Cutis

Postherpetic isotopic response (PHIR) refers to the occurrence of a second disease manifesting at the site of prior herpes infection. Many forms of PHIR have been described (Table), with postzoster granulomatous dermatitis (eg, granuloma annulare, sarcoidosis, granulomatous vasculitis) being the most common.1 Both primary and metastatic malignancies also can occur at the site of a prior herpes infection. Rarely, multiple types of PHIRs occur simultaneously. We report a case of 3 simultaneously occurring postzoster isotopic responses--granulomatous dermatitis, vasculitis, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)--and review the various types of PHIRs.

Case Report

A 55-year-old man with a 4-year history of CLL was admitted to the hospital due to a painful rash on the left side of the face of 2 months' duration. Erythematous to violaceous plaques with surrounding papules and nodules were present on the left side of the forehead and frontal scalp with focal ulceration. Two months prior, the patient had unilateral vesicular lesions in the same distribution (Figure 1A). He initially received a 3-week course of acyclovir for a presumed herpes zoster infection and showed prompt improvement in the vesicular lesions. After resolution of the vesicles, papules and nodules began developing in the prior vesicular areas and he was treated with another course of acyclovir with the addition of clindamycin. When the lesions continued to progress and spread down the left side of the forehead and upper eyelid (Figure 1B), he was admitted to the hospital and assessed by the consultative dermatology team. No fevers, chills, or other systemic symptoms were reported.

A punch biopsy showed a diffuse lymphocytic infiltrate filling the dermis and extending into the subcutis with nodular collections of histiocytes and some plasma cells scattered throughout (Figure 2A). A medium-vessel vasculitis was present with numerous histiocytes and lymphocytes infiltrating the muscular wall of a blood vessel in the subcutis (Figure 2B). CD3 and CD20 immunostaining showed an overwhelming majority of B cells, some with enlarged atypical nuclei and a smaller number of reactive T lymphocytes (Figure 2C). CD5 and CD43 were diffusely positive in the B cells, confirming the diagnosis of cutaneous CLL. CD23 staining was focally positive. Immunostaining for κ and λ light chains showed a marginal κ predominance. An additional biopsy for tissue culture was negative. A diagnosis of postzoster granulomatous dermatitis with vasculitis and cutaneous CLL was rendered.

Comment

Postherpetic Cutaneous Reactions
Various cutaneous reactions can occur at the site of prior herpes infection. The most frequently reported reactions are granulomatous dermatitides such as granuloma annulare, granulomatous vasculitis, granulomatous folliculitis, sarcoidosis, and nonspecific granulomatous dermatitis.¹ Primary cutaneous malignancies and cutaneous metastases, including hematologic malignancies, have also been reported after herpetic infections. In a review of 127 patients with postherpetic cutaneous reactions, 47 had a granulomatous dermatitis, 32 had nonhematologic malignancies, 18 had leukemic or lymphomatous/pseudolymphomatous infiltrates, 10 had acneform lesions, 9 had nongranulomatous dermatitides such as lichen planus and allergic contact dermatitis, and 8 had nonherpetic skin infections; single cases of reactive perforating collagenosis, nodular solar degeneration, and a keloid also were reported.¹

Pathogenesis of Cutaneous Reactions
Although postherpetic cutaneous reactions can develop in healthy individuals, they occur more often in immunocompromised patients. Postherpetic isotopic response has been used to describe the development of a nonherpetic disease at the site of prior herpes infection.² Several different theories have been proposed to explain the pathogenesis of the PHIR, including an unusual delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to residual viral antigen or host-tissue antigen altered by the virus. This delayed-type hypersensitivity explanation is supported by the presence of helper T cells, activated T lymphocytes, macrophages, varicella major viral envelope glycoproteins, and viral DNA in postherpetic granulomatous lesions³; however, cases that lack detectable virus and viral DNA in these types of lesions also have been reported.⁴

A second hypothesis proposes that inflammatory or viral-induced alteration of the local microvasculature results in increased site-specific susceptibility to subsequent inflammatory responses and drives these isotopic reactions.^2,3 Damage or alteration of local peripheral nerves leading to abnormal release of specific neuromediators involved in regulating cutaneous inflammatory responses also may play a role.⁵ Varicella-zoster virus utilizes the peripheral nervous system to establish latent infection and can cause destruction of alpha delta and C nerve fibers in the dermis.¹ Destruction of nerve fibers may indirectly influence the local immune system by altering the release of neuromediators such as substance P (known to increase blood vessel permeability, increase fibrinolytic activity, and induce mast cell secretion), vasoactive intestinal peptide (enhances monocyte migration, increases histamine release from mast cells, and inhibits natural killer cell activity), calcitonin gene-related peptide (increases vascular permeability, endothelial cell proliferation, and the accumulation of neutrophils), and melanocyte-stimulating hormone (induces anti-inflammatory cytokines). Disruption of the nervous system resulting in an altered local immune response also has been observed in other settings (eg, amputees who develop inflammatory diseases, bacterial and fungal infections, and cutaneous neoplasms confined to stump skin).¹

Malignancies in PHIR
The granulomatous inflammation in PHIRs is a nonneoplastic inflammatory reaction with a variable lymphocytic component. Granuloma formation can be seen in both reactive inflammatory infiltrates and in cutaneous involvement of leukemias and lymphomas. Leukemia cutis has been reported in 4% to 20% of patients with CLL/small lymphocytic leukemia.⁶ In one series of 42 patients with CLL, the malignant cells were confined to the site of postherpetic scars in 14% (6/42) of patients.⁵ Sixteen percent (7/42) of patients had no prior diagnosis of CLL at the time they developed leukemia cutis, including one patient with leukemia cutis in a postzoster scar. The mechanism involved in the accumulation of neoplastic lymphocytes within postzoster scars has not been fully characterized. The idea that postzoster sites represent a site of least resistance for cutaneous infiltration of CLL due to the changes from prior inflammatory responses has been proposed.⁷

Combined CLL and granulomatous dermatitis at prior sites of herpes zoster was first reported in 1990.⁸ In 1995, Cerroni et al⁹ reported a series of 5 patients with cutaneous CLL following herpes zoster or herpes simplex virus infection. Three of those patients also demonstrated granuloma formation.⁹ Establishing a new diagnosis of CLL from a biopsy of postzoster granulomatous dermatitis with an associated lymphoid infiltrate also has been reported.¹⁰ Cerroni et al⁹ postulated that cutaneous CLL in post-herpes zoster scars may occur more frequently than reported due to misdiagnoses of CLL as pseudolymphoma. Two additional cases of postherpetic cutaneous CLL and granulomatous dermatitis have been reported since 1995.^7,10

Diagnosis of Multiple PHIRs
The presence of 3 concurrent PHIRs is rare. The patient in this report had postzoster cutaneous CLL with an associated granulomatous dermatitis and medium-vessel vasculitis. One other case with these 3 findings was reported by Elgoweini et al.⁷ Overlooking important diagnoses when multiple findings are present in a biopsy can lead to diagnostic delay and incorrect treatment; we highlighted the importance of careful examination of biopsies in PHIRs to ensure diagnostic accuracy. In cases of postzoster granulomatous dermatitis, assessment of the lymphocytic component should not be overlooked. The presence of a dense lymphocytic infiltrate should raise the possibility of a lymphoproliferative disorder such as CLL, even in patients with no prior history of lymphoma. If initial immunostaining discloses a predominantly B-cell infiltrate, additional immuno-stains (eg, CD5, CD23, CD43) and/or genetic testing for monoclonality should be pursued. 

Conclusion

Clinicians and dermatopathologists should be aware of the multiplicity of postherpetic isotopic responses and consider immunohistochemical stains to differentiate between a genuine lymphoma such as CLL and pseudolymphoma in PHIRs with a lymphoid infiltrate. 

Postherpetic isotopic response (PHIR) refers to the occurrence of a second disease manifesting at the site of prior herpes infection. Many forms of PHIR have been described (Table), with postzoster granulomatous dermatitis (eg, granuloma annulare, sarcoidosis, granulomatous vasculitis) being the most common.1 Both primary and metastatic malignancies also can occur at the site of a prior herpes infection. Rarely, multiple types of PHIRs occur simultaneously. We report a case of 3 simultaneously occurring postzoster isotopic responses--granulomatous dermatitis, vasculitis, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)--and review the various types of PHIRs.

Case Report

A 55-year-old man with a 4-year history of CLL was admitted to the hospital due to a painful rash on the left side of the face of 2 months' duration. Erythematous to violaceous plaques with surrounding papules and nodules were present on the left side of the forehead and frontal scalp with focal ulceration. Two months prior, the patient had unilateral vesicular lesions in the same distribution (Figure 1A). He initially received a 3-week course of acyclovir for a presumed herpes zoster infection and showed prompt improvement in the vesicular lesions. After resolution of the vesicles, papules and nodules began developing in the prior vesicular areas and he was treated with another course of acyclovir with the addition of clindamycin. When the lesions continued to progress and spread down the left side of the forehead and upper eyelid (Figure 1B), he was admitted to the hospital and assessed by the consultative dermatology team. No fevers, chills, or other systemic symptoms were reported.

A punch biopsy showed a diffuse lymphocytic infiltrate filling the dermis and extending into the subcutis with nodular collections of histiocytes and some plasma cells scattered throughout (Figure 2A). A medium-vessel vasculitis was present with numerous histiocytes and lymphocytes infiltrating the muscular wall of a blood vessel in the subcutis (Figure 2B). CD3 and CD20 immunostaining showed an overwhelming majority of B cells, some with enlarged atypical nuclei and a smaller number of reactive T lymphocytes (Figure 2C). CD5 and CD43 were diffusely positive in the B cells, confirming the diagnosis of cutaneous CLL. CD23 staining was focally positive. Immunostaining for κ and λ light chains showed a marginal κ predominance. An additional biopsy for tissue culture was negative. A diagnosis of postzoster granulomatous dermatitis with vasculitis and cutaneous CLL was rendered.

Comment

Postherpetic Cutaneous Reactions
Various cutaneous reactions can occur at the site of prior herpes infection. The most frequently reported reactions are granulomatous dermatitides such as granuloma annulare, granulomatous vasculitis, granulomatous folliculitis, sarcoidosis, and nonspecific granulomatous dermatitis.¹ Primary cutaneous malignancies and cutaneous metastases, including hematologic malignancies, have also been reported after herpetic infections. In a review of 127 patients with postherpetic cutaneous reactions, 47 had a granulomatous dermatitis, 32 had nonhematologic malignancies, 18 had leukemic or lymphomatous/pseudolymphomatous infiltrates, 10 had acneform lesions, 9 had nongranulomatous dermatitides such as lichen planus and allergic contact dermatitis, and 8 had nonherpetic skin infections; single cases of reactive perforating collagenosis, nodular solar degeneration, and a keloid also were reported.¹

Pathogenesis of Cutaneous Reactions
Although postherpetic cutaneous reactions can develop in healthy individuals, they occur more often in immunocompromised patients. Postherpetic isotopic response has been used to describe the development of a nonherpetic disease at the site of prior herpes infection.² Several different theories have been proposed to explain the pathogenesis of the PHIR, including an unusual delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to residual viral antigen or host-tissue antigen altered by the virus. This delayed-type hypersensitivity explanation is supported by the presence of helper T cells, activated T lymphocytes, macrophages, varicella major viral envelope glycoproteins, and viral DNA in postherpetic granulomatous lesions³; however, cases that lack detectable virus and viral DNA in these types of lesions also have been reported.⁴

A second hypothesis proposes that inflammatory or viral-induced alteration of the local microvasculature results in increased site-specific susceptibility to subsequent inflammatory responses and drives these isotopic reactions.^2,3 Damage or alteration of local peripheral nerves leading to abnormal release of specific neuromediators involved in regulating cutaneous inflammatory responses also may play a role.⁵ Varicella-zoster virus utilizes the peripheral nervous system to establish latent infection and can cause destruction of alpha delta and C nerve fibers in the dermis.¹ Destruction of nerve fibers may indirectly influence the local immune system by altering the release of neuromediators such as substance P (known to increase blood vessel permeability, increase fibrinolytic activity, and induce mast cell secretion), vasoactive intestinal peptide (enhances monocyte migration, increases histamine release from mast cells, and inhibits natural killer cell activity), calcitonin gene-related peptide (increases vascular permeability, endothelial cell proliferation, and the accumulation of neutrophils), and melanocyte-stimulating hormone (induces anti-inflammatory cytokines). Disruption of the nervous system resulting in an altered local immune response also has been observed in other settings (eg, amputees who develop inflammatory diseases, bacterial and fungal infections, and cutaneous neoplasms confined to stump skin).¹

Malignancies in PHIR
The granulomatous inflammation in PHIRs is a nonneoplastic inflammatory reaction with a variable lymphocytic component. Granuloma formation can be seen in both reactive inflammatory infiltrates and in cutaneous involvement of leukemias and lymphomas. Leukemia cutis has been reported in 4% to 20% of patients with CLL/small lymphocytic leukemia.⁶ In one series of 42 patients with CLL, the malignant cells were confined to the site of postherpetic scars in 14% (6/42) of patients.⁵ Sixteen percent (7/42) of patients had no prior diagnosis of CLL at the time they developed leukemia cutis, including one patient with leukemia cutis in a postzoster scar. The mechanism involved in the accumulation of neoplastic lymphocytes within postzoster scars has not been fully characterized. The idea that postzoster sites represent a site of least resistance for cutaneous infiltration of CLL due to the changes from prior inflammatory responses has been proposed.⁷

Combined CLL and granulomatous dermatitis at prior sites of herpes zoster was first reported in 1990.⁸ In 1995, Cerroni et al⁹ reported a series of 5 patients with cutaneous CLL following herpes zoster or herpes simplex virus infection. Three of those patients also demonstrated granuloma formation.⁹ Establishing a new diagnosis of CLL from a biopsy of postzoster granulomatous dermatitis with an associated lymphoid infiltrate also has been reported.¹⁰ Cerroni et al⁹ postulated that cutaneous CLL in post-herpes zoster scars may occur more frequently than reported due to misdiagnoses of CLL as pseudolymphoma. Two additional cases of postherpetic cutaneous CLL and granulomatous dermatitis have been reported since 1995.^7,10

Diagnosis of Multiple PHIRs
The presence of 3 concurrent PHIRs is rare. The patient in this report had postzoster cutaneous CLL with an associated granulomatous dermatitis and medium-vessel vasculitis. One other case with these 3 findings was reported by Elgoweini et al.⁷ Overlooking important diagnoses when multiple findings are present in a biopsy can lead to diagnostic delay and incorrect treatment; we highlighted the importance of careful examination of biopsies in PHIRs to ensure diagnostic accuracy. In cases of postzoster granulomatous dermatitis, assessment of the lymphocytic component should not be overlooked. The presence of a dense lymphocytic infiltrate should raise the possibility of a lymphoproliferative disorder such as CLL, even in patients with no prior history of lymphoma. If initial immunostaining discloses a predominantly B-cell infiltrate, additional immuno-stains (eg, CD5, CD23, CD43) and/or genetic testing for monoclonality should be pursued. 

Conclusion

Clinicians and dermatopathologists should be aware of the multiplicity of postherpetic isotopic responses and consider immunohistochemical stains to differentiate between a genuine lymphoma such as CLL and pseudolymphoma in PHIRs with a lymphoid infiltrate. 

Postherpetic isotopic response (PHIR) refers to the occurrence of a second disease manifesting at the site of prior herpes infection. Many forms of PHIR have been described (Table), with postzoster granulomatous dermatitis (eg, granuloma annulare, sarcoidosis, granulomatous vasculitis) being the most common.1 Both primary and metastatic malignancies also can occur at the site of a prior herpes infection. Rarely, multiple types of PHIRs occur simultaneously. We report a case of 3 simultaneously occurring postzoster isotopic responses--granulomatous dermatitis, vasculitis, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)--and review the various types of PHIRs.

Case Report

A 55-year-old man with a 4-year history of CLL was admitted to the hospital due to a painful rash on the left side of the face of 2 months' duration. Erythematous to violaceous plaques with surrounding papules and nodules were present on the left side of the forehead and frontal scalp with focal ulceration. Two months prior, the patient had unilateral vesicular lesions in the same distribution (Figure 1A). He initially received a 3-week course of acyclovir for a presumed herpes zoster infection and showed prompt improvement in the vesicular lesions. After resolution of the vesicles, papules and nodules began developing in the prior vesicular areas and he was treated with another course of acyclovir with the addition of clindamycin. When the lesions continued to progress and spread down the left side of the forehead and upper eyelid (Figure 1B), he was admitted to the hospital and assessed by the consultative dermatology team. No fevers, chills, or other systemic symptoms were reported.

A punch biopsy showed a diffuse lymphocytic infiltrate filling the dermis and extending into the subcutis with nodular collections of histiocytes and some plasma cells scattered throughout (Figure 2A). A medium-vessel vasculitis was present with numerous histiocytes and lymphocytes infiltrating the muscular wall of a blood vessel in the subcutis (Figure 2B). CD3 and CD20 immunostaining showed an overwhelming majority of B cells, some with enlarged atypical nuclei and a smaller number of reactive T lymphocytes (Figure 2C). CD5 and CD43 were diffusely positive in the B cells, confirming the diagnosis of cutaneous CLL. CD23 staining was focally positive. Immunostaining for κ and λ light chains showed a marginal κ predominance. An additional biopsy for tissue culture was negative. A diagnosis of postzoster granulomatous dermatitis with vasculitis and cutaneous CLL was rendered.

Comment

Postherpetic Cutaneous Reactions
Various cutaneous reactions can occur at the site of prior herpes infection. The most frequently reported reactions are granulomatous dermatitides such as granuloma annulare, granulomatous vasculitis, granulomatous folliculitis, sarcoidosis, and nonspecific granulomatous dermatitis.¹ Primary cutaneous malignancies and cutaneous metastases, including hematologic malignancies, have also been reported after herpetic infections. In a review of 127 patients with postherpetic cutaneous reactions, 47 had a granulomatous dermatitis, 32 had nonhematologic malignancies, 18 had leukemic or lymphomatous/pseudolymphomatous infiltrates, 10 had acneform lesions, 9 had nongranulomatous dermatitides such as lichen planus and allergic contact dermatitis, and 8 had nonherpetic skin infections; single cases of reactive perforating collagenosis, nodular solar degeneration, and a keloid also were reported.¹

Pathogenesis of Cutaneous Reactions
Although postherpetic cutaneous reactions can develop in healthy individuals, they occur more often in immunocompromised patients. Postherpetic isotopic response has been used to describe the development of a nonherpetic disease at the site of prior herpes infection.² Several different theories have been proposed to explain the pathogenesis of the PHIR, including an unusual delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to residual viral antigen or host-tissue antigen altered by the virus. This delayed-type hypersensitivity explanation is supported by the presence of helper T cells, activated T lymphocytes, macrophages, varicella major viral envelope glycoproteins, and viral DNA in postherpetic granulomatous lesions³; however, cases that lack detectable virus and viral DNA in these types of lesions also have been reported.⁴

A second hypothesis proposes that inflammatory or viral-induced alteration of the local microvasculature results in increased site-specific susceptibility to subsequent inflammatory responses and drives these isotopic reactions.^2,3 Damage or alteration of local peripheral nerves leading to abnormal release of specific neuromediators involved in regulating cutaneous inflammatory responses also may play a role.⁵ Varicella-zoster virus utilizes the peripheral nervous system to establish latent infection and can cause destruction of alpha delta and C nerve fibers in the dermis.¹ Destruction of nerve fibers may indirectly influence the local immune system by altering the release of neuromediators such as substance P (known to increase blood vessel permeability, increase fibrinolytic activity, and induce mast cell secretion), vasoactive intestinal peptide (enhances monocyte migration, increases histamine release from mast cells, and inhibits natural killer cell activity), calcitonin gene-related peptide (increases vascular permeability, endothelial cell proliferation, and the accumulation of neutrophils), and melanocyte-stimulating hormone (induces anti-inflammatory cytokines). Disruption of the nervous system resulting in an altered local immune response also has been observed in other settings (eg, amputees who develop inflammatory diseases, bacterial and fungal infections, and cutaneous neoplasms confined to stump skin).¹

Malignancies in PHIR
The granulomatous inflammation in PHIRs is a nonneoplastic inflammatory reaction with a variable lymphocytic component. Granuloma formation can be seen in both reactive inflammatory infiltrates and in cutaneous involvement of leukemias and lymphomas. Leukemia cutis has been reported in 4% to 20% of patients with CLL/small lymphocytic leukemia.⁶ In one series of 42 patients with CLL, the malignant cells were confined to the site of postherpetic scars in 14% (6/42) of patients.⁵ Sixteen percent (7/42) of patients had no prior diagnosis of CLL at the time they developed leukemia cutis, including one patient with leukemia cutis in a postzoster scar. The mechanism involved in the accumulation of neoplastic lymphocytes within postzoster scars has not been fully characterized. The idea that postzoster sites represent a site of least resistance for cutaneous infiltration of CLL due to the changes from prior inflammatory responses has been proposed.⁷

Combined CLL and granulomatous dermatitis at prior sites of herpes zoster was first reported in 1990.⁸ In 1995, Cerroni et al⁹ reported a series of 5 patients with cutaneous CLL following herpes zoster or herpes simplex virus infection. Three of those patients also demonstrated granuloma formation.⁹ Establishing a new diagnosis of CLL from a biopsy of postzoster granulomatous dermatitis with an associated lymphoid infiltrate also has been reported.¹⁰ Cerroni et al⁹ postulated that cutaneous CLL in post-herpes zoster scars may occur more frequently than reported due to misdiagnoses of CLL as pseudolymphoma. Two additional cases of postherpetic cutaneous CLL and granulomatous dermatitis have been reported since 1995.^7,10

Diagnosis of Multiple PHIRs
The presence of 3 concurrent PHIRs is rare. The patient in this report had postzoster cutaneous CLL with an associated granulomatous dermatitis and medium-vessel vasculitis. One other case with these 3 findings was reported by Elgoweini et al.⁷ Overlooking important diagnoses when multiple findings are present in a biopsy can lead to diagnostic delay and incorrect treatment; we highlighted the importance of careful examination of biopsies in PHIRs to ensure diagnostic accuracy. In cases of postzoster granulomatous dermatitis, assessment of the lymphocytic component should not be overlooked. The presence of a dense lymphocytic infiltrate should raise the possibility of a lymphoproliferative disorder such as CLL, even in patients with no prior history of lymphoma. If initial immunostaining discloses a predominantly B-cell infiltrate, additional immuno-stains (eg, CD5, CD23, CD43) and/or genetic testing for monoclonality should be pursued. 

Conclusion

Clinicians and dermatopathologists should be aware of the multiplicity of postherpetic isotopic responses and consider immunohistochemical stains to differentiate between a genuine lymphoma such as CLL and pseudolymphoma in PHIRs with a lymphoid infiltrate. 

Ticks are ectoparasitic hemophages that feed on mammals, reptiles, and birds. The Ixodidae family comprises the hard ticks. A hard dorsal plate, scutum, and capitulum that extends outward from the body are features that distinguish the hard tick. ¹Ixodes is the largest genus of hard ticks, with more than 250 species localized in temperate climates.² It has an inornate scutum and lacks festoons (Figure 1).¹ The Ixodes ricinus species complex accounts for most species relevant to the spread of human disease (Figure 2), with Ixodes scapularis in the northeastern, north midwestern, and southern United States; Ixodes pacificus in western United States; I ricinus in Europe and North Africa; and Ixodes persulcatus in Russia and Asia. Ixodes holocyclus is endemic to Australia.^3,4

Life Cycle

Ixodes species progress through 4 life stages—egg, larvae, nymph, and adult—during their 3-host life cycle. Lifespan is 2 to 6 years, varying with environmental factors. A blood meal is required between each stage. Female ticks have a small scutum, allowing the abdomen to engorge during meals (Figure 3).

Larvae hatch in the early summer and remain dormant until the spring, emerging as a nymph. Following a blood meal, the nymph molts and reemerges as an adult in autumn. During autumn and winter, the female lays as many as 2000 eggs that emerge in early summer.⁵ Nymphs are small and easily undetected for the duration required for pathogen transmission, making nymphs the stage most likely to transmit disease.⁶

The majority of tick-borne diseases present from May to July, corresponding to nymph activity. Fewer cases present in the autumn and early spring because the adult female feeds during cooler months.⁷

Larvae have 6 legs and are about the size of a sesame seed when engorged. Nymphs are slightly larger with 8 legs. Adults are largest and have 8 legs. Following a blood meal, the tick becomes engorged, increasing in size and lightening in color (Figure 3).¹

Ticks are found in low-lying shrubs and tall grass as well as on the forest floor. They search for a host by detecting CO₂, warmth, the smell of sweat, and the color white, prompting attachment.⁸ Habitats hospitable to Ixodes have expanded in the wake of climate, environmental, and socioeconomic changes, potentially contributing to the increasing incidence and expansion of zoonoses associated with this vector.^9,10

Local Reactions

A tick bite may induce local hypersensitivity, leading to a red papule or plaque at the bite site, followed by swelling, warmth, and erythema. A cellular immune reaction induces induration and pruritus. Hard ticks are less likely than soft ticks to cause a serious local reaction.^11,12

A variety of clinical and histologic features are observed following an arthropod bite. Histologically, acute tick bites show a neutrophilic infiltrate with fibrin deposition. Chronic reactions demonstrate a wedge-shaped, mixed infiltrate with prominent endothelial swelling. Eosinophilic cellulitis, or Wells syndrome, reveals tissue eosinophilia and flame figures.¹³ Tick mouthparts may be identified in the tissue. B-cell hyperplasia is seen in Borrelia lymphocytoma and is more common in Europe, presenting as erythematous to plum–colored nodules on the ear and areola.¹⁴

Lyme Disease

Disease manifestations vary by location. Lyme disease is associated with Borrelia burgdorferi and the recently identified Borrelia mayonii in the United States¹⁵; in Europe and Asia, acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans is associated with Borrelia afzelii and neuroborreliosis, with Borrelia garinii. Lyme disease is the most common tick-borne illness in the United States.¹⁶ The I ricinus species complex is the most common vector harboring Borrelia species.¹⁷ At least 36 hours of tick adherence is required for disease transmission.¹⁸ The incubation period is 3 to 20 days (median, 12 days).¹⁹

Clinical Findings
Erythema migrans is the most characteristic sign, seen in 80% of cases of Lyme disease. The typical rash is a centrifugally spreading, erythematous, annular patch with central clearing at the site of the tick bite.²⁰ Atypical rashes include vesicular, indurated, ulcerated, and follicular variants.²¹ Histopathology commonly shows a superficial and deep perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate with plasma cells, histiocytes, and eosinophils.²² Typically, the rash resolves in 3 to 5 weeks.¹⁸

Early disseminated Lyme disease can present with any of the following findings: multiple erythema migrans; neurologic involvement, including cranial nerve palsy and meningitis; and Lyme carditis, which may result in atrioventricular block.^23,24 Late findings include arthritis, encephalopathy, and polyneuropathy. A late cutaneous manifestation, acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans, is rare in the United States but occurs in as many as 10% of Lyme disease cases in Europe. An initial inflammatory response manifests as blue-red erythema and edema of the extensor surfaces of the extremities, commonly on the dorsal hands, feet, elbows, and knees. Firm fibrotic nodules may develop later over the olecranon and patella.^23,24

The term chronic Lyme disease has been used to describe the persistence of symptoms after treatment; however, large clinical trials have not detected a difference in symptom frequency between patients with a history of Lyme disease and matched controls.^25,26 Many patients with chronic Lyme disease may instead have posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, described as nonspecific symptoms including fatigue, arthralgia, and decreased mental acuity following treatment of confirmed Lyme disease. Symptoms generally improve within 1 year.²⁷

Laboratory Testing
The gold standard for laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease is 2-tiered serologic testing. First, an enzyme immunoassay or immunofluorescence assay is used to screen for antibodies. A Western blot follows if the result of the screen is positive or equivocal. Western blot testing for IgM and IgG is used when illness duration is less than 4 weeks; after 4 weeks, a Western blot for IgG alone is sufficient.^27,28 The 2-tiered test has 99% specificity. Sensitivity increases with duration of disease (29%–40% with erythema migrans; 42%–87% in early disseminated disease; 97%–100% in late disease).^29,30 A false-positive result can occur in the presence of infectious mononucleosis, an autoimmune disorder, and syphilis. If serologic testing is negative and suspicion remains high, testing should be repeated in 2 to 4 weeks.³¹ When a patient in a Lyme-endemic area presents with typical erythema migrans, serologic testing is unnecessary prior to treatment.³²

Management
Treatment of Lyme disease centers on antibiotic therapy (Table). First-line treatment of early disseminated disease is doxycycline for 14 days (range, 10–21 days).²⁷ In pregnant women, children younger than 8 years, and tetracycline-allergic patients, amoxicillin or cefuroxime axetil for 14 days (range, 14–21 days) may be used.³³ For erythema migrans without complications, doxycycline for 10 days is effective. Complications that require hospitalization are treated with intravenous ceftriaxone.²⁷ Re-treatment in patients with posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome is not recommended.³⁴ Prophylaxis with a single dose of doxycycline 200 mg may be indicated when all of the following conditions are met: (1) the patient is in an area where more than 20% of Ixodes ticks are infected with B burgdorferi, (2) the attached tick is I scapularis, (3) the tick has been attached for more than 36 hours, and (4) treatment is begun within 72 hours of tick removal.²⁷

Ticks are ectoparasitic hemophages that feed on mammals, reptiles, and birds. The Ixodidae family comprises the hard ticks. A hard dorsal plate, scutum, and capitulum that extends outward from the body are features that distinguish the hard tick. ¹Ixodes is the largest genus of hard ticks, with more than 250 species localized in temperate climates.² It has an inornate scutum and lacks festoons (Figure 1).¹ The Ixodes ricinus species complex accounts for most species relevant to the spread of human disease (Figure 2), with Ixodes scapularis in the northeastern, north midwestern, and southern United States; Ixodes pacificus in western United States; I ricinus in Europe and North Africa; and Ixodes persulcatus in Russia and Asia. Ixodes holocyclus is endemic to Australia.^3,4

Life Cycle

Ixodes species progress through 4 life stages—egg, larvae, nymph, and adult—during their 3-host life cycle. Lifespan is 2 to 6 years, varying with environmental factors. A blood meal is required between each stage. Female ticks have a small scutum, allowing the abdomen to engorge during meals (Figure 3).

Larvae hatch in the early summer and remain dormant until the spring, emerging as a nymph. Following a blood meal, the nymph molts and reemerges as an adult in autumn. During autumn and winter, the female lays as many as 2000 eggs that emerge in early summer.⁵ Nymphs are small and easily undetected for the duration required for pathogen transmission, making nymphs the stage most likely to transmit disease.⁶

The majority of tick-borne diseases present from May to July, corresponding to nymph activity. Fewer cases present in the autumn and early spring because the adult female feeds during cooler months.⁷

Larvae have 6 legs and are about the size of a sesame seed when engorged. Nymphs are slightly larger with 8 legs. Adults are largest and have 8 legs. Following a blood meal, the tick becomes engorged, increasing in size and lightening in color (Figure 3).¹

Ticks are found in low-lying shrubs and tall grass as well as on the forest floor. They search for a host by detecting CO₂, warmth, the smell of sweat, and the color white, prompting attachment.⁸ Habitats hospitable to Ixodes have expanded in the wake of climate, environmental, and socioeconomic changes, potentially contributing to the increasing incidence and expansion of zoonoses associated with this vector.^9,10

Local Reactions

A tick bite may induce local hypersensitivity, leading to a red papule or plaque at the bite site, followed by swelling, warmth, and erythema. A cellular immune reaction induces induration and pruritus. Hard ticks are less likely than soft ticks to cause a serious local reaction.^11,12

A variety of clinical and histologic features are observed following an arthropod bite. Histologically, acute tick bites show a neutrophilic infiltrate with fibrin deposition. Chronic reactions demonstrate a wedge-shaped, mixed infiltrate with prominent endothelial swelling. Eosinophilic cellulitis, or Wells syndrome, reveals tissue eosinophilia and flame figures.¹³ Tick mouthparts may be identified in the tissue. B-cell hyperplasia is seen in Borrelia lymphocytoma and is more common in Europe, presenting as erythematous to plum–colored nodules on the ear and areola.¹⁴

Lyme Disease

Disease manifestations vary by location. Lyme disease is associated with Borrelia burgdorferi and the recently identified Borrelia mayonii in the United States¹⁵; in Europe and Asia, acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans is associated with Borrelia afzelii and neuroborreliosis, with Borrelia garinii. Lyme disease is the most common tick-borne illness in the United States.¹⁶ The I ricinus species complex is the most common vector harboring Borrelia species.¹⁷ At least 36 hours of tick adherence is required for disease transmission.¹⁸ The incubation period is 3 to 20 days (median, 12 days).¹⁹

Clinical Findings
Erythema migrans is the most characteristic sign, seen in 80% of cases of Lyme disease. The typical rash is a centrifugally spreading, erythematous, annular patch with central clearing at the site of the tick bite.²⁰ Atypical rashes include vesicular, indurated, ulcerated, and follicular variants.²¹ Histopathology commonly shows a superficial and deep perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate with plasma cells, histiocytes, and eosinophils.²² Typically, the rash resolves in 3 to 5 weeks.¹⁸

Early disseminated Lyme disease can present with any of the following findings: multiple erythema migrans; neurologic involvement, including cranial nerve palsy and meningitis; and Lyme carditis, which may result in atrioventricular block.^23,24 Late findings include arthritis, encephalopathy, and polyneuropathy. A late cutaneous manifestation, acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans, is rare in the United States but occurs in as many as 10% of Lyme disease cases in Europe. An initial inflammatory response manifests as blue-red erythema and edema of the extensor surfaces of the extremities, commonly on the dorsal hands, feet, elbows, and knees. Firm fibrotic nodules may develop later over the olecranon and patella.^23,24

The term chronic Lyme disease has been used to describe the persistence of symptoms after treatment; however, large clinical trials have not detected a difference in symptom frequency between patients with a history of Lyme disease and matched controls.^25,26 Many patients with chronic Lyme disease may instead have posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, described as nonspecific symptoms including fatigue, arthralgia, and decreased mental acuity following treatment of confirmed Lyme disease. Symptoms generally improve within 1 year.²⁷

Laboratory Testing
The gold standard for laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease is 2-tiered serologic testing. First, an enzyme immunoassay or immunofluorescence assay is used to screen for antibodies. A Western blot follows if the result of the screen is positive or equivocal. Western blot testing for IgM and IgG is used when illness duration is less than 4 weeks; after 4 weeks, a Western blot for IgG alone is sufficient.^27,28 The 2-tiered test has 99% specificity. Sensitivity increases with duration of disease (29%–40% with erythema migrans; 42%–87% in early disseminated disease; 97%–100% in late disease).^29,30 A false-positive result can occur in the presence of infectious mononucleosis, an autoimmune disorder, and syphilis. If serologic testing is negative and suspicion remains high, testing should be repeated in 2 to 4 weeks.³¹ When a patient in a Lyme-endemic area presents with typical erythema migrans, serologic testing is unnecessary prior to treatment.³²

Management
Treatment of Lyme disease centers on antibiotic therapy (Table). First-line treatment of early disseminated disease is doxycycline for 14 days (range, 10–21 days).²⁷ In pregnant women, children younger than 8 years, and tetracycline-allergic patients, amoxicillin or cefuroxime axetil for 14 days (range, 14–21 days) may be used.³³ For erythema migrans without complications, doxycycline for 10 days is effective. Complications that require hospitalization are treated with intravenous ceftriaxone.²⁷ Re-treatment in patients with posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome is not recommended.³⁴ Prophylaxis with a single dose of doxycycline 200 mg may be indicated when all of the following conditions are met: (1) the patient is in an area where more than 20% of Ixodes ticks are infected with B burgdorferi, (2) the attached tick is I scapularis, (3) the tick has been attached for more than 36 hours, and (4) treatment is begun within 72 hours of tick removal.²⁷

Ticks are ectoparasitic hemophages that feed on mammals, reptiles, and birds. The Ixodidae family comprises the hard ticks. A hard dorsal plate, scutum, and capitulum that extends outward from the body are features that distinguish the hard tick. ¹Ixodes is the largest genus of hard ticks, with more than 250 species localized in temperate climates.² It has an inornate scutum and lacks festoons (Figure 1).¹ The Ixodes ricinus species complex accounts for most species relevant to the spread of human disease (Figure 2), with Ixodes scapularis in the northeastern, north midwestern, and southern United States; Ixodes pacificus in western United States; I ricinus in Europe and North Africa; and Ixodes persulcatus in Russia and Asia. Ixodes holocyclus is endemic to Australia.^3,4

Life Cycle

Ixodes species progress through 4 life stages—egg, larvae, nymph, and adult—during their 3-host life cycle. Lifespan is 2 to 6 years, varying with environmental factors. A blood meal is required between each stage. Female ticks have a small scutum, allowing the abdomen to engorge during meals (Figure 3).

Larvae hatch in the early summer and remain dormant until the spring, emerging as a nymph. Following a blood meal, the nymph molts and reemerges as an adult in autumn. During autumn and winter, the female lays as many as 2000 eggs that emerge in early summer.⁵ Nymphs are small and easily undetected for the duration required for pathogen transmission, making nymphs the stage most likely to transmit disease.⁶

The majority of tick-borne diseases present from May to July, corresponding to nymph activity. Fewer cases present in the autumn and early spring because the adult female feeds during cooler months.⁷

Larvae have 6 legs and are about the size of a sesame seed when engorged. Nymphs are slightly larger with 8 legs. Adults are largest and have 8 legs. Following a blood meal, the tick becomes engorged, increasing in size and lightening in color (Figure 3).¹

Ticks are found in low-lying shrubs and tall grass as well as on the forest floor. They search for a host by detecting CO₂, warmth, the smell of sweat, and the color white, prompting attachment.⁸ Habitats hospitable to Ixodes have expanded in the wake of climate, environmental, and socioeconomic changes, potentially contributing to the increasing incidence and expansion of zoonoses associated with this vector.^9,10

Local Reactions

A tick bite may induce local hypersensitivity, leading to a red papule or plaque at the bite site, followed by swelling, warmth, and erythema. A cellular immune reaction induces induration and pruritus. Hard ticks are less likely than soft ticks to cause a serious local reaction.^11,12

A variety of clinical and histologic features are observed following an arthropod bite. Histologically, acute tick bites show a neutrophilic infiltrate with fibrin deposition. Chronic reactions demonstrate a wedge-shaped, mixed infiltrate with prominent endothelial swelling. Eosinophilic cellulitis, or Wells syndrome, reveals tissue eosinophilia and flame figures.¹³ Tick mouthparts may be identified in the tissue. B-cell hyperplasia is seen in Borrelia lymphocytoma and is more common in Europe, presenting as erythematous to plum–colored nodules on the ear and areola.¹⁴

Lyme Disease

Disease manifestations vary by location. Lyme disease is associated with Borrelia burgdorferi and the recently identified Borrelia mayonii in the United States¹⁵; in Europe and Asia, acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans is associated with Borrelia afzelii and neuroborreliosis, with Borrelia garinii. Lyme disease is the most common tick-borne illness in the United States.¹⁶ The I ricinus species complex is the most common vector harboring Borrelia species.¹⁷ At least 36 hours of tick adherence is required for disease transmission.¹⁸ The incubation period is 3 to 20 days (median, 12 days).¹⁹

Clinical Findings
Erythema migrans is the most characteristic sign, seen in 80% of cases of Lyme disease. The typical rash is a centrifugally spreading, erythematous, annular patch with central clearing at the site of the tick bite.²⁰ Atypical rashes include vesicular, indurated, ulcerated, and follicular variants.²¹ Histopathology commonly shows a superficial and deep perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate with plasma cells, histiocytes, and eosinophils.²² Typically, the rash resolves in 3 to 5 weeks.¹⁸

Early disseminated Lyme disease can present with any of the following findings: multiple erythema migrans; neurologic involvement, including cranial nerve palsy and meningitis; and Lyme carditis, which may result in atrioventricular block.^23,24 Late findings include arthritis, encephalopathy, and polyneuropathy. A late cutaneous manifestation, acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans, is rare in the United States but occurs in as many as 10% of Lyme disease cases in Europe. An initial inflammatory response manifests as blue-red erythema and edema of the extensor surfaces of the extremities, commonly on the dorsal hands, feet, elbows, and knees. Firm fibrotic nodules may develop later over the olecranon and patella.^23,24

The term chronic Lyme disease has been used to describe the persistence of symptoms after treatment; however, large clinical trials have not detected a difference in symptom frequency between patients with a history of Lyme disease and matched controls.^25,26 Many patients with chronic Lyme disease may instead have posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, described as nonspecific symptoms including fatigue, arthralgia, and decreased mental acuity following treatment of confirmed Lyme disease. Symptoms generally improve within 1 year.²⁷

Laboratory Testing
The gold standard for laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease is 2-tiered serologic testing. First, an enzyme immunoassay or immunofluorescence assay is used to screen for antibodies. A Western blot follows if the result of the screen is positive or equivocal. Western blot testing for IgM and IgG is used when illness duration is less than 4 weeks; after 4 weeks, a Western blot for IgG alone is sufficient.^27,28 The 2-tiered test has 99% specificity. Sensitivity increases with duration of disease (29%–40% with erythema migrans; 42%–87% in early disseminated disease; 97%–100% in late disease).^29,30 A false-positive result can occur in the presence of infectious mononucleosis, an autoimmune disorder, and syphilis. If serologic testing is negative and suspicion remains high, testing should be repeated in 2 to 4 weeks.³¹ When a patient in a Lyme-endemic area presents with typical erythema migrans, serologic testing is unnecessary prior to treatment.³²

Management
Treatment of Lyme disease centers on antibiotic therapy (Table). First-line treatment of early disseminated disease is doxycycline for 14 days (range, 10–21 days).²⁷ In pregnant women, children younger than 8 years, and tetracycline-allergic patients, amoxicillin or cefuroxime axetil for 14 days (range, 14–21 days) may be used.³³ For erythema migrans without complications, doxycycline for 10 days is effective. Complications that require hospitalization are treated with intravenous ceftriaxone.²⁷ Re-treatment in patients with posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome is not recommended.³⁴ Prophylaxis with a single dose of doxycycline 200 mg may be indicated when all of the following conditions are met: (1) the patient is in an area where more than 20% of Ixodes ticks are infected with B burgdorferi, (2) the attached tick is I scapularis, (3) the tick has been attached for more than 36 hours, and (4) treatment is begun within 72 hours of tick removal.²⁷

Winter is the time when many religions celebrate a renewal of the year as the days begin to get longer. On January 1 of each year in the United States we celebrate the official activation of new and revised Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes with which physicians report their services, and if they are lucky, they are compensated when these services are provided. In 2018, there are new sets of codes for photodynamic therapy (PDT) and lasers that all dermatologists should be aware of.

Photodynamic Therapy

Use of PDT is said to date back as early as the 1900s,1 but it did not become a mainstream treatment modality in the United States until 2002 when the first CPT code for PDT (96567) became effective.² Treatment involved application of a photosensitizing drug and its subsequent activation with a special blue light. Physicians faced an uphill battle for many years, as payers would either not reimburse the CPT code itself or the corresponding Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System supply code J7308, which became effective on January 1, 2004,3 to allow for reimbursement of a 354-mg, single-dose ampoule preparation of aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride as the photosensitizing drug. By deeming the procedure experimental and/or medically unnecessary, insurers often refused payment when 96567 was used—a situation that still occurs today with regard to PDT reimbursement, although less often. In my experience, this code was considered by the American Medical Association/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee to be a nonphysician work code with the assumption that the procedure was done by nonprovider staff (eg, medical assistant, licensed practical nurse, registered nurse) and that the physician did nothing but order the treatment.

In 2004, a methyl aminolevulinate cream that was activated with a red light source was brought to market; however, after failing to gain a substantial market share, the product is no longer available in the United States. In May of 2016, a nanoemulsion gel formulation of aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride 10% was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration4 for use with a red light source. Unlike 5-aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride solution, which was approved for application with no prior debridement of the skin,⁵ the new gel formulation was meant to be applied after degreasing with an ethanol- or isopropanol-soaked cotton pad and removal of any scaling or crusts, followed by roughening of the lesion surfaces (with care taken to avoid bleeding).⁴ The product must be administered by a health care provider and is reported using CPT codes 96573 and 96574, which are new in 2018 and are discussed in more detail below. Effective January 1, 2018, the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System supply code for the product is J7345 (aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride gel for topical administration, 10% gel, 10 mg).6 A single tube contains 200 mg, so when an entire tube is used (which is typical), 200 units must be reported. Partial tubes may be used in some patients and should be reported appropriately based on actual usage.

The development of new CPT codes for PDT revealed a middle ground in which many physicians, including myself, have applied the photosensitizing drug themselves instead of a nonphysician provider in order to use their professional judgment to ensure the entire treatment area was covered and also allow for multiple applications of the drug to lesions that in their opinion may have warranted greater dosing, which led to the creation of CPT code 96573. The revision and refinement from one code to 3 (96567, 96573, and 96574) also involved rewording of the preamble for all 3 codes so that the phrase “premalignant and/or malignant lesions” was simplified to “premalignant lesions.” This change was made so that if and when this therapeutic approach is refined enough to be used on malignant lesions, new codes can be created to distinguish between the work performed for both types of lesions.

The new PDT codes include 96573 (photodynamic therapy by external application of light to destroy premalignant lesions of the skin and adjacent mucosa with application and illumination/activation of photosensitizing drug[s] provided by a physician or other qualified healthcare professional, per day) and 96574 (debridement of premalignant hyperkeratotic lesion[s][ie, targeted curettage, abrasion] followed with photodynamic therapy by external application of light to destroy premalignant lesions of the skin and adjacent mucosa with application and illumination/activation of photosensitizing drug[s] provided by a physician or other qualified healthcare professional, per day). According to the 2018 CPT manual,² these codes should be used to report nonsurgical treatment of cutaneous lesions using PDT (ie, external application of light to destroy premalignant lesions of the skin and adjacent mucosa by activation of photosensitizing drug). A treatment session is defined as an application of a photosensitizer to all lesions within an anatomic area (eg, face, scalp) with or without debridement of all premalignant hyperkeratotic lesions in that area followed by illumination and activation with an appropriate light source. Providers should not report codes for debridement (11000, 11001, 11004, 11005), lesion shaving (11300–11313), biopsy (11100, 11101), or lesion excision (11400–11471) within the treatment area on the same day that PDT is administered.²

With the inclusion of these new PDT codes, the older code 96567 (photodynamic therapy by external application of light to destroy premalignant lesions of the skin and adjacent mucosa with application and illumination/activation of photosensitive drug[s], per day)—which is the base or parent code of the set—should only be used for reporting PDT when a physician or other qualified health care professional is not directly involved in the delivery of the service. Code 96573 is an upgrade to 96567 to account for physician work, while code 96574 captures the extra work of disruption of the skin barrier by debridement.

The novelty here is that old codes often are replaced when new codes come along. The reader should be aware of the distinct differences, as the total value expressed in relative value units for code 96567 is lower than it was in 2017 (3.24 vs 3.80), while the 2 newer codes have higher values (codes 96573 and 96574, 5.37 and 6.92, respectively). Additionally, the reader should note that only one of the 3 codes can be used on a given anatomic area (ie, face and scalp) on a given day. In general, a single-dose package of either of the approved photosensitizing drugs can usually treat an entire anatomic area. The codes themselves are not reserved for specific anatomic areas, but the US Food and Drug Administration clearances are for only face and scalp for both drugs, so the use of more than 2 PDT codes on a given day might raise payer queries.

Whatever you do, be sure your documentation includes an explicit notation about who applied the photosensitizing drug and the technique used for debridement, if performed. Code 96574 explicitly refers to targeted curettage and abrasion but does not include other destructive modalities (eg, chemical peeling), which an auditor may or may not consider an acceptable method of debridement. Personally, I will not be using peels as a justifier for this code.

Lasers

Lasers have played a role in the treatment of severe scarring in wounded warriors and other patient populations.⁷ Until 2018, there were no CPT codes that allowed precise reporting of these therapies. We now have a series of tracking codes, which are not valued by the Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee process but are nonetheless reportable, for this valuable treatment.⁸

The base code for a new pair of codes for reporting fractional ablative laser treatment, which is modeled after the skin graft code series, is 0479T (fractional ablative laser fenestration of burn and traumatic scars for functional improvement; first 100 cm² or part thereof, or 1% of body surface area of infants and children). The add-on code is 0480T (fractional ablative laser fenestration of burn and traumatic scars for functional improvement; each additional 100 cm², or each additional 1% of body surface area of infants and children, or part thereof [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]), which means the code can be reported multiple times in addition to a single unit of 0479T. The aggregate treatment area should only be reported once per day regardless of the number of passes of one or more lasers over the area that day, and codes 0479T and 0480T should not be reported with codes 0491T or 0492T, which are a new family of tracking codes used for ablative laser treatment of chronic open wounds. If the scars are excised in a full-thickness manner, the benign excision codes 11400 to 11446 should be used instead.

For laser treatment of open wounds, 0491T (ablative laser treatment, noncontact, full-field and fractional ablation, open wound, per day, total treatment surface area; first 20 cm² or less) is the base code for this pair of codes, and 0492T (ablative laser treatment, noncontact, full-field and fractional ablation, open wound, per day, total treatment surface area; each additional 20 cm², or part thereof [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]) is the add-on code, similar to the 0479T and 00480T codes described above. Keep in mind that all 4 of these tracking codes do not have defined values, and payment is at the discretion of the payer. If utilization of the procedures increases along with the development of appropriate evidence-based literature to support it, it is possible these will be converted into standard category I CPT codes that will be valued and covered by payers.

Final Thoughts

For more details on the new codes for PDT and lasers, I would strongly suggest obtaining a copy of CPT Changes 2018: An Insider’s View (https://commerce.ama-assn.org/store/catalog/productDetail.jsp?product_id=prod2800018&navAction=push), as well as the 2018 CPT manual for those who are actively practicing. Members of the American Academy of Dermatology also can get the new CPT manual as part of the group’s Coding Value Pack (https://store.aad.org/products/11383) along with Principles of Documentation for Dermatology and 2018 Coding & Billing for Dermatology.

Winter is the time when many religions celebrate a renewal of the year as the days begin to get longer. On January 1 of each year in the United States we celebrate the official activation of new and revised Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes with which physicians report their services, and if they are lucky, they are compensated when these services are provided. In 2018, there are new sets of codes for photodynamic therapy (PDT) and lasers that all dermatologists should be aware of.

Photodynamic Therapy

Use of PDT is said to date back as early as the 1900s,1 but it did not become a mainstream treatment modality in the United States until 2002 when the first CPT code for PDT (96567) became effective.² Treatment involved application of a photosensitizing drug and its subsequent activation with a special blue light. Physicians faced an uphill battle for many years, as payers would either not reimburse the CPT code itself or the corresponding Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System supply code J7308, which became effective on January 1, 2004,3 to allow for reimbursement of a 354-mg, single-dose ampoule preparation of aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride as the photosensitizing drug. By deeming the procedure experimental and/or medically unnecessary, insurers often refused payment when 96567 was used—a situation that still occurs today with regard to PDT reimbursement, although less often. In my experience, this code was considered by the American Medical Association/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee to be a nonphysician work code with the assumption that the procedure was done by nonprovider staff (eg, medical assistant, licensed practical nurse, registered nurse) and that the physician did nothing but order the treatment.

In 2004, a methyl aminolevulinate cream that was activated with a red light source was brought to market; however, after failing to gain a substantial market share, the product is no longer available in the United States. In May of 2016, a nanoemulsion gel formulation of aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride 10% was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration4 for use with a red light source. Unlike 5-aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride solution, which was approved for application with no prior debridement of the skin,⁵ the new gel formulation was meant to be applied after degreasing with an ethanol- or isopropanol-soaked cotton pad and removal of any scaling or crusts, followed by roughening of the lesion surfaces (with care taken to avoid bleeding).⁴ The product must be administered by a health care provider and is reported using CPT codes 96573 and 96574, which are new in 2018 and are discussed in more detail below. Effective January 1, 2018, the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System supply code for the product is J7345 (aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride gel for topical administration, 10% gel, 10 mg).6 A single tube contains 200 mg, so when an entire tube is used (which is typical), 200 units must be reported. Partial tubes may be used in some patients and should be reported appropriately based on actual usage.

The development of new CPT codes for PDT revealed a middle ground in which many physicians, including myself, have applied the photosensitizing drug themselves instead of a nonphysician provider in order to use their professional judgment to ensure the entire treatment area was covered and also allow for multiple applications of the drug to lesions that in their opinion may have warranted greater dosing, which led to the creation of CPT code 96573. The revision and refinement from one code to 3 (96567, 96573, and 96574) also involved rewording of the preamble for all 3 codes so that the phrase “premalignant and/or malignant lesions” was simplified to “premalignant lesions.” This change was made so that if and when this therapeutic approach is refined enough to be used on malignant lesions, new codes can be created to distinguish between the work performed for both types of lesions.

The new PDT codes include 96573 (photodynamic therapy by external application of light to destroy premalignant lesions of the skin and adjacent mucosa with application and illumination/activation of photosensitizing drug[s] provided by a physician or other qualified healthcare professional, per day) and 96574 (debridement of premalignant hyperkeratotic lesion[s][ie, targeted curettage, abrasion] followed with photodynamic therapy by external application of light to destroy premalignant lesions of the skin and adjacent mucosa with application and illumination/activation of photosensitizing drug[s] provided by a physician or other qualified healthcare professional, per day). According to the 2018 CPT manual,² these codes should be used to report nonsurgical treatment of cutaneous lesions using PDT (ie, external application of light to destroy premalignant lesions of the skin and adjacent mucosa by activation of photosensitizing drug). A treatment session is defined as an application of a photosensitizer to all lesions within an anatomic area (eg, face, scalp) with or without debridement of all premalignant hyperkeratotic lesions in that area followed by illumination and activation with an appropriate light source. Providers should not report codes for debridement (11000, 11001, 11004, 11005), lesion shaving (11300–11313), biopsy (11100, 11101), or lesion excision (11400–11471) within the treatment area on the same day that PDT is administered.²

With the inclusion of these new PDT codes, the older code 96567 (photodynamic therapy by external application of light to destroy premalignant lesions of the skin and adjacent mucosa with application and illumination/activation of photosensitive drug[s], per day)—which is the base or parent code of the set—should only be used for reporting PDT when a physician or other qualified health care professional is not directly involved in the delivery of the service. Code 96573 is an upgrade to 96567 to account for physician work, while code 96574 captures the extra work of disruption of the skin barrier by debridement.

The novelty here is that old codes often are replaced when new codes come along. The reader should be aware of the distinct differences, as the total value expressed in relative value units for code 96567 is lower than it was in 2017 (3.24 vs 3.80), while the 2 newer codes have higher values (codes 96573 and 96574, 5.37 and 6.92, respectively). Additionally, the reader should note that only one of the 3 codes can be used on a given anatomic area (ie, face and scalp) on a given day. In general, a single-dose package of either of the approved photosensitizing drugs can usually treat an entire anatomic area. The codes themselves are not reserved for specific anatomic areas, but the US Food and Drug Administration clearances are for only face and scalp for both drugs, so the use of more than 2 PDT codes on a given day might raise payer queries.

Whatever you do, be sure your documentation includes an explicit notation about who applied the photosensitizing drug and the technique used for debridement, if performed. Code 96574 explicitly refers to targeted curettage and abrasion but does not include other destructive modalities (eg, chemical peeling), which an auditor may or may not consider an acceptable method of debridement. Personally, I will not be using peels as a justifier for this code.

Lasers

Lasers have played a role in the treatment of severe scarring in wounded warriors and other patient populations.⁷ Until 2018, there were no CPT codes that allowed precise reporting of these therapies. We now have a series of tracking codes, which are not valued by the Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee process but are nonetheless reportable, for this valuable treatment.⁸

The base code for a new pair of codes for reporting fractional ablative laser treatment, which is modeled after the skin graft code series, is 0479T (fractional ablative laser fenestration of burn and traumatic scars for functional improvement; first 100 cm² or part thereof, or 1% of body surface area of infants and children). The add-on code is 0480T (fractional ablative laser fenestration of burn and traumatic scars for functional improvement; each additional 100 cm², or each additional 1% of body surface area of infants and children, or part thereof [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]), which means the code can be reported multiple times in addition to a single unit of 0479T. The aggregate treatment area should only be reported once per day regardless of the number of passes of one or more lasers over the area that day, and codes 0479T and 0480T should not be reported with codes 0491T or 0492T, which are a new family of tracking codes used for ablative laser treatment of chronic open wounds. If the scars are excised in a full-thickness manner, the benign excision codes 11400 to 11446 should be used instead.

For laser treatment of open wounds, 0491T (ablative laser treatment, noncontact, full-field and fractional ablation, open wound, per day, total treatment surface area; first 20 cm² or less) is the base code for this pair of codes, and 0492T (ablative laser treatment, noncontact, full-field and fractional ablation, open wound, per day, total treatment surface area; each additional 20 cm², or part thereof [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]) is the add-on code, similar to the 0479T and 00480T codes described above. Keep in mind that all 4 of these tracking codes do not have defined values, and payment is at the discretion of the payer. If utilization of the procedures increases along with the development of appropriate evidence-based literature to support it, it is possible these will be converted into standard category I CPT codes that will be valued and covered by payers.

Final Thoughts

For more details on the new codes for PDT and lasers, I would strongly suggest obtaining a copy of CPT Changes 2018: An Insider’s View (https://commerce.ama-assn.org/store/catalog/productDetail.jsp?product_id=prod2800018&navAction=push), as well as the 2018 CPT manual for those who are actively practicing. Members of the American Academy of Dermatology also can get the new CPT manual as part of the group’s Coding Value Pack (https://store.aad.org/products/11383) along with Principles of Documentation for Dermatology and 2018 Coding & Billing for Dermatology.

Winter is the time when many religions celebrate a renewal of the year as the days begin to get longer. On January 1 of each year in the United States we celebrate the official activation of new and revised Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes with which physicians report their services, and if they are lucky, they are compensated when these services are provided. In 2018, there are new sets of codes for photodynamic therapy (PDT) and lasers that all dermatologists should be aware of.

Photodynamic Therapy

Use of PDT is said to date back as early as the 1900s,1 but it did not become a mainstream treatment modality in the United States until 2002 when the first CPT code for PDT (96567) became effective.² Treatment involved application of a photosensitizing drug and its subsequent activation with a special blue light. Physicians faced an uphill battle for many years, as payers would either not reimburse the CPT code itself or the corresponding Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System supply code J7308, which became effective on January 1, 2004,3 to allow for reimbursement of a 354-mg, single-dose ampoule preparation of aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride as the photosensitizing drug. By deeming the procedure experimental and/or medically unnecessary, insurers often refused payment when 96567 was used—a situation that still occurs today with regard to PDT reimbursement, although less often. In my experience, this code was considered by the American Medical Association/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee to be a nonphysician work code with the assumption that the procedure was done by nonprovider staff (eg, medical assistant, licensed practical nurse, registered nurse) and that the physician did nothing but order the treatment.

In 2004, a methyl aminolevulinate cream that was activated with a red light source was brought to market; however, after failing to gain a substantial market share, the product is no longer available in the United States. In May of 2016, a nanoemulsion gel formulation of aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride 10% was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration4 for use with a red light source. Unlike 5-aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride solution, which was approved for application with no prior debridement of the skin,⁵ the new gel formulation was meant to be applied after degreasing with an ethanol- or isopropanol-soaked cotton pad and removal of any scaling or crusts, followed by roughening of the lesion surfaces (with care taken to avoid bleeding).⁴ The product must be administered by a health care provider and is reported using CPT codes 96573 and 96574, which are new in 2018 and are discussed in more detail below. Effective January 1, 2018, the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System supply code for the product is J7345 (aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride gel for topical administration, 10% gel, 10 mg).6 A single tube contains 200 mg, so when an entire tube is used (which is typical), 200 units must be reported. Partial tubes may be used in some patients and should be reported appropriately based on actual usage.

The development of new CPT codes for PDT revealed a middle ground in which many physicians, including myself, have applied the photosensitizing drug themselves instead of a nonphysician provider in order to use their professional judgment to ensure the entire treatment area was covered and also allow for multiple applications of the drug to lesions that in their opinion may have warranted greater dosing, which led to the creation of CPT code 96573. The revision and refinement from one code to 3 (96567, 96573, and 96574) also involved rewording of the preamble for all 3 codes so that the phrase “premalignant and/or malignant lesions” was simplified to “premalignant lesions.” This change was made so that if and when this therapeutic approach is refined enough to be used on malignant lesions, new codes can be created to distinguish between the work performed for both types of lesions.

The new PDT codes include 96573 (photodynamic therapy by external application of light to destroy premalignant lesions of the skin and adjacent mucosa with application and illumination/activation of photosensitizing drug[s] provided by a physician or other qualified healthcare professional, per day) and 96574 (debridement of premalignant hyperkeratotic lesion[s][ie, targeted curettage, abrasion] followed with photodynamic therapy by external application of light to destroy premalignant lesions of the skin and adjacent mucosa with application and illumination/activation of photosensitizing drug[s] provided by a physician or other qualified healthcare professional, per day). According to the 2018 CPT manual,² these codes should be used to report nonsurgical treatment of cutaneous lesions using PDT (ie, external application of light to destroy premalignant lesions of the skin and adjacent mucosa by activation of photosensitizing drug). A treatment session is defined as an application of a photosensitizer to all lesions within an anatomic area (eg, face, scalp) with or without debridement of all premalignant hyperkeratotic lesions in that area followed by illumination and activation with an appropriate light source. Providers should not report codes for debridement (11000, 11001, 11004, 11005), lesion shaving (11300–11313), biopsy (11100, 11101), or lesion excision (11400–11471) within the treatment area on the same day that PDT is administered.²

With the inclusion of these new PDT codes, the older code 96567 (photodynamic therapy by external application of light to destroy premalignant lesions of the skin and adjacent mucosa with application and illumination/activation of photosensitive drug[s], per day)—which is the base or parent code of the set—should only be used for reporting PDT when a physician or other qualified health care professional is not directly involved in the delivery of the service. Code 96573 is an upgrade to 96567 to account for physician work, while code 96574 captures the extra work of disruption of the skin barrier by debridement.

The novelty here is that old codes often are replaced when new codes come along. The reader should be aware of the distinct differences, as the total value expressed in relative value units for code 96567 is lower than it was in 2017 (3.24 vs 3.80), while the 2 newer codes have higher values (codes 96573 and 96574, 5.37 and 6.92, respectively). Additionally, the reader should note that only one of the 3 codes can be used on a given anatomic area (ie, face and scalp) on a given day. In general, a single-dose package of either of the approved photosensitizing drugs can usually treat an entire anatomic area. The codes themselves are not reserved for specific anatomic areas, but the US Food and Drug Administration clearances are for only face and scalp for both drugs, so the use of more than 2 PDT codes on a given day might raise payer queries.

Whatever you do, be sure your documentation includes an explicit notation about who applied the photosensitizing drug and the technique used for debridement, if performed. Code 96574 explicitly refers to targeted curettage and abrasion but does not include other destructive modalities (eg, chemical peeling), which an auditor may or may not consider an acceptable method of debridement. Personally, I will not be using peels as a justifier for this code.

Lasers

Lasers have played a role in the treatment of severe scarring in wounded warriors and other patient populations.⁷ Until 2018, there were no CPT codes that allowed precise reporting of these therapies. We now have a series of tracking codes, which are not valued by the Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee process but are nonetheless reportable, for this valuable treatment.⁸

The base code for a new pair of codes for reporting fractional ablative laser treatment, which is modeled after the skin graft code series, is 0479T (fractional ablative laser fenestration of burn and traumatic scars for functional improvement; first 100 cm² or part thereof, or 1% of body surface area of infants and children). The add-on code is 0480T (fractional ablative laser fenestration of burn and traumatic scars for functional improvement; each additional 100 cm², or each additional 1% of body surface area of infants and children, or part thereof [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]), which means the code can be reported multiple times in addition to a single unit of 0479T. The aggregate treatment area should only be reported once per day regardless of the number of passes of one or more lasers over the area that day, and codes 0479T and 0480T should not be reported with codes 0491T or 0492T, which are a new family of tracking codes used for ablative laser treatment of chronic open wounds. If the scars are excised in a full-thickness manner, the benign excision codes 11400 to 11446 should be used instead.

For laser treatment of open wounds, 0491T (ablative laser treatment, noncontact, full-field and fractional ablation, open wound, per day, total treatment surface area; first 20 cm² or less) is the base code for this pair of codes, and 0492T (ablative laser treatment, noncontact, full-field and fractional ablation, open wound, per day, total treatment surface area; each additional 20 cm², or part thereof [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]) is the add-on code, similar to the 0479T and 00480T codes described above. Keep in mind that all 4 of these tracking codes do not have defined values, and payment is at the discretion of the payer. If utilization of the procedures increases along with the development of appropriate evidence-based literature to support it, it is possible these will be converted into standard category I CPT codes that will be valued and covered by payers.

Final Thoughts

For more details on the new codes for PDT and lasers, I would strongly suggest obtaining a copy of CPT Changes 2018: An Insider’s View (https://commerce.ama-assn.org/store/catalog/productDetail.jsp?product_id=prod2800018&navAction=push), as well as the 2018 CPT manual for those who are actively practicing. Members of the American Academy of Dermatology also can get the new CPT manual as part of the group’s Coding Value Pack (https://store.aad.org/products/11383) along with Principles of Documentation for Dermatology and 2018 Coding & Billing for Dermatology.

What does your patient need to know at the first visit?

Risk factors for onychomycosis include prior trauma, history of tinea pedis, sports activities, frequenting gyms and pools, hyperhidrosis, advancing age, diabetes mellitus, immunosuppression, smoking, and family history of onychomycosis. Toenails are involved more frequently than fingernails, and typical physical examination findings are distal and lateral nail plate onycholysis with subungual hyperkeratosis. In more severe cases, there may be nail plate thickening, crumbling, yellowing, and involvement of the nail matrix.

Because other nail conditions may resemble onychomycosis, it is imperative to confirm the diagnosis using histopathology, direct microscopy, fungal culture, and/or polymerase chain reaction on nail plate clippings or subungual debris. 

What are your go-to treatments? What are the side effects?

After laboratory confirmation, assess the patient for the severity of the infection based on the surface area of nail plate affected, nail plate thickness, involvement of the nail matrix, and number of nails affected. United States Food and Drug Administration-approved oral and topical antifungals are used first line for the treatment of onychomycosis. Devices such as lasers are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for temporary cosmetic improvement in the appearance of the nail without eradicating the fungus.

Oral antifungals such as terbinafine, itraconazole, and fluconazole (off label) are indicated for patients with severe disease. Patients with mild to moderate disease may benefit from oral or topical antifungals such as efinaconazole, tavaborole, or ciclopirox.

I recommend terbinafine to many of my patients due to its high complete and mycological cure rates, short list of drug-drug interactions, and low incidence of side effects. Adverse reactions are uncommon, with the most common being gastrointestinal upset. While liver injury has been reported, it is exceedingly rare. Itraconazole has many important drug interactions and is contraindicated in patients with congestive heart failure. With topical antifungals, side effects are uncommon, but dermatitis, ingrown nails, and vesicles may occur.

How do you keep patients compliant with treatment?

Patients on a 3-month course of daily oral terbinafine or itraconazole for toenail onychomycosis are typically highly compliant. Compliance for patients on oral fluconazole (off label) is generally more challenging because it is dosed weekly until the nail grows out (1-1.5 years for toenails). To circumvent missed fluconazole doses, I recommend that the patient schedule quarterly visits with me and also to set a cell phone alarm as a weekly reminder to take the medication.

Because topical medications are prescribed for the toenails for a year-long course (with avoidance of nail polish during this period), I prescribe topical antifungals only to highly motivated patients. In addition, because topical antifungals are retained in the nail plate for at least several days after a month-long application, I tell my patients that if they have a big event to attend that they can take a vacation from the topical antifungal, get a pedicure, and then resume treatment after the event. 

What do you do if they refuse treatment?

In 2018, we have many options to treat onychomycosis effectively, and therapy is individualized based on the patient's severity of disease, infecting organism(s), comorbidities, concomitant medications, and preferences. If the patient's fungal nail infection is asymptomatic and not aesthetically bothersome, he/she may opt for observation rather than treatment. If the decision is observation, I recommend use of a topical antifungal on the feet and web spaces to prevent worsening of onychomycosis. 

Suggested Readings

Gupta AK, Versteeg SG. A critical review of improvement rates for laser therapy used to treat toenail onychomycosis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31:1111-1118.

Lipner SR, Scher RK. Long-standing onychodystrophy in a young woman. JAMA. 2016;316:1915-1916.

Lipner SR, Scher RK. Onychomycosis--a small step for quality of care. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32:865-867.

Lipner SR, Scher RK. Onychomycosis: current and investigational therapies. Cutis. 2014;94:E21-E24.

What does your patient need to know at the first visit?

Risk factors for onychomycosis include prior trauma, history of tinea pedis, sports activities, frequenting gyms and pools, hyperhidrosis, advancing age, diabetes mellitus, immunosuppression, smoking, and family history of onychomycosis. Toenails are involved more frequently than fingernails, and typical physical examination findings are distal and lateral nail plate onycholysis with subungual hyperkeratosis. In more severe cases, there may be nail plate thickening, crumbling, yellowing, and involvement of the nail matrix.

Because other nail conditions may resemble onychomycosis, it is imperative to confirm the diagnosis using histopathology, direct microscopy, fungal culture, and/or polymerase chain reaction on nail plate clippings or subungual debris. 

What are your go-to treatments? What are the side effects?

After laboratory confirmation, assess the patient for the severity of the infection based on the surface area of nail plate affected, nail plate thickness, involvement of the nail matrix, and number of nails affected. United States Food and Drug Administration-approved oral and topical antifungals are used first line for the treatment of onychomycosis. Devices such as lasers are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for temporary cosmetic improvement in the appearance of the nail without eradicating the fungus.

Oral antifungals such as terbinafine, itraconazole, and fluconazole (off label) are indicated for patients with severe disease. Patients with mild to moderate disease may benefit from oral or topical antifungals such as efinaconazole, tavaborole, or ciclopirox.

I recommend terbinafine to many of my patients due to its high complete and mycological cure rates, short list of drug-drug interactions, and low incidence of side effects. Adverse reactions are uncommon, with the most common being gastrointestinal upset. While liver injury has been reported, it is exceedingly rare. Itraconazole has many important drug interactions and is contraindicated in patients with congestive heart failure. With topical antifungals, side effects are uncommon, but dermatitis, ingrown nails, and vesicles may occur.

How do you keep patients compliant with treatment?

Patients on a 3-month course of daily oral terbinafine or itraconazole for toenail onychomycosis are typically highly compliant. Compliance for patients on oral fluconazole (off label) is generally more challenging because it is dosed weekly until the nail grows out (1-1.5 years for toenails). To circumvent missed fluconazole doses, I recommend that the patient schedule quarterly visits with me and also to set a cell phone alarm as a weekly reminder to take the medication.

Because topical medications are prescribed for the toenails for a year-long course (with avoidance of nail polish during this period), I prescribe topical antifungals only to highly motivated patients. In addition, because topical antifungals are retained in the nail plate for at least several days after a month-long application, I tell my patients that if they have a big event to attend that they can take a vacation from the topical antifungal, get a pedicure, and then resume treatment after the event. 

What do you do if they refuse treatment?

In 2018, we have many options to treat onychomycosis effectively, and therapy is individualized based on the patient's severity of disease, infecting organism(s), comorbidities, concomitant medications, and preferences. If the patient's fungal nail infection is asymptomatic and not aesthetically bothersome, he/she may opt for observation rather than treatment. If the decision is observation, I recommend use of a topical antifungal on the feet and web spaces to prevent worsening of onychomycosis. 

Suggested Readings

Gupta AK, Versteeg SG. A critical review of improvement rates for laser therapy used to treat toenail onychomycosis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31:1111-1118.

Lipner SR, Scher RK. Long-standing onychodystrophy in a young woman. JAMA. 2016;316:1915-1916.

Lipner SR, Scher RK. Onychomycosis--a small step for quality of care. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32:865-867.

Lipner SR, Scher RK. Onychomycosis: current and investigational therapies. Cutis. 2014;94:E21-E24.

What does your patient need to know at the first visit?

Risk factors for onychomycosis include prior trauma, history of tinea pedis, sports activities, frequenting gyms and pools, hyperhidrosis, advancing age, diabetes mellitus, immunosuppression, smoking, and family history of onychomycosis. Toenails are involved more frequently than fingernails, and typical physical examination findings are distal and lateral nail plate onycholysis with subungual hyperkeratosis. In more severe cases, there may be nail plate thickening, crumbling, yellowing, and involvement of the nail matrix.

Because other nail conditions may resemble onychomycosis, it is imperative to confirm the diagnosis using histopathology, direct microscopy, fungal culture, and/or polymerase chain reaction on nail plate clippings or subungual debris. 

What are your go-to treatments? What are the side effects?

After laboratory confirmation, assess the patient for the severity of the infection based on the surface area of nail plate affected, nail plate thickness, involvement of the nail matrix, and number of nails affected. United States Food and Drug Administration-approved oral and topical antifungals are used first line for the treatment of onychomycosis. Devices such as lasers are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for temporary cosmetic improvement in the appearance of the nail without eradicating the fungus.

Oral antifungals such as terbinafine, itraconazole, and fluconazole (off label) are indicated for patients with severe disease. Patients with mild to moderate disease may benefit from oral or topical antifungals such as efinaconazole, tavaborole, or ciclopirox.

I recommend terbinafine to many of my patients due to its high complete and mycological cure rates, short list of drug-drug interactions, and low incidence of side effects. Adverse reactions are uncommon, with the most common being gastrointestinal upset. While liver injury has been reported, it is exceedingly rare. Itraconazole has many important drug interactions and is contraindicated in patients with congestive heart failure. With topical antifungals, side effects are uncommon, but dermatitis, ingrown nails, and vesicles may occur.

How do you keep patients compliant with treatment?

Patients on a 3-month course of daily oral terbinafine or itraconazole for toenail onychomycosis are typically highly compliant. Compliance for patients on oral fluconazole (off label) is generally more challenging because it is dosed weekly until the nail grows out (1-1.5 years for toenails). To circumvent missed fluconazole doses, I recommend that the patient schedule quarterly visits with me and also to set a cell phone alarm as a weekly reminder to take the medication.

Because topical medications are prescribed for the toenails for a year-long course (with avoidance of nail polish during this period), I prescribe topical antifungals only to highly motivated patients. In addition, because topical antifungals are retained in the nail plate for at least several days after a month-long application, I tell my patients that if they have a big event to attend that they can take a vacation from the topical antifungal, get a pedicure, and then resume treatment after the event. 

What do you do if they refuse treatment?

In 2018, we have many options to treat onychomycosis effectively, and therapy is individualized based on the patient's severity of disease, infecting organism(s), comorbidities, concomitant medications, and preferences. If the patient's fungal nail infection is asymptomatic and not aesthetically bothersome, he/she may opt for observation rather than treatment. If the decision is observation, I recommend use of a topical antifungal on the feet and web spaces to prevent worsening of onychomycosis. 

Suggested Readings

Gupta AK, Versteeg SG. A critical review of improvement rates for laser therapy used to treat toenail onychomycosis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31:1111-1118.

Lipner SR, Scher RK. Long-standing onychodystrophy in a young woman. JAMA. 2016;316:1915-1916.

Lipner SR, Scher RK. Onychomycosis--a small step for quality of care. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32:865-867.

Lipner SR, Scher RK. Onychomycosis: current and investigational therapies. Cutis. 2014;94:E21-E24.

Dysregulated immune responses including elevations in the inflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor (TNF),^1-4 IL- 1 β ,³ and IL-12/23^5-7 have been identified in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Targeted biologic agents may offer an opportunity to intervene in specific aberrant inflammatory pathways to effectively treat HS while minimizing a dverse effects (AEs). There is growing evidence, however, that treatment of HS with a single biologic agent is not effective in all patients.^6,8-17 The TNF antagonist adalimumab has been shown to achieve clinical response in approximately 50% of patients (N = 633). ¹⁸In smaller and uncontrolled studies, clinical response was achieved in 70% (7/10) of patients treated with the IL-1 antagonist anakinra¹⁶ and 47 % (8/17) of patients treated with the IL-12/23 antagonist ustekinumab¹⁹ ; however, larger rigorous studies are needed. There is an urgent need for more effective therapeutic strategies for this condition.²⁰

The administration of concurrent biologics may offer the potential for improved disease control through synergistic targeting of multiple inflammatory pathways, particularly for severe and recalcitrant HS. This approach may be effective given insights from mechanistic studies suggesting the involvement of multiple inflammatory pathways in the disease pathogenesis.^3,21 Concurrent anticytokine biologics have been used safely and effectively in other inflammatory diseases; for example, combination therapy with TNF and IL-12/23 antagonists have resulted in near-complete to complete resolution of severe psoriatic skin and joint disease without AEs.^22-24

An increased risk for infection without increased efficacy associated with the use of concurrent anticytokine biologics for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has raised concerns about the safety of this therapeutic approach. In a study of concurrent etanercept and anakinra therapy for RA (N=244), the combined therapy was not more efficacious than etanercept alone (American College of Rheumatology 50% response at week 24: etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, 41%; etanercept 25 mg twice weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 31%; etanercept 25 mg once weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 39% [P=.914]).²⁵ Combination therapy also was associated with a higher overall incidence of serious AEs, serious infections requiring antibiotics or hospitalizations, and serious infections leading to study withdrawal. Reported infections included pneumonia, cellulitis, herpes zoster, pneumonitis, and pyelonephritis, but no opportunistic infections or tuberculosis were reported. A single case of lymphoma was reported in the full-dose etanercept plus anakinra group; however, the association with therapy is unclear, as RA itself is associated with an increased risk of malignancy.²⁵

Although these results are notable, caution must be exercised in extrapolating safety and efficacy data for treatment with concurrent biologics from the RA literature for management of HS for several reasons. First, RA is an autoimmune disease that is associated with an increased risk for genitourinary and bronchopulmonary infections and septic arthritis, even in the absence of treatment with steroids and immunomodulatory drugs.^26,27 Increased risk for development of lymphoma, lung cancer, and nonmelanoma skin cancer also has been associated with RA.^28,29 The exact etiology of this increased risk is unknown, but it is thought to relate to immunologic disturbances and chronic systemic inflammation associated with RA.²⁹ Furthermore, RA disease characteristics and comorbidities that may contribute to an increased risk for infection and malignancy include advanced age as well as a history of leukopenia, chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, alcoholism, and/or smoking.³⁰ Infection and malignancy risk in RA also may be compounded by immunomodulatory therapies.^31,32

Conversely, although microbes are believed to play an important role in HS initiation and progression, HS is neither considered an infectious disease nor associated with an increased risk for infection.³³ Increased malignancy risk generally is not reported with HS, and systematic therapeutic trials of biologic therapies for HS have been notable for an absence of infectious or malignant AEs compared to placebo.^{12,14,16,18,19} From a mechanistic standpoint, data suggest that HS may be fundamentally distinct from RA and other autoimmune diseases; therefore, it may not be appropriate to extrapolate safety data from the latter to guide therapeutic strategies for the former.

The concept that different inflammatory diseases harbor distinct risks for comorbidities and AEs associated with medications is further supported by data from patients with PAPA syndrome (pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, and acne), a monogenic autoinflammatory disease characterized by inflammasome activation and subsequent increased signaling via IL-1.³⁴Patients with PAPA syndrome often require a combination therapeutic regimen including simultaneous antibiotics, systemic retinoids and steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and more than 1 concurrent anticytokine biologic to manage their condition. Despite management with multiple immunosuppressants and immunomodulators, patients with PAPA syndrome rarely develop localized or systemic infections, supporting our hypothesis that different systemic immune-mediated disorders may render a distinct susceptibility to infectious complications. Clinically, patients with PAPA syndrome can have cutaneous disease manifestations consistent with HS, suggesting the possibility of shared underlying inflammatory mechanisms due at least partially to inflammasome activation. This clinical observation may help explain why concurrent anticytokine biologic therapies in conjunction with combinations of steroids and other immunomodulators may be safe and effective in HS patients.

We have safely and effectively treated 2 patients with severe HS with extended courses of concurrent TNF and IL-1 antagonists. Both patients had previously failed treatment with multiple therapeutic interventions, including topical and systemic antibiotics, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, hormonal therapy, biologic monotherapy with several targeted agents, and wide local excision. In the setting of concurrent certolizumab plus anakinra in the first patient and adalimumab plus anakinra in the second, both patients reported reduced drainage, pain, and number of disease flares. Both patients also were maintained on extended treatment courses (11 months and 2 years, respectively) without evidence of infection or malignancy.

Concurrent biologics may be safe and effective in managing recalcitrant HS; however, large prospective studies are needed to confirm these anecdotal findings. As our understanding of HS pathogenesis expands, novel and more effective therapeutic options will be developed. Until then, concurrent biologics may be a potential option for patients with severe recalcitrant HS.

Dysregulated immune responses including elevations in the inflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor (TNF),^1-4 IL- 1 β ,³ and IL-12/23^5-7 have been identified in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Targeted biologic agents may offer an opportunity to intervene in specific aberrant inflammatory pathways to effectively treat HS while minimizing a dverse effects (AEs). There is growing evidence, however, that treatment of HS with a single biologic agent is not effective in all patients.^6,8-17 The TNF antagonist adalimumab has been shown to achieve clinical response in approximately 50% of patients (N = 633). ¹⁸In smaller and uncontrolled studies, clinical response was achieved in 70% (7/10) of patients treated with the IL-1 antagonist anakinra¹⁶ and 47 % (8/17) of patients treated with the IL-12/23 antagonist ustekinumab¹⁹ ; however, larger rigorous studies are needed. There is an urgent need for more effective therapeutic strategies for this condition.²⁰

The administration of concurrent biologics may offer the potential for improved disease control through synergistic targeting of multiple inflammatory pathways, particularly for severe and recalcitrant HS. This approach may be effective given insights from mechanistic studies suggesting the involvement of multiple inflammatory pathways in the disease pathogenesis.^3,21 Concurrent anticytokine biologics have been used safely and effectively in other inflammatory diseases; for example, combination therapy with TNF and IL-12/23 antagonists have resulted in near-complete to complete resolution of severe psoriatic skin and joint disease without AEs.^22-24

An increased risk for infection without increased efficacy associated with the use of concurrent anticytokine biologics for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has raised concerns about the safety of this therapeutic approach. In a study of concurrent etanercept and anakinra therapy for RA (N=244), the combined therapy was not more efficacious than etanercept alone (American College of Rheumatology 50% response at week 24: etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, 41%; etanercept 25 mg twice weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 31%; etanercept 25 mg once weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 39% [P=.914]).²⁵ Combination therapy also was associated with a higher overall incidence of serious AEs, serious infections requiring antibiotics or hospitalizations, and serious infections leading to study withdrawal. Reported infections included pneumonia, cellulitis, herpes zoster, pneumonitis, and pyelonephritis, but no opportunistic infections or tuberculosis were reported. A single case of lymphoma was reported in the full-dose etanercept plus anakinra group; however, the association with therapy is unclear, as RA itself is associated with an increased risk of malignancy.²⁵

Although these results are notable, caution must be exercised in extrapolating safety and efficacy data for treatment with concurrent biologics from the RA literature for management of HS for several reasons. First, RA is an autoimmune disease that is associated with an increased risk for genitourinary and bronchopulmonary infections and septic arthritis, even in the absence of treatment with steroids and immunomodulatory drugs.^26,27 Increased risk for development of lymphoma, lung cancer, and nonmelanoma skin cancer also has been associated with RA.^28,29 The exact etiology of this increased risk is unknown, but it is thought to relate to immunologic disturbances and chronic systemic inflammation associated with RA.²⁹ Furthermore, RA disease characteristics and comorbidities that may contribute to an increased risk for infection and malignancy include advanced age as well as a history of leukopenia, chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, alcoholism, and/or smoking.³⁰ Infection and malignancy risk in RA also may be compounded by immunomodulatory therapies.^31,32

Conversely, although microbes are believed to play an important role in HS initiation and progression, HS is neither considered an infectious disease nor associated with an increased risk for infection.³³ Increased malignancy risk generally is not reported with HS, and systematic therapeutic trials of biologic therapies for HS have been notable for an absence of infectious or malignant AEs compared to placebo.^{12,14,16,18,19} From a mechanistic standpoint, data suggest that HS may be fundamentally distinct from RA and other autoimmune diseases; therefore, it may not be appropriate to extrapolate safety data from the latter to guide therapeutic strategies for the former.

The concept that different inflammatory diseases harbor distinct risks for comorbidities and AEs associated with medications is further supported by data from patients with PAPA syndrome (pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, and acne), a monogenic autoinflammatory disease characterized by inflammasome activation and subsequent increased signaling via IL-1.³⁴Patients with PAPA syndrome often require a combination therapeutic regimen including simultaneous antibiotics, systemic retinoids and steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and more than 1 concurrent anticytokine biologic to manage their condition. Despite management with multiple immunosuppressants and immunomodulators, patients with PAPA syndrome rarely develop localized or systemic infections, supporting our hypothesis that different systemic immune-mediated disorders may render a distinct susceptibility to infectious complications. Clinically, patients with PAPA syndrome can have cutaneous disease manifestations consistent with HS, suggesting the possibility of shared underlying inflammatory mechanisms due at least partially to inflammasome activation. This clinical observation may help explain why concurrent anticytokine biologic therapies in conjunction with combinations of steroids and other immunomodulators may be safe and effective in HS patients.

We have safely and effectively treated 2 patients with severe HS with extended courses of concurrent TNF and IL-1 antagonists. Both patients had previously failed treatment with multiple therapeutic interventions, including topical and systemic antibiotics, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, hormonal therapy, biologic monotherapy with several targeted agents, and wide local excision. In the setting of concurrent certolizumab plus anakinra in the first patient and adalimumab plus anakinra in the second, both patients reported reduced drainage, pain, and number of disease flares. Both patients also were maintained on extended treatment courses (11 months and 2 years, respectively) without evidence of infection or malignancy.

Concurrent biologics may be safe and effective in managing recalcitrant HS; however, large prospective studies are needed to confirm these anecdotal findings. As our understanding of HS pathogenesis expands, novel and more effective therapeutic options will be developed. Until then, concurrent biologics may be a potential option for patients with severe recalcitrant HS.

Dysregulated immune responses including elevations in the inflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor (TNF),^1-4 IL- 1 β ,³ and IL-12/23^5-7 have been identified in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Targeted biologic agents may offer an opportunity to intervene in specific aberrant inflammatory pathways to effectively treat HS while minimizing a dverse effects (AEs). There is growing evidence, however, that treatment of HS with a single biologic agent is not effective in all patients.^6,8-17 The TNF antagonist adalimumab has been shown to achieve clinical response in approximately 50% of patients (N = 633). ¹⁸In smaller and uncontrolled studies, clinical response was achieved in 70% (7/10) of patients treated with the IL-1 antagonist anakinra¹⁶ and 47 % (8/17) of patients treated with the IL-12/23 antagonist ustekinumab¹⁹ ; however, larger rigorous studies are needed. There is an urgent need for more effective therapeutic strategies for this condition.²⁰

The administration of concurrent biologics may offer the potential for improved disease control through synergistic targeting of multiple inflammatory pathways, particularly for severe and recalcitrant HS. This approach may be effective given insights from mechanistic studies suggesting the involvement of multiple inflammatory pathways in the disease pathogenesis.^3,21 Concurrent anticytokine biologics have been used safely and effectively in other inflammatory diseases; for example, combination therapy with TNF and IL-12/23 antagonists have resulted in near-complete to complete resolution of severe psoriatic skin and joint disease without AEs.^22-24

An increased risk for infection without increased efficacy associated with the use of concurrent anticytokine biologics for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has raised concerns about the safety of this therapeutic approach. In a study of concurrent etanercept and anakinra therapy for RA (N=244), the combined therapy was not more efficacious than etanercept alone (American College of Rheumatology 50% response at week 24: etanercept 25 mg twice weekly, 41%; etanercept 25 mg twice weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 31%; etanercept 25 mg once weekly plus anakinra 100 mg once daily, 39% [P=.914]).²⁵ Combination therapy also was associated with a higher overall incidence of serious AEs, serious infections requiring antibiotics or hospitalizations, and serious infections leading to study withdrawal. Reported infections included pneumonia, cellulitis, herpes zoster, pneumonitis, and pyelonephritis, but no opportunistic infections or tuberculosis were reported. A single case of lymphoma was reported in the full-dose etanercept plus anakinra group; however, the association with therapy is unclear, as RA itself is associated with an increased risk of malignancy.²⁵

Although these results are notable, caution must be exercised in extrapolating safety and efficacy data for treatment with concurrent biologics from the RA literature for management of HS for several reasons. First, RA is an autoimmune disease that is associated with an increased risk for genitourinary and bronchopulmonary infections and septic arthritis, even in the absence of treatment with steroids and immunomodulatory drugs.^26,27 Increased risk for development of lymphoma, lung cancer, and nonmelanoma skin cancer also has been associated with RA.^28,29 The exact etiology of this increased risk is unknown, but it is thought to relate to immunologic disturbances and chronic systemic inflammation associated with RA.²⁹ Furthermore, RA disease characteristics and comorbidities that may contribute to an increased risk for infection and malignancy include advanced age as well as a history of leukopenia, chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, alcoholism, and/or smoking.³⁰ Infection and malignancy risk in RA also may be compounded by immunomodulatory therapies.^31,32

Conversely, although microbes are believed to play an important role in HS initiation and progression, HS is neither considered an infectious disease nor associated with an increased risk for infection.³³ Increased malignancy risk generally is not reported with HS, and systematic therapeutic trials of biologic therapies for HS have been notable for an absence of infectious or malignant AEs compared to placebo.^{12,14,16,18,19} From a mechanistic standpoint, data suggest that HS may be fundamentally distinct from RA and other autoimmune diseases; therefore, it may not be appropriate to extrapolate safety data from the latter to guide therapeutic strategies for the former.

The concept that different inflammatory diseases harbor distinct risks for comorbidities and AEs associated with medications is further supported by data from patients with PAPA syndrome (pyogenic arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, and acne), a monogenic autoinflammatory disease characterized by inflammasome activation and subsequent increased signaling via IL-1.³⁴Patients with PAPA syndrome often require a combination therapeutic regimen including simultaneous antibiotics, systemic retinoids and steroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and more than 1 concurrent anticytokine biologic to manage their condition. Despite management with multiple immunosuppressants and immunomodulators, patients with PAPA syndrome rarely develop localized or systemic infections, supporting our hypothesis that different systemic immune-mediated disorders may render a distinct susceptibility to infectious complications. Clinically, patients with PAPA syndrome can have cutaneous disease manifestations consistent with HS, suggesting the possibility of shared underlying inflammatory mechanisms due at least partially to inflammasome activation. This clinical observation may help explain why concurrent anticytokine biologic therapies in conjunction with combinations of steroids and other immunomodulators may be safe and effective in HS patients.

We have safely and effectively treated 2 patients with severe HS with extended courses of concurrent TNF and IL-1 antagonists. Both patients had previously failed treatment with multiple therapeutic interventions, including topical and systemic antibiotics, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, hormonal therapy, biologic monotherapy with several targeted agents, and wide local excision. In the setting of concurrent certolizumab plus anakinra in the first patient and adalimumab plus anakinra in the second, both patients reported reduced drainage, pain, and number of disease flares. Both patients also were maintained on extended treatment courses (11 months and 2 years, respectively) without evidence of infection or malignancy.

Concurrent biologics may be safe and effective in managing recalcitrant HS; however, large prospective studies are needed to confirm these anecdotal findings. As our understanding of HS pathogenesis expands, novel and more effective therapeutic options will be developed. Until then, concurrent biologics may be a potential option for patients with severe recalcitrant HS.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects approximately 2% to 3% of the US population.¹ Patients with psoriasis are more likely to have cardiovascular risk factors (eg, obesity, metabolic syndrome) than individuals without psoriasis.² In fact, recent evidence has suggested that a diagnosis of psoriasis is an independent risk factor for cardiometabolic diseases including diabetes, major adverse cardiovascular events, and obesity.³ Given the well-recognized health benefits of physical activity and the associated reduction in coronary heart disease risk,⁴ patients with psoriasis specifically may benefit from regular participation in physical activity. Thus, an enhanced understanding of the relationship between psoriasis and vigorous physical activity would help determine the role of initiating and recommending interventions that implement physical activity for patients with psoriasis. A review was conducted to determine the relationship between psoriasis and vigorous physical activity.

Methods

An English-language literature search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE (January 1, 1946–October 15, 2017) as well as articles in the Embase database (January 1, 1947–October 15, 2017) and Cochrane Library (January 1, 1992–October 15, 2017) using the terms psoriasis and physical activity was performed. The search strategy was established based on a prior review of vigorous physical activity in eczema.⁵ The article titles and/or abstracts were reviewed, and the studies were excluded if they did not evaluate physical activity in patients with psoriasis. Studies without a control group also were excluded. Articles on patients with psoriatic arthritis and studies that involved modification of dietary intake also were excluded.

Two reviewers (M.A. and E.B.L.) independently extracted data from the studies and compiled the results. The following factors were included in the data extracted: study year, location, and design; method of diagnosis of psoriasis; total number of patients included in the study; and age, gender, and level of physical activity of the study patients. Level of physical activity was the exposure, and diagnosis of psoriasis was the dependent variable. Physical activity was defined differently across the studies that were evaluated. To determine study quality, we implemented the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), a 9-star scoring system that includes items such as selection criteria, comparability, and study outcome.⁶ Studies with an NOS score of 7 or higher were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

The literature search generated 353 nonduplicate articles. A thorough review of the articles yielded 4 studies that were incorporated in the final analysis.^7-10 We aimed to perform a meta-analysis; however, only 1 of the studies included in the final analysis had an NOS score of 7 or higher along with adequate data to be incorporated into our study.¹⁰ As a result, the meta-analysis was converted to a regular review.

The cross-sectional study we reviewed, which had an NOS score of 7, included males and females in the United States aged 20 to 59 years.¹⁰ Data were collected using the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2003 to 2006. The survey measured the likelihood of participation in leisure-time moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and metabolic equivalent task (MET) minutes of MVPA in the past 30 days. Of 6549 participants, 385 were excluded from the analysis due to missing values for 1 or more of the study variables. Of the remaining 6164 participants, 84 (1.4%) reported having a diagnosis of psoriasis with few or no psoriasis patches at the time of the survey, and 71 (1.2%) reported having a diagnosis of psoriasis with few to extensive patches at the time of the survey.¹⁰

Participants with psoriasis were less likely to participate in MVPA in the previous 30 days compared to participants without psoriasis, but the association was not statistically significant.¹⁰ The study demonstrated that, on average, participants with psoriasis spent 31% (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.57 to −0.05) fewer MET minutes on leisure-time MVPA versus participants without psoriasis; however, this association was not statistically significant. It is important to note that the diagnosis of psoriasis was self-reported, and measures of disease duration or areas of involvement were not incorporated.

Comment

Our review revealed that vigorous physical activity may be reduced in patients with psoriasis compared to those without psoriasis. Initially, we aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature; however, only 1 study met the criteria for the systematic review, highlighting the need for more robust studies evaluating this subject.

Do et al¹⁰ demonstrated that psoriasis patients were less likely to participate in MVPA, but the findings were not statistically significant. Of those who participated in MVPA, MET minutes were fewer among patients with few to extensive skin lesions compared to those without psoriasis. The investigators suggested that psoriasis patients with more severe disease tend to exercise less and ultimately would benefit from regular vigorous physical activity.

Frankel et al⁷ performed a prospective cohort study in US women to evaluate the role of physical activity in preventing psoriasis. The investigators reported that the most physically active quintile had a lower multivariate relative risk of psoriasis (0.72; 95% CI, 0.59–0.89; P<.001 for trend) compared to the least active quintile.⁷ Additionally, vigorous physical activity, which was defined as 6 or more MET minutes, was associated with a significantly lower risk of incident psoriasis (0.66; 95% CI, 0.54–0.81; P<.001 for trend), which maintained significance after adjusting for body mass index (BMI). The investigators suggested that, by decreasing chronic inflammation and lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines, vigorous physical activity may reduce the risk of psoriasis development in women.⁷ It is plausible that vigorous physical activity modifies the state of chronic inflammation, which could subsequently reduce the risk of developing psoriasis; however, further long-term, randomized, prospective studies are needed to verify the relationship between physical activity and development of psoriasis.

Torres et al⁸ performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study to assess physical activity in patients with severe psoriasis (defined as >10% body surface area involvement and/or disease requiring systemic therapy or phototherapy) versus healthy controls. Physical activity level was measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. The odds ratio of low-level physical activity compared to non–low-level physical activity among psoriasis patients versus controls was 3.42 (95% CI, 1.47–7.91; P=.002). Additionally, the average total MET minutes of psoriasis patients were significantly reduced compared to those of the healthy controls (P=.001). Thus, the investigators suggested that vigorous physical activity is less likely in psoriasis patients, which may contribute to the increased risk of cardiovascular disease in this population.⁸ Vigorous physical activity would benefit patients with psoriasis to help lower the chronic state of inflammation and cardiometabolic comorbidities.

Demirel et al⁹ performed a study to compare aerobic exercise capacity and daily physical activity level in psoriasis patients (n=30) compared to controls (n=30). Daily physical activity, measured with an accelerometer, was significantly higher in male patients with psoriasis compared to controls (P=.021). No significant difference was reported in maximal aerobic capacity in both male and female psoriasis patients versus controls. The investigators suggested that the level of daily physical activity is not limited in psoriasis patients, yet the small sample size may limit the generalizability of the study.

The ability to dissipate heat during exercise seems to be diminished in patients with psoriasis. Specifically, it has been suggested that psoriasis lesions interfere with normal perspiration.¹¹ Moreover, joint involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis may lead to physical functional disabilities that can interfere with the ability of these patients to participate in regular physical activity.^12-14 For this reason, our review excluded articles that evaluated patients with psoriatic arthritis. Despite this exclusion, it is important to consider that comorbid psoriatic arthritis in clinical practice may impede patients with psoriasis from participating in physical activity. Additionally, various social aspects also may limit physical activity in psoriasis patients; for instance, psoriasis patients often avoid activities that involve increased exposure of the skin (eg, communal showers, wearing sports attire).¹⁵

Furthermore, obese psoriasis patients are less likely to exercise compared to obese individuals without psoriasis.¹⁶ In patients with higher BMI, the risk of psoriasis is increased.¹⁷ A systematic review suggested that weight loss may improve psoriasis severity.¹⁸ Bariatric surgery also may improve psoriasis.¹⁹ Moreover, obesity may interfere with response to biologic therapies for psoriasis. Specifically, higher BMI is linked with lower response to fixed-dose biologic therapies compared to weight-based biologic options (eg, infliximab).^20,21

Conclusion

Given the increased risk of myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis, it is important to recognize the barriers to physical activity that psoriasis patients face.²² Due to the considerable health benefits associated with regular physical activity, physicians should encourage patients with psoriasis to participate in physical activity as tolerated. Of note, the studies included in this review varied in their definitions of psoriasis disease severity and measures of physical activity level. Long-term, randomized, prospective studies are needed to clarify the relationship between psoriasis and physical activity. Evidence from these studies would help guide clinical recommendations regarding the role of physical activity for patients with psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects approximately 2% to 3% of the US population.¹ Patients with psoriasis are more likely to have cardiovascular risk factors (eg, obesity, metabolic syndrome) than individuals without psoriasis.² In fact, recent evidence has suggested that a diagnosis of psoriasis is an independent risk factor for cardiometabolic diseases including diabetes, major adverse cardiovascular events, and obesity.³ Given the well-recognized health benefits of physical activity and the associated reduction in coronary heart disease risk,⁴ patients with psoriasis specifically may benefit from regular participation in physical activity. Thus, an enhanced understanding of the relationship between psoriasis and vigorous physical activity would help determine the role of initiating and recommending interventions that implement physical activity for patients with psoriasis. A review was conducted to determine the relationship between psoriasis and vigorous physical activity.

Methods

An English-language literature search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE (January 1, 1946–October 15, 2017) as well as articles in the Embase database (January 1, 1947–October 15, 2017) and Cochrane Library (January 1, 1992–October 15, 2017) using the terms psoriasis and physical activity was performed. The search strategy was established based on a prior review of vigorous physical activity in eczema.⁵ The article titles and/or abstracts were reviewed, and the studies were excluded if they did not evaluate physical activity in patients with psoriasis. Studies without a control group also were excluded. Articles on patients with psoriatic arthritis and studies that involved modification of dietary intake also were excluded.

Two reviewers (M.A. and E.B.L.) independently extracted data from the studies and compiled the results. The following factors were included in the data extracted: study year, location, and design; method of diagnosis of psoriasis; total number of patients included in the study; and age, gender, and level of physical activity of the study patients. Level of physical activity was the exposure, and diagnosis of psoriasis was the dependent variable. Physical activity was defined differently across the studies that were evaluated. To determine study quality, we implemented the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), a 9-star scoring system that includes items such as selection criteria, comparability, and study outcome.⁶ Studies with an NOS score of 7 or higher were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

The literature search generated 353 nonduplicate articles. A thorough review of the articles yielded 4 studies that were incorporated in the final analysis.^7-10 We aimed to perform a meta-analysis; however, only 1 of the studies included in the final analysis had an NOS score of 7 or higher along with adequate data to be incorporated into our study.¹⁰ As a result, the meta-analysis was converted to a regular review.

The cross-sectional study we reviewed, which had an NOS score of 7, included males and females in the United States aged 20 to 59 years.¹⁰ Data were collected using the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2003 to 2006. The survey measured the likelihood of participation in leisure-time moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and metabolic equivalent task (MET) minutes of MVPA in the past 30 days. Of 6549 participants, 385 were excluded from the analysis due to missing values for 1 or more of the study variables. Of the remaining 6164 participants, 84 (1.4%) reported having a diagnosis of psoriasis with few or no psoriasis patches at the time of the survey, and 71 (1.2%) reported having a diagnosis of psoriasis with few to extensive patches at the time of the survey.¹⁰

Participants with psoriasis were less likely to participate in MVPA in the previous 30 days compared to participants without psoriasis, but the association was not statistically significant.¹⁰ The study demonstrated that, on average, participants with psoriasis spent 31% (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.57 to −0.05) fewer MET minutes on leisure-time MVPA versus participants without psoriasis; however, this association was not statistically significant. It is important to note that the diagnosis of psoriasis was self-reported, and measures of disease duration or areas of involvement were not incorporated.

Comment

Our review revealed that vigorous physical activity may be reduced in patients with psoriasis compared to those without psoriasis. Initially, we aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature; however, only 1 study met the criteria for the systematic review, highlighting the need for more robust studies evaluating this subject.

Do et al¹⁰ demonstrated that psoriasis patients were less likely to participate in MVPA, but the findings were not statistically significant. Of those who participated in MVPA, MET minutes were fewer among patients with few to extensive skin lesions compared to those without psoriasis. The investigators suggested that psoriasis patients with more severe disease tend to exercise less and ultimately would benefit from regular vigorous physical activity.

Frankel et al⁷ performed a prospective cohort study in US women to evaluate the role of physical activity in preventing psoriasis. The investigators reported that the most physically active quintile had a lower multivariate relative risk of psoriasis (0.72; 95% CI, 0.59–0.89; P<.001 for trend) compared to the least active quintile.⁷ Additionally, vigorous physical activity, which was defined as 6 or more MET minutes, was associated with a significantly lower risk of incident psoriasis (0.66; 95% CI, 0.54–0.81; P<.001 for trend), which maintained significance after adjusting for body mass index (BMI). The investigators suggested that, by decreasing chronic inflammation and lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines, vigorous physical activity may reduce the risk of psoriasis development in women.⁷ It is plausible that vigorous physical activity modifies the state of chronic inflammation, which could subsequently reduce the risk of developing psoriasis; however, further long-term, randomized, prospective studies are needed to verify the relationship between physical activity and development of psoriasis.

Torres et al⁸ performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study to assess physical activity in patients with severe psoriasis (defined as >10% body surface area involvement and/or disease requiring systemic therapy or phototherapy) versus healthy controls. Physical activity level was measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. The odds ratio of low-level physical activity compared to non–low-level physical activity among psoriasis patients versus controls was 3.42 (95% CI, 1.47–7.91; P=.002). Additionally, the average total MET minutes of psoriasis patients were significantly reduced compared to those of the healthy controls (P=.001). Thus, the investigators suggested that vigorous physical activity is less likely in psoriasis patients, which may contribute to the increased risk of cardiovascular disease in this population.⁸ Vigorous physical activity would benefit patients with psoriasis to help lower the chronic state of inflammation and cardiometabolic comorbidities.

Demirel et al⁹ performed a study to compare aerobic exercise capacity and daily physical activity level in psoriasis patients (n=30) compared to controls (n=30). Daily physical activity, measured with an accelerometer, was significantly higher in male patients with psoriasis compared to controls (P=.021). No significant difference was reported in maximal aerobic capacity in both male and female psoriasis patients versus controls. The investigators suggested that the level of daily physical activity is not limited in psoriasis patients, yet the small sample size may limit the generalizability of the study.

The ability to dissipate heat during exercise seems to be diminished in patients with psoriasis. Specifically, it has been suggested that psoriasis lesions interfere with normal perspiration.¹¹ Moreover, joint involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis may lead to physical functional disabilities that can interfere with the ability of these patients to participate in regular physical activity.^12-14 For this reason, our review excluded articles that evaluated patients with psoriatic arthritis. Despite this exclusion, it is important to consider that comorbid psoriatic arthritis in clinical practice may impede patients with psoriasis from participating in physical activity. Additionally, various social aspects also may limit physical activity in psoriasis patients; for instance, psoriasis patients often avoid activities that involve increased exposure of the skin (eg, communal showers, wearing sports attire).¹⁵

Furthermore, obese psoriasis patients are less likely to exercise compared to obese individuals without psoriasis.¹⁶ In patients with higher BMI, the risk of psoriasis is increased.¹⁷ A systematic review suggested that weight loss may improve psoriasis severity.¹⁸ Bariatric surgery also may improve psoriasis.¹⁹ Moreover, obesity may interfere with response to biologic therapies for psoriasis. Specifically, higher BMI is linked with lower response to fixed-dose biologic therapies compared to weight-based biologic options (eg, infliximab).^20,21

Conclusion

Given the increased risk of myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis, it is important to recognize the barriers to physical activity that psoriasis patients face.²² Due to the considerable health benefits associated with regular physical activity, physicians should encourage patients with psoriasis to participate in physical activity as tolerated. Of note, the studies included in this review varied in their definitions of psoriasis disease severity and measures of physical activity level. Long-term, randomized, prospective studies are needed to clarify the relationship between psoriasis and physical activity. Evidence from these studies would help guide clinical recommendations regarding the role of physical activity for patients with psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects approximately 2% to 3% of the US population.¹ Patients with psoriasis are more likely to have cardiovascular risk factors (eg, obesity, metabolic syndrome) than individuals without psoriasis.² In fact, recent evidence has suggested that a diagnosis of psoriasis is an independent risk factor for cardiometabolic diseases including diabetes, major adverse cardiovascular events, and obesity.³ Given the well-recognized health benefits of physical activity and the associated reduction in coronary heart disease risk,⁴ patients with psoriasis specifically may benefit from regular participation in physical activity. Thus, an enhanced understanding of the relationship between psoriasis and vigorous physical activity would help determine the role of initiating and recommending interventions that implement physical activity for patients with psoriasis. A review was conducted to determine the relationship between psoriasis and vigorous physical activity.

Methods

An English-language literature search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE (January 1, 1946–October 15, 2017) as well as articles in the Embase database (January 1, 1947–October 15, 2017) and Cochrane Library (January 1, 1992–October 15, 2017) using the terms psoriasis and physical activity was performed. The search strategy was established based on a prior review of vigorous physical activity in eczema.⁵ The article titles and/or abstracts were reviewed, and the studies were excluded if they did not evaluate physical activity in patients with psoriasis. Studies without a control group also were excluded. Articles on patients with psoriatic arthritis and studies that involved modification of dietary intake also were excluded.

Two reviewers (M.A. and E.B.L.) independently extracted data from the studies and compiled the results. The following factors were included in the data extracted: study year, location, and design; method of diagnosis of psoriasis; total number of patients included in the study; and age, gender, and level of physical activity of the study patients. Level of physical activity was the exposure, and diagnosis of psoriasis was the dependent variable. Physical activity was defined differently across the studies that were evaluated. To determine study quality, we implemented the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), a 9-star scoring system that includes items such as selection criteria, comparability, and study outcome.⁶ Studies with an NOS score of 7 or higher were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

The literature search generated 353 nonduplicate articles. A thorough review of the articles yielded 4 studies that were incorporated in the final analysis.^7-10 We aimed to perform a meta-analysis; however, only 1 of the studies included in the final analysis had an NOS score of 7 or higher along with adequate data to be incorporated into our study.¹⁰ As a result, the meta-analysis was converted to a regular review.

The cross-sectional study we reviewed, which had an NOS score of 7, included males and females in the United States aged 20 to 59 years.¹⁰ Data were collected using the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2003 to 2006. The survey measured the likelihood of participation in leisure-time moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and metabolic equivalent task (MET) minutes of MVPA in the past 30 days. Of 6549 participants, 385 were excluded from the analysis due to missing values for 1 or more of the study variables. Of the remaining 6164 participants, 84 (1.4%) reported having a diagnosis of psoriasis with few or no psoriasis patches at the time of the survey, and 71 (1.2%) reported having a diagnosis of psoriasis with few to extensive patches at the time of the survey.¹⁰

Participants with psoriasis were less likely to participate in MVPA in the previous 30 days compared to participants without psoriasis, but the association was not statistically significant.¹⁰ The study demonstrated that, on average, participants with psoriasis spent 31% (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.57 to −0.05) fewer MET minutes on leisure-time MVPA versus participants without psoriasis; however, this association was not statistically significant. It is important to note that the diagnosis of psoriasis was self-reported, and measures of disease duration or areas of involvement were not incorporated.

Comment

Our review revealed that vigorous physical activity may be reduced in patients with psoriasis compared to those without psoriasis. Initially, we aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature; however, only 1 study met the criteria for the systematic review, highlighting the need for more robust studies evaluating this subject.

Do et al¹⁰ demonstrated that psoriasis patients were less likely to participate in MVPA, but the findings were not statistically significant. Of those who participated in MVPA, MET minutes were fewer among patients with few to extensive skin lesions compared to those without psoriasis. The investigators suggested that psoriasis patients with more severe disease tend to exercise less and ultimately would benefit from regular vigorous physical activity.

Frankel et al⁷ performed a prospective cohort study in US women to evaluate the role of physical activity in preventing psoriasis. The investigators reported that the most physically active quintile had a lower multivariate relative risk of psoriasis (0.72; 95% CI, 0.59–0.89; P<.001 for trend) compared to the least active quintile.⁷ Additionally, vigorous physical activity, which was defined as 6 or more MET minutes, was associated with a significantly lower risk of incident psoriasis (0.66; 95% CI, 0.54–0.81; P<.001 for trend), which maintained significance after adjusting for body mass index (BMI). The investigators suggested that, by decreasing chronic inflammation and lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines, vigorous physical activity may reduce the risk of psoriasis development in women.⁷ It is plausible that vigorous physical activity modifies the state of chronic inflammation, which could subsequently reduce the risk of developing psoriasis; however, further long-term, randomized, prospective studies are needed to verify the relationship between physical activity and development of psoriasis.

Torres et al⁸ performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study to assess physical activity in patients with severe psoriasis (defined as >10% body surface area involvement and/or disease requiring systemic therapy or phototherapy) versus healthy controls. Physical activity level was measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. The odds ratio of low-level physical activity compared to non–low-level physical activity among psoriasis patients versus controls was 3.42 (95% CI, 1.47–7.91; P=.002). Additionally, the average total MET minutes of psoriasis patients were significantly reduced compared to those of the healthy controls (P=.001). Thus, the investigators suggested that vigorous physical activity is less likely in psoriasis patients, which may contribute to the increased risk of cardiovascular disease in this population.⁸ Vigorous physical activity would benefit patients with psoriasis to help lower the chronic state of inflammation and cardiometabolic comorbidities.

Demirel et al⁹ performed a study to compare aerobic exercise capacity and daily physical activity level in psoriasis patients (n=30) compared to controls (n=30). Daily physical activity, measured with an accelerometer, was significantly higher in male patients with psoriasis compared to controls (P=.021). No significant difference was reported in maximal aerobic capacity in both male and female psoriasis patients versus controls. The investigators suggested that the level of daily physical activity is not limited in psoriasis patients, yet the small sample size may limit the generalizability of the study.

The ability to dissipate heat during exercise seems to be diminished in patients with psoriasis. Specifically, it has been suggested that psoriasis lesions interfere with normal perspiration.¹¹ Moreover, joint involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis may lead to physical functional disabilities that can interfere with the ability of these patients to participate in regular physical activity.^12-14 For this reason, our review excluded articles that evaluated patients with psoriatic arthritis. Despite this exclusion, it is important to consider that comorbid psoriatic arthritis in clinical practice may impede patients with psoriasis from participating in physical activity. Additionally, various social aspects also may limit physical activity in psoriasis patients; for instance, psoriasis patients often avoid activities that involve increased exposure of the skin (eg, communal showers, wearing sports attire).¹⁵

Furthermore, obese psoriasis patients are less likely to exercise compared to obese individuals without psoriasis.¹⁶ In patients with higher BMI, the risk of psoriasis is increased.¹⁷ A systematic review suggested that weight loss may improve psoriasis severity.¹⁸ Bariatric surgery also may improve psoriasis.¹⁹ Moreover, obesity may interfere with response to biologic therapies for psoriasis. Specifically, higher BMI is linked with lower response to fixed-dose biologic therapies compared to weight-based biologic options (eg, infliximab).^20,21

Conclusion

Given the increased risk of myocardial infarction in patients with psoriasis, it is important to recognize the barriers to physical activity that psoriasis patients face.²² Due to the considerable health benefits associated with regular physical activity, physicians should encourage patients with psoriasis to participate in physical activity as tolerated. Of note, the studies included in this review varied in their definitions of psoriasis disease severity and measures of physical activity level. Long-term, randomized, prospective studies are needed to clarify the relationship between psoriasis and physical activity. Evidence from these studies would help guide clinical recommendations regarding the role of physical activity for patients with psoriasis.

To the Editor:

A 65-year-old woman with B-cell marginal zone lymphoma presented with asymptomatic swelling and redness of the upper and lower eyelids of 1 week’s duration that was unresponsive to topical corticosteroids for presumptive allergic contact dermatitis. She denied any lip or tongue swelling, abdominal pain, or difficulty breathing or swallowing. Diagnosis of acquired angioedema (AAE) was confirmed on laboratory analysis, which showed C1q levels less than 3.6 mg/dL (reference range, 5.0–8.6 mg/dL), complement component 4 levels less than 8 mg/dL (reference range, 14–44 mg/dL), and C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) levels of 3 mg/dL (reference range, 12–30 mg/dL).

A review of the patient’s medical record showed chronic thrombocytopenia secondary to previous chemotherapy. It was determined that the patient’s ecchymosis and purpura of the eyelids was secondary to a low platelet count resulting in bleeding into the area of angioedema (Figure). Serum protein electrophoresis did not demonstrate a monoclonal spike, and flow cytometry showed persistent B-cell leukemia without evidence of an aberrant T-cell antigenic profile. The edema and purpura of the eyelids spontaneously resolved over days, and the patient has had no recurrences to date. She was prescribed icatibant for treatment of future acute AAE attacks.

The common pathway of AAE involves the inability of C1-INH to stop activation of the complement, fibrinolytic, and contact systems. Failure to control the contact system leads to increased bradykinin production resulting in vasodilation and edema. Diagnosis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) types 1 and 2 can be confirmed in the setting of low complement component 4 and C1-INH functional levels and normal C1q levels; in AAE, C1q levels also are low.^1,2

The malignancies most frequently associated with AAE are non-Hodgkin lymphomas (eg, nodal marginal zone lymphoma, splenic marginal zone lymphoma), such as in our patient, as well as monoclonal gammopathies.² Triggers of AAE include trauma (eg, surgery, strenuous exercise), infection, and use of certain medications such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and estrogen, but most episodes are spontaneous. Swelling of any cutaneous surface can occur in the setting of AAE. Mucosal involvement appears to be limited to the upper airway and gastrointestinal tract. Edema of the upper airway mucosa can lead to asphyxiation. In these cases, asphyxia can occur rapidly, and therefore all patients with upper airway involvement should present to the emergency room or call 911. Pain from swelling in the gastrointestinal tract can mimic an acute abdomen.³

Newly developed targeted therapies for HAE also appear to be effective in treating AAE. A summary of available treatments for angioedema is provided in the Table. Human plasma C1-INH can be used intravenously to treat acute attacks or can be given prophylactically to prevent attacks, but large doses may be necessary due to consumption of the protein.^1,3 The risk of bloodborne disease as a result of treatment exists, but screening and processing during production of the plasma makes this unlikely. Ecallantide is a reversible inhibitor of plasma kallikrein.^1,3 Rapid onset and subcutaneous dosing make it useful for treatment of acute AAE attacks. Because anaphylaxis has been reported in up to 3% of patients, ecallantide includes a boxed warning indicating that it must be administered by a health care professional with appropriate medical support to manage anaphylaxis and HAE.⁴ Icatibant is a selective competitive antagonist of bradykinin receptor B2. It can be administered subcutaneously by the patient, making it ideal for rapid treatment of angioedema.^1,3 Adverse events include pain and irritation at the injection site.

The most appropriate therapy for AAE is treatment of the underlying malignancy. Recognition and proper treatment of AAE is essential, as bradykinin-induced angioedema (AAE, HAE and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor induced angioedema) does not respond to antihistamines and corticosteroids and instead requires therapy as discussed above.

To the Editor:

A 65-year-old woman with B-cell marginal zone lymphoma presented with asymptomatic swelling and redness of the upper and lower eyelids of 1 week’s duration that was unresponsive to topical corticosteroids for presumptive allergic contact dermatitis. She denied any lip or tongue swelling, abdominal pain, or difficulty breathing or swallowing. Diagnosis of acquired angioedema (AAE) was confirmed on laboratory analysis, which showed C1q levels less than 3.6 mg/dL (reference range, 5.0–8.6 mg/dL), complement component 4 levels less than 8 mg/dL (reference range, 14–44 mg/dL), and C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) levels of 3 mg/dL (reference range, 12–30 mg/dL).

A review of the patient’s medical record showed chronic thrombocytopenia secondary to previous chemotherapy. It was determined that the patient’s ecchymosis and purpura of the eyelids was secondary to a low platelet count resulting in bleeding into the area of angioedema (Figure). Serum protein electrophoresis did not demonstrate a monoclonal spike, and flow cytometry showed persistent B-cell leukemia without evidence of an aberrant T-cell antigenic profile. The edema and purpura of the eyelids spontaneously resolved over days, and the patient has had no recurrences to date. She was prescribed icatibant for treatment of future acute AAE attacks.

The common pathway of AAE involves the inability of C1-INH to stop activation of the complement, fibrinolytic, and contact systems. Failure to control the contact system leads to increased bradykinin production resulting in vasodilation and edema. Diagnosis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) types 1 and 2 can be confirmed in the setting of low complement component 4 and C1-INH functional levels and normal C1q levels; in AAE, C1q levels also are low.^1,2

The malignancies most frequently associated with AAE are non-Hodgkin lymphomas (eg, nodal marginal zone lymphoma, splenic marginal zone lymphoma), such as in our patient, as well as monoclonal gammopathies.² Triggers of AAE include trauma (eg, surgery, strenuous exercise), infection, and use of certain medications such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and estrogen, but most episodes are spontaneous. Swelling of any cutaneous surface can occur in the setting of AAE. Mucosal involvement appears to be limited to the upper airway and gastrointestinal tract. Edema of the upper airway mucosa can lead to asphyxiation. In these cases, asphyxia can occur rapidly, and therefore all patients with upper airway involvement should present to the emergency room or call 911. Pain from swelling in the gastrointestinal tract can mimic an acute abdomen.³

Newly developed targeted therapies for HAE also appear to be effective in treating AAE. A summary of available treatments for angioedema is provided in the Table. Human plasma C1-INH can be used intravenously to treat acute attacks or can be given prophylactically to prevent attacks, but large doses may be necessary due to consumption of the protein.^1,3 The risk of bloodborne disease as a result of treatment exists, but screening and processing during production of the plasma makes this unlikely. Ecallantide is a reversible inhibitor of plasma kallikrein.^1,3 Rapid onset and subcutaneous dosing make it useful for treatment of acute AAE attacks. Because anaphylaxis has been reported in up to 3% of patients, ecallantide includes a boxed warning indicating that it must be administered by a health care professional with appropriate medical support to manage anaphylaxis and HAE.⁴ Icatibant is a selective competitive antagonist of bradykinin receptor B2. It can be administered subcutaneously by the patient, making it ideal for rapid treatment of angioedema.^1,3 Adverse events include pain and irritation at the injection site.

The most appropriate therapy for AAE is treatment of the underlying malignancy. Recognition and proper treatment of AAE is essential, as bradykinin-induced angioedema (AAE, HAE and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor induced angioedema) does not respond to antihistamines and corticosteroids and instead requires therapy as discussed above.

To the Editor:

A 65-year-old woman with B-cell marginal zone lymphoma presented with asymptomatic swelling and redness of the upper and lower eyelids of 1 week’s duration that was unresponsive to topical corticosteroids for presumptive allergic contact dermatitis. She denied any lip or tongue swelling, abdominal pain, or difficulty breathing or swallowing. Diagnosis of acquired angioedema (AAE) was confirmed on laboratory analysis, which showed C1q levels less than 3.6 mg/dL (reference range, 5.0–8.6 mg/dL), complement component 4 levels less than 8 mg/dL (reference range, 14–44 mg/dL), and C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) levels of 3 mg/dL (reference range, 12–30 mg/dL).

A review of the patient’s medical record showed chronic thrombocytopenia secondary to previous chemotherapy. It was determined that the patient’s ecchymosis and purpura of the eyelids was secondary to a low platelet count resulting in bleeding into the area of angioedema (Figure). Serum protein electrophoresis did not demonstrate a monoclonal spike, and flow cytometry showed persistent B-cell leukemia without evidence of an aberrant T-cell antigenic profile. The edema and purpura of the eyelids spontaneously resolved over days, and the patient has had no recurrences to date. She was prescribed icatibant for treatment of future acute AAE attacks.

The common pathway of AAE involves the inability of C1-INH to stop activation of the complement, fibrinolytic, and contact systems. Failure to control the contact system leads to increased bradykinin production resulting in vasodilation and edema. Diagnosis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) types 1 and 2 can be confirmed in the setting of low complement component 4 and C1-INH functional levels and normal C1q levels; in AAE, C1q levels also are low.^1,2

The malignancies most frequently associated with AAE are non-Hodgkin lymphomas (eg, nodal marginal zone lymphoma, splenic marginal zone lymphoma), such as in our patient, as well as monoclonal gammopathies.² Triggers of AAE include trauma (eg, surgery, strenuous exercise), infection, and use of certain medications such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and estrogen, but most episodes are spontaneous. Swelling of any cutaneous surface can occur in the setting of AAE. Mucosal involvement appears to be limited to the upper airway and gastrointestinal tract. Edema of the upper airway mucosa can lead to asphyxiation. In these cases, asphyxia can occur rapidly, and therefore all patients with upper airway involvement should present to the emergency room or call 911. Pain from swelling in the gastrointestinal tract can mimic an acute abdomen.³

Newly developed targeted therapies for HAE also appear to be effective in treating AAE. A summary of available treatments for angioedema is provided in the Table. Human plasma C1-INH can be used intravenously to treat acute attacks or can be given prophylactically to prevent attacks, but large doses may be necessary due to consumption of the protein.^1,3 The risk of bloodborne disease as a result of treatment exists, but screening and processing during production of the plasma makes this unlikely. Ecallantide is a reversible inhibitor of plasma kallikrein.^1,3 Rapid onset and subcutaneous dosing make it useful for treatment of acute AAE attacks. Because anaphylaxis has been reported in up to 3% of patients, ecallantide includes a boxed warning indicating that it must be administered by a health care professional with appropriate medical support to manage anaphylaxis and HAE.⁴ Icatibant is a selective competitive antagonist of bradykinin receptor B2. It can be administered subcutaneously by the patient, making it ideal for rapid treatment of angioedema.^1,3 Adverse events include pain and irritation at the injection site.

The most appropriate therapy for AAE is treatment of the underlying malignancy. Recognition and proper treatment of AAE is essential, as bradykinin-induced angioedema (AAE, HAE and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor induced angioedema) does not respond to antihistamines and corticosteroids and instead requires therapy as discussed above.

To the Editor:

A 40-year-old woman with a history of stage IIIC ovarian cancer presented with progressing abdominal erythema and pain of 1 month’s duration. She had been diagnosed 4 years prior with grade 3, poorly differentiated papillary serous carcinoma involving the bilateral ovaries, uterine tubes, uterus, and omentum with lymphovascular invasion. She underwent tumor resection and debulking followed by paclitaxel plus platinum-based chemotherapy. The cancer recurred 2 years later with carcinomatous ascites. She declined chemotherapy but underwent therapeutic paracentesis.

One month prior to presentation, the patient developed a small, tender, erythematous patch on the abdomen. Her primary physician started her on cephalexin for presumed cellulitis without improvement. The erythema continued to spread on the abdomen with worsening pain, which prompted her presentation to the emergency department. She was admitted and started on intravenous vancomycin.

On admission to the hospital, the patient was cachexic and afebrile with a white blood cell count of 10,400/µL (reference range, 4500–11,000/µL). Physical examination revealed a well-demarcated, 15×20-cm, erythematous, blanchable, indurated plaque in the periumbilical region (Figure 1). The plaque was tender to palpation with guarding but no increased warmth. Punch biopsies of the abdominal skin revealed carcinoma within the lymphatic channels in the deep dermis and dilated lymphatics throughout the overlying dermis (Figure 2). These findings were diagnostic for carcinoma erysipeloides. Tissue and blood cultures were negative for bacterial, fungal, or mycobacterial growth. Vancomycin was discontinued, and she was discharged with pain medication. She declined chemotherapy due to the potential side effects and elected to continue symptomatic management with palliative paracentesis. After she was discharged, she underwent a tunneled pleural catheterization for recurrent malignant pleural effusions.

Carcinoma erysipeloides is a rare cutaneous metastasis secondary to internal malignancy that presents as well-demarcated areas of erythema and is sometimes misdiagnosed as cellulitis or erysipelas. Histology is notable for lymphovascular congestion without inflammation. Carcinoma erysipeloides most commonly is associated with breast cancer, but it also has been described in cancers of the prostate, larynx, stomach, lungs, thyroid, parotid gland, fallopian tubes, cervix, pancreas, and metastatic melanoma.^1-5 While the pathogenesis of carcinoma erysipeloides is poorly understood, it is thought to occur by direct spread of tumor cells from the lymph nodes to the cutaneous lymphatics, causing obstruction and edema.

Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality of all gynecologic cancers and often is associated with delayed diagnosis. Cutaneous metastasis is a late manifestation often presenting as subcutaneous nodules.^6,7 Carcinoma erysipeloides is an even rarer presentation of ovarian cancer, with a poor prognosis and a median survival of 18 months.⁸ A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term carcinoma erysipeloides revealed 9 cases of carcinoma erysipeloides from ovarian cancer: 1 describing erythematous papules, plaques, and zosteriform vesicles on the upper thighs to the lower abdomen,⁹ and 8 describing erythematous plaques on the breasts.^8,10 We report a case of carcinoma erysipeloides associated with stage IIIc ovarian cancer localized to the abdominal wall mimicking cellulitis. Our report reminds clinicians of this important diagnosis in ovarian cancer and of the importance of a skin biopsy to expedite a definitive diagnosis. Immunohistochemistry using ovarian tumor markers (eg, paired-box gene 8, cancer antigen 125) is an additional tool to accurately identify malignant cells in skin biopsy.^8,10 Once diagnosed, primary treatment for carcinoma erysipeloides is treatment of the underlying malignancy.

To the Editor:

A 40-year-old woman with a history of stage IIIC ovarian cancer presented with progressing abdominal erythema and pain of 1 month’s duration. She had been diagnosed 4 years prior with grade 3, poorly differentiated papillary serous carcinoma involving the bilateral ovaries, uterine tubes, uterus, and omentum with lymphovascular invasion. She underwent tumor resection and debulking followed by paclitaxel plus platinum-based chemotherapy. The cancer recurred 2 years later with carcinomatous ascites. She declined chemotherapy but underwent therapeutic paracentesis.

One month prior to presentation, the patient developed a small, tender, erythematous patch on the abdomen. Her primary physician started her on cephalexin for presumed cellulitis without improvement. The erythema continued to spread on the abdomen with worsening pain, which prompted her presentation to the emergency department. She was admitted and started on intravenous vancomycin.

On admission to the hospital, the patient was cachexic and afebrile with a white blood cell count of 10,400/µL (reference range, 4500–11,000/µL). Physical examination revealed a well-demarcated, 15×20-cm, erythematous, blanchable, indurated plaque in the periumbilical region (Figure 1). The plaque was tender to palpation with guarding but no increased warmth. Punch biopsies of the abdominal skin revealed carcinoma within the lymphatic channels in the deep dermis and dilated lymphatics throughout the overlying dermis (Figure 2). These findings were diagnostic for carcinoma erysipeloides. Tissue and blood cultures were negative for bacterial, fungal, or mycobacterial growth. Vancomycin was discontinued, and she was discharged with pain medication. She declined chemotherapy due to the potential side effects and elected to continue symptomatic management with palliative paracentesis. After she was discharged, she underwent a tunneled pleural catheterization for recurrent malignant pleural effusions.

Carcinoma erysipeloides is a rare cutaneous metastasis secondary to internal malignancy that presents as well-demarcated areas of erythema and is sometimes misdiagnosed as cellulitis or erysipelas. Histology is notable for lymphovascular congestion without inflammation. Carcinoma erysipeloides most commonly is associated with breast cancer, but it also has been described in cancers of the prostate, larynx, stomach, lungs, thyroid, parotid gland, fallopian tubes, cervix, pancreas, and metastatic melanoma.^1-5 While the pathogenesis of carcinoma erysipeloides is poorly understood, it is thought to occur by direct spread of tumor cells from the lymph nodes to the cutaneous lymphatics, causing obstruction and edema.

Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality of all gynecologic cancers and often is associated with delayed diagnosis. Cutaneous metastasis is a late manifestation often presenting as subcutaneous nodules.^6,7 Carcinoma erysipeloides is an even rarer presentation of ovarian cancer, with a poor prognosis and a median survival of 18 months.⁸ A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term carcinoma erysipeloides revealed 9 cases of carcinoma erysipeloides from ovarian cancer: 1 describing erythematous papules, plaques, and zosteriform vesicles on the upper thighs to the lower abdomen,⁹ and 8 describing erythematous plaques on the breasts.^8,10 We report a case of carcinoma erysipeloides associated with stage IIIc ovarian cancer localized to the abdominal wall mimicking cellulitis. Our report reminds clinicians of this important diagnosis in ovarian cancer and of the importance of a skin biopsy to expedite a definitive diagnosis. Immunohistochemistry using ovarian tumor markers (eg, paired-box gene 8, cancer antigen 125) is an additional tool to accurately identify malignant cells in skin biopsy.^8,10 Once diagnosed, primary treatment for carcinoma erysipeloides is treatment of the underlying malignancy.

To the Editor:

A 40-year-old woman with a history of stage IIIC ovarian cancer presented with progressing abdominal erythema and pain of 1 month’s duration. She had been diagnosed 4 years prior with grade 3, poorly differentiated papillary serous carcinoma involving the bilateral ovaries, uterine tubes, uterus, and omentum with lymphovascular invasion. She underwent tumor resection and debulking followed by paclitaxel plus platinum-based chemotherapy. The cancer recurred 2 years later with carcinomatous ascites. She declined chemotherapy but underwent therapeutic paracentesis.

One month prior to presentation, the patient developed a small, tender, erythematous patch on the abdomen. Her primary physician started her on cephalexin for presumed cellulitis without improvement. The erythema continued to spread on the abdomen with worsening pain, which prompted her presentation to the emergency department. She was admitted and started on intravenous vancomycin.

On admission to the hospital, the patient was cachexic and afebrile with a white blood cell count of 10,400/µL (reference range, 4500–11,000/µL). Physical examination revealed a well-demarcated, 15×20-cm, erythematous, blanchable, indurated plaque in the periumbilical region (Figure 1). The plaque was tender to palpation with guarding but no increased warmth. Punch biopsies of the abdominal skin revealed carcinoma within the lymphatic channels in the deep dermis and dilated lymphatics throughout the overlying dermis (Figure 2). These findings were diagnostic for carcinoma erysipeloides. Tissue and blood cultures were negative for bacterial, fungal, or mycobacterial growth. Vancomycin was discontinued, and she was discharged with pain medication. She declined chemotherapy due to the potential side effects and elected to continue symptomatic management with palliative paracentesis. After she was discharged, she underwent a tunneled pleural catheterization for recurrent malignant pleural effusions.

Carcinoma erysipeloides is a rare cutaneous metastasis secondary to internal malignancy that presents as well-demarcated areas of erythema and is sometimes misdiagnosed as cellulitis or erysipelas. Histology is notable for lymphovascular congestion without inflammation. Carcinoma erysipeloides most commonly is associated with breast cancer, but it also has been described in cancers of the prostate, larynx, stomach, lungs, thyroid, parotid gland, fallopian tubes, cervix, pancreas, and metastatic melanoma.^1-5 While the pathogenesis of carcinoma erysipeloides is poorly understood, it is thought to occur by direct spread of tumor cells from the lymph nodes to the cutaneous lymphatics, causing obstruction and edema.

Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality of all gynecologic cancers and often is associated with delayed diagnosis. Cutaneous metastasis is a late manifestation often presenting as subcutaneous nodules.^6,7 Carcinoma erysipeloides is an even rarer presentation of ovarian cancer, with a poor prognosis and a median survival of 18 months.⁸ A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term carcinoma erysipeloides revealed 9 cases of carcinoma erysipeloides from ovarian cancer: 1 describing erythematous papules, plaques, and zosteriform vesicles on the upper thighs to the lower abdomen,⁹ and 8 describing erythematous plaques on the breasts.^8,10 We report a case of carcinoma erysipeloides associated with stage IIIc ovarian cancer localized to the abdominal wall mimicking cellulitis. Our report reminds clinicians of this important diagnosis in ovarian cancer and of the importance of a skin biopsy to expedite a definitive diagnosis. Immunohistochemistry using ovarian tumor markers (eg, paired-box gene 8, cancer antigen 125) is an additional tool to accurately identify malignant cells in skin biopsy.^8,10 Once diagnosed, primary treatment for carcinoma erysipeloides is treatment of the underlying malignancy.

To the Editor:

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsies routinely are performed to detect regional metastases in a variety of malignancies, including breast cancer, squamous cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and melanoma. Histologic examination of an SLN occasionally enables detection of other unsuspected underlying diseases that typically are inflammatory in nature. Although concomitant hematolymphoid malignancy, particularly chronic lymphocytic leukemia, has been reported in SLNs, collision of 2 different solid tumors in the same SLN is rare.^1,2 We report a unique case documenting collision of both metastatic melanoma and prostatic adenocarcinoma detected in an SLN to raise awareness of the diagnostic challenges occurring in patients with coexisting malignancies.

A 71-year-old man with a history of metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma to the bone presented for treatment of a melanoma that was newly diagnosed by an outside dermatologist. The patient’s medical history was notable for radical prostatectomy performed 15 years prior for treatment of a prostatic adenocarcinoma (Gleason score unknown) followed by bilateral orchiectomy performed 7 years later after his serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level began to rise, with no response to goserelin (a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist) therapy. Two years prior to the diagnosis of metastatic disease, his PSA level started to rise again and the patient received bicalutamide with little improvement, followed by 8 cycles of docetaxel. His PSA level improved and he most recently was being treated with abiraterone acetate. The patient’s latest computed tomography scan showed that the bony metastases secondary to prostatic adenocarcinoma had progressed. His serum PSA level was 105 ng/mL (reference range, <4.0 ng/mL) at the current presentation, elevated from 64 ng/mL one year prior.

Recently, the patient had noted a changing pigmented skin lesion on the left side of the flank. The patient described the lesion as a “black mole” first appearing 2 years prior, which had begun to ooze, change shape, and become darker and more nodular. A shave biopsy revealed a primary cutaneous malignant melanoma at least 3.4 mm in depth with ulceration and a mitotic rate of 15/mm². No molecular studies were performed on the melanoma. Standard treatment via wide local excision and sentinel lymphadenectomy was planned.

Lymphoscintigraphy revealed 3 left draining axillary lymph nodes. The patient was treated with wide local excision and left axillary SLN biopsy. Five SLNs and 3 non-SLNs were excised. Per protocol, all SLNs were examined pathologically with serial sections: 2 hematoxylin and eosin–stained levels, S-100, and melan-A immunohistochemical stains. No residual melanoma was identified in the wide-excision specimen. Examination of the left axillary SLNs revealed metastatic melanoma in 3 of 5 SLNs. Two SLNs demonstrated total replacement by metastatic melanoma. A third SLN revealed a metastatic malignant neoplasm occupying 75% of the nodal area (Figure, A). S-100 and melan-A immunohistochemical staining were negative in this nodule but revealed small aggregates and isolated tumor cells distinct from this nodule that were diagnostic of micrometastatic melanoma (Figures, B and C). The tumor cells in the large nodule were histologically distinct from the melanoma and were instead composed of nests of epithelioid cells with clear cytoplasm (Figure, D). Upon further immunohistochemical staining, this tumor was strongly positive for AE1/AE3 keratin and PIN4 cocktail (cytokeratin 5, cytokeratin 15, p63, and p504s/alpha-methylacyl-CoA-racemase)(Figure, E) with focal positivity for PSA and prostatic acid phosphatase, diagnostic of metastatic adenocarcinoma of prostate origin.

A positron emission tomography scan performed a few days after the discovery of metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma in the SLNs showed expected postoperative changes (eg, increased activity from procedure-related inflammation) in the left side of the flank and axilla as well as moderately hypermetabolic left supraclavicular lymph nodes suspicious for viable metastatic disease. Subsequent fine-needle aspiration of the aforementioned lymph nodes revealed metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma. The preoperative lymphoscintigraphy at the time of SLN biopsy did not show drainage to the left supraclavicular nodal basin.

Based on a discussion of the patient’s case during a multidisciplinary tumor board consultation, the benefit of performing completion lymph node dissection for melanoma management did not outweigh the risks. Accordingly, the patient received adjuvant radiation therapy to the axillary nodal basin. He was started on ketoconazole and zoledronic acid therapy for metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma and was alive with disease at 6-month follow-up. The finding of both metastatic melanoma and prostate adenocarcinoma detected in an SLN after wide excision and SLN biopsy for cutaneous melanoma is a unique report of collision of these 2 tumors. Rare cases of collision between 2 solid tumors occurring in the same lymph node have involved prostate adenocarcinoma as one of the solid tumor components.^1,3 Detection of tumor collision on lymph node biopsy between prostatic adenocarcinoma and urothelial carcinoma has been documented in 2 separate cases.¹ Three additional cases of concurrent prostatic adenocarcinoma and colorectal adenocarcinoma identified on lymph node biopsy have been reported.^1,3 Although never proven statistically, it is likely that these concurrent diagnoses are due to the high incidences of prostate and colorectal adenocarcinomas in the general US population; they are ranked first and third, respectively, for cancer incidence in US males.⁴

As demonstrated in the current case and the available literature, immunohistochemical stains play a vital role in the detection of tumor collision phenomena as well as identification of histologic source of the metastases. Furthermore, thorough histopathologic examination of biopsy specimens in the context of a patient’s clinical history remains paramount in obtaining an accurate diagnosis. Earlier identification of second malignancies in SLNs can alert the clinician to the presence of relapse of a known concurrent malignancy before it is clinically apparent, enhancing the possibility of more effective treatment of earlier disease. As has been demonstrated for lymphoma and melanoma, in rare cases awareness of the possibility of a second malignancy in the SLN can result in earlier initial diagnosis of undiscovered malignancy.²

To the Editor:

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsies routinely are performed to detect regional metastases in a variety of malignancies, including breast cancer, squamous cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and melanoma. Histologic examination of an SLN occasionally enables detection of other unsuspected underlying diseases that typically are inflammatory in nature. Although concomitant hematolymphoid malignancy, particularly chronic lymphocytic leukemia, has been reported in SLNs, collision of 2 different solid tumors in the same SLN is rare.^1,2 We report a unique case documenting collision of both metastatic melanoma and prostatic adenocarcinoma detected in an SLN to raise awareness of the diagnostic challenges occurring in patients with coexisting malignancies.

A 71-year-old man with a history of metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma to the bone presented for treatment of a melanoma that was newly diagnosed by an outside dermatologist. The patient’s medical history was notable for radical prostatectomy performed 15 years prior for treatment of a prostatic adenocarcinoma (Gleason score unknown) followed by bilateral orchiectomy performed 7 years later after his serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level began to rise, with no response to goserelin (a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist) therapy. Two years prior to the diagnosis of metastatic disease, his PSA level started to rise again and the patient received bicalutamide with little improvement, followed by 8 cycles of docetaxel. His PSA level improved and he most recently was being treated with abiraterone acetate. The patient’s latest computed tomography scan showed that the bony metastases secondary to prostatic adenocarcinoma had progressed. His serum PSA level was 105 ng/mL (reference range, <4.0 ng/mL) at the current presentation, elevated from 64 ng/mL one year prior.

Recently, the patient had noted a changing pigmented skin lesion on the left side of the flank. The patient described the lesion as a “black mole” first appearing 2 years prior, which had begun to ooze, change shape, and become darker and more nodular. A shave biopsy revealed a primary cutaneous malignant melanoma at least 3.4 mm in depth with ulceration and a mitotic rate of 15/mm². No molecular studies were performed on the melanoma. Standard treatment via wide local excision and sentinel lymphadenectomy was planned.

Lymphoscintigraphy revealed 3 left draining axillary lymph nodes. The patient was treated with wide local excision and left axillary SLN biopsy. Five SLNs and 3 non-SLNs were excised. Per protocol, all SLNs were examined pathologically with serial sections: 2 hematoxylin and eosin–stained levels, S-100, and melan-A immunohistochemical stains. No residual melanoma was identified in the wide-excision specimen. Examination of the left axillary SLNs revealed metastatic melanoma in 3 of 5 SLNs. Two SLNs demonstrated total replacement by metastatic melanoma. A third SLN revealed a metastatic malignant neoplasm occupying 75% of the nodal area (Figure, A). S-100 and melan-A immunohistochemical staining were negative in this nodule but revealed small aggregates and isolated tumor cells distinct from this nodule that were diagnostic of micrometastatic melanoma (Figures, B and C). The tumor cells in the large nodule were histologically distinct from the melanoma and were instead composed of nests of epithelioid cells with clear cytoplasm (Figure, D). Upon further immunohistochemical staining, this tumor was strongly positive for AE1/AE3 keratin and PIN4 cocktail (cytokeratin 5, cytokeratin 15, p63, and p504s/alpha-methylacyl-CoA-racemase)(Figure, E) with focal positivity for PSA and prostatic acid phosphatase, diagnostic of metastatic adenocarcinoma of prostate origin.

A positron emission tomography scan performed a few days after the discovery of metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma in the SLNs showed expected postoperative changes (eg, increased activity from procedure-related inflammation) in the left side of the flank and axilla as well as moderately hypermetabolic left supraclavicular lymph nodes suspicious for viable metastatic disease. Subsequent fine-needle aspiration of the aforementioned lymph nodes revealed metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma. The preoperative lymphoscintigraphy at the time of SLN biopsy did not show drainage to the left supraclavicular nodal basin.

Based on a discussion of the patient’s case during a multidisciplinary tumor board consultation, the benefit of performing completion lymph node dissection for melanoma management did not outweigh the risks. Accordingly, the patient received adjuvant radiation therapy to the axillary nodal basin. He was started on ketoconazole and zoledronic acid therapy for metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma and was alive with disease at 6-month follow-up. The finding of both metastatic melanoma and prostate adenocarcinoma detected in an SLN after wide excision and SLN biopsy for cutaneous melanoma is a unique report of collision of these 2 tumors. Rare cases of collision between 2 solid tumors occurring in the same lymph node have involved prostate adenocarcinoma as one of the solid tumor components.^1,3 Detection of tumor collision on lymph node biopsy between prostatic adenocarcinoma and urothelial carcinoma has been documented in 2 separate cases.¹ Three additional cases of concurrent prostatic adenocarcinoma and colorectal adenocarcinoma identified on lymph node biopsy have been reported.^1,3 Although never proven statistically, it is likely that these concurrent diagnoses are due to the high incidences of prostate and colorectal adenocarcinomas in the general US population; they are ranked first and third, respectively, for cancer incidence in US males.⁴

As demonstrated in the current case and the available literature, immunohistochemical stains play a vital role in the detection of tumor collision phenomena as well as identification of histologic source of the metastases. Furthermore, thorough histopathologic examination of biopsy specimens in the context of a patient’s clinical history remains paramount in obtaining an accurate diagnosis. Earlier identification of second malignancies in SLNs can alert the clinician to the presence of relapse of a known concurrent malignancy before it is clinically apparent, enhancing the possibility of more effective treatment of earlier disease. As has been demonstrated for lymphoma and melanoma, in rare cases awareness of the possibility of a second malignancy in the SLN can result in earlier initial diagnosis of undiscovered malignancy.²

To the Editor:

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsies routinely are performed to detect regional metastases in a variety of malignancies, including breast cancer, squamous cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and melanoma. Histologic examination of an SLN occasionally enables detection of other unsuspected underlying diseases that typically are inflammatory in nature. Although concomitant hematolymphoid malignancy, particularly chronic lymphocytic leukemia, has been reported in SLNs, collision of 2 different solid tumors in the same SLN is rare.^1,2 We report a unique case documenting collision of both metastatic melanoma and prostatic adenocarcinoma detected in an SLN to raise awareness of the diagnostic challenges occurring in patients with coexisting malignancies.

A 71-year-old man with a history of metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma to the bone presented for treatment of a melanoma that was newly diagnosed by an outside dermatologist. The patient’s medical history was notable for radical prostatectomy performed 15 years prior for treatment of a prostatic adenocarcinoma (Gleason score unknown) followed by bilateral orchiectomy performed 7 years later after his serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level began to rise, with no response to goserelin (a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist) therapy. Two years prior to the diagnosis of metastatic disease, his PSA level started to rise again and the patient received bicalutamide with little improvement, followed by 8 cycles of docetaxel. His PSA level improved and he most recently was being treated with abiraterone acetate. The patient’s latest computed tomography scan showed that the bony metastases secondary to prostatic adenocarcinoma had progressed. His serum PSA level was 105 ng/mL (reference range, <4.0 ng/mL) at the current presentation, elevated from 64 ng/mL one year prior.

Recently, the patient had noted a changing pigmented skin lesion on the left side of the flank. The patient described the lesion as a “black mole” first appearing 2 years prior, which had begun to ooze, change shape, and become darker and more nodular. A shave biopsy revealed a primary cutaneous malignant melanoma at least 3.4 mm in depth with ulceration and a mitotic rate of 15/mm². No molecular studies were performed on the melanoma. Standard treatment via wide local excision and sentinel lymphadenectomy was planned.

Lymphoscintigraphy revealed 3 left draining axillary lymph nodes. The patient was treated with wide local excision and left axillary SLN biopsy. Five SLNs and 3 non-SLNs were excised. Per protocol, all SLNs were examined pathologically with serial sections: 2 hematoxylin and eosin–stained levels, S-100, and melan-A immunohistochemical stains. No residual melanoma was identified in the wide-excision specimen. Examination of the left axillary SLNs revealed metastatic melanoma in 3 of 5 SLNs. Two SLNs demonstrated total replacement by metastatic melanoma. A third SLN revealed a metastatic malignant neoplasm occupying 75% of the nodal area (Figure, A). S-100 and melan-A immunohistochemical staining were negative in this nodule but revealed small aggregates and isolated tumor cells distinct from this nodule that were diagnostic of micrometastatic melanoma (Figures, B and C). The tumor cells in the large nodule were histologically distinct from the melanoma and were instead composed of nests of epithelioid cells with clear cytoplasm (Figure, D). Upon further immunohistochemical staining, this tumor was strongly positive for AE1/AE3 keratin and PIN4 cocktail (cytokeratin 5, cytokeratin 15, p63, and p504s/alpha-methylacyl-CoA-racemase)(Figure, E) with focal positivity for PSA and prostatic acid phosphatase, diagnostic of metastatic adenocarcinoma of prostate origin.

A positron emission tomography scan performed a few days after the discovery of metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma in the SLNs showed expected postoperative changes (eg, increased activity from procedure-related inflammation) in the left side of the flank and axilla as well as moderately hypermetabolic left supraclavicular lymph nodes suspicious for viable metastatic disease. Subsequent fine-needle aspiration of the aforementioned lymph nodes revealed metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma. The preoperative lymphoscintigraphy at the time of SLN biopsy did not show drainage to the left supraclavicular nodal basin.

Based on a discussion of the patient’s case during a multidisciplinary tumor board consultation, the benefit of performing completion lymph node dissection for melanoma management did not outweigh the risks. Accordingly, the patient received adjuvant radiation therapy to the axillary nodal basin. He was started on ketoconazole and zoledronic acid therapy for metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma and was alive with disease at 6-month follow-up. The finding of both metastatic melanoma and prostate adenocarcinoma detected in an SLN after wide excision and SLN biopsy for cutaneous melanoma is a unique report of collision of these 2 tumors. Rare cases of collision between 2 solid tumors occurring in the same lymph node have involved prostate adenocarcinoma as one of the solid tumor components.^1,3 Detection of tumor collision on lymph node biopsy between prostatic adenocarcinoma and urothelial carcinoma has been documented in 2 separate cases.¹ Three additional cases of concurrent prostatic adenocarcinoma and colorectal adenocarcinoma identified on lymph node biopsy have been reported.^1,3 Although never proven statistically, it is likely that these concurrent diagnoses are due to the high incidences of prostate and colorectal adenocarcinomas in the general US population; they are ranked first and third, respectively, for cancer incidence in US males.⁴

As demonstrated in the current case and the available literature, immunohistochemical stains play a vital role in the detection of tumor collision phenomena as well as identification of histologic source of the metastases. Furthermore, thorough histopathologic examination of biopsy specimens in the context of a patient’s clinical history remains paramount in obtaining an accurate diagnosis. Earlier identification of second malignancies in SLNs can alert the clinician to the presence of relapse of a known concurrent malignancy before it is clinically apparent, enhancing the possibility of more effective treatment of earlier disease. As has been demonstrated for lymphoma and melanoma, in rare cases awareness of the possibility of a second malignancy in the SLN can result in earlier initial diagnosis of undiscovered malignancy.²