Malodor and vegetations can indicate bacterial or fungal infections and can lead to persistence of skin lesions. Herpes simplex virus infections can exacerbate preexisting lesions.³ Hailey-Hailey disease of the anogenital region also can be complicated by infection with oncogenic strains of human papillomavirus and lead to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.⁴

Hailey-Hailey disease histologically appears as suprabasal and intraepidermal keratinocyte acantholysis,⁵ which typically is widespread in the epidermis, with large areas of dyscohesion with a dilapidated brick wall-like appearance.¹ In more chronic lesions, epidermal hyperplasia, parakeratosis, and focal crusts may be observed. A moderate perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate can be observed in the superficial dermis. Direct immunofluorescence typically is negative.

Topical corticosteroids and antimicrobials are first-line therapies that often only provide temporary suppression. When the disease is refractory to topical therapies, intralesional corticosteroids may be attempted. There is no strong evidence to support the use of systemic therapy, aside from antimicrobial agents (eg, doxycycline) for the use of superinfections. In severe cases, immunomodulating therapies such as prednisone, cyclosporine, methotrexate, dapsone, alefacept, and oral retinoids may be effective.^6-8 Surgical therapy also can be considered for recalcitrant disease, including wide excision and grafting, though these techniques can be associated with morbidity.⁹

Superficial ablative techniques including dermabrasion, laser therapy with CO₂ and erbium-doped YAG, photodynamic therapy, and electron beam radiation have been shown to be effective modalities in severe cases.^5,9-11 It has been hypothesized that keratinocytes expressing the molecular defect are ablated, while the surrounding normal adnexal epithelium can regenerate normal epithelium. It also is thought that dermal fibrosis leads to better support of the diseased epidermis and decreases the risk for ulceration and fissuring.⁹

The Diagnosis: Hailey-Hailey Disease (Benign Familial Chronic Pemphigus)

Our patient had a long-standing history of Hailey-Hailey disease, as confirmed by multiple prior skin biopsies at outside institutions as well as our affiliated site. He began treatment with oral doxycycline 50 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, triamcinolone cream 0.1% twice daily to the affected region, and aluminum acetate solution soaks and chlorhexidine wash daily along with petroleum jelly, which resulted in good control of the disease. The differential diagnosis of eroded plaques, particularly in the axillary, crural, and inframammary folds, is broad and includes candidiasis, inverse psoriasis, contact dermatitis, dermatophyte infection, pemphigus vegetans or foliaceus, and granular parakeratosis.

Hailey-Hailey disease is a genetic disorder with a prevalence of 1 in 50,000 individuals. Most patients develop symptoms during the second or third decades of life.1 Hailey-Hailey disease exhibits an autosomal-dominant pattern of inheritance secondary to mutation in the human ATP2C1 gene, which codes for the ATPase secretory pathway of the Ca²⁺ transporting pump type 1 (SPCA1) localized in the Golgi apparatus.² Altered SPCA1 protein reduces concentration of Ca²⁺ within the Golgi lumen, which in turn impairs the processing of junctional proteins needed for normal cell-to-cell adhesion.¹

Clinically, Hailey-Hailey disease is characterized by vesicular or erosive plaques that have a predilection for intertriginous areas of the body.¹ The primary lesions often are flaccid vesicles that easily rupture, leaving behind crusted erosions that spread peripherally. The lesions also can appear as macerated plaques resembling torn tissue paper, as in our case. Friction, heat, and sweat exacerbate the disease. Complications occur from secondary bacterial, fungal, and viral colonization. Malodor and vegetations can indicate bacterial or fungal infections and can lead to persistence of skin lesions. Herpes simplex virus infections can exacerbate preexisting lesions.³ Hailey-Hailey disease of the anogenital region also can be complicated by infection with oncogenic strains of human papillomavirus and lead to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.⁴

Hailey-Hailey disease histologically appears as suprabasal and intraepidermal keratinocyte acantholysis,⁵ which typically is widespread in the epidermis, with large areas of dyscohesion with a dilapidated brick wall-like appearance.¹ In more chronic lesions, epidermal hyperplasia, parakeratosis, and focal crusts may be observed. A moderate perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate can be observed in the superficial dermis. Direct immunofluorescence typically is negative.

Topical corticosteroids and antimicrobials are first-line therapies that often only provide temporary suppression. When the disease is refractory to topical therapies, intralesional corticosteroids may be attempted. There is no strong evidence to support the use of systemic therapy, aside from antimicrobial agents (eg, doxycycline) for the use of superinfections. In severe cases, immunomodulating therapies such as prednisone, cyclosporine, methotrexate, dapsone, alefacept, and oral retinoids may be effective.^6-8 Surgical therapy also can be considered for recalcitrant disease, including wide excision and grafting, though these techniques can be associated with morbidity.⁹

Superficial ablative techniques including dermabrasion, laser therapy with CO₂ and erbium-doped YAG, photodynamic therapy, and electron beam radiation have been shown to be effective modalities in severe cases.^5,9-11 It has been hypothesized that keratinocytes expressing the molecular defect are ablated, while the surrounding normal adnexal epithelium can regenerate normal epithelium. It also is thought that dermal fibrosis leads to better support of the diseased epidermis and decreases the risk for ulceration and fissuring.⁹

The Diagnosis: Hailey-Hailey Disease (Benign Familial Chronic Pemphigus)

Our patient had a long-standing history of Hailey-Hailey disease, as confirmed by multiple prior skin biopsies at outside institutions as well as our affiliated site. He began treatment with oral doxycycline 50 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, triamcinolone cream 0.1% twice daily to the affected region, and aluminum acetate solution soaks and chlorhexidine wash daily along with petroleum jelly, which resulted in good control of the disease. The differential diagnosis of eroded plaques, particularly in the axillary, crural, and inframammary folds, is broad and includes candidiasis, inverse psoriasis, contact dermatitis, dermatophyte infection, pemphigus vegetans or foliaceus, and granular parakeratosis.

Hailey-Hailey disease is a genetic disorder with a prevalence of 1 in 50,000 individuals. Most patients develop symptoms during the second or third decades of life.1 Hailey-Hailey disease exhibits an autosomal-dominant pattern of inheritance secondary to mutation in the human ATP2C1 gene, which codes for the ATPase secretory pathway of the Ca²⁺ transporting pump type 1 (SPCA1) localized in the Golgi apparatus.² Altered SPCA1 protein reduces concentration of Ca²⁺ within the Golgi lumen, which in turn impairs the processing of junctional proteins needed for normal cell-to-cell adhesion.¹

Clinically, Hailey-Hailey disease is characterized by vesicular or erosive plaques that have a predilection for intertriginous areas of the body.¹ The primary lesions often are flaccid vesicles that easily rupture, leaving behind crusted erosions that spread peripherally. The lesions also can appear as macerated plaques resembling torn tissue paper, as in our case. Friction, heat, and sweat exacerbate the disease. Complications occur from secondary bacterial, fungal, and viral colonization. Malodor and vegetations can indicate bacterial or fungal infections and can lead to persistence of skin lesions. Herpes simplex virus infections can exacerbate preexisting lesions.³ Hailey-Hailey disease of the anogenital region also can be complicated by infection with oncogenic strains of human papillomavirus and lead to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.⁴

Hailey-Hailey disease histologically appears as suprabasal and intraepidermal keratinocyte acantholysis,⁵ which typically is widespread in the epidermis, with large areas of dyscohesion with a dilapidated brick wall-like appearance.¹ In more chronic lesions, epidermal hyperplasia, parakeratosis, and focal crusts may be observed. A moderate perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate can be observed in the superficial dermis. Direct immunofluorescence typically is negative.

Topical corticosteroids and antimicrobials are first-line therapies that often only provide temporary suppression. When the disease is refractory to topical therapies, intralesional corticosteroids may be attempted. There is no strong evidence to support the use of systemic therapy, aside from antimicrobial agents (eg, doxycycline) for the use of superinfections. In severe cases, immunomodulating therapies such as prednisone, cyclosporine, methotrexate, dapsone, alefacept, and oral retinoids may be effective.^6-8 Surgical therapy also can be considered for recalcitrant disease, including wide excision and grafting, though these techniques can be associated with morbidity.⁹

Superficial ablative techniques including dermabrasion, laser therapy with CO₂ and erbium-doped YAG, photodynamic therapy, and electron beam radiation have been shown to be effective modalities in severe cases.^5,9-11 It has been hypothesized that keratinocytes expressing the molecular defect are ablated, while the surrounding normal adnexal epithelium can regenerate normal epithelium. It also is thought that dermal fibrosis leads to better support of the diseased epidermis and decreases the risk for ulceration and fissuring.⁹

To improve patient care and outcomes, leading dermatologists from the Cutis Editorial Board answered 5 questions on sunscreens. Here’s what we found.

What sun protection factor (SPF) do you recommend for the majority of your patients?

Fifty percent of dermatologists we surveyed recommend SPF 30. SPF 50 was recommended by 26%, SPF 50+ by 21%, and SPF 15 by only 2%.

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)

Half of our Editorial Board recommends sunscreen with SPF 30, with many recommending SPF 50 or higher. This trend toward sunscreens with higher SPF is consistent with a survey-based study with 97% of dermatologists stating they were comfortable recommending sunscreens with an SPF of 50 or higher and 83.3% stating that they believe that high SPF sunscreens provide an additional margin of safety (Farberg et al). These trends are supported by a randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical trial in which participants applied either SPF 50+ or SPF 100+ sunscreen after exposure to natural sunlight. The results showed that SPF 100+ sunscreen was remarkably more effective in protecting against sunburn than SPF 50+ sunscreen in actual use conditions (Williams et al).

Next page: Spray sunscreens

Which patient populations do you feel may benefit from spray sunscreens?

Two-thirds of dermatologists indicated that spray sunscreens may benefit patients traveling alone. Men with bald spots also may benefit (62%), as well as athletes, children, and older patients (57% each).

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)
As dermatologists, we tell our patients that the best sunscreens are ones that are used consistently. Spray sunscreens are likely as effective as lotions (Ou-Yang et al). There has been a clear trend in consumer purchasing of spray sunscreens from 2011 to 2016 (Teplitz et al). Spray sunscreens may benefit those traveling alone, particularly for hard-to-reach areas.

Next page: Supplemental vitamin D

In patients who apply sunscreen regularly, do you recommend supplemental vitamin D₃?

More than half (53%) of dermatologists recommend supplemental vitamin D₃.

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)
Because use of photoprotection results in decreased vitamin D levels in most individuals, it is good practice to recommend vitamin D supplementation in patients who are applying sunscreen regularly (Bogaczewicz et al).
Next page: Sunscreen compliance

What is the most often heard reason(s) for not using sunscreen in your patients?

Nearly three-quarters (72%) of dermatologists reported that patients do not use sunscreen because of cosmetic acceptance. Almost one-third (31%) said their patients prefer “natural” products. Price was a factor for 26%. Fewer dermatologists indicated risk of environmental damage (14%), allergy (12%), cancer induction (5%), and hormonal alteration (5%) were reasons patients are not compliant.

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)

Cosmetic acceptance is paramount for patient compliance for sunscreen application. These results from our Editorial Board echo a study on sunscreen product performance and other determinants of consumer preferences, which cited “cosmetic elegance” as an important factor in choosing sunscreens (Xu et al). Dermatologists must stress to patients to find a sunscreen that they find acceptable in terms of vehicle and price to increase compliance.

Next page: Sunscreens in pregnant women

What sunscreens do you recommend to pregnant women and children?

Most dermatologists (86%) recommend physical blockers “chemical-free” only sunscreens to pregnant women and children.

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)

While absorption of sunscreen by human embryos is likely negligible, because there is limited data on sunscreen effects in embryos and children, it is reasonable to recommend physical blockers for pregnant women and children.

Next page: More tips from derms

More Tips From Dermatologists

The dermatologists we polled had the following advice for their peers:

As a dermatologist married to a pediatrician, I try to get my kids to embrace sun-protection strategies. For the little ones it’s hard, but as they have gotten older and been exposed to more derm journals sitting around with pretty graphic pictures, they seem to get on board, even when away at summer camp on their own. If only our patients knew what our kids do.—Joel L. Cohen, MD (Denver, Colorado)

The most important factor in getting patient compliance with sunscreen usage is “cosmetic acceptance.” If they or their children or their spouse don’t like the feel, they won’t use it.—Vincent A. DeLeo, MD (Los Angeles, California)

Not using photoprotection with sunscreen is like crossing a busy road without looking both ways first.—James Q. Del Rosso, DO (Las Vegas, Nevada)

I do not recommend spray sunscreens. At least half of the spray seems to go in the air rather than on the skin. And people often do not rub the spray into their skin well enough. Lotions are better!—Lawrence J. Green, MD (Washington, DC)

The most important factor in sunscreen is not SPF; educate patients on the important role vehicle and sweating play in the length of sun protection.—Orit Markowitz, MD (New York, New York)

Reapplying sunscreen in the appropriate amount is key to blocking the danger rays of the sun.—Vineet Mishra, MD (San Antonio, Texas)

A good sunscreen is the one you put on properly. Regardless of the formulation, make sure you apply the sunscreen evenly to all exposed skin and reapply according to directions on the container. Remember, a regular white T-shirt has minimal SPF 4-5. Either wear sun-protective clothing or wear sunscreen underneath!—Larisa Ravitskiy, MD (Gahanna, Ohio)

Sun protection and sunscreen application go hand-in-hand. We can still enjoy the outdoors without getting excessive UV exposure.—Anthony M. Rossi, MD (New York, New York)

Sunscreens are only part of sun protection. Make sure to reapply them regularly, try to avoid direct sun between about 10 AM and 2 PM if possible, and wear a hat with a wide brim (not a baseball cap, which, after all, is designed for catching baseballs, not sun protection).—Robert I. Rudolph, MD (Wyomissing, Pennsylvania)

Sunscreens keep you younger looking longer!—Richard K. Scher, MD (New York, New York)

The dentist says only floss the teeth you want to keep. I tell patients to only sun block the skin they want to keep.—Daniel M. Siegel, MD, MS (Brooklyn, New York)

The best sunscreen is the one that is used! If it's too greasy or drying, smells bad or stings, it won't be used. Stick to the one YOU like, but at least SPF 30 or better.—Stephen P. Stone, MD, (Springfield, Illinois)

Sunscreen can be a meaningful part of your sun-protection regimen used in conjunction with sun-protective clothing, sun safe behaviors, and a diet rich in natural antioxidants.—Michelle Tarbox, MD (Lubbock, Texas)

About This Survey

The survey was fielded electronically to Cutis Editorial Board Members within the United States from August 2, 2018, to September 2, 2018. A total of 42 usable responses were received.

To improve patient care and outcomes, leading dermatologists from the Cutis Editorial Board answered 5 questions on sunscreens. Here’s what we found.

What sun protection factor (SPF) do you recommend for the majority of your patients?

Fifty percent of dermatologists we surveyed recommend SPF 30. SPF 50 was recommended by 26%, SPF 50+ by 21%, and SPF 15 by only 2%.

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)

Half of our Editorial Board recommends sunscreen with SPF 30, with many recommending SPF 50 or higher. This trend toward sunscreens with higher SPF is consistent with a survey-based study with 97% of dermatologists stating they were comfortable recommending sunscreens with an SPF of 50 or higher and 83.3% stating that they believe that high SPF sunscreens provide an additional margin of safety (Farberg et al). These trends are supported by a randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical trial in which participants applied either SPF 50+ or SPF 100+ sunscreen after exposure to natural sunlight. The results showed that SPF 100+ sunscreen was remarkably more effective in protecting against sunburn than SPF 50+ sunscreen in actual use conditions (Williams et al).

Next page: Spray sunscreens

Which patient populations do you feel may benefit from spray sunscreens?

Two-thirds of dermatologists indicated that spray sunscreens may benefit patients traveling alone. Men with bald spots also may benefit (62%), as well as athletes, children, and older patients (57% each).

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)
As dermatologists, we tell our patients that the best sunscreens are ones that are used consistently. Spray sunscreens are likely as effective as lotions (Ou-Yang et al). There has been a clear trend in consumer purchasing of spray sunscreens from 2011 to 2016 (Teplitz et al). Spray sunscreens may benefit those traveling alone, particularly for hard-to-reach areas.

Next page: Supplemental vitamin D

In patients who apply sunscreen regularly, do you recommend supplemental vitamin D₃?

More than half (53%) of dermatologists recommend supplemental vitamin D₃.

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)
Because use of photoprotection results in decreased vitamin D levels in most individuals, it is good practice to recommend vitamin D supplementation in patients who are applying sunscreen regularly (Bogaczewicz et al).
Next page: Sunscreen compliance

What is the most often heard reason(s) for not using sunscreen in your patients?

Nearly three-quarters (72%) of dermatologists reported that patients do not use sunscreen because of cosmetic acceptance. Almost one-third (31%) said their patients prefer “natural” products. Price was a factor for 26%. Fewer dermatologists indicated risk of environmental damage (14%), allergy (12%), cancer induction (5%), and hormonal alteration (5%) were reasons patients are not compliant.

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)

Cosmetic acceptance is paramount for patient compliance for sunscreen application. These results from our Editorial Board echo a study on sunscreen product performance and other determinants of consumer preferences, which cited “cosmetic elegance” as an important factor in choosing sunscreens (Xu et al). Dermatologists must stress to patients to find a sunscreen that they find acceptable in terms of vehicle and price to increase compliance.

Next page: Sunscreens in pregnant women

What sunscreens do you recommend to pregnant women and children?

Most dermatologists (86%) recommend physical blockers “chemical-free” only sunscreens to pregnant women and children.

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)

While absorption of sunscreen by human embryos is likely negligible, because there is limited data on sunscreen effects in embryos and children, it is reasonable to recommend physical blockers for pregnant women and children.

Next page: More tips from derms

More Tips From Dermatologists

The dermatologists we polled had the following advice for their peers:

As a dermatologist married to a pediatrician, I try to get my kids to embrace sun-protection strategies. For the little ones it’s hard, but as they have gotten older and been exposed to more derm journals sitting around with pretty graphic pictures, they seem to get on board, even when away at summer camp on their own. If only our patients knew what our kids do.—Joel L. Cohen, MD (Denver, Colorado)

The most important factor in getting patient compliance with sunscreen usage is “cosmetic acceptance.” If they or their children or their spouse don’t like the feel, they won’t use it.—Vincent A. DeLeo, MD (Los Angeles, California)

Not using photoprotection with sunscreen is like crossing a busy road without looking both ways first.—James Q. Del Rosso, DO (Las Vegas, Nevada)

I do not recommend spray sunscreens. At least half of the spray seems to go in the air rather than on the skin. And people often do not rub the spray into their skin well enough. Lotions are better!—Lawrence J. Green, MD (Washington, DC)

The most important factor in sunscreen is not SPF; educate patients on the important role vehicle and sweating play in the length of sun protection.—Orit Markowitz, MD (New York, New York)

Reapplying sunscreen in the appropriate amount is key to blocking the danger rays of the sun.—Vineet Mishra, MD (San Antonio, Texas)

A good sunscreen is the one you put on properly. Regardless of the formulation, make sure you apply the sunscreen evenly to all exposed skin and reapply according to directions on the container. Remember, a regular white T-shirt has minimal SPF 4-5. Either wear sun-protective clothing or wear sunscreen underneath!—Larisa Ravitskiy, MD (Gahanna, Ohio)

Sun protection and sunscreen application go hand-in-hand. We can still enjoy the outdoors without getting excessive UV exposure.—Anthony M. Rossi, MD (New York, New York)

Sunscreens are only part of sun protection. Make sure to reapply them regularly, try to avoid direct sun between about 10 AM and 2 PM if possible, and wear a hat with a wide brim (not a baseball cap, which, after all, is designed for catching baseballs, not sun protection).—Robert I. Rudolph, MD (Wyomissing, Pennsylvania)

Sunscreens keep you younger looking longer!—Richard K. Scher, MD (New York, New York)

The dentist says only floss the teeth you want to keep. I tell patients to only sun block the skin they want to keep.—Daniel M. Siegel, MD, MS (Brooklyn, New York)

The best sunscreen is the one that is used! If it's too greasy or drying, smells bad or stings, it won't be used. Stick to the one YOU like, but at least SPF 30 or better.—Stephen P. Stone, MD, (Springfield, Illinois)

Sunscreen can be a meaningful part of your sun-protection regimen used in conjunction with sun-protective clothing, sun safe behaviors, and a diet rich in natural antioxidants.—Michelle Tarbox, MD (Lubbock, Texas)

About This Survey

The survey was fielded electronically to Cutis Editorial Board Members within the United States from August 2, 2018, to September 2, 2018. A total of 42 usable responses were received.

To improve patient care and outcomes, leading dermatologists from the Cutis Editorial Board answered 5 questions on sunscreens. Here’s what we found.

What sun protection factor (SPF) do you recommend for the majority of your patients?

Fifty percent of dermatologists we surveyed recommend SPF 30. SPF 50 was recommended by 26%, SPF 50+ by 21%, and SPF 15 by only 2%.

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)

Half of our Editorial Board recommends sunscreen with SPF 30, with many recommending SPF 50 or higher. This trend toward sunscreens with higher SPF is consistent with a survey-based study with 97% of dermatologists stating they were comfortable recommending sunscreens with an SPF of 50 or higher and 83.3% stating that they believe that high SPF sunscreens provide an additional margin of safety (Farberg et al). These trends are supported by a randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical trial in which participants applied either SPF 50+ or SPF 100+ sunscreen after exposure to natural sunlight. The results showed that SPF 100+ sunscreen was remarkably more effective in protecting against sunburn than SPF 50+ sunscreen in actual use conditions (Williams et al).

Next page: Spray sunscreens

Which patient populations do you feel may benefit from spray sunscreens?

Two-thirds of dermatologists indicated that spray sunscreens may benefit patients traveling alone. Men with bald spots also may benefit (62%), as well as athletes, children, and older patients (57% each).

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)
As dermatologists, we tell our patients that the best sunscreens are ones that are used consistently. Spray sunscreens are likely as effective as lotions (Ou-Yang et al). There has been a clear trend in consumer purchasing of spray sunscreens from 2011 to 2016 (Teplitz et al). Spray sunscreens may benefit those traveling alone, particularly for hard-to-reach areas.

Next page: Supplemental vitamin D

In patients who apply sunscreen regularly, do you recommend supplemental vitamin D₃?

More than half (53%) of dermatologists recommend supplemental vitamin D₃.

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)
Because use of photoprotection results in decreased vitamin D levels in most individuals, it is good practice to recommend vitamin D supplementation in patients who are applying sunscreen regularly (Bogaczewicz et al).
Next page: Sunscreen compliance

What is the most often heard reason(s) for not using sunscreen in your patients?

Nearly three-quarters (72%) of dermatologists reported that patients do not use sunscreen because of cosmetic acceptance. Almost one-third (31%) said their patients prefer “natural” products. Price was a factor for 26%. Fewer dermatologists indicated risk of environmental damage (14%), allergy (12%), cancer induction (5%), and hormonal alteration (5%) were reasons patients are not compliant.

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)

Cosmetic acceptance is paramount for patient compliance for sunscreen application. These results from our Editorial Board echo a study on sunscreen product performance and other determinants of consumer preferences, which cited “cosmetic elegance” as an important factor in choosing sunscreens (Xu et al). Dermatologists must stress to patients to find a sunscreen that they find acceptable in terms of vehicle and price to increase compliance.

Next page: Sunscreens in pregnant women

What sunscreens do you recommend to pregnant women and children?

Most dermatologists (86%) recommend physical blockers “chemical-free” only sunscreens to pregnant women and children.

Expert Commentary
Provided by Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD (New York, New York)

While absorption of sunscreen by human embryos is likely negligible, because there is limited data on sunscreen effects in embryos and children, it is reasonable to recommend physical blockers for pregnant women and children.

Next page: More tips from derms

More Tips From Dermatologists

The dermatologists we polled had the following advice for their peers:

As a dermatologist married to a pediatrician, I try to get my kids to embrace sun-protection strategies. For the little ones it’s hard, but as they have gotten older and been exposed to more derm journals sitting around with pretty graphic pictures, they seem to get on board, even when away at summer camp on their own. If only our patients knew what our kids do.—Joel L. Cohen, MD (Denver, Colorado)

The most important factor in getting patient compliance with sunscreen usage is “cosmetic acceptance.” If they or their children or their spouse don’t like the feel, they won’t use it.—Vincent A. DeLeo, MD (Los Angeles, California)

Not using photoprotection with sunscreen is like crossing a busy road without looking both ways first.—James Q. Del Rosso, DO (Las Vegas, Nevada)

I do not recommend spray sunscreens. At least half of the spray seems to go in the air rather than on the skin. And people often do not rub the spray into their skin well enough. Lotions are better!—Lawrence J. Green, MD (Washington, DC)

The most important factor in sunscreen is not SPF; educate patients on the important role vehicle and sweating play in the length of sun protection.—Orit Markowitz, MD (New York, New York)

Reapplying sunscreen in the appropriate amount is key to blocking the danger rays of the sun.—Vineet Mishra, MD (San Antonio, Texas)

A good sunscreen is the one you put on properly. Regardless of the formulation, make sure you apply the sunscreen evenly to all exposed skin and reapply according to directions on the container. Remember, a regular white T-shirt has minimal SPF 4-5. Either wear sun-protective clothing or wear sunscreen underneath!—Larisa Ravitskiy, MD (Gahanna, Ohio)

Sun protection and sunscreen application go hand-in-hand. We can still enjoy the outdoors without getting excessive UV exposure.—Anthony M. Rossi, MD (New York, New York)

Sunscreens are only part of sun protection. Make sure to reapply them regularly, try to avoid direct sun between about 10 AM and 2 PM if possible, and wear a hat with a wide brim (not a baseball cap, which, after all, is designed for catching baseballs, not sun protection).—Robert I. Rudolph, MD (Wyomissing, Pennsylvania)

Sunscreens keep you younger looking longer!—Richard K. Scher, MD (New York, New York)

The dentist says only floss the teeth you want to keep. I tell patients to only sun block the skin they want to keep.—Daniel M. Siegel, MD, MS (Brooklyn, New York)

The best sunscreen is the one that is used! If it's too greasy or drying, smells bad or stings, it won't be used. Stick to the one YOU like, but at least SPF 30 or better.—Stephen P. Stone, MD, (Springfield, Illinois)

Sunscreen can be a meaningful part of your sun-protection regimen used in conjunction with sun-protective clothing, sun safe behaviors, and a diet rich in natural antioxidants.—Michelle Tarbox, MD (Lubbock, Texas)

About This Survey

The survey was fielded electronically to Cutis Editorial Board Members within the United States from August 2, 2018, to September 2, 2018. A total of 42 usable responses were received.

Nevus of Ota, originally referred to as nevus fusco-caeruleus ophthalmomaxillaris, initially was described in 1939 by Ota and Tanino.¹ It is a dermal melanocytic hamartoma arising from incomplete migration of neural crest melanocytes to the epidermis during embryogenesis, resulting in nesting of subtle bands of dendritic melanocytes in the upper dermis. More common in Asians, Native Americans, and females, this hyperpigmented dermatosis most often is unilaterally distributed along the ophthalmic (V1) and maxillary (V2) branches of the trigeminal nerve.² In some patients, nevus of Ota also is associated with ocular, orbital, and leptomeningeal melanocytosis. Approximately 15% of nevi of Ota have an activating guanine nucleotide-binding protein G(q) subunit alpha (GNAQ) or G protein subunit alpha 11 (GNAQ) mutation; 85% of uveal melanomas harbor one of these mutations.³ Although uncommon, neoplastic transformation with extension or metastasis to the brain has been reported in patients with nevus of Ota.⁴

We report the case of a 29-year-old woman with a long-standing history of nevus of Ota who presented acutely with an intracranial melanoma as an extension of a primary uveal melanoma.

Case Report

A 29-year-old woman with a history of a nevus of Ota involving the left inner canthus, eyelids, sclera, and superior malar cheek that had been present since birth presented to the emergency department with an acute onset of severe headache, blurred vision, and vomiting. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain revealed a hemorrhagic mass in the left frontal lobe. Subsequent frontal craniotomy and resection revealed an intracranial melanoma.

Two weeks following surgery, the patient underwent magnetic resonance imaging and combined positron emission tomography and CT scans that demonstrated a fluorodeoxyglucose-avid left retro-orbital mass. Histopathology of a biopsy from the left retro-orbital mass that had been obtained intraoperatively demonstrated a pigmented, spindled to epithelioid neoplasm with areas of marked atypia and a high mitotic rate that was compatible with malignant melanoma (Figure 1). Intracranial biopsies were sent for genetic study and were found to harbor GNAQ (Q209P) and BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1)(p.P324fs*11) mutations.

The patient was referred to dermatology by neurosurgery for evaluation of a suspected primary cutaneous melanoma. Biopsies of 2 blue papules that had appeared over the last 2 years within the nevus of Ota on the left medial canthus and left malar cheek (Figure 2) revealed cellular blue nevi (Figure 3). No primary cutaneous melanoma was identified. Based on the genetic profile described above and the presence of GNAQ and BAP1 mutations, the patient was referred to ophthalmology. Inferotemporal darkening of the choroid, most likely consistent with a primary uveal melanoma, was discovered. The intracranial melanoma was thought to have arisen from the primary uveal melanoma.

The patient entered a clinical trial at an outside institution several weeks after initial presentation to our institution for treatment with a mitogen-activated protein kinase MEK1 inhibitor as well as radiation therapy. The patient was lost to follow-up.

Comment

It has been demonstrated that homozygous loss of BAP1, located on the chromosome 3p21.1 locus, allows for progression to metastatic disease in uveal melanoma. The BAP1 gene codes for ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase 7, which is involved in the removal of ubiquitin from proteins. This enzyme binds to BRCA1 (BRCA1, DNA repair associated) via the RING (Really Interesting New Gene) finger domain and acts as a tumor suppressor.⁵ Biallelic BAP1 mutations allow the transition to malignancy in concert with other mutations, such as GNAQ. Identification of a BAP1 mutation may serve as a valuable diagnostic and future therapeutic target in uveal melanoma.

Currently, there are no drugs that directly target mutated GNA11 and GNAQ proteins. Because aberrant GNA11 and GNAQ proteins activate MEK1, several MEK1 inhibitors are being tested with the hope of achieving indirect suppression of GNA11/GNAQ.⁶

We present a rare case of BAP1 and GNAQ mutations in intracranial melanoma associated with nevus of Ota. Although the uveal melanoma was not confirmed on histopathology, the clear mention of foci within the eye by ophthalmology, positron emission tomography–CT scan showing a fluorodeoxyglucose-avid left retro-orbital mass, and genetic studies of the intracranial biopsies were highly suggestive of a primary uveal melanoma.

Our case highlights the importance of ongoing ocular screening in patients with nevus of Ota, noting the possibility of malignant transformation. Furthermore, patients with nevus of Ota with ocular involvement may benefit from testing of BAP1 protein expression by immunohistochemistry.⁷ Identification of BAP1 and GNAQ mutations in patients with nevus of Ota place them at markedly higher risk for malignant melanoma. Therefore, dermatologic evaluation of patients with nevus of Ota should include a thorough review of the patient’s history and skin examination as well as referral for ophthalmologic evaluation.

Nevus of Ota, originally referred to as nevus fusco-caeruleus ophthalmomaxillaris, initially was described in 1939 by Ota and Tanino.¹ It is a dermal melanocytic hamartoma arising from incomplete migration of neural crest melanocytes to the epidermis during embryogenesis, resulting in nesting of subtle bands of dendritic melanocytes in the upper dermis. More common in Asians, Native Americans, and females, this hyperpigmented dermatosis most often is unilaterally distributed along the ophthalmic (V1) and maxillary (V2) branches of the trigeminal nerve.² In some patients, nevus of Ota also is associated with ocular, orbital, and leptomeningeal melanocytosis. Approximately 15% of nevi of Ota have an activating guanine nucleotide-binding protein G(q) subunit alpha (GNAQ) or G protein subunit alpha 11 (GNAQ) mutation; 85% of uveal melanomas harbor one of these mutations.³ Although uncommon, neoplastic transformation with extension or metastasis to the brain has been reported in patients with nevus of Ota.⁴

We report the case of a 29-year-old woman with a long-standing history of nevus of Ota who presented acutely with an intracranial melanoma as an extension of a primary uveal melanoma.

Case Report

A 29-year-old woman with a history of a nevus of Ota involving the left inner canthus, eyelids, sclera, and superior malar cheek that had been present since birth presented to the emergency department with an acute onset of severe headache, blurred vision, and vomiting. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain revealed a hemorrhagic mass in the left frontal lobe. Subsequent frontal craniotomy and resection revealed an intracranial melanoma.

Two weeks following surgery, the patient underwent magnetic resonance imaging and combined positron emission tomography and CT scans that demonstrated a fluorodeoxyglucose-avid left retro-orbital mass. Histopathology of a biopsy from the left retro-orbital mass that had been obtained intraoperatively demonstrated a pigmented, spindled to epithelioid neoplasm with areas of marked atypia and a high mitotic rate that was compatible with malignant melanoma (Figure 1). Intracranial biopsies were sent for genetic study and were found to harbor GNAQ (Q209P) and BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1)(p.P324fs*11) mutations.

The patient was referred to dermatology by neurosurgery for evaluation of a suspected primary cutaneous melanoma. Biopsies of 2 blue papules that had appeared over the last 2 years within the nevus of Ota on the left medial canthus and left malar cheek (Figure 2) revealed cellular blue nevi (Figure 3). No primary cutaneous melanoma was identified. Based on the genetic profile described above and the presence of GNAQ and BAP1 mutations, the patient was referred to ophthalmology. Inferotemporal darkening of the choroid, most likely consistent with a primary uveal melanoma, was discovered. The intracranial melanoma was thought to have arisen from the primary uveal melanoma.

The patient entered a clinical trial at an outside institution several weeks after initial presentation to our institution for treatment with a mitogen-activated protein kinase MEK1 inhibitor as well as radiation therapy. The patient was lost to follow-up.

Comment

It has been demonstrated that homozygous loss of BAP1, located on the chromosome 3p21.1 locus, allows for progression to metastatic disease in uveal melanoma. The BAP1 gene codes for ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase 7, which is involved in the removal of ubiquitin from proteins. This enzyme binds to BRCA1 (BRCA1, DNA repair associated) via the RING (Really Interesting New Gene) finger domain and acts as a tumor suppressor.⁵ Biallelic BAP1 mutations allow the transition to malignancy in concert with other mutations, such as GNAQ. Identification of a BAP1 mutation may serve as a valuable diagnostic and future therapeutic target in uveal melanoma.

Currently, there are no drugs that directly target mutated GNA11 and GNAQ proteins. Because aberrant GNA11 and GNAQ proteins activate MEK1, several MEK1 inhibitors are being tested with the hope of achieving indirect suppression of GNA11/GNAQ.⁶

We present a rare case of BAP1 and GNAQ mutations in intracranial melanoma associated with nevus of Ota. Although the uveal melanoma was not confirmed on histopathology, the clear mention of foci within the eye by ophthalmology, positron emission tomography–CT scan showing a fluorodeoxyglucose-avid left retro-orbital mass, and genetic studies of the intracranial biopsies were highly suggestive of a primary uveal melanoma.

Our case highlights the importance of ongoing ocular screening in patients with nevus of Ota, noting the possibility of malignant transformation. Furthermore, patients with nevus of Ota with ocular involvement may benefit from testing of BAP1 protein expression by immunohistochemistry.⁷ Identification of BAP1 and GNAQ mutations in patients with nevus of Ota place them at markedly higher risk for malignant melanoma. Therefore, dermatologic evaluation of patients with nevus of Ota should include a thorough review of the patient’s history and skin examination as well as referral for ophthalmologic evaluation.

Nevus of Ota, originally referred to as nevus fusco-caeruleus ophthalmomaxillaris, initially was described in 1939 by Ota and Tanino.¹ It is a dermal melanocytic hamartoma arising from incomplete migration of neural crest melanocytes to the epidermis during embryogenesis, resulting in nesting of subtle bands of dendritic melanocytes in the upper dermis. More common in Asians, Native Americans, and females, this hyperpigmented dermatosis most often is unilaterally distributed along the ophthalmic (V1) and maxillary (V2) branches of the trigeminal nerve.² In some patients, nevus of Ota also is associated with ocular, orbital, and leptomeningeal melanocytosis. Approximately 15% of nevi of Ota have an activating guanine nucleotide-binding protein G(q) subunit alpha (GNAQ) or G protein subunit alpha 11 (GNAQ) mutation; 85% of uveal melanomas harbor one of these mutations.³ Although uncommon, neoplastic transformation with extension or metastasis to the brain has been reported in patients with nevus of Ota.⁴

We report the case of a 29-year-old woman with a long-standing history of nevus of Ota who presented acutely with an intracranial melanoma as an extension of a primary uveal melanoma.

Case Report

A 29-year-old woman with a history of a nevus of Ota involving the left inner canthus, eyelids, sclera, and superior malar cheek that had been present since birth presented to the emergency department with an acute onset of severe headache, blurred vision, and vomiting. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain revealed a hemorrhagic mass in the left frontal lobe. Subsequent frontal craniotomy and resection revealed an intracranial melanoma.

Two weeks following surgery, the patient underwent magnetic resonance imaging and combined positron emission tomography and CT scans that demonstrated a fluorodeoxyglucose-avid left retro-orbital mass. Histopathology of a biopsy from the left retro-orbital mass that had been obtained intraoperatively demonstrated a pigmented, spindled to epithelioid neoplasm with areas of marked atypia and a high mitotic rate that was compatible with malignant melanoma (Figure 1). Intracranial biopsies were sent for genetic study and were found to harbor GNAQ (Q209P) and BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1)(p.P324fs*11) mutations.

The patient was referred to dermatology by neurosurgery for evaluation of a suspected primary cutaneous melanoma. Biopsies of 2 blue papules that had appeared over the last 2 years within the nevus of Ota on the left medial canthus and left malar cheek (Figure 2) revealed cellular blue nevi (Figure 3). No primary cutaneous melanoma was identified. Based on the genetic profile described above and the presence of GNAQ and BAP1 mutations, the patient was referred to ophthalmology. Inferotemporal darkening of the choroid, most likely consistent with a primary uveal melanoma, was discovered. The intracranial melanoma was thought to have arisen from the primary uveal melanoma.

The patient entered a clinical trial at an outside institution several weeks after initial presentation to our institution for treatment with a mitogen-activated protein kinase MEK1 inhibitor as well as radiation therapy. The patient was lost to follow-up.

Comment

It has been demonstrated that homozygous loss of BAP1, located on the chromosome 3p21.1 locus, allows for progression to metastatic disease in uveal melanoma. The BAP1 gene codes for ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase 7, which is involved in the removal of ubiquitin from proteins. This enzyme binds to BRCA1 (BRCA1, DNA repair associated) via the RING (Really Interesting New Gene) finger domain and acts as a tumor suppressor.⁵ Biallelic BAP1 mutations allow the transition to malignancy in concert with other mutations, such as GNAQ. Identification of a BAP1 mutation may serve as a valuable diagnostic and future therapeutic target in uveal melanoma.

Currently, there are no drugs that directly target mutated GNA11 and GNAQ proteins. Because aberrant GNA11 and GNAQ proteins activate MEK1, several MEK1 inhibitors are being tested with the hope of achieving indirect suppression of GNA11/GNAQ.⁶

We present a rare case of BAP1 and GNAQ mutations in intracranial melanoma associated with nevus of Ota. Although the uveal melanoma was not confirmed on histopathology, the clear mention of foci within the eye by ophthalmology, positron emission tomography–CT scan showing a fluorodeoxyglucose-avid left retro-orbital mass, and genetic studies of the intracranial biopsies were highly suggestive of a primary uveal melanoma.

Our case highlights the importance of ongoing ocular screening in patients with nevus of Ota, noting the possibility of malignant transformation. Furthermore, patients with nevus of Ota with ocular involvement may benefit from testing of BAP1 protein expression by immunohistochemistry.⁷ Identification of BAP1 and GNAQ mutations in patients with nevus of Ota place them at markedly higher risk for malignant melanoma. Therefore, dermatologic evaluation of patients with nevus of Ota should include a thorough review of the patient’s history and skin examination as well as referral for ophthalmologic evaluation.

To the Editor:

A 17-year-old adolescent boy presented with dark spots on the legs and back of 2 months’ duration. He was not taking any medications and the spots could not be washed away by scrubbing with soap and water. He denied symptoms, except occasional itching. Family history revealed a maternal uncle with protein C deficiency and a maternal grandmother with systemic lupus erythematosus. Review of systems was negative; the patient denied joint pain and contact with heating pads or laptop computers. Based on the initial presentation, an underlying systemic condition was suspected. Physical examination revealed reticulate, nonblanching, brown patches on the bilateral arms, legs, and back in an apparent livedoid pattern (Figure). The patient’s history and physical examination suggested terra firma-forme dermatosis, livedo racemosa, or another vasculopathic process. However, gentle rubbing of the skin with an alcohol swab removed the discoloration completely, leading to the diagnosis of terra firma-forme dermatosis.

Livedo racemosa appears as an irregular, focal, reticulated discoloration of the skin.¹ The reticulated pattern of livedo racemosa has a branched or broken-up appearance.² Livedo racemosa indicates a disruption in the vasculature due to inflammation or occlusion.¹ The change is pathologic and does not blanch or resolve with warming.^1,2 The condition can progress to pigmentation and ulceration.¹ Livedo racemosa is a cutaneous manifestation of underlying vascular pathology. Due to a variety of causes, skin biopsy is nondiagnostic. Livedo racemosa can be caused by conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus, syphilis, tuberculosis, polycythemia rubra vera, and Sneddon syndrome, among others.^3-5

Terra firma-forme dermatosis was reported in 1987 by Duncan et al.⁶ The condition classically presents with an exasperated mother who is unable to clean the “dirt” off her child’s skin despite multiple vigorous scrubbing attempts. The condition most commonly occurs in the summer months on the neck, face, and ankles.^7,8 Duncan et al⁶ reported that when the affected area was prepared for a biopsy, clean skin was revealed after wiping with an alcohol swab. No other cleansing agent has been reported to effectively remove the discoloration of terra firma-forme dermatosis. Hoping to elucidate a cause, Duncan et al⁶ performed both bacteriologic and fungal studies. The bacterial skin culture grew only normal flora, and fungal culture grew only normal contaminants consistent with the potassium hydroxide preparation of skin scraping. Histopathologic examination showed hyperkeratosis and orthokeratosis but not parakeratosis. Staining revealed melanin in the hyperkeratotic areas.⁶ Although the cause of this condition largely is unknown, it is thought that the epidermis in the affected areas could undergo altered maturation, resulting in trapping melanin that causes the skin to appear hyperkeratotic and hyperpigmented.¹ In our case, wiping the skin revealed the unsuspected diagnosis of terra firma-forme dermatosis displaying an unusual pseudolivedoid pattern. With apparently hyperpigmented processes, rubbing the skin with alcohol may help avoid unnecessary aggressive workup.

To the Editor:

A 17-year-old adolescent boy presented with dark spots on the legs and back of 2 months’ duration. He was not taking any medications and the spots could not be washed away by scrubbing with soap and water. He denied symptoms, except occasional itching. Family history revealed a maternal uncle with protein C deficiency and a maternal grandmother with systemic lupus erythematosus. Review of systems was negative; the patient denied joint pain and contact with heating pads or laptop computers. Based on the initial presentation, an underlying systemic condition was suspected. Physical examination revealed reticulate, nonblanching, brown patches on the bilateral arms, legs, and back in an apparent livedoid pattern (Figure). The patient’s history and physical examination suggested terra firma-forme dermatosis, livedo racemosa, or another vasculopathic process. However, gentle rubbing of the skin with an alcohol swab removed the discoloration completely, leading to the diagnosis of terra firma-forme dermatosis.

Livedo racemosa appears as an irregular, focal, reticulated discoloration of the skin.¹ The reticulated pattern of livedo racemosa has a branched or broken-up appearance.² Livedo racemosa indicates a disruption in the vasculature due to inflammation or occlusion.¹ The change is pathologic and does not blanch or resolve with warming.^1,2 The condition can progress to pigmentation and ulceration.¹ Livedo racemosa is a cutaneous manifestation of underlying vascular pathology. Due to a variety of causes, skin biopsy is nondiagnostic. Livedo racemosa can be caused by conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus, syphilis, tuberculosis, polycythemia rubra vera, and Sneddon syndrome, among others.^3-5

Terra firma-forme dermatosis was reported in 1987 by Duncan et al.⁶ The condition classically presents with an exasperated mother who is unable to clean the “dirt” off her child’s skin despite multiple vigorous scrubbing attempts. The condition most commonly occurs in the summer months on the neck, face, and ankles.^7,8 Duncan et al⁶ reported that when the affected area was prepared for a biopsy, clean skin was revealed after wiping with an alcohol swab. No other cleansing agent has been reported to effectively remove the discoloration of terra firma-forme dermatosis. Hoping to elucidate a cause, Duncan et al⁶ performed both bacteriologic and fungal studies. The bacterial skin culture grew only normal flora, and fungal culture grew only normal contaminants consistent with the potassium hydroxide preparation of skin scraping. Histopathologic examination showed hyperkeratosis and orthokeratosis but not parakeratosis. Staining revealed melanin in the hyperkeratotic areas.⁶ Although the cause of this condition largely is unknown, it is thought that the epidermis in the affected areas could undergo altered maturation, resulting in trapping melanin that causes the skin to appear hyperkeratotic and hyperpigmented.¹ In our case, wiping the skin revealed the unsuspected diagnosis of terra firma-forme dermatosis displaying an unusual pseudolivedoid pattern. With apparently hyperpigmented processes, rubbing the skin with alcohol may help avoid unnecessary aggressive workup.

To the Editor:

A 17-year-old adolescent boy presented with dark spots on the legs and back of 2 months’ duration. He was not taking any medications and the spots could not be washed away by scrubbing with soap and water. He denied symptoms, except occasional itching. Family history revealed a maternal uncle with protein C deficiency and a maternal grandmother with systemic lupus erythematosus. Review of systems was negative; the patient denied joint pain and contact with heating pads or laptop computers. Based on the initial presentation, an underlying systemic condition was suspected. Physical examination revealed reticulate, nonblanching, brown patches on the bilateral arms, legs, and back in an apparent livedoid pattern (Figure). The patient’s history and physical examination suggested terra firma-forme dermatosis, livedo racemosa, or another vasculopathic process. However, gentle rubbing of the skin with an alcohol swab removed the discoloration completely, leading to the diagnosis of terra firma-forme dermatosis.

Livedo racemosa appears as an irregular, focal, reticulated discoloration of the skin.¹ The reticulated pattern of livedo racemosa has a branched or broken-up appearance.² Livedo racemosa indicates a disruption in the vasculature due to inflammation or occlusion.¹ The change is pathologic and does not blanch or resolve with warming.^1,2 The condition can progress to pigmentation and ulceration.¹ Livedo racemosa is a cutaneous manifestation of underlying vascular pathology. Due to a variety of causes, skin biopsy is nondiagnostic. Livedo racemosa can be caused by conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus, syphilis, tuberculosis, polycythemia rubra vera, and Sneddon syndrome, among others.^3-5

Terra firma-forme dermatosis was reported in 1987 by Duncan et al.⁶ The condition classically presents with an exasperated mother who is unable to clean the “dirt” off her child’s skin despite multiple vigorous scrubbing attempts. The condition most commonly occurs in the summer months on the neck, face, and ankles.^7,8 Duncan et al⁶ reported that when the affected area was prepared for a biopsy, clean skin was revealed after wiping with an alcohol swab. No other cleansing agent has been reported to effectively remove the discoloration of terra firma-forme dermatosis. Hoping to elucidate a cause, Duncan et al⁶ performed both bacteriologic and fungal studies. The bacterial skin culture grew only normal flora, and fungal culture grew only normal contaminants consistent with the potassium hydroxide preparation of skin scraping. Histopathologic examination showed hyperkeratosis and orthokeratosis but not parakeratosis. Staining revealed melanin in the hyperkeratotic areas.⁶ Although the cause of this condition largely is unknown, it is thought that the epidermis in the affected areas could undergo altered maturation, resulting in trapping melanin that causes the skin to appear hyperkeratotic and hyperpigmented.¹ In our case, wiping the skin revealed the unsuspected diagnosis of terra firma-forme dermatosis displaying an unusual pseudolivedoid pattern. With apparently hyperpigmented processes, rubbing the skin with alcohol may help avoid unnecessary aggressive workup.

The Diagnosis: Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum

Histopathology showed abnormal curled frayed elastic fibers in the mid dermis (Figure, A); von Kossa stain was positive for calcified and fragmented elastic fibers (Figure, B). Based on clinical and histological findings, a diagnosis of pseudoxanthoma elasticum (PXE) was made.

Pseudoxanthoma elasticum is a rare multisystem heterogeneous genetic disorder that causes abnormal mineralization and fragmentation of tissue elastin fibers. Clinically, accumulation of mineralized elastin fibers leads to soft tissue calcification and late-onset pathology in the dermis, retinal Bruch membrane, and medial layers of large- and medium-sized arterial walls.

Pseudoxanthoma elasticum is an autosomal-recessive disease associated with more than 300 loss mutations in the ATP-binding cassette subfamily C member 6 gene, ABCC6.^1,2 However, PXE clinically is characterized by wide variability in clinical progression and outcome as well as phenotypic overlap with other disorders such as generalized arterial calcification of infancy. Pseudoxanthoma elasticum affects an estimated 1 in 25,000 to 100,000 individuals with a female preponderance (2:1 ratio).^1-3 Age of onset typically is in the second to third decades of life, with 80% of cases demonstrating skin manifestations before 20 years of age.^2,3

The first and most benign finding often is the appearance of small soft asymptomatic yellow papules with a plucked chicken skin-like appearance that occur on the flexural areas such as the neck, axilla, antecubital, popliteal, inguinal, and periumbilical areas. These papules may progress to irregularly shaped, yellowish plaques with a leathery appearance; mucous membranes, often occurring on the inner aspect of the lower lips, also may be involved. More severe abdominal striae also may affect some but not all women with PXE. Histologic examination demonstrates swollen, clumped, and fragmented elastin fibers with calcium deposits in the mid dermis. Elastin-specific stains such as orcein and calcium-specific stains such as the von Kossa stain aid in the diagnosis.

Vision impairment subsequently develops in 50% to 70% of patients, with severe vision loss in 3% to 8% of patients.^4,5 Ophthalmologic examination identifies characteristic angioid streaks (ie, gray lines radiating from the optic disk) and subretinal hemorrhages caused by brittle new vessel formation.

Bleeding complications, especially from the gastrointestinal tract, caused by arterial wall fragility may affect 10% of PXE patients.5 Although bleeding complications also may affect the genitourinary system, the risk for fetal loss or adverse reproductive outcomes is considered low.⁶ More insidiously, progressive arterial calcification and peripheral arterial disease contribute to accelerated atherosclerosis, causing earlier presentations of claudication, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, and hypertension by the third and fourth decades of life.

Management of PXE is limited. Primary care providers should be attentive to cardiovascular screening for coronary and peripheral arterial disease. Patients should receive regular eye examinations, and choroidal neovascularization should be aggressively treated with photocoagulation, photodynamic therapy, and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors.^1,3

Collagenous fibromas are slow-growing tumors but are histologically distinct, showing fibrous or myxoid connective tissue arising within adipose tissue. Cutaneous leiomyomas may be solitary or grouped, often painful papules composed histologically of bundles of smooth muscle. Cutaneous sclerosis in sclerosing mesenteritis is a rare cutaneous manifestation of an internal disorder and presents as asymptomatic indurated subcutaneous nodules but histologically is distinctive, demonstrating sclerosis with fat necrosis. Xanthoma disseminatum is a rare form of histiocytosis that commonly presents as hundreds of small yellowish brown or reddish brown papules symmetrically distributed on the face, trunk, and intertriginous areas. 

On follow-up within a year after initial presentation, our patient was found to have early subtle angioid streaks on ophthalmologic examination with no vision loss. A transthoracic echocardiogram was performed and showed no cardiac abnormalities. Her pregnancy was complicated by intrauterine growth retardation in the third trimester; however, the patient delivered a healthy-appearing 2835 g neonate (10th percentile for gestational age) at 39 weeks of gestations via an uncomplicated cesarean delivery.

The Diagnosis: Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum

Histopathology showed abnormal curled frayed elastic fibers in the mid dermis (Figure, A); von Kossa stain was positive for calcified and fragmented elastic fibers (Figure, B). Based on clinical and histological findings, a diagnosis of pseudoxanthoma elasticum (PXE) was made.

Pseudoxanthoma elasticum is a rare multisystem heterogeneous genetic disorder that causes abnormal mineralization and fragmentation of tissue elastin fibers. Clinically, accumulation of mineralized elastin fibers leads to soft tissue calcification and late-onset pathology in the dermis, retinal Bruch membrane, and medial layers of large- and medium-sized arterial walls.

Pseudoxanthoma elasticum is an autosomal-recessive disease associated with more than 300 loss mutations in the ATP-binding cassette subfamily C member 6 gene, ABCC6.^1,2 However, PXE clinically is characterized by wide variability in clinical progression and outcome as well as phenotypic overlap with other disorders such as generalized arterial calcification of infancy. Pseudoxanthoma elasticum affects an estimated 1 in 25,000 to 100,000 individuals with a female preponderance (2:1 ratio).^1-3 Age of onset typically is in the second to third decades of life, with 80% of cases demonstrating skin manifestations before 20 years of age.^2,3

The first and most benign finding often is the appearance of small soft asymptomatic yellow papules with a plucked chicken skin-like appearance that occur on the flexural areas such as the neck, axilla, antecubital, popliteal, inguinal, and periumbilical areas. These papules may progress to irregularly shaped, yellowish plaques with a leathery appearance; mucous membranes, often occurring on the inner aspect of the lower lips, also may be involved. More severe abdominal striae also may affect some but not all women with PXE. Histologic examination demonstrates swollen, clumped, and fragmented elastin fibers with calcium deposits in the mid dermis. Elastin-specific stains such as orcein and calcium-specific stains such as the von Kossa stain aid in the diagnosis.

Vision impairment subsequently develops in 50% to 70% of patients, with severe vision loss in 3% to 8% of patients.^4,5 Ophthalmologic examination identifies characteristic angioid streaks (ie, gray lines radiating from the optic disk) and subretinal hemorrhages caused by brittle new vessel formation.

Bleeding complications, especially from the gastrointestinal tract, caused by arterial wall fragility may affect 10% of PXE patients.5 Although bleeding complications also may affect the genitourinary system, the risk for fetal loss or adverse reproductive outcomes is considered low.⁶ More insidiously, progressive arterial calcification and peripheral arterial disease contribute to accelerated atherosclerosis, causing earlier presentations of claudication, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, and hypertension by the third and fourth decades of life.

Management of PXE is limited. Primary care providers should be attentive to cardiovascular screening for coronary and peripheral arterial disease. Patients should receive regular eye examinations, and choroidal neovascularization should be aggressively treated with photocoagulation, photodynamic therapy, and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors.^1,3

Collagenous fibromas are slow-growing tumors but are histologically distinct, showing fibrous or myxoid connective tissue arising within adipose tissue. Cutaneous leiomyomas may be solitary or grouped, often painful papules composed histologically of bundles of smooth muscle. Cutaneous sclerosis in sclerosing mesenteritis is a rare cutaneous manifestation of an internal disorder and presents as asymptomatic indurated subcutaneous nodules but histologically is distinctive, demonstrating sclerosis with fat necrosis. Xanthoma disseminatum is a rare form of histiocytosis that commonly presents as hundreds of small yellowish brown or reddish brown papules symmetrically distributed on the face, trunk, and intertriginous areas. 

On follow-up within a year after initial presentation, our patient was found to have early subtle angioid streaks on ophthalmologic examination with no vision loss. A transthoracic echocardiogram was performed and showed no cardiac abnormalities. Her pregnancy was complicated by intrauterine growth retardation in the third trimester; however, the patient delivered a healthy-appearing 2835 g neonate (10th percentile for gestational age) at 39 weeks of gestations via an uncomplicated cesarean delivery.

The Diagnosis: Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum

Histopathology showed abnormal curled frayed elastic fibers in the mid dermis (Figure, A); von Kossa stain was positive for calcified and fragmented elastic fibers (Figure, B). Based on clinical and histological findings, a diagnosis of pseudoxanthoma elasticum (PXE) was made.

Pseudoxanthoma elasticum is a rare multisystem heterogeneous genetic disorder that causes abnormal mineralization and fragmentation of tissue elastin fibers. Clinically, accumulation of mineralized elastin fibers leads to soft tissue calcification and late-onset pathology in the dermis, retinal Bruch membrane, and medial layers of large- and medium-sized arterial walls.

Pseudoxanthoma elasticum is an autosomal-recessive disease associated with more than 300 loss mutations in the ATP-binding cassette subfamily C member 6 gene, ABCC6.^1,2 However, PXE clinically is characterized by wide variability in clinical progression and outcome as well as phenotypic overlap with other disorders such as generalized arterial calcification of infancy. Pseudoxanthoma elasticum affects an estimated 1 in 25,000 to 100,000 individuals with a female preponderance (2:1 ratio).^1-3 Age of onset typically is in the second to third decades of life, with 80% of cases demonstrating skin manifestations before 20 years of age.^2,3

The first and most benign finding often is the appearance of small soft asymptomatic yellow papules with a plucked chicken skin-like appearance that occur on the flexural areas such as the neck, axilla, antecubital, popliteal, inguinal, and periumbilical areas. These papules may progress to irregularly shaped, yellowish plaques with a leathery appearance; mucous membranes, often occurring on the inner aspect of the lower lips, also may be involved. More severe abdominal striae also may affect some but not all women with PXE. Histologic examination demonstrates swollen, clumped, and fragmented elastin fibers with calcium deposits in the mid dermis. Elastin-specific stains such as orcein and calcium-specific stains such as the von Kossa stain aid in the diagnosis.

Vision impairment subsequently develops in 50% to 70% of patients, with severe vision loss in 3% to 8% of patients.^4,5 Ophthalmologic examination identifies characteristic angioid streaks (ie, gray lines radiating from the optic disk) and subretinal hemorrhages caused by brittle new vessel formation.

Bleeding complications, especially from the gastrointestinal tract, caused by arterial wall fragility may affect 10% of PXE patients.5 Although bleeding complications also may affect the genitourinary system, the risk for fetal loss or adverse reproductive outcomes is considered low.⁶ More insidiously, progressive arterial calcification and peripheral arterial disease contribute to accelerated atherosclerosis, causing earlier presentations of claudication, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, and hypertension by the third and fourth decades of life.

Management of PXE is limited. Primary care providers should be attentive to cardiovascular screening for coronary and peripheral arterial disease. Patients should receive regular eye examinations, and choroidal neovascularization should be aggressively treated with photocoagulation, photodynamic therapy, and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors.^1,3

Collagenous fibromas are slow-growing tumors but are histologically distinct, showing fibrous or myxoid connective tissue arising within adipose tissue. Cutaneous leiomyomas may be solitary or grouped, often painful papules composed histologically of bundles of smooth muscle. Cutaneous sclerosis in sclerosing mesenteritis is a rare cutaneous manifestation of an internal disorder and presents as asymptomatic indurated subcutaneous nodules but histologically is distinctive, demonstrating sclerosis with fat necrosis. Xanthoma disseminatum is a rare form of histiocytosis that commonly presents as hundreds of small yellowish brown or reddish brown papules symmetrically distributed on the face, trunk, and intertriginous areas. 

On follow-up within a year after initial presentation, our patient was found to have early subtle angioid streaks on ophthalmologic examination with no vision loss. A transthoracic echocardiogram was performed and showed no cardiac abnormalities. Her pregnancy was complicated by intrauterine growth retardation in the third trimester; however, the patient delivered a healthy-appearing 2835 g neonate (10th percentile for gestational age) at 39 weeks of gestations via an uncomplicated cesarean delivery.