Cutis

We applaud Kimball et al¹ on their report that adalimumab demonstrated clinical improvement in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) versus placebo in 2 phase 3 trials. Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic relapsing condition with painful subcutaneous abscesses, malodorous drainage, sinus tract formation, and scarring that typically occurs in the axillae and anogenital region. It impairs the quality of life for these patients, as evidenced by higher Dermatology Life Quality Index scores compared to psoriasis, pimples, hand rash, atopic eczema, or control.²

The exact pathogenesis of HS is unknown but likely involves a complex interaction of genetic, hormonal, immunologic, and environmental factors.³ The levels of inflammatory cytokines are elevated in HS lesions, specifically IL-1β, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-10, and CXCL9, as well as monokines from IFN-γ, IL-11, and IL-17A. Additionally, the dermis of affected regions contains IL-12– and IL-23–containing macrophages along with IL-17–producing T cells.³ These findings reveal many potential therapeutic targets for the treatment of HS.

PIONEER I and PIONEER II are similarly designed 36-week phase 3 trials of 633 patients with HS who were unresponsive to oral antibiotic treatment.¹ By week 12, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving adalimumab demonstrated clinical improvement (≥50% reduction in total abscess and nodule count) compared to placebo in both trials (PIONEER I: 41.8% vs 26.0%, P=.003; PIONEER II: 58.9% vs 27.6%, P<.001). Secondary end points (inflammatory-nodule count, pain score, and disease severity) were only achieved in PIONEER II. The difference in clinical improvement between the trials is likely due to higher baseline disease severity in the HS patients in PIONEER I versus PIONEER II. No new safety risks were reported and were in accordance with prior adalimumab trials for other diseases. Notably, 10 paradoxical psoriasislike eruptions were reported.¹

Adalimumab is the first and only US Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for HS. Further understanding of the pathogenesis of HS may result in additional biologic treatments for HS. We encourage the manufacturers of other biologic therapies, such as infliximab,⁴ ustekinumab,⁵ anakinra,⁶ secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab, to consider conducting further clinical trials in HS to enhance the therapeutic options available for this debilitating disease.

We applaud Kimball et al¹ on their report that adalimumab demonstrated clinical improvement in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) versus placebo in 2 phase 3 trials. Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic relapsing condition with painful subcutaneous abscesses, malodorous drainage, sinus tract formation, and scarring that typically occurs in the axillae and anogenital region. It impairs the quality of life for these patients, as evidenced by higher Dermatology Life Quality Index scores compared to psoriasis, pimples, hand rash, atopic eczema, or control.²

The exact pathogenesis of HS is unknown but likely involves a complex interaction of genetic, hormonal, immunologic, and environmental factors.³ The levels of inflammatory cytokines are elevated in HS lesions, specifically IL-1β, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-10, and CXCL9, as well as monokines from IFN-γ, IL-11, and IL-17A. Additionally, the dermis of affected regions contains IL-12– and IL-23–containing macrophages along with IL-17–producing T cells.³ These findings reveal many potential therapeutic targets for the treatment of HS.

PIONEER I and PIONEER II are similarly designed 36-week phase 3 trials of 633 patients with HS who were unresponsive to oral antibiotic treatment.¹ By week 12, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving adalimumab demonstrated clinical improvement (≥50% reduction in total abscess and nodule count) compared to placebo in both trials (PIONEER I: 41.8% vs 26.0%, P=.003; PIONEER II: 58.9% vs 27.6%, P<.001). Secondary end points (inflammatory-nodule count, pain score, and disease severity) were only achieved in PIONEER II. The difference in clinical improvement between the trials is likely due to higher baseline disease severity in the HS patients in PIONEER I versus PIONEER II. No new safety risks were reported and were in accordance with prior adalimumab trials for other diseases. Notably, 10 paradoxical psoriasislike eruptions were reported.¹

Adalimumab is the first and only US Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for HS. Further understanding of the pathogenesis of HS may result in additional biologic treatments for HS. We encourage the manufacturers of other biologic therapies, such as infliximab,⁴ ustekinumab,⁵ anakinra,⁶ secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab, to consider conducting further clinical trials in HS to enhance the therapeutic options available for this debilitating disease.

We applaud Kimball et al¹ on their report that adalimumab demonstrated clinical improvement in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) versus placebo in 2 phase 3 trials. Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic relapsing condition with painful subcutaneous abscesses, malodorous drainage, sinus tract formation, and scarring that typically occurs in the axillae and anogenital region. It impairs the quality of life for these patients, as evidenced by higher Dermatology Life Quality Index scores compared to psoriasis, pimples, hand rash, atopic eczema, or control.²

The exact pathogenesis of HS is unknown but likely involves a complex interaction of genetic, hormonal, immunologic, and environmental factors.³ The levels of inflammatory cytokines are elevated in HS lesions, specifically IL-1β, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-10, and CXCL9, as well as monokines from IFN-γ, IL-11, and IL-17A. Additionally, the dermis of affected regions contains IL-12– and IL-23–containing macrophages along with IL-17–producing T cells.³ These findings reveal many potential therapeutic targets for the treatment of HS.

PIONEER I and PIONEER II are similarly designed 36-week phase 3 trials of 633 patients with HS who were unresponsive to oral antibiotic treatment.¹ By week 12, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving adalimumab demonstrated clinical improvement (≥50% reduction in total abscess and nodule count) compared to placebo in both trials (PIONEER I: 41.8% vs 26.0%, P=.003; PIONEER II: 58.9% vs 27.6%, P<.001). Secondary end points (inflammatory-nodule count, pain score, and disease severity) were only achieved in PIONEER II. The difference in clinical improvement between the trials is likely due to higher baseline disease severity in the HS patients in PIONEER I versus PIONEER II. No new safety risks were reported and were in accordance with prior adalimumab trials for other diseases. Notably, 10 paradoxical psoriasislike eruptions were reported.¹

Adalimumab is the first and only US Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for HS. Further understanding of the pathogenesis of HS may result in additional biologic treatments for HS. We encourage the manufacturers of other biologic therapies, such as infliximab,⁴ ustekinumab,⁵ anakinra,⁶ secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab, to consider conducting further clinical trials in HS to enhance the therapeutic options available for this debilitating disease.

Avène A-OXitive

Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique introduces Avène A-OXitive Antioxidant Defense Serum and Avène A-OXitive Antioxidant Water-Cream to fight against oxidative stress. Stable forms of time-released vitamin E and vitamin C work synergistically to defend against environmental aggressors without irritation. Both products contain hyaluronic acid to visibly plump and firm the skin and soothing Avène thermal spring water to soften and restore the skin’s balance. To preserve stability, each formula comes in an airless pump bottle. For more information, visit www.aveneusa.com.

Orencia

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of Orencia (abatacept) for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis. Orencia is available in both intravenous and subcutaneous injection formulations. It should not be administered concomitantly with tumor necrosis factor antagonists and is not recommended for use with other biologic rheumatoid arthritis therapy. Orencia also is indicated for the treatment of adult rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. For more information, visit www.orenciahcp.com.

Tremfya

Janssen Biotech, Inc, announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of Tremfya (guselkumab) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Tremfya is a biologic therapy that selectively blocks only IL-23, a cytokine that plays a key role in plaque psoriasis. Tremfya is administered as a 100-mg subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks, following 2 starter doses at weeks 0 and 4. Clinical studies documented skin clearance at week 16 and up to week 48. For more information, visit www.tremfyahcp.com.

If you would like your product included in Product News, please email a press release to the Editorial Office at [email protected].

Avène A-OXitive

Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique introduces Avène A-OXitive Antioxidant Defense Serum and Avène A-OXitive Antioxidant Water-Cream to fight against oxidative stress. Stable forms of time-released vitamin E and vitamin C work synergistically to defend against environmental aggressors without irritation. Both products contain hyaluronic acid to visibly plump and firm the skin and soothing Avène thermal spring water to soften and restore the skin’s balance. To preserve stability, each formula comes in an airless pump bottle. For more information, visit www.aveneusa.com.

Orencia

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of Orencia (abatacept) for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis. Orencia is available in both intravenous and subcutaneous injection formulations. It should not be administered concomitantly with tumor necrosis factor antagonists and is not recommended for use with other biologic rheumatoid arthritis therapy. Orencia also is indicated for the treatment of adult rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. For more information, visit www.orenciahcp.com.

Tremfya

Janssen Biotech, Inc, announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of Tremfya (guselkumab) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Tremfya is a biologic therapy that selectively blocks only IL-23, a cytokine that plays a key role in plaque psoriasis. Tremfya is administered as a 100-mg subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks, following 2 starter doses at weeks 0 and 4. Clinical studies documented skin clearance at week 16 and up to week 48. For more information, visit www.tremfyahcp.com.

If you would like your product included in Product News, please email a press release to the Editorial Office at [email protected].

Avène A-OXitive

Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique introduces Avène A-OXitive Antioxidant Defense Serum and Avène A-OXitive Antioxidant Water-Cream to fight against oxidative stress. Stable forms of time-released vitamin E and vitamin C work synergistically to defend against environmental aggressors without irritation. Both products contain hyaluronic acid to visibly plump and firm the skin and soothing Avène thermal spring water to soften and restore the skin’s balance. To preserve stability, each formula comes in an airless pump bottle. For more information, visit www.aveneusa.com.

Orencia

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of Orencia (abatacept) for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis. Orencia is available in both intravenous and subcutaneous injection formulations. It should not be administered concomitantly with tumor necrosis factor antagonists and is not recommended for use with other biologic rheumatoid arthritis therapy. Orencia also is indicated for the treatment of adult rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. For more information, visit www.orenciahcp.com.

Tremfya

Janssen Biotech, Inc, announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of Tremfya (guselkumab) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Tremfya is a biologic therapy that selectively blocks only IL-23, a cytokine that plays a key role in plaque psoriasis. Tremfya is administered as a 100-mg subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks, following 2 starter doses at weeks 0 and 4. Clinical studies documented skin clearance at week 16 and up to week 48. For more information, visit www.tremfyahcp.com.

If you would like your product included in Product News, please email a press release to the Editorial Office at [email protected].

Clinicians who have attempted to perform an in-office procedure on infants or young children will recognize the difficulties that arise from the developmental inability to cooperate with procedures.¹ Potential problems mentioned in the literature include but are not limited to anxiety, which is identified in all age groups of patients undergoing dermatologic procedures²; limitation of pain control³; and poor outcomes due to movement by the patient.¹ In one author’s experience (N.B.S.), anxious and scared children can potentially cause injury to themselves, parents/guardians, and health care professionals by flailing and kicking; children are flexible and can wriggle out of even fine grips, and some children, especially toddlers, can be strong.

The usage of topical anesthetics can only give superficial anesthesia. They can ostensibly reduce pain and are useful for anesthesia of curettage, but their use is limited in infants and young children by the minimal amount of drug that is safe for application, as risks of absorption include methemoglobinemia and seizure activity, and especially by lack of cooperation by the child.⁴ Infiltrative anesthesia is needed for adequate pain control in addition to a topical anesthetic for many procedures.³

General anesthesia seems to be the best alternative due to associated amnesia of the events occurring including pain; immobilization and ability to produce more accurate biopsy sampling; better immobilization leading to superior cosmetic results; and reduced risk to patients, parents/guardians, and health care professionals from a flailing child. In the field of pediatric dermatology, general anesthesia often is used for excision of larger lesions and cosmetic repairs. Operating room privileges are not always easy to obtain, but many pediatric dermatologists take advantage of outpatient surgical centers associated with their medical center. A retrospective review of 226 children receiving 681 procedures at a single institution documented low rates of complications.¹

If it was that easy, most children would be anesthetized with general anesthesia. However, there are risks associated with general anesthesia. Parents/guardians often will do what they can to avoid risk and may therefore refuse general anesthesia, but it is not completely avoidable in complicated skin disease. Despite the risks, the benefit is present in a major anomaly correction such as a cleft palate in a 6-month-old but may not be there for the treatment of a wart. When procedures are nonessential or may be conducted without anesthesia, avoidance of general anesthesia is reasonable and a combination of topical and local infiltrative anesthesia can help. In the American Academy of Dermatology guidelines on in-office anesthesia, Kouba et al⁵ states: “Topical agents are recommended as a first-line method of anesthesia for the repair of dermal lacerations in children and for other minor dermatologic procedures, including curettage. For skin biopsy, excision, or other cases where topical agents alone are insufficient, adjunctive use of topical anesthesia to lessen the discomfort of infiltrative anesthetic should be considered.”

A new controversy recently has emerged concerning the potential risks of anesthesia on neurocognitive development in infants and young children. These concerns regardingthe labeling changes of anesthetic and sedation drugs by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2016 specifically focused on these risks in children younger than 3 years with prolonged (>3 hours) and repeated exposures; however, this kind of exposure is unlikely with standard pediatric dermatologic procedures.^6-9

There is compelling evidence from animal studies that exposure to all anesthetic agents in clinical use induces neurotoxicity and long-term adverse neurobehavioral deficits; however, whether these findings are applicable in human infants is unknown.^6-9 Most of the studies in humans showing adverse outcomes have been retrospective observational studies subject to multiple sources of bias. Two recent large clinical studies—the GAS (General Anaesthesia compared to Spinal anaesthesia) trial¹⁰ and the PANDA (Pediatric Anesthesia and Neurodevelopment Assessment) study¹¹—have shown no evidence of abnormal neurocognitive effects with a single brief exposure before 3 years of age (PANDA) or during infancy (GAS) in otherwise-healthy children.^10,11

It is important to note that the FDA labeling change warning specifically stated that “[c]onsistent with animal studies, recent human data suggest that a single, relatively short exposure to general anesthetic and sedation drugs in infants or toddlers is unlikely to have negative effects on behavior or learning.” Moreover, the FDA emphasized that “Surgeries or procedures in children younger than 3 years should not be delayed or avoided when medically necessary.”¹² Taking these points into consideration, we should offer our patients in-office care when possible and postpone elective procedures when advisable but proceed when necessary for our patients’ physical and emotional health.

Clinicians who have attempted to perform an in-office procedure on infants or young children will recognize the difficulties that arise from the developmental inability to cooperate with procedures.¹ Potential problems mentioned in the literature include but are not limited to anxiety, which is identified in all age groups of patients undergoing dermatologic procedures²; limitation of pain control³; and poor outcomes due to movement by the patient.¹ In one author’s experience (N.B.S.), anxious and scared children can potentially cause injury to themselves, parents/guardians, and health care professionals by flailing and kicking; children are flexible and can wriggle out of even fine grips, and some children, especially toddlers, can be strong.

The usage of topical anesthetics can only give superficial anesthesia. They can ostensibly reduce pain and are useful for anesthesia of curettage, but their use is limited in infants and young children by the minimal amount of drug that is safe for application, as risks of absorption include methemoglobinemia and seizure activity, and especially by lack of cooperation by the child.⁴ Infiltrative anesthesia is needed for adequate pain control in addition to a topical anesthetic for many procedures.³

General anesthesia seems to be the best alternative due to associated amnesia of the events occurring including pain; immobilization and ability to produce more accurate biopsy sampling; better immobilization leading to superior cosmetic results; and reduced risk to patients, parents/guardians, and health care professionals from a flailing child. In the field of pediatric dermatology, general anesthesia often is used for excision of larger lesions and cosmetic repairs. Operating room privileges are not always easy to obtain, but many pediatric dermatologists take advantage of outpatient surgical centers associated with their medical center. A retrospective review of 226 children receiving 681 procedures at a single institution documented low rates of complications.¹

If it was that easy, most children would be anesthetized with general anesthesia. However, there are risks associated with general anesthesia. Parents/guardians often will do what they can to avoid risk and may therefore refuse general anesthesia, but it is not completely avoidable in complicated skin disease. Despite the risks, the benefit is present in a major anomaly correction such as a cleft palate in a 6-month-old but may not be there for the treatment of a wart. When procedures are nonessential or may be conducted without anesthesia, avoidance of general anesthesia is reasonable and a combination of topical and local infiltrative anesthesia can help. In the American Academy of Dermatology guidelines on in-office anesthesia, Kouba et al⁵ states: “Topical agents are recommended as a first-line method of anesthesia for the repair of dermal lacerations in children and for other minor dermatologic procedures, including curettage. For skin biopsy, excision, or other cases where topical agents alone are insufficient, adjunctive use of topical anesthesia to lessen the discomfort of infiltrative anesthetic should be considered.”

A new controversy recently has emerged concerning the potential risks of anesthesia on neurocognitive development in infants and young children. These concerns regardingthe labeling changes of anesthetic and sedation drugs by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2016 specifically focused on these risks in children younger than 3 years with prolonged (>3 hours) and repeated exposures; however, this kind of exposure is unlikely with standard pediatric dermatologic procedures.^6-9

There is compelling evidence from animal studies that exposure to all anesthetic agents in clinical use induces neurotoxicity and long-term adverse neurobehavioral deficits; however, whether these findings are applicable in human infants is unknown.^6-9 Most of the studies in humans showing adverse outcomes have been retrospective observational studies subject to multiple sources of bias. Two recent large clinical studies—the GAS (General Anaesthesia compared to Spinal anaesthesia) trial¹⁰ and the PANDA (Pediatric Anesthesia and Neurodevelopment Assessment) study¹¹—have shown no evidence of abnormal neurocognitive effects with a single brief exposure before 3 years of age (PANDA) or during infancy (GAS) in otherwise-healthy children.^10,11

It is important to note that the FDA labeling change warning specifically stated that “[c]onsistent with animal studies, recent human data suggest that a single, relatively short exposure to general anesthetic and sedation drugs in infants or toddlers is unlikely to have negative effects on behavior or learning.” Moreover, the FDA emphasized that “Surgeries or procedures in children younger than 3 years should not be delayed or avoided when medically necessary.”¹² Taking these points into consideration, we should offer our patients in-office care when possible and postpone elective procedures when advisable but proceed when necessary for our patients’ physical and emotional health.

Clinicians who have attempted to perform an in-office procedure on infants or young children will recognize the difficulties that arise from the developmental inability to cooperate with procedures.¹ Potential problems mentioned in the literature include but are not limited to anxiety, which is identified in all age groups of patients undergoing dermatologic procedures²; limitation of pain control³; and poor outcomes due to movement by the patient.¹ In one author’s experience (N.B.S.), anxious and scared children can potentially cause injury to themselves, parents/guardians, and health care professionals by flailing and kicking; children are flexible and can wriggle out of even fine grips, and some children, especially toddlers, can be strong.

The usage of topical anesthetics can only give superficial anesthesia. They can ostensibly reduce pain and are useful for anesthesia of curettage, but their use is limited in infants and young children by the minimal amount of drug that is safe for application, as risks of absorption include methemoglobinemia and seizure activity, and especially by lack of cooperation by the child.⁴ Infiltrative anesthesia is needed for adequate pain control in addition to a topical anesthetic for many procedures.³

General anesthesia seems to be the best alternative due to associated amnesia of the events occurring including pain; immobilization and ability to produce more accurate biopsy sampling; better immobilization leading to superior cosmetic results; and reduced risk to patients, parents/guardians, and health care professionals from a flailing child. In the field of pediatric dermatology, general anesthesia often is used for excision of larger lesions and cosmetic repairs. Operating room privileges are not always easy to obtain, but many pediatric dermatologists take advantage of outpatient surgical centers associated with their medical center. A retrospective review of 226 children receiving 681 procedures at a single institution documented low rates of complications.¹

If it was that easy, most children would be anesthetized with general anesthesia. However, there are risks associated with general anesthesia. Parents/guardians often will do what they can to avoid risk and may therefore refuse general anesthesia, but it is not completely avoidable in complicated skin disease. Despite the risks, the benefit is present in a major anomaly correction such as a cleft palate in a 6-month-old but may not be there for the treatment of a wart. When procedures are nonessential or may be conducted without anesthesia, avoidance of general anesthesia is reasonable and a combination of topical and local infiltrative anesthesia can help. In the American Academy of Dermatology guidelines on in-office anesthesia, Kouba et al⁵ states: “Topical agents are recommended as a first-line method of anesthesia for the repair of dermal lacerations in children and for other minor dermatologic procedures, including curettage. For skin biopsy, excision, or other cases where topical agents alone are insufficient, adjunctive use of topical anesthesia to lessen the discomfort of infiltrative anesthetic should be considered.”

A new controversy recently has emerged concerning the potential risks of anesthesia on neurocognitive development in infants and young children. These concerns regardingthe labeling changes of anesthetic and sedation drugs by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2016 specifically focused on these risks in children younger than 3 years with prolonged (>3 hours) and repeated exposures; however, this kind of exposure is unlikely with standard pediatric dermatologic procedures.^6-9

There is compelling evidence from animal studies that exposure to all anesthetic agents in clinical use induces neurotoxicity and long-term adverse neurobehavioral deficits; however, whether these findings are applicable in human infants is unknown.^6-9 Most of the studies in humans showing adverse outcomes have been retrospective observational studies subject to multiple sources of bias. Two recent large clinical studies—the GAS (General Anaesthesia compared to Spinal anaesthesia) trial¹⁰ and the PANDA (Pediatric Anesthesia and Neurodevelopment Assessment) study¹¹—have shown no evidence of abnormal neurocognitive effects with a single brief exposure before 3 years of age (PANDA) or during infancy (GAS) in otherwise-healthy children.^10,11

It is important to note that the FDA labeling change warning specifically stated that “[c]onsistent with animal studies, recent human data suggest that a single, relatively short exposure to general anesthetic and sedation drugs in infants or toddlers is unlikely to have negative effects on behavior or learning.” Moreover, the FDA emphasized that “Surgeries or procedures in children younger than 3 years should not be delayed or avoided when medically necessary.”¹² Taking these points into consideration, we should offer our patients in-office care when possible and postpone elective procedures when advisable but proceed when necessary for our patients’ physical and emotional health.

Skin cancer is diagnosed in approximately 5.4 million individuals annually in the United States, more than the total number of breast, lung, colon, and prostate cancers diagnosed per year.¹ It is estimated that 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer during their lifetime.² The 2 most common forms of skin cancer are basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), accounting for 4 million and 1 million cases diagnosed each year, respectively.³ With the increasing incidence of these skin cancers, the use of noninvasive imaging tools for detection and diagnosis has grown.

Ex vivo confocal microscopy is a diagnostic imaging tool that can be used in real-time at the bedside to assess freshly excised tissue for malignancies. It images tissue samples with cellular resolution and within minutes of biopsy or excision. Ex vivo confocal microscopy is a versatile tool that can assist in the diagnosis and management of skin malignancies such as melanoma, BCC, and SCC.

Reflectance vs Fluorescence Mode

Excised lesions can be examined in reflectance or fluorescence mode in great detail but with slightly varying nuclear-to-dermis contrasts depending on the chromophore that is targeted. In reflectance mode (reflectance confocal microscopy [RCM]), melanin and keratin act as endogenous chromophores because of their high refractive index relative to water,^4,5 which allows for the visualization of cellular structures of the skin at low power, as well as microscopic substructures such as melanosomes, cytoplasmic granules, and other cellular organelles at high power. Although an exogenous contrast agent is not required, acetic acid has the capability to highlight nuclei, enhancing the tumor cell-to-dermis contrast in RCM.⁶ Acetic acid is clinically used as a predictor for certain skin and mucosal membrane neoplasms that blanch when exposed to the solution. In the case of RCM, acetic acid increases the visibility of nuclei by inducing the compaction of chromatin. For the acetowhitening to be effective, the sample must be soaked in the solution for a specific amount of time, depending on the concentration.⁷ A concentration between 1% and 10% can be used, but the less concentrated the solution, the longer the time of soaking that is required to achieve sufficiently bright nuclei.⁶

The contrast with acetic acid, however, is quite weak when the tissue is imaged en face, or along the horizontal surface of the sample, due to the collagen in the dermal layer, which has a high reflectance index. This issue is rectified when using the confocal microscope in the fluorescence mode with an exogenous fluorescent dye as a nuclear stain. Fluorescence confocal microscopy (FCM), results in a stronger nuclear-to-dermal contrast because of the role of contrast agents.⁸ The 1000-fold increase in contrast between nuclei and dermis is the result of dye agents that preferentially bind to nuclear DNA, of which acridine orange is the most commonly used.^5,8 Basal cell carcinoma and SCC tumor cells can be visualized with FCM because they appear hyperfluorescent when stained with acridine orange.⁹ The acridine orange–stained cells display bright nuclei, while the cytoplasm and collagen remains dark. A positive feature of acridine orange is that it does not alter the tissue sample during freezing or formalin fixation and thus has no effect on subsequent histopathology that may need to be performed on the sample.¹⁰

High-Resolution Images Aid in Diagnosis

After it is harvested, the tissue sample is soaked in a contrast agent or dye, if needed, depending on the confocal mode to be used. The confocal microscope is then used to take a series of high-resolution individual en face images that are then stitched together to create a final mosaic image that can be up to 12×12 mm.^6,11 With a 200-µm depth visibility, confocal microscopy can capture the cellular structures in the epidermis, dermis, and (if compressed enough) subcutaneous fat in just under 3 minutes.¹²

The images produced through confocal microscopy have an excellent correlation to frozen histological sections and can aid in the diagnosis of many epidermal and dermal malignancies including melanoma, BCC, and SCC. New criteria have been established to aid in the interpretation of the confocal images and identify some of the more common skin cancers.^5,12,13 Basal cell carcinoma samples imaged through fluorescence and reflectance in low-power mode display the distinct nodular patterns with well-demarcated edges, as seen on classical histopathology. In the case of FCM, the cells that make up the tumor display hyperfluorescent areas consistent with nucleated cells that are stained with acridine orange. The main features that identify BCC on FCM images include nuclear pleomorphism and crowding, peripheral palisading, clefting of the basaloid islands, increased nucleus-to-cytoplasm ratio, and the presence of a modified dermis surrounding the mass known as the tumoral stroma^5,12 (Figure).

In addition to fluorescence and a well-defined tumor silhouette, SCC under FCM displays keratin pearls composed of keratinized squames, nuclear pleomorphism, and fluorescent scales in the stratum corneum that are a result of keratin formation.^5,13 The extent of differentiation of the SCC lesion also can be determined by assessing if the silhouette is well defined. A well-defined tumor silhouette is consistent with the diagnosis of a well-differentiated SCC, and vice versa.¹³ Ex vivo RCM also has been shown to be useful in diagnosing malignant melanomas, with melanin acting as an endogenous chromophore. Some of the features seen on imaging include a disarranged epithelium, hyperreflective roundish and dendritic pagetoid cells, and large hyperreflective polymorphic cells in the superficial chorion.¹⁴

Comparison to Conventional Histopathology

Ex vivo confocal microscopy in both the reflectance and fluorescence mode has been shown to perform well compared to conventional histopathology in the diagnosis of biopsy specimens. Ex vivo FCM has been shown to have an overall sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 99% in detecting residual BCC at the margins of excised tissue samples and in the fraction of the time it takes to attain similar results with frozen histopathology.⁹ Ex vivo RCM has been shown to have a higher prognostic capability, with 100% sensitivity and specificity in identifying BCC when scanning the tissue samples en face.¹⁵

Qualitatively, the images produced by RCM and FCM are similar to histopathology in overall architecture. Both techniques enhance the contrast between the epithelium and stroma and create images that can be examined in low as well as high resolution. A substantial difference between confocal microscopy and conventional hematoxylin and eosin–stained histopathology is that the confocal microscope produces images in gray scale. One way to alter the black-and-white images to resemble hematoxylin and eosin–stained slides is through the use of digital staining,¹⁶ which could boost clinical acceptance by physicians who are accustomed to the classical pink-purple appearance of pathology slides and could potentially limit the learning curve needed to read the confocal images.

Application in Mohs Micrographic Surgery

An important clinical application of ex vivo FCM imaging that has emerged is the detection of malignant cells at the excision margins during Mohs micrographic surgery. The use of confocal microscopy has the potential to save time by eliminating the need for tissue fixation while still providing good diagnostic accuracy. Implementing FCM as an imaging tool to guide surgical excisions could provide rapid diagnosis of the tissue, expediting excisions and reconstruction or the Mohs procedure while eliminating patient wait time and the need for frozen histopathology. Ex vivo RCM also has been used to establish laser parameters for CO₂ laser ablation of superficial and early nodular BCC lesions.¹⁷ Other potential uses for ex vivo RCM/FCM could include rapid evaluation of tissue during operating room procedures where rapid frozen sections are currently utilized.

Combining In Vivo and Ex Vivo Confocal Microscopy

Many of the diagnostic guidelines created with the use of ex vivo confocal microscopy have been applied to in vivo use, and therefore the use of both modalities is appealing. In vivo confocal microscopy is a noninvasive technique that has been used to map margins of skin tumors such as BCC and lentigo maligna at the bedside.⁵ It also has been shown to help plan both surgical and nonsurgical treatment modalities and reconstruction before the tumor is excised.¹⁸ This technique also can help the patient understand the extent of the excision and any subsequent reconstruction that may be needed.

Limitations

Ex vivo confocal microscopy used as a diagnostic tool does have some limitations. Its novelty may require surgeons and pathologists to be trained to interpret the images properly and correlate them to conventional diagnostic guidelines. The imaging also is limited to a depth of approximately 200 µm; however, the sample may be flipped so that the underside can be imaged as well, which increases the depth to approximately 400 µm. The tissue being imaged must be fixed flat, which may alter its shape. Complex tissue samples may be difficult to flatten out completely and therefore may be difficult to image. A special mount may be required for the sample to be fixed in a proper position for imaging.⁶

Final Thoughts

Despite some of these limitations, the need for rapid bedside tissue diagnosis makes ex vivo confocal microscopy an attractive device that can be used as an additional diagnostic tool to histopathology and also has been tested in other disciplines, such as breast cancer pathology. In the future, both in vivo and ex vivo confocal microscopy may be utilized to diagnose cutaneous malignancies, guide surgical excisions, and detect lesion progression, and it may become a basis for rapid diagnosis and detection.¹⁹

Skin cancer is diagnosed in approximately 5.4 million individuals annually in the United States, more than the total number of breast, lung, colon, and prostate cancers diagnosed per year.¹ It is estimated that 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer during their lifetime.² The 2 most common forms of skin cancer are basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), accounting for 4 million and 1 million cases diagnosed each year, respectively.³ With the increasing incidence of these skin cancers, the use of noninvasive imaging tools for detection and diagnosis has grown.

Ex vivo confocal microscopy is a diagnostic imaging tool that can be used in real-time at the bedside to assess freshly excised tissue for malignancies. It images tissue samples with cellular resolution and within minutes of biopsy or excision. Ex vivo confocal microscopy is a versatile tool that can assist in the diagnosis and management of skin malignancies such as melanoma, BCC, and SCC.

Reflectance vs Fluorescence Mode

Excised lesions can be examined in reflectance or fluorescence mode in great detail but with slightly varying nuclear-to-dermis contrasts depending on the chromophore that is targeted. In reflectance mode (reflectance confocal microscopy [RCM]), melanin and keratin act as endogenous chromophores because of their high refractive index relative to water,^4,5 which allows for the visualization of cellular structures of the skin at low power, as well as microscopic substructures such as melanosomes, cytoplasmic granules, and other cellular organelles at high power. Although an exogenous contrast agent is not required, acetic acid has the capability to highlight nuclei, enhancing the tumor cell-to-dermis contrast in RCM.⁶ Acetic acid is clinically used as a predictor for certain skin and mucosal membrane neoplasms that blanch when exposed to the solution. In the case of RCM, acetic acid increases the visibility of nuclei by inducing the compaction of chromatin. For the acetowhitening to be effective, the sample must be soaked in the solution for a specific amount of time, depending on the concentration.⁷ A concentration between 1% and 10% can be used, but the less concentrated the solution, the longer the time of soaking that is required to achieve sufficiently bright nuclei.⁶

The contrast with acetic acid, however, is quite weak when the tissue is imaged en face, or along the horizontal surface of the sample, due to the collagen in the dermal layer, which has a high reflectance index. This issue is rectified when using the confocal microscope in the fluorescence mode with an exogenous fluorescent dye as a nuclear stain. Fluorescence confocal microscopy (FCM), results in a stronger nuclear-to-dermal contrast because of the role of contrast agents.⁸ The 1000-fold increase in contrast between nuclei and dermis is the result of dye agents that preferentially bind to nuclear DNA, of which acridine orange is the most commonly used.^5,8 Basal cell carcinoma and SCC tumor cells can be visualized with FCM because they appear hyperfluorescent when stained with acridine orange.⁹ The acridine orange–stained cells display bright nuclei, while the cytoplasm and collagen remains dark. A positive feature of acridine orange is that it does not alter the tissue sample during freezing or formalin fixation and thus has no effect on subsequent histopathology that may need to be performed on the sample.¹⁰

High-Resolution Images Aid in Diagnosis

After it is harvested, the tissue sample is soaked in a contrast agent or dye, if needed, depending on the confocal mode to be used. The confocal microscope is then used to take a series of high-resolution individual en face images that are then stitched together to create a final mosaic image that can be up to 12×12 mm.^6,11 With a 200-µm depth visibility, confocal microscopy can capture the cellular structures in the epidermis, dermis, and (if compressed enough) subcutaneous fat in just under 3 minutes.¹²

The images produced through confocal microscopy have an excellent correlation to frozen histological sections and can aid in the diagnosis of many epidermal and dermal malignancies including melanoma, BCC, and SCC. New criteria have been established to aid in the interpretation of the confocal images and identify some of the more common skin cancers.^5,12,13 Basal cell carcinoma samples imaged through fluorescence and reflectance in low-power mode display the distinct nodular patterns with well-demarcated edges, as seen on classical histopathology. In the case of FCM, the cells that make up the tumor display hyperfluorescent areas consistent with nucleated cells that are stained with acridine orange. The main features that identify BCC on FCM images include nuclear pleomorphism and crowding, peripheral palisading, clefting of the basaloid islands, increased nucleus-to-cytoplasm ratio, and the presence of a modified dermis surrounding the mass known as the tumoral stroma^5,12 (Figure).

In addition to fluorescence and a well-defined tumor silhouette, SCC under FCM displays keratin pearls composed of keratinized squames, nuclear pleomorphism, and fluorescent scales in the stratum corneum that are a result of keratin formation.^5,13 The extent of differentiation of the SCC lesion also can be determined by assessing if the silhouette is well defined. A well-defined tumor silhouette is consistent with the diagnosis of a well-differentiated SCC, and vice versa.¹³ Ex vivo RCM also has been shown to be useful in diagnosing malignant melanomas, with melanin acting as an endogenous chromophore. Some of the features seen on imaging include a disarranged epithelium, hyperreflective roundish and dendritic pagetoid cells, and large hyperreflective polymorphic cells in the superficial chorion.¹⁴

Comparison to Conventional Histopathology

Ex vivo confocal microscopy in both the reflectance and fluorescence mode has been shown to perform well compared to conventional histopathology in the diagnosis of biopsy specimens. Ex vivo FCM has been shown to have an overall sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 99% in detecting residual BCC at the margins of excised tissue samples and in the fraction of the time it takes to attain similar results with frozen histopathology.⁹ Ex vivo RCM has been shown to have a higher prognostic capability, with 100% sensitivity and specificity in identifying BCC when scanning the tissue samples en face.¹⁵

Qualitatively, the images produced by RCM and FCM are similar to histopathology in overall architecture. Both techniques enhance the contrast between the epithelium and stroma and create images that can be examined in low as well as high resolution. A substantial difference between confocal microscopy and conventional hematoxylin and eosin–stained histopathology is that the confocal microscope produces images in gray scale. One way to alter the black-and-white images to resemble hematoxylin and eosin–stained slides is through the use of digital staining,¹⁶ which could boost clinical acceptance by physicians who are accustomed to the classical pink-purple appearance of pathology slides and could potentially limit the learning curve needed to read the confocal images.

Application in Mohs Micrographic Surgery

An important clinical application of ex vivo FCM imaging that has emerged is the detection of malignant cells at the excision margins during Mohs micrographic surgery. The use of confocal microscopy has the potential to save time by eliminating the need for tissue fixation while still providing good diagnostic accuracy. Implementing FCM as an imaging tool to guide surgical excisions could provide rapid diagnosis of the tissue, expediting excisions and reconstruction or the Mohs procedure while eliminating patient wait time and the need for frozen histopathology. Ex vivo RCM also has been used to establish laser parameters for CO₂ laser ablation of superficial and early nodular BCC lesions.¹⁷ Other potential uses for ex vivo RCM/FCM could include rapid evaluation of tissue during operating room procedures where rapid frozen sections are currently utilized.

Combining In Vivo and Ex Vivo Confocal Microscopy

Many of the diagnostic guidelines created with the use of ex vivo confocal microscopy have been applied to in vivo use, and therefore the use of both modalities is appealing. In vivo confocal microscopy is a noninvasive technique that has been used to map margins of skin tumors such as BCC and lentigo maligna at the bedside.⁵ It also has been shown to help plan both surgical and nonsurgical treatment modalities and reconstruction before the tumor is excised.¹⁸ This technique also can help the patient understand the extent of the excision and any subsequent reconstruction that may be needed.

Limitations

Ex vivo confocal microscopy used as a diagnostic tool does have some limitations. Its novelty may require surgeons and pathologists to be trained to interpret the images properly and correlate them to conventional diagnostic guidelines. The imaging also is limited to a depth of approximately 200 µm; however, the sample may be flipped so that the underside can be imaged as well, which increases the depth to approximately 400 µm. The tissue being imaged must be fixed flat, which may alter its shape. Complex tissue samples may be difficult to flatten out completely and therefore may be difficult to image. A special mount may be required for the sample to be fixed in a proper position for imaging.⁶

Final Thoughts

Despite some of these limitations, the need for rapid bedside tissue diagnosis makes ex vivo confocal microscopy an attractive device that can be used as an additional diagnostic tool to histopathology and also has been tested in other disciplines, such as breast cancer pathology. In the future, both in vivo and ex vivo confocal microscopy may be utilized to diagnose cutaneous malignancies, guide surgical excisions, and detect lesion progression, and it may become a basis for rapid diagnosis and detection.¹⁹

Skin cancer is diagnosed in approximately 5.4 million individuals annually in the United States, more than the total number of breast, lung, colon, and prostate cancers diagnosed per year.¹ It is estimated that 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer during their lifetime.² The 2 most common forms of skin cancer are basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), accounting for 4 million and 1 million cases diagnosed each year, respectively.³ With the increasing incidence of these skin cancers, the use of noninvasive imaging tools for detection and diagnosis has grown.

Ex vivo confocal microscopy is a diagnostic imaging tool that can be used in real-time at the bedside to assess freshly excised tissue for malignancies. It images tissue samples with cellular resolution and within minutes of biopsy or excision. Ex vivo confocal microscopy is a versatile tool that can assist in the diagnosis and management of skin malignancies such as melanoma, BCC, and SCC.

Reflectance vs Fluorescence Mode

Excised lesions can be examined in reflectance or fluorescence mode in great detail but with slightly varying nuclear-to-dermis contrasts depending on the chromophore that is targeted. In reflectance mode (reflectance confocal microscopy [RCM]), melanin and keratin act as endogenous chromophores because of their high refractive index relative to water,^4,5 which allows for the visualization of cellular structures of the skin at low power, as well as microscopic substructures such as melanosomes, cytoplasmic granules, and other cellular organelles at high power. Although an exogenous contrast agent is not required, acetic acid has the capability to highlight nuclei, enhancing the tumor cell-to-dermis contrast in RCM.⁶ Acetic acid is clinically used as a predictor for certain skin and mucosal membrane neoplasms that blanch when exposed to the solution. In the case of RCM, acetic acid increases the visibility of nuclei by inducing the compaction of chromatin. For the acetowhitening to be effective, the sample must be soaked in the solution for a specific amount of time, depending on the concentration.⁷ A concentration between 1% and 10% can be used, but the less concentrated the solution, the longer the time of soaking that is required to achieve sufficiently bright nuclei.⁶

The contrast with acetic acid, however, is quite weak when the tissue is imaged en face, or along the horizontal surface of the sample, due to the collagen in the dermal layer, which has a high reflectance index. This issue is rectified when using the confocal microscope in the fluorescence mode with an exogenous fluorescent dye as a nuclear stain. Fluorescence confocal microscopy (FCM), results in a stronger nuclear-to-dermal contrast because of the role of contrast agents.⁸ The 1000-fold increase in contrast between nuclei and dermis is the result of dye agents that preferentially bind to nuclear DNA, of which acridine orange is the most commonly used.^5,8 Basal cell carcinoma and SCC tumor cells can be visualized with FCM because they appear hyperfluorescent when stained with acridine orange.⁹ The acridine orange–stained cells display bright nuclei, while the cytoplasm and collagen remains dark. A positive feature of acridine orange is that it does not alter the tissue sample during freezing or formalin fixation and thus has no effect on subsequent histopathology that may need to be performed on the sample.¹⁰

High-Resolution Images Aid in Diagnosis

After it is harvested, the tissue sample is soaked in a contrast agent or dye, if needed, depending on the confocal mode to be used. The confocal microscope is then used to take a series of high-resolution individual en face images that are then stitched together to create a final mosaic image that can be up to 12×12 mm.^6,11 With a 200-µm depth visibility, confocal microscopy can capture the cellular structures in the epidermis, dermis, and (if compressed enough) subcutaneous fat in just under 3 minutes.¹²

The images produced through confocal microscopy have an excellent correlation to frozen histological sections and can aid in the diagnosis of many epidermal and dermal malignancies including melanoma, BCC, and SCC. New criteria have been established to aid in the interpretation of the confocal images and identify some of the more common skin cancers.^5,12,13 Basal cell carcinoma samples imaged through fluorescence and reflectance in low-power mode display the distinct nodular patterns with well-demarcated edges, as seen on classical histopathology. In the case of FCM, the cells that make up the tumor display hyperfluorescent areas consistent with nucleated cells that are stained with acridine orange. The main features that identify BCC on FCM images include nuclear pleomorphism and crowding, peripheral palisading, clefting of the basaloid islands, increased nucleus-to-cytoplasm ratio, and the presence of a modified dermis surrounding the mass known as the tumoral stroma^5,12 (Figure).

In addition to fluorescence and a well-defined tumor silhouette, SCC under FCM displays keratin pearls composed of keratinized squames, nuclear pleomorphism, and fluorescent scales in the stratum corneum that are a result of keratin formation.^5,13 The extent of differentiation of the SCC lesion also can be determined by assessing if the silhouette is well defined. A well-defined tumor silhouette is consistent with the diagnosis of a well-differentiated SCC, and vice versa.¹³ Ex vivo RCM also has been shown to be useful in diagnosing malignant melanomas, with melanin acting as an endogenous chromophore. Some of the features seen on imaging include a disarranged epithelium, hyperreflective roundish and dendritic pagetoid cells, and large hyperreflective polymorphic cells in the superficial chorion.¹⁴

Comparison to Conventional Histopathology

Ex vivo confocal microscopy in both the reflectance and fluorescence mode has been shown to perform well compared to conventional histopathology in the diagnosis of biopsy specimens. Ex vivo FCM has been shown to have an overall sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 99% in detecting residual BCC at the margins of excised tissue samples and in the fraction of the time it takes to attain similar results with frozen histopathology.⁹ Ex vivo RCM has been shown to have a higher prognostic capability, with 100% sensitivity and specificity in identifying BCC when scanning the tissue samples en face.¹⁵

Qualitatively, the images produced by RCM and FCM are similar to histopathology in overall architecture. Both techniques enhance the contrast between the epithelium and stroma and create images that can be examined in low as well as high resolution. A substantial difference between confocal microscopy and conventional hematoxylin and eosin–stained histopathology is that the confocal microscope produces images in gray scale. One way to alter the black-and-white images to resemble hematoxylin and eosin–stained slides is through the use of digital staining,¹⁶ which could boost clinical acceptance by physicians who are accustomed to the classical pink-purple appearance of pathology slides and could potentially limit the learning curve needed to read the confocal images.

Application in Mohs Micrographic Surgery

An important clinical application of ex vivo FCM imaging that has emerged is the detection of malignant cells at the excision margins during Mohs micrographic surgery. The use of confocal microscopy has the potential to save time by eliminating the need for tissue fixation while still providing good diagnostic accuracy. Implementing FCM as an imaging tool to guide surgical excisions could provide rapid diagnosis of the tissue, expediting excisions and reconstruction or the Mohs procedure while eliminating patient wait time and the need for frozen histopathology. Ex vivo RCM also has been used to establish laser parameters for CO₂ laser ablation of superficial and early nodular BCC lesions.¹⁷ Other potential uses for ex vivo RCM/FCM could include rapid evaluation of tissue during operating room procedures where rapid frozen sections are currently utilized.

Combining In Vivo and Ex Vivo Confocal Microscopy

Many of the diagnostic guidelines created with the use of ex vivo confocal microscopy have been applied to in vivo use, and therefore the use of both modalities is appealing. In vivo confocal microscopy is a noninvasive technique that has been used to map margins of skin tumors such as BCC and lentigo maligna at the bedside.⁵ It also has been shown to help plan both surgical and nonsurgical treatment modalities and reconstruction before the tumor is excised.¹⁸ This technique also can help the patient understand the extent of the excision and any subsequent reconstruction that may be needed.

Limitations

Ex vivo confocal microscopy used as a diagnostic tool does have some limitations. Its novelty may require surgeons and pathologists to be trained to interpret the images properly and correlate them to conventional diagnostic guidelines. The imaging also is limited to a depth of approximately 200 µm; however, the sample may be flipped so that the underside can be imaged as well, which increases the depth to approximately 400 µm. The tissue being imaged must be fixed flat, which may alter its shape. Complex tissue samples may be difficult to flatten out completely and therefore may be difficult to image. A special mount may be required for the sample to be fixed in a proper position for imaging.⁶

Final Thoughts

Despite some of these limitations, the need for rapid bedside tissue diagnosis makes ex vivo confocal microscopy an attractive device that can be used as an additional diagnostic tool to histopathology and also has been tested in other disciplines, such as breast cancer pathology. In the future, both in vivo and ex vivo confocal microscopy may be utilized to diagnose cutaneous malignancies, guide surgical excisions, and detect lesion progression, and it may become a basis for rapid diagnosis and detection.¹⁹

Timolol is a nonselective β-adrenergic receptor antagonist indicated for treating glaucoma, heart attacks, hypertension, and migraine headaches. It is made in both an oral and ophthalmic form. In dermatology, the beta-blocker propranolol is approved for the treatment of infantile hemangiomas (IHs). The exact mechanism of action of beta-blockers for the treatment of IHs is not yet completely understood, but it is postulated that they inhibit growth by at least 4 distinct mechanisms: (1) vasoconstriction, (2) inhibition of angiogenesis or vasculogenesis, (3) induction of apoptosis, and (4) recruitment of endothelial progenitor cells to the site of the hemangioma.¹

Scar cosmesis can be calculated using the visual analog scale (VAS), which is a subjective scar assessment scored from poor to excellent. The multidimensional VAS is a photograph-based scale derived from evaluating standardized digital photographs in 4 dimensions—pigmentation, vascularity, acceptability, and observer comfort—plus contour. It uses the sum of the individual scores to obtain a single overall score ranging from excellent to poor.² In this study, we sought to determine if the use of topical timolol after excision or Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers improved the overall cosmesis of the scar.

Methods

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at Roger Williams Medical Center (Providence, Rhode Island). Eligibility criteria included patients who required excision or MMS for their nonmelanoma skin cancer located below the patella and those who agreed to allow their wounds to heal by secondary intention when given options for closure of their wounds. Patients were randomized to either the timolol (study medication) group or the saline (placebo) group. The initial defects were measured and photographed. Patients were educated on how to apply the study medication. All patients were prescribed 40 mm Hg compression stockings to wear following application of the study medication. Patients were asked to return at 1 and 5 weeks postsurgery and then every 1 to 2 weeks for wound assessment and measurement until their wounds had healed or at 13 weeks, depending on which came first. A healed wound was defined as having no exudate, exhibiting complete reepithelialization, and being stable for 1 week.

Healed wounds were assessed by a blinded outside dermatologist who examined photographs of the wounds and then completed the VAS for each participant’s scar.

Results

A total of 9 participants were enrolled in the study. Three participants were lost to follow-up; 6 completed the study (4 females, 2 males). The mean age was 70 years (age range, 46–89 years). The average wound size was 2×2 cm with a depth of 1 mm. Three participants were in the active medication group and 3 were in the control group.

A VAS was completed for each participant’s scar by an outside blinded dermatologist. Based on the VAS, wounds treated with timolol resulted in more cosmetically favorable scars (scored higher on the VAS) compared to control (mean [SD]: 6.5±0.9 vs 2.5±0.7; P<0.05). See Figures 1 and 2 for representative results.

Comment

Dermatologists create acute wounds in patients on a daily basis. Ensuring that patients achieve the most desirable cosmetic outcome is a primary goal for dermatologists and an important component of patient satisfaction. A number of studies have examined patient satisfaction following MMS.^3,4 Patient satisfaction is an especially important outcome measure in dermatology, as dermatologic diseases affect cosmetic appearance and are related to quality of life.^3,4

Timolol is a nonselective β-adrenergic receptor antagonist that is used in dermatology to treat IHs. In this preliminary study, the authors sought to determine if topical timolol applied to acute wounds following surgical removal of nonmelanoma skin cancers could improve the overall cosmetic outcome of acute surgical scars. The results showed that compared to control, topical timolol resulted in a more cosmetically favorable scar. The results are preliminary, and it would be of future interest to further study the effects of topical timolol on acute surgical wounds from a wound-healing standpoint as well as to further test its effects on the cosmesis of these wounds.

Timolol is a nonselective β-adrenergic receptor antagonist indicated for treating glaucoma, heart attacks, hypertension, and migraine headaches. It is made in both an oral and ophthalmic form. In dermatology, the beta-blocker propranolol is approved for the treatment of infantile hemangiomas (IHs). The exact mechanism of action of beta-blockers for the treatment of IHs is not yet completely understood, but it is postulated that they inhibit growth by at least 4 distinct mechanisms: (1) vasoconstriction, (2) inhibition of angiogenesis or vasculogenesis, (3) induction of apoptosis, and (4) recruitment of endothelial progenitor cells to the site of the hemangioma.¹

Scar cosmesis can be calculated using the visual analog scale (VAS), which is a subjective scar assessment scored from poor to excellent. The multidimensional VAS is a photograph-based scale derived from evaluating standardized digital photographs in 4 dimensions—pigmentation, vascularity, acceptability, and observer comfort—plus contour. It uses the sum of the individual scores to obtain a single overall score ranging from excellent to poor.² In this study, we sought to determine if the use of topical timolol after excision or Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers improved the overall cosmesis of the scar.

Methods

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at Roger Williams Medical Center (Providence, Rhode Island). Eligibility criteria included patients who required excision or MMS for their nonmelanoma skin cancer located below the patella and those who agreed to allow their wounds to heal by secondary intention when given options for closure of their wounds. Patients were randomized to either the timolol (study medication) group or the saline (placebo) group. The initial defects were measured and photographed. Patients were educated on how to apply the study medication. All patients were prescribed 40 mm Hg compression stockings to wear following application of the study medication. Patients were asked to return at 1 and 5 weeks postsurgery and then every 1 to 2 weeks for wound assessment and measurement until their wounds had healed or at 13 weeks, depending on which came first. A healed wound was defined as having no exudate, exhibiting complete reepithelialization, and being stable for 1 week.

Healed wounds were assessed by a blinded outside dermatologist who examined photographs of the wounds and then completed the VAS for each participant’s scar.

Results

A total of 9 participants were enrolled in the study. Three participants were lost to follow-up; 6 completed the study (4 females, 2 males). The mean age was 70 years (age range, 46–89 years). The average wound size was 2×2 cm with a depth of 1 mm. Three participants were in the active medication group and 3 were in the control group.

A VAS was completed for each participant’s scar by an outside blinded dermatologist. Based on the VAS, wounds treated with timolol resulted in more cosmetically favorable scars (scored higher on the VAS) compared to control (mean [SD]: 6.5±0.9 vs 2.5±0.7; P<0.05). See Figures 1 and 2 for representative results.

Comment

Dermatologists create acute wounds in patients on a daily basis. Ensuring that patients achieve the most desirable cosmetic outcome is a primary goal for dermatologists and an important component of patient satisfaction. A number of studies have examined patient satisfaction following MMS.^3,4 Patient satisfaction is an especially important outcome measure in dermatology, as dermatologic diseases affect cosmetic appearance and are related to quality of life.^3,4

Timolol is a nonselective β-adrenergic receptor antagonist that is used in dermatology to treat IHs. In this preliminary study, the authors sought to determine if topical timolol applied to acute wounds following surgical removal of nonmelanoma skin cancers could improve the overall cosmetic outcome of acute surgical scars. The results showed that compared to control, topical timolol resulted in a more cosmetically favorable scar. The results are preliminary, and it would be of future interest to further study the effects of topical timolol on acute surgical wounds from a wound-healing standpoint as well as to further test its effects on the cosmesis of these wounds.

Timolol is a nonselective β-adrenergic receptor antagonist indicated for treating glaucoma, heart attacks, hypertension, and migraine headaches. It is made in both an oral and ophthalmic form. In dermatology, the beta-blocker propranolol is approved for the treatment of infantile hemangiomas (IHs). The exact mechanism of action of beta-blockers for the treatment of IHs is not yet completely understood, but it is postulated that they inhibit growth by at least 4 distinct mechanisms: (1) vasoconstriction, (2) inhibition of angiogenesis or vasculogenesis, (3) induction of apoptosis, and (4) recruitment of endothelial progenitor cells to the site of the hemangioma.¹

Scar cosmesis can be calculated using the visual analog scale (VAS), which is a subjective scar assessment scored from poor to excellent. The multidimensional VAS is a photograph-based scale derived from evaluating standardized digital photographs in 4 dimensions—pigmentation, vascularity, acceptability, and observer comfort—plus contour. It uses the sum of the individual scores to obtain a single overall score ranging from excellent to poor.² In this study, we sought to determine if the use of topical timolol after excision or Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers improved the overall cosmesis of the scar.

Methods

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at Roger Williams Medical Center (Providence, Rhode Island). Eligibility criteria included patients who required excision or MMS for their nonmelanoma skin cancer located below the patella and those who agreed to allow their wounds to heal by secondary intention when given options for closure of their wounds. Patients were randomized to either the timolol (study medication) group or the saline (placebo) group. The initial defects were measured and photographed. Patients were educated on how to apply the study medication. All patients were prescribed 40 mm Hg compression stockings to wear following application of the study medication. Patients were asked to return at 1 and 5 weeks postsurgery and then every 1 to 2 weeks for wound assessment and measurement until their wounds had healed or at 13 weeks, depending on which came first. A healed wound was defined as having no exudate, exhibiting complete reepithelialization, and being stable for 1 week.

Healed wounds were assessed by a blinded outside dermatologist who examined photographs of the wounds and then completed the VAS for each participant’s scar.

Results

A total of 9 participants were enrolled in the study. Three participants were lost to follow-up; 6 completed the study (4 females, 2 males). The mean age was 70 years (age range, 46–89 years). The average wound size was 2×2 cm with a depth of 1 mm. Three participants were in the active medication group and 3 were in the control group.

A VAS was completed for each participant’s scar by an outside blinded dermatologist. Based on the VAS, wounds treated with timolol resulted in more cosmetically favorable scars (scored higher on the VAS) compared to control (mean [SD]: 6.5±0.9 vs 2.5±0.7; P<0.05). See Figures 1 and 2 for representative results.

Comment

Dermatologists create acute wounds in patients on a daily basis. Ensuring that patients achieve the most desirable cosmetic outcome is a primary goal for dermatologists and an important component of patient satisfaction. A number of studies have examined patient satisfaction following MMS.^3,4 Patient satisfaction is an especially important outcome measure in dermatology, as dermatologic diseases affect cosmetic appearance and are related to quality of life.^3,4

Timolol is a nonselective β-adrenergic receptor antagonist that is used in dermatology to treat IHs. In this preliminary study, the authors sought to determine if topical timolol applied to acute wounds following surgical removal of nonmelanoma skin cancers could improve the overall cosmetic outcome of acute surgical scars. The results showed that compared to control, topical timolol resulted in a more cosmetically favorable scar. The results are preliminary, and it would be of future interest to further study the effects of topical timolol on acute surgical wounds from a wound-healing standpoint as well as to further test its effects on the cosmesis of these wounds.

An association between steatocystoma multiplex (SCM) and eruptive vellus hair cysts (EVHCs) has been recognized. They are related conditions representing nevoid malformations of the pilosebaceous junctions^1-10 that have similar clinical features but distinctive histologic features. Both conditions most commonly involve the anterior aspect of the chest. Six cases of a rare facial variant of SCM have been reported,^11-16 3 involving lesions limited to the forehead.^13-15 Two patients with a rare facial variant of EVHC also have been reported.¹⁷ The development of separate lesions of SCM and EVHC on the trunk can uncommonly occur.^5,6,10 One case of SCM and EVHC on the forehead has been described.³ Other types of benign follicular neoplasms simultaneously developing in association with SCM or EVHC also are rare. The simultaneous occurrence of multiple trichoblastomas, trichoepitheliomas, and SCM on the face and trunk has been reported in 1 case.¹⁸ Milia, SCM, and EVHC on the face and trunk have been reported in 1 family.⁴ A report of facial steatocystoma associated with a pilar cyst and bilateral preauricular sinus also has occurred in 1 patient.¹⁹ Here, we report the simultaneous occurrence of SCM, EVHC, and trichofolliculomas localized to the forehead.

Case Report

A 37-year-old man had an increasing number of flesh-colored to yellow papules on the forehead that had been present since puberty. Although the lesions were asymptomatic, some had recently become tender, which led him to seek medical care. There was no history of trauma, burns, irradiation, or application of topical agents to the area or use of eyeglasses or goggles. The patient’s father had similar lesions limited to the forehead, which developed during adolescence.

On evaluation at our clinic, skin examination revealed 16 discrete, 0.3- to 1-cm, flesh-colored, yellow to blue, mobile, smooth papules, as well as flesh-colored papules with a central black punctum, on the forehead (Figure 1). Similar lesions were not present on the rest of the face; around the ears; or on the scalp, neck, chest, back, abdomen, genitalia, buttocks, palms, soles, axillae, arms, or legs. There were no nail abnormalities.

Multiple 3-, 4-, and 6-mm punch and excisional biopsies were performed to remove all 16 lesions on the forehead. Histologic examination revealed a collapsed cystic structure in the mid dermis in 10 lesions. The cysts were lined with a squamous epithelium without a granular layer but with an eosinophilic corrugated lining, and the cyst cavity contained scant homogeneous eosinophilic secretion. Mature sebaceous glands were adjacent to the outer portion of the cyst wall. These histologic findings were consistent with SCM (Figure 2).

In 3 lesions, histologic examination revealed a cystic structure lined by a few layers of stratified squamous epithelium in the mid dermis. The cyst cavity contained numerous small vellus hairs and laminated keratin. These histologic findings were consistent with EVHC (Figure 3).

In the other 3 lesions, histologic examination revealed a dilated central cystic cavity filled with laminated keratin in the mid dermis. Multiple small follicles arose from the cysts and showed differentiation toward germinative epithelium. The surrounding stroma was fibrotic and contained a patchy lymphocytic infiltrate. These histologic findings were consistent with trichofolliculomas (Figure 4).

Comment

Characteristics of SCM
Steatocystoma multiplex is an uncommon condition characterized by the formation of asymptomatic, 0.2- to 2-cm, yellow to flesh-colored, soft, mobile papules or nodules on the trunk, extremities, axillae, genitalia, and/or chest. The lesions contain a clear or opaque, oily, milky or yellow, odorless fluid and most commonly are located on the anterior aspect of the chest. The face is not a commonly involved site in this condition. Six cases of a rare facial variant of SCM have been reported,^11-16 with lesions limited to the forehead in 3 cases.^13-15

In 1937, Mount²⁰ credited Bozellini for describing the first case, though 3 cases reported in the late 1800s probably were SCM.²¹ In 1899, Pringle²² coined the term steatocystoma multiplex for this condition. It can be sporadic or have an autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern. Steatocystoma multiplex can occur at any age, though lesions develop most frequently in adolescence or young adulthood. There is no sex predilection.

Steatocystoma multiplex with pachyonychia congenita has been reported in a familial case.²³ Other findings reported in patients with SCM include ichthyosis, koilonychia, acrokeratosis verruciformis of Hopf and hypertrophic lichen planus, hidradenitis suppurativa, hypotrichosis, multiple keratoacanthomas, and rheumatoid arthritis.^12,24-26

Steatocystoma multiplex is a cyst lined by stratified squamous epithelium without a granular layer but with a thick eosinophilic cuticle. Mature sebaceous lobules are closely associated with the cyst wall. Steatocystoma multiplex arises from the sebaceous duct because the lining of the lumen is composed of undulating eosinophilic cuticle.

Characteristics of EVHCs
Eruptive vellus hair cysts, which were first described by Esterly et al,²⁷ can occur at any age but develop most frequently in adolescents or young adults. Sometimes the lesions are congenital or appear in childhood. There is no sex predilection. They can be sporadic or have an autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern.

Eruptive vellus hair cysts are asymptomatic, 1- to 2-mm, smooth, crusted, or umbilicated papules on the chest or arms and legs. Eruptive vellus hair cysts most commonly involve the anterior aspect of the chest. The lesions are flesh-colored to yellow, though they have a slate gray color in darker-skinned individuals. A rare facial variant has been reported in 2 patients of Asian descent.¹⁷

Eruptive vellus hair cysts are small cystic structures lined by a stratified squamous epithelium with a granular layer. The cyst cavity contains numerous small vellus hair shafts and laminated keratin. Eruptive vellus hair cysts originate from the infundibulum or less frequently the isthmus or infundibular-isthmic junction of the hair follicle.

Characteristics of Trichofolliculomas
Trichofolliculomas are solitary, 3- to 5-mm, flesh-colored papules that occur on the face. They are highly differentiated, benign, neoplastic proliferations of an actively trichogenic epithelium, with structural components reflecting all portions of the pilosebaceous unit. Trichofolliculomas consist of a central dilated primary follicle contiguous with the surface epidermis embedded in a fibrous stroma. Multiple small secondary follicles with varying degrees of follicular differentiation arise from the primary follicle.

Co-occurrence of Lesions
An association between SCM and EVHC has been recognized.^5-10 Steatocystoma multiplex and EVHC have similar clinical features but distinctive histologic features. They also have a similar age of onset, location/appearance of lesions, and mode of inheritance. Steatocystoma multiplex and EVHC can be distinguished by immunohistochemical techniques: SCM shows expression of keratin 10 and keratin 17, whereas EVHCs express only keratin 17.²⁸

Steatocystoma multiplex and EVHC have only rarely been reported to occur together on the trunk. One case of SCM and EVHC occurring on the forehead has been described.³ Other types of benign follicular neoplasms simultaneously developing in association with SCM or EVHC also are rare. Milia, SCM, and EVHC on the face and trunk have been reported in 1 family,⁴ and facial steatocystoma associated with a pilar cyst and bilateral preauricular sinus was reported in 1 patient.¹⁹ Although trichofolliculomas have not been reported to occur with SCM or EVHC, 2 related follicular neoplasms—trichoepitheliomas and trichoblastomas—have been reported to occur in association with SCM on the face and chest and around the ears in 1 case.¹⁸

Differential Diagnosis
The clinical differential diagnosis includes multiple epidermoid cysts, dermoid cysts, Gardner syndrome, sebaceous adenomas, Muir-Torre syndrome, syringomas, milia, leiomyomas, lipomas, acneiform folliculitis, multiple familial and nonfamilial trichoepitheliomas, cylindromas, and angiofibromas.^3,29

Conclusion

Our patient represents a rare case of simultaneous occurrence of SCM, EVHC, and trichofolliculomas localized to the forehead. The patient had multiple neoplasms involving differentiation toward various regions of the pilosebaceous unit. This case gives further support to the hypothesis that these benign follicular neoplasms are closely related but are distinct conditions within the spectrum of the same disease process. They represent nevoid malformations of the pilosebaceous unit that can be sporadic or inherited in an autosomal-dominant pattern. Pure types of these lesions may represent one end of the spectrum, but in some patients, there are overlapping features or hybrids of each condition. Several biopsies from patients with multiple lesions should be performed to establish an accurate diagnosis.

An association between steatocystoma multiplex (SCM) and eruptive vellus hair cysts (EVHCs) has been recognized. They are related conditions representing nevoid malformations of the pilosebaceous junctions^1-10 that have similar clinical features but distinctive histologic features. Both conditions most commonly involve the anterior aspect of the chest. Six cases of a rare facial variant of SCM have been reported,^11-16 3 involving lesions limited to the forehead.^13-15 Two patients with a rare facial variant of EVHC also have been reported.¹⁷ The development of separate lesions of SCM and EVHC on the trunk can uncommonly occur.^5,6,10 One case of SCM and EVHC on the forehead has been described.³ Other types of benign follicular neoplasms simultaneously developing in association with SCM or EVHC also are rare. The simultaneous occurrence of multiple trichoblastomas, trichoepitheliomas, and SCM on the face and trunk has been reported in 1 case.¹⁸ Milia, SCM, and EVHC on the face and trunk have been reported in 1 family.⁴ A report of facial steatocystoma associated with a pilar cyst and bilateral preauricular sinus also has occurred in 1 patient.¹⁹ Here, we report the simultaneous occurrence of SCM, EVHC, and trichofolliculomas localized to the forehead.

Case Report

A 37-year-old man had an increasing number of flesh-colored to yellow papules on the forehead that had been present since puberty. Although the lesions were asymptomatic, some had recently become tender, which led him to seek medical care. There was no history of trauma, burns, irradiation, or application of topical agents to the area or use of eyeglasses or goggles. The patient’s father had similar lesions limited to the forehead, which developed during adolescence.

On evaluation at our clinic, skin examination revealed 16 discrete, 0.3- to 1-cm, flesh-colored, yellow to blue, mobile, smooth papules, as well as flesh-colored papules with a central black punctum, on the forehead (Figure 1). Similar lesions were not present on the rest of the face; around the ears; or on the scalp, neck, chest, back, abdomen, genitalia, buttocks, palms, soles, axillae, arms, or legs. There were no nail abnormalities.

Multiple 3-, 4-, and 6-mm punch and excisional biopsies were performed to remove all 16 lesions on the forehead. Histologic examination revealed a collapsed cystic structure in the mid dermis in 10 lesions. The cysts were lined with a squamous epithelium without a granular layer but with an eosinophilic corrugated lining, and the cyst cavity contained scant homogeneous eosinophilic secretion. Mature sebaceous glands were adjacent to the outer portion of the cyst wall. These histologic findings were consistent with SCM (Figure 2).

In 3 lesions, histologic examination revealed a cystic structure lined by a few layers of stratified squamous epithelium in the mid dermis. The cyst cavity contained numerous small vellus hairs and laminated keratin. These histologic findings were consistent with EVHC (Figure 3).

In the other 3 lesions, histologic examination revealed a dilated central cystic cavity filled with laminated keratin in the mid dermis. Multiple small follicles arose from the cysts and showed differentiation toward germinative epithelium. The surrounding stroma was fibrotic and contained a patchy lymphocytic infiltrate. These histologic findings were consistent with trichofolliculomas (Figure 4).

Comment

Characteristics of SCM
Steatocystoma multiplex is an uncommon condition characterized by the formation of asymptomatic, 0.2- to 2-cm, yellow to flesh-colored, soft, mobile papules or nodules on the trunk, extremities, axillae, genitalia, and/or chest. The lesions contain a clear or opaque, oily, milky or yellow, odorless fluid and most commonly are located on the anterior aspect of the chest. The face is not a commonly involved site in this condition. Six cases of a rare facial variant of SCM have been reported,^11-16 with lesions limited to the forehead in 3 cases.^13-15

In 1937, Mount²⁰ credited Bozellini for describing the first case, though 3 cases reported in the late 1800s probably were SCM.²¹ In 1899, Pringle²² coined the term steatocystoma multiplex for this condition. It can be sporadic or have an autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern. Steatocystoma multiplex can occur at any age, though lesions develop most frequently in adolescence or young adulthood. There is no sex predilection.

Steatocystoma multiplex with pachyonychia congenita has been reported in a familial case.²³ Other findings reported in patients with SCM include ichthyosis, koilonychia, acrokeratosis verruciformis of Hopf and hypertrophic lichen planus, hidradenitis suppurativa, hypotrichosis, multiple keratoacanthomas, and rheumatoid arthritis.^12,24-26

Steatocystoma multiplex is a cyst lined by stratified squamous epithelium without a granular layer but with a thick eosinophilic cuticle. Mature sebaceous lobules are closely associated with the cyst wall. Steatocystoma multiplex arises from the sebaceous duct because the lining of the lumen is composed of undulating eosinophilic cuticle.

Characteristics of EVHCs
Eruptive vellus hair cysts, which were first described by Esterly et al,²⁷ can occur at any age but develop most frequently in adolescents or young adults. Sometimes the lesions are congenital or appear in childhood. There is no sex predilection. They can be sporadic or have an autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern.

Eruptive vellus hair cysts are asymptomatic, 1- to 2-mm, smooth, crusted, or umbilicated papules on the chest or arms and legs. Eruptive vellus hair cysts most commonly involve the anterior aspect of the chest. The lesions are flesh-colored to yellow, though they have a slate gray color in darker-skinned individuals. A rare facial variant has been reported in 2 patients of Asian descent.¹⁷

Eruptive vellus hair cysts are small cystic structures lined by a stratified squamous epithelium with a granular layer. The cyst cavity contains numerous small vellus hair shafts and laminated keratin. Eruptive vellus hair cysts originate from the infundibulum or less frequently the isthmus or infundibular-isthmic junction of the hair follicle.

Characteristics of Trichofolliculomas
Trichofolliculomas are solitary, 3- to 5-mm, flesh-colored papules that occur on the face. They are highly differentiated, benign, neoplastic proliferations of an actively trichogenic epithelium, with structural components reflecting all portions of the pilosebaceous unit. Trichofolliculomas consist of a central dilated primary follicle contiguous with the surface epidermis embedded in a fibrous stroma. Multiple small secondary follicles with varying degrees of follicular differentiation arise from the primary follicle.

Co-occurrence of Lesions
An association between SCM and EVHC has been recognized.^5-10 Steatocystoma multiplex and EVHC have similar clinical features but distinctive histologic features. They also have a similar age of onset, location/appearance of lesions, and mode of inheritance. Steatocystoma multiplex and EVHC can be distinguished by immunohistochemical techniques: SCM shows expression of keratin 10 and keratin 17, whereas EVHCs express only keratin 17.²⁸

Steatocystoma multiplex and EVHC have only rarely been reported to occur together on the trunk. One case of SCM and EVHC occurring on the forehead has been described.³ Other types of benign follicular neoplasms simultaneously developing in association with SCM or EVHC also are rare. Milia, SCM, and EVHC on the face and trunk have been reported in 1 family,⁴ and facial steatocystoma associated with a pilar cyst and bilateral preauricular sinus was reported in 1 patient.¹⁹ Although trichofolliculomas have not been reported to occur with SCM or EVHC, 2 related follicular neoplasms—trichoepitheliomas and trichoblastomas—have been reported to occur in association with SCM on the face and chest and around the ears in 1 case.¹⁸

Differential Diagnosis
The clinical differential diagnosis includes multiple epidermoid cysts, dermoid cysts, Gardner syndrome, sebaceous adenomas, Muir-Torre syndrome, syringomas, milia, leiomyomas, lipomas, acneiform folliculitis, multiple familial and nonfamilial trichoepitheliomas, cylindromas, and angiofibromas.^3,29

Conclusion

Our patient represents a rare case of simultaneous occurrence of SCM, EVHC, and trichofolliculomas localized to the forehead. The patient had multiple neoplasms involving differentiation toward various regions of the pilosebaceous unit. This case gives further support to the hypothesis that these benign follicular neoplasms are closely related but are distinct conditions within the spectrum of the same disease process. They represent nevoid malformations of the pilosebaceous unit that can be sporadic or inherited in an autosomal-dominant pattern. Pure types of these lesions may represent one end of the spectrum, but in some patients, there are overlapping features or hybrids of each condition. Several biopsies from patients with multiple lesions should be performed to establish an accurate diagnosis.

An association between steatocystoma multiplex (SCM) and eruptive vellus hair cysts (EVHCs) has been recognized. They are related conditions representing nevoid malformations of the pilosebaceous junctions^1-10 that have similar clinical features but distinctive histologic features. Both conditions most commonly involve the anterior aspect of the chest. Six cases of a rare facial variant of SCM have been reported,^11-16 3 involving lesions limited to the forehead.^13-15 Two patients with a rare facial variant of EVHC also have been reported.¹⁷ The development of separate lesions of SCM and EVHC on the trunk can uncommonly occur.^5,6,10 One case of SCM and EVHC on the forehead has been described.³ Other types of benign follicular neoplasms simultaneously developing in association with SCM or EVHC also are rare. The simultaneous occurrence of multiple trichoblastomas, trichoepitheliomas, and SCM on the face and trunk has been reported in 1 case.¹⁸ Milia, SCM, and EVHC on the face and trunk have been reported in 1 family.⁴ A report of facial steatocystoma associated with a pilar cyst and bilateral preauricular sinus also has occurred in 1 patient.¹⁹ Here, we report the simultaneous occurrence of SCM, EVHC, and trichofolliculomas localized to the forehead.

Case Report

A 37-year-old man had an increasing number of flesh-colored to yellow papules on the forehead that had been present since puberty. Although the lesions were asymptomatic, some had recently become tender, which led him to seek medical care. There was no history of trauma, burns, irradiation, or application of topical agents to the area or use of eyeglasses or goggles. The patient’s father had similar lesions limited to the forehead, which developed during adolescence.

On evaluation at our clinic, skin examination revealed 16 discrete, 0.3- to 1-cm, flesh-colored, yellow to blue, mobile, smooth papules, as well as flesh-colored papules with a central black punctum, on the forehead (Figure 1). Similar lesions were not present on the rest of the face; around the ears; or on the scalp, neck, chest, back, abdomen, genitalia, buttocks, palms, soles, axillae, arms, or legs. There were no nail abnormalities.

Multiple 3-, 4-, and 6-mm punch and excisional biopsies were performed to remove all 16 lesions on the forehead. Histologic examination revealed a collapsed cystic structure in the mid dermis in 10 lesions. The cysts were lined with a squamous epithelium without a granular layer but with an eosinophilic corrugated lining, and the cyst cavity contained scant homogeneous eosinophilic secretion. Mature sebaceous glands were adjacent to the outer portion of the cyst wall. These histologic findings were consistent with SCM (Figure 2).

In 3 lesions, histologic examination revealed a cystic structure lined by a few layers of stratified squamous epithelium in the mid dermis. The cyst cavity contained numerous small vellus hairs and laminated keratin. These histologic findings were consistent with EVHC (Figure 3).

In the other 3 lesions, histologic examination revealed a dilated central cystic cavity filled with laminated keratin in the mid dermis. Multiple small follicles arose from the cysts and showed differentiation toward germinative epithelium. The surrounding stroma was fibrotic and contained a patchy lymphocytic infiltrate. These histologic findings were consistent with trichofolliculomas (Figure 4).

Comment

Characteristics of SCM
Steatocystoma multiplex is an uncommon condition characterized by the formation of asymptomatic, 0.2- to 2-cm, yellow to flesh-colored, soft, mobile papules or nodules on the trunk, extremities, axillae, genitalia, and/or chest. The lesions contain a clear or opaque, oily, milky or yellow, odorless fluid and most commonly are located on the anterior aspect of the chest. The face is not a commonly involved site in this condition. Six cases of a rare facial variant of SCM have been reported,^11-16 with lesions limited to the forehead in 3 cases.^13-15

In 1937, Mount²⁰ credited Bozellini for describing the first case, though 3 cases reported in the late 1800s probably were SCM.²¹ In 1899, Pringle²² coined the term steatocystoma multiplex for this condition. It can be sporadic or have an autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern. Steatocystoma multiplex can occur at any age, though lesions develop most frequently in adolescence or young adulthood. There is no sex predilection.

Steatocystoma multiplex with pachyonychia congenita has been reported in a familial case.²³ Other findings reported in patients with SCM include ichthyosis, koilonychia, acrokeratosis verruciformis of Hopf and hypertrophic lichen planus, hidradenitis suppurativa, hypotrichosis, multiple keratoacanthomas, and rheumatoid arthritis.^12,24-26

Steatocystoma multiplex is a cyst lined by stratified squamous epithelium without a granular layer but with a thick eosinophilic cuticle. Mature sebaceous lobules are closely associated with the cyst wall. Steatocystoma multiplex arises from the sebaceous duct because the lining of the lumen is composed of undulating eosinophilic cuticle.

Characteristics of EVHCs
Eruptive vellus hair cysts, which were first described by Esterly et al,²⁷ can occur at any age but develop most frequently in adolescents or young adults. Sometimes the lesions are congenital or appear in childhood. There is no sex predilection. They can be sporadic or have an autosomal-dominant inheritance pattern.

Eruptive vellus hair cysts are asymptomatic, 1- to 2-mm, smooth, crusted, or umbilicated papules on the chest or arms and legs. Eruptive vellus hair cysts most commonly involve the anterior aspect of the chest. The lesions are flesh-colored to yellow, though they have a slate gray color in darker-skinned individuals. A rare facial variant has been reported in 2 patients of Asian descent.¹⁷

Eruptive vellus hair cysts are small cystic structures lined by a stratified squamous epithelium with a granular layer. The cyst cavity contains numerous small vellus hair shafts and laminated keratin. Eruptive vellus hair cysts originate from the infundibulum or less frequently the isthmus or infundibular-isthmic junction of the hair follicle.

Characteristics of Trichofolliculomas
Trichofolliculomas are solitary, 3- to 5-mm, flesh-colored papules that occur on the face. They are highly differentiated, benign, neoplastic proliferations of an actively trichogenic epithelium, with structural components reflecting all portions of the pilosebaceous unit. Trichofolliculomas consist of a central dilated primary follicle contiguous with the surface epidermis embedded in a fibrous stroma. Multiple small secondary follicles with varying degrees of follicular differentiation arise from the primary follicle.

Co-occurrence of Lesions
An association between SCM and EVHC has been recognized.^5-10 Steatocystoma multiplex and EVHC have similar clinical features but distinctive histologic features. They also have a similar age of onset, location/appearance of lesions, and mode of inheritance. Steatocystoma multiplex and EVHC can be distinguished by immunohistochemical techniques: SCM shows expression of keratin 10 and keratin 17, whereas EVHCs express only keratin 17.²⁸

Steatocystoma multiplex and EVHC have only rarely been reported to occur together on the trunk. One case of SCM and EVHC occurring on the forehead has been described.³ Other types of benign follicular neoplasms simultaneously developing in association with SCM or EVHC also are rare. Milia, SCM, and EVHC on the face and trunk have been reported in 1 family,⁴ and facial steatocystoma associated with a pilar cyst and bilateral preauricular sinus was reported in 1 patient.¹⁹ Although trichofolliculomas have not been reported to occur with SCM or EVHC, 2 related follicular neoplasms—trichoepitheliomas and trichoblastomas—have been reported to occur in association with SCM on the face and chest and around the ears in 1 case.¹⁸

Differential Diagnosis
The clinical differential diagnosis includes multiple epidermoid cysts, dermoid cysts, Gardner syndrome, sebaceous adenomas, Muir-Torre syndrome, syringomas, milia, leiomyomas, lipomas, acneiform folliculitis, multiple familial and nonfamilial trichoepitheliomas, cylindromas, and angiofibromas.^3,29

Conclusion

Our patient represents a rare case of simultaneous occurrence of SCM, EVHC, and trichofolliculomas localized to the forehead. The patient had multiple neoplasms involving differentiation toward various regions of the pilosebaceous unit. This case gives further support to the hypothesis that these benign follicular neoplasms are closely related but are distinct conditions within the spectrum of the same disease process. They represent nevoid malformations of the pilosebaceous unit that can be sporadic or inherited in an autosomal-dominant pattern. Pure types of these lesions may represent one end of the spectrum, but in some patients, there are overlapping features or hybrids of each condition. Several biopsies from patients with multiple lesions should be performed to establish an accurate diagnosis.

Granuloma faciale (GF) is a chronic benign leukocytoclastic vasculitis that can be difficult to treat. It is characterized by single or multiple, soft, well-circumscribed papules, plaques, or nodules ranging in color from red, violet, or yellow to brown that may darken with sun exposure.¹ Lesions usually are smooth with follicular orifices that are accentuated, thus producing a peau d’orange appearance. Lesions generally are slow to develop and asymptomatic, though some patients report pruritus or burning.^2,3 Diagnosis of GF is based on the presence of distinct histologic features. The epidermis usually is spared, with a prominent grenz zone of normal collagen separating the epidermis from a dense infiltrate of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and eosinophils. This mixed inflammatory infiltrate is seen mainly in the superficial dermis but occasionally spreads to the lower dermis and subcutaneous tissues.⁴

As the name implies, GF usually is confined to the face but occasionally involves extrafacial sites.^5-15 The clinical characteristics of these rare extrafacial lesions are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to identify the clinical and demographic features of extrafacial GF in patients treated at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) during a 54-year period.

Methods

This study was approved by the Mayo institutional review board. We searched the Mayo Clinic Rochester dermatology database for all patients with a diagnosis of GF from 1959 through 2013. All histopathology slides were reviewed by a board-certified dermatologist (A.G.B.) and dermatopathologist (A.G.B.) before inclusion in this study. Histologic criteria for diagnosis of GF included the presence of a mixed inflammatory infiltrate of neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes in the superficial or deep dermis; a prominent grenz zone separating the uninvolved epidermis; and the presence of vascular damage, as seen by fibrin deposition in dermal blood vessels.

Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics and for history pertinent to the diagnosis of GF, including sites involved, appearance, histopathology reports, symptoms, treatments, and outcomes.

Literature Search Strategy
A computerized Ovid MEDLINE database search was undertaken to identify English-language articles concerning GF in humans using the search terms granuloma faciale with extrafacial or disseminated. To ensure that no articles were overlooked, we conducted another search for English-language articles in the Embase database (1946-2013) using the terms granuloma faciale and extrafacial or disseminated.

Statistical Analysis
Descriptive clinical and histopathologic data were summarized using means, medians, and ranges or proportions as appropriate; statistical analysis was performed using SAS software (JMP package).

Results

Ninety-six patients with a diagnosis of GF were identified, and 12 (13%) had a diagnosis of extrafacial GF. Of them, 2 patients had a diagnosis of extrafacial GF supported only by histopathology slides without accompanying clinical records and therefore were excluded from the study. Thus, 10 cases of extrafacial GF were identified from our search and were included in the study group. Clinical data for these patients are summarized in Table 1. The mean age was 58.7 years (range, 26–87 years). Six (60%) patients were male, and all patients were white. Seven patients (70%) had facial GF in addition to extrafacial GF. Six patients reported no symptoms (60%), and 4 (40%) reported pruritus, discomfort, or both associated with their GF lesions.

Extrafacial GF was diagnosed in the following anatomic locations: scalp (n=3 [30%]), posterior auricular area (n=3 [30%]), mid upper back (n=1 [10%]), right shoulder (n=1 [10%]), both ears (n=1 [10%]), right elbow (n=1 [10%]), and left infra-auricular area (n=1 [10%]). Only 1 (10%) patient had multiple extrafacial sites identified.

The lesions were characterized clinically as violet, red, and yellow to brown smooth papules, plaques, and nodules (Figure 1). Biopsies from these lesions showed a subepidermal and adnexal grenz zone; a polymorphous perivascular and periadnexal dermal infiltrate composed of neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, histiocytes, and plasma cells; and a mild subtle leukocytoclastic vasculitis with subtle mild vascular necrosis (Figure 2).

For the 9 patients who elected to undergo GF treatment, the average number of treatments attempted was 2.8 (range, 1–5). The most common method of treatment was a combination of intralesional and topical corticosteroids (n=5 [50%]). Other methods included surgery (n=3 [30%]), dapsone (n=2 [20%]), radiation therapy (n=2 [20%]), cryosurgery (n=1 [10%]), nitrogen mustard (n=1 [10%]), liquid nitrogen (n=1 [10%]), and tar shampoo and fluocinolone acetonide solution 0.01% (n=1 [10%]).

Treatment outcomes were available for 8 of 9 treated patients. Three patients (patients 7, 8, and 10) had long-term successful resolution of their lesions. Patient 7 had an extrafacial lesion that was successfully treated with intralesional and topical corticosteroids, but the facial lesions recurred. The extrafacial GF lesion in patient 8 was found adjacent to a squamous cell carcinoma and was removed with a wide surgical excision that included both lesions. Patient 10 was successfully treated with a combination of liquid nitrogen and topical corticosteroid. Patients 2 and 4 were well controlled while on dapsone; however, once the treatment was discontinued, primarily due to adverse effects, the lesions returned.

Literature Search
Our search of the English-language literature identified 20 patients with extrafacial GF (Table 2). Fifteen (75%) patients were male, which was similar to our study (6/10 [60%]). Our patient population was slightly older with a mean age of 58.7 years compared to a median age of 54 years among those identified in the literature. Additionally, 3 (30%) patients in our study had no facial lesions, as seen in classic GF, which is comparable to 8 (40%) patients identified in the literature.

Comment

Extrafacial GF primarily affects white individuals and is more prevalent in men, as demonstrated in our study. Extrafacial GF was most often found in association with facial lesions, with only 3 patients having exclusively extrafacial sites.

Data from the current study indicate that diverse modalities were used to treat extrafacial GF with variable outcomes (chronic recurrence to complete resolution). The most common first-line treatment, intralesional corticosteroid injection, was used in 5 (50%) patients but resulted in only 1 (10%) successful resolution. Other methods frequently used in our study and prior studies were surgical excision, cryotherapy, electrosurgery, and dermabrasion.^1,20 These treatments do not appear to be uniformly definitive, and the ablative methods may result in scarring.¹ Different laser treatments are emerging for the management of GF lesions. Prior reports of treating facial GF with argon and CO₂ lasers have indicated minimized residual scarring and pigmentation.^21-23 The use of pulsed dye lasers has resulted in complete clearance of facial GF lesions, without recurrence on long-term follow-up.^20,24-26

The latest investigations of immunomodulatory drugs indicate these agents are promising for the management of facial GF. Eetam et al²⁷ reported the successful use of topical tacrolimus to treat facial GF. The relatively low cost and ease of use make these topical medications a competitive alternative to currently available surgical and laser methods. The appearance of all of these novel therapeutic modalities creates the necessity for a randomized trial to establish their efficacy on extrafacial GF lesions.

The wide array of treatments reflects the recalcitrant nature of extrafacial GF lesions. Further insight into the etiology of these lesions is needed to understand their tendency to recur. The important contribution of our study is the observed predilection of extrafacial GF for sun-exposed areas such as the scalp, upper trunk, and arms and legs. This pattern of extrafacial distribution along with the lack of mucosal involvement suggests a possible connection with UV light exposure. Furthermore, one of the extrafacial GF lesions in our study occurred in association with a squamous cell carcinoma, which may be an additional indication that these sites have been subjected to sun damage. This finding strengthens the importance of obtaining an adequate skin biopsy of any well-demarcated plaque or nodule found on the trunk, arms, and legs. The observed GF prevalence on sun-exposed areas and association with photoexacerbation have been speculated in prior studies, but no clear connection has been established.^1,28

Conclusion

The findings from this study and the cases reviewed in the literature provide a unique contribution to the understanding of the clinical and demographic characteristics of extrafacial GF. The rarity of this condition is the single most important constraint of our study, reflected in the emblematic limitations of a retrospective analysis in a select group of patients. The results of analysis of data from our patients were similar to the findings reported in the English-language medical literature. Serious consideration should be given to the development of a national registry for patients with GF. A database containing the clinicopathologic features, treatments, and outcomes for patients with both facial and extrafacial manifestations of GF may be invaluable in evaluating various treatment options and increasing understanding of the etiology and epidemiology of the disease.

Granuloma faciale (GF) is a chronic benign leukocytoclastic vasculitis that can be difficult to treat. It is characterized by single or multiple, soft, well-circumscribed papules, plaques, or nodules ranging in color from red, violet, or yellow to brown that may darken with sun exposure.¹ Lesions usually are smooth with follicular orifices that are accentuated, thus producing a peau d’orange appearance. Lesions generally are slow to develop and asymptomatic, though some patients report pruritus or burning.^2,3 Diagnosis of GF is based on the presence of distinct histologic features. The epidermis usually is spared, with a prominent grenz zone of normal collagen separating the epidermis from a dense infiltrate of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and eosinophils. This mixed inflammatory infiltrate is seen mainly in the superficial dermis but occasionally spreads to the lower dermis and subcutaneous tissues.⁴

As the name implies, GF usually is confined to the face but occasionally involves extrafacial sites.^5-15 The clinical characteristics of these rare extrafacial lesions are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to identify the clinical and demographic features of extrafacial GF in patients treated at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) during a 54-year period.

Methods

This study was approved by the Mayo institutional review board. We searched the Mayo Clinic Rochester dermatology database for all patients with a diagnosis of GF from 1959 through 2013. All histopathology slides were reviewed by a board-certified dermatologist (A.G.B.) and dermatopathologist (A.G.B.) before inclusion in this study. Histologic criteria for diagnosis of GF included the presence of a mixed inflammatory infiltrate of neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes in the superficial or deep dermis; a prominent grenz zone separating the uninvolved epidermis; and the presence of vascular damage, as seen by fibrin deposition in dermal blood vessels.

Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics and for history pertinent to the diagnosis of GF, including sites involved, appearance, histopathology reports, symptoms, treatments, and outcomes.

Literature Search Strategy
A computerized Ovid MEDLINE database search was undertaken to identify English-language articles concerning GF in humans using the search terms granuloma faciale with extrafacial or disseminated. To ensure that no articles were overlooked, we conducted another search for English-language articles in the Embase database (1946-2013) using the terms granuloma faciale and extrafacial or disseminated.

Statistical Analysis
Descriptive clinical and histopathologic data were summarized using means, medians, and ranges or proportions as appropriate; statistical analysis was performed using SAS software (JMP package).

Results

Ninety-six patients with a diagnosis of GF were identified, and 12 (13%) had a diagnosis of extrafacial GF. Of them, 2 patients had a diagnosis of extrafacial GF supported only by histopathology slides without accompanying clinical records and therefore were excluded from the study. Thus, 10 cases of extrafacial GF were identified from our search and were included in the study group. Clinical data for these patients are summarized in Table 1. The mean age was 58.7 years (range, 26–87 years). Six (60%) patients were male, and all patients were white. Seven patients (70%) had facial GF in addition to extrafacial GF. Six patients reported no symptoms (60%), and 4 (40%) reported pruritus, discomfort, or both associated with their GF lesions.

Extrafacial GF was diagnosed in the following anatomic locations: scalp (n=3 [30%]), posterior auricular area (n=3 [30%]), mid upper back (n=1 [10%]), right shoulder (n=1 [10%]), both ears (n=1 [10%]), right elbow (n=1 [10%]), and left infra-auricular area (n=1 [10%]). Only 1 (10%) patient had multiple extrafacial sites identified.

The lesions were characterized clinically as violet, red, and yellow to brown smooth papules, plaques, and nodules (Figure 1). Biopsies from these lesions showed a subepidermal and adnexal grenz zone; a polymorphous perivascular and periadnexal dermal infiltrate composed of neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, histiocytes, and plasma cells; and a mild subtle leukocytoclastic vasculitis with subtle mild vascular necrosis (Figure 2).

For the 9 patients who elected to undergo GF treatment, the average number of treatments attempted was 2.8 (range, 1–5). The most common method of treatment was a combination of intralesional and topical corticosteroids (n=5 [50%]). Other methods included surgery (n=3 [30%]), dapsone (n=2 [20%]), radiation therapy (n=2 [20%]), cryosurgery (n=1 [10%]), nitrogen mustard (n=1 [10%]), liquid nitrogen (n=1 [10%]), and tar shampoo and fluocinolone acetonide solution 0.01% (n=1 [10%]).

Treatment outcomes were available for 8 of 9 treated patients. Three patients (patients 7, 8, and 10) had long-term successful resolution of their lesions. Patient 7 had an extrafacial lesion that was successfully treated with intralesional and topical corticosteroids, but the facial lesions recurred. The extrafacial GF lesion in patient 8 was found adjacent to a squamous cell carcinoma and was removed with a wide surgical excision that included both lesions. Patient 10 was successfully treated with a combination of liquid nitrogen and topical corticosteroid. Patients 2 and 4 were well controlled while on dapsone; however, once the treatment was discontinued, primarily due to adverse effects, the lesions returned.

Literature Search
Our search of the English-language literature identified 20 patients with extrafacial GF (Table 2). Fifteen (75%) patients were male, which was similar to our study (6/10 [60%]). Our patient population was slightly older with a mean age of 58.7 years compared to a median age of 54 years among those identified in the literature. Additionally, 3 (30%) patients in our study had no facial lesions, as seen in classic GF, which is comparable to 8 (40%) patients identified in the literature.

Comment

Extrafacial GF primarily affects white individuals and is more prevalent in men, as demonstrated in our study. Extrafacial GF was most often found in association with facial lesions, with only 3 patients having exclusively extrafacial sites.

Data from the current study indicate that diverse modalities were used to treat extrafacial GF with variable outcomes (chronic recurrence to complete resolution). The most common first-line treatment, intralesional corticosteroid injection, was used in 5 (50%) patients but resulted in only 1 (10%) successful resolution. Other methods frequently used in our study and prior studies were surgical excision, cryotherapy, electrosurgery, and dermabrasion.^1,20 These treatments do not appear to be uniformly definitive, and the ablative methods may result in scarring.¹ Different laser treatments are emerging for the management of GF lesions. Prior reports of treating facial GF with argon and CO₂ lasers have indicated minimized residual scarring and pigmentation.^21-23 The use of pulsed dye lasers has resulted in complete clearance of facial GF lesions, without recurrence on long-term follow-up.^20,24-26

The latest investigations of immunomodulatory drugs indicate these agents are promising for the management of facial GF. Eetam et al²⁷ reported the successful use of topical tacrolimus to treat facial GF. The relatively low cost and ease of use make these topical medications a competitive alternative to currently available surgical and laser methods. The appearance of all of these novel therapeutic modalities creates the necessity for a randomized trial to establish their efficacy on extrafacial GF lesions.

The wide array of treatments reflects the recalcitrant nature of extrafacial GF lesions. Further insight into the etiology of these lesions is needed to understand their tendency to recur. The important contribution of our study is the observed predilection of extrafacial GF for sun-exposed areas such as the scalp, upper trunk, and arms and legs. This pattern of extrafacial distribution along with the lack of mucosal involvement suggests a possible connection with UV light exposure. Furthermore, one of the extrafacial GF lesions in our study occurred in association with a squamous cell carcinoma, which may be an additional indication that these sites have been subjected to sun damage. This finding strengthens the importance of obtaining an adequate skin biopsy of any well-demarcated plaque or nodule found on the trunk, arms, and legs. The observed GF prevalence on sun-exposed areas and association with photoexacerbation have been speculated in prior studies, but no clear connection has been established.^1,28

Conclusion

The findings from this study and the cases reviewed in the literature provide a unique contribution to the understanding of the clinical and demographic characteristics of extrafacial GF. The rarity of this condition is the single most important constraint of our study, reflected in the emblematic limitations of a retrospective analysis in a select group of patients. The results of analysis of data from our patients were similar to the findings reported in the English-language medical literature. Serious consideration should be given to the development of a national registry for patients with GF. A database containing the clinicopathologic features, treatments, and outcomes for patients with both facial and extrafacial manifestations of GF may be invaluable in evaluating various treatment options and increasing understanding of the etiology and epidemiology of the disease.

Granuloma faciale (GF) is a chronic benign leukocytoclastic vasculitis that can be difficult to treat. It is characterized by single or multiple, soft, well-circumscribed papules, plaques, or nodules ranging in color from red, violet, or yellow to brown that may darken with sun exposure.¹ Lesions usually are smooth with follicular orifices that are accentuated, thus producing a peau d’orange appearance. Lesions generally are slow to develop and asymptomatic, though some patients report pruritus or burning.^2,3 Diagnosis of GF is based on the presence of distinct histologic features. The epidermis usually is spared, with a prominent grenz zone of normal collagen separating the epidermis from a dense infiltrate of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and eosinophils. This mixed inflammatory infiltrate is seen mainly in the superficial dermis but occasionally spreads to the lower dermis and subcutaneous tissues.⁴

As the name implies, GF usually is confined to the face but occasionally involves extrafacial sites.^5-15 The clinical characteristics of these rare extrafacial lesions are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to identify the clinical and demographic features of extrafacial GF in patients treated at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) during a 54-year period.

Methods

This study was approved by the Mayo institutional review board. We searched the Mayo Clinic Rochester dermatology database for all patients with a diagnosis of GF from 1959 through 2013. All histopathology slides were reviewed by a board-certified dermatologist (A.G.B.) and dermatopathologist (A.G.B.) before inclusion in this study. Histologic criteria for diagnosis of GF included the presence of a mixed inflammatory infiltrate of neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, and histiocytes in the superficial or deep dermis; a prominent grenz zone separating the uninvolved epidermis; and the presence of vascular damage, as seen by fibrin deposition in dermal blood vessels.

Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics and for history pertinent to the diagnosis of GF, including sites involved, appearance, histopathology reports, symptoms, treatments, and outcomes.

Literature Search Strategy
A computerized Ovid MEDLINE database search was undertaken to identify English-language articles concerning GF in humans using the search terms granuloma faciale with extrafacial or disseminated. To ensure that no articles were overlooked, we conducted another search for English-language articles in the Embase database (1946-2013) using the terms granuloma faciale and extrafacial or disseminated.

Statistical Analysis
Descriptive clinical and histopathologic data were summarized using means, medians, and ranges or proportions as appropriate; statistical analysis was performed using SAS software (JMP package).

Results

Ninety-six patients with a diagnosis of GF were identified, and 12 (13%) had a diagnosis of extrafacial GF. Of them, 2 patients had a diagnosis of extrafacial GF supported only by histopathology slides without accompanying clinical records and therefore were excluded from the study. Thus, 10 cases of extrafacial GF were identified from our search and were included in the study group. Clinical data for these patients are summarized in Table 1. The mean age was 58.7 years (range, 26–87 years). Six (60%) patients were male, and all patients were white. Seven patients (70%) had facial GF in addition to extrafacial GF. Six patients reported no symptoms (60%), and 4 (40%) reported pruritus, discomfort, or both associated with their GF lesions.

Extrafacial GF was diagnosed in the following anatomic locations: scalp (n=3 [30%]), posterior auricular area (n=3 [30%]), mid upper back (n=1 [10%]), right shoulder (n=1 [10%]), both ears (n=1 [10%]), right elbow (n=1 [10%]), and left infra-auricular area (n=1 [10%]). Only 1 (10%) patient had multiple extrafacial sites identified.

The lesions were characterized clinically as violet, red, and yellow to brown smooth papules, plaques, and nodules (Figure 1). Biopsies from these lesions showed a subepidermal and adnexal grenz zone; a polymorphous perivascular and periadnexal dermal infiltrate composed of neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, histiocytes, and plasma cells; and a mild subtle leukocytoclastic vasculitis with subtle mild vascular necrosis (Figure 2).

For the 9 patients who elected to undergo GF treatment, the average number of treatments attempted was 2.8 (range, 1–5). The most common method of treatment was a combination of intralesional and topical corticosteroids (n=5 [50%]). Other methods included surgery (n=3 [30%]), dapsone (n=2 [20%]), radiation therapy (n=2 [20%]), cryosurgery (n=1 [10%]), nitrogen mustard (n=1 [10%]), liquid nitrogen (n=1 [10%]), and tar shampoo and fluocinolone acetonide solution 0.01% (n=1 [10%]).

Treatment outcomes were available for 8 of 9 treated patients. Three patients (patients 7, 8, and 10) had long-term successful resolution of their lesions. Patient 7 had an extrafacial lesion that was successfully treated with intralesional and topical corticosteroids, but the facial lesions recurred. The extrafacial GF lesion in patient 8 was found adjacent to a squamous cell carcinoma and was removed with a wide surgical excision that included both lesions. Patient 10 was successfully treated with a combination of liquid nitrogen and topical corticosteroid. Patients 2 and 4 were well controlled while on dapsone; however, once the treatment was discontinued, primarily due to adverse effects, the lesions returned.

Literature Search
Our search of the English-language literature identified 20 patients with extrafacial GF (Table 2). Fifteen (75%) patients were male, which was similar to our study (6/10 [60%]). Our patient population was slightly older with a mean age of 58.7 years compared to a median age of 54 years among those identified in the literature. Additionally, 3 (30%) patients in our study had no facial lesions, as seen in classic GF, which is comparable to 8 (40%) patients identified in the literature.

Comment

Extrafacial GF primarily affects white individuals and is more prevalent in men, as demonstrated in our study. Extrafacial GF was most often found in association with facial lesions, with only 3 patients having exclusively extrafacial sites.

Data from the current study indicate that diverse modalities were used to treat extrafacial GF with variable outcomes (chronic recurrence to complete resolution). The most common first-line treatment, intralesional corticosteroid injection, was used in 5 (50%) patients but resulted in only 1 (10%) successful resolution. Other methods frequently used in our study and prior studies were surgical excision, cryotherapy, electrosurgery, and dermabrasion.^1,20 These treatments do not appear to be uniformly definitive, and the ablative methods may result in scarring.¹ Different laser treatments are emerging for the management of GF lesions. Prior reports of treating facial GF with argon and CO₂ lasers have indicated minimized residual scarring and pigmentation.^21-23 The use of pulsed dye lasers has resulted in complete clearance of facial GF lesions, without recurrence on long-term follow-up.^20,24-26

The latest investigations of immunomodulatory drugs indicate these agents are promising for the management of facial GF. Eetam et al²⁷ reported the successful use of topical tacrolimus to treat facial GF. The relatively low cost and ease of use make these topical medications a competitive alternative to currently available surgical and laser methods. The appearance of all of these novel therapeutic modalities creates the necessity for a randomized trial to establish their efficacy on extrafacial GF lesions.

The wide array of treatments reflects the recalcitrant nature of extrafacial GF lesions. Further insight into the etiology of these lesions is needed to understand their tendency to recur. The important contribution of our study is the observed predilection of extrafacial GF for sun-exposed areas such as the scalp, upper trunk, and arms and legs. This pattern of extrafacial distribution along with the lack of mucosal involvement suggests a possible connection with UV light exposure. Furthermore, one of the extrafacial GF lesions in our study occurred in association with a squamous cell carcinoma, which may be an additional indication that these sites have been subjected to sun damage. This finding strengthens the importance of obtaining an adequate skin biopsy of any well-demarcated plaque or nodule found on the trunk, arms, and legs. The observed GF prevalence on sun-exposed areas and association with photoexacerbation have been speculated in prior studies, but no clear connection has been established.^1,28

Conclusion

The findings from this study and the cases reviewed in the literature provide a unique contribution to the understanding of the clinical and demographic characteristics of extrafacial GF. The rarity of this condition is the single most important constraint of our study, reflected in the emblematic limitations of a retrospective analysis in a select group of patients. The results of analysis of data from our patients were similar to the findings reported in the English-language medical literature. Serious consideration should be given to the development of a national registry for patients with GF. A database containing the clinicopathologic features, treatments, and outcomes for patients with both facial and extrafacial manifestations of GF may be invaluable in evaluating various treatment options and increasing understanding of the etiology and epidemiology of the disease.

Case Report

A 37-year-old woman was admitted to the intensive care unit secondary to the acute development of an erythematous rash with tissue sloughing that involved acral sites and mucosal surfaces. Her medical history was notable for anti-Ro/Sjögren syndrome antigen A (SS-A)–positive lupus erythematosus (LE) with a morphologic semblance to subacute cutaneous LE (SCLE). Prior treatment had included oral corticosteroids. In addition, she reported a concurrent history of acral and mucosal lesions that appeared to flare with her lupus. The nature of these lesions was not clear to the patient or her physicians. Before this particular episode, her primary care physician had attempted to wean her off of the corticosteroids. As she dropped below 20 mg of prednisone daily, new lesions developed. The patient stated that her social situation was poor and that these lesions did seem to develop more frequently during times of physical and emotional stress. She recounted her first episode developing during her second pregnancy. Oral prednisone and over-the-counter calcium with vitamin D were her only reported medications. She denied the use of any other medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and recent antibiotic therapy.

Dermatology was called in for consultation, and physical examination revealed areas of epidermal sloughing on the hands and feet. Complete clinical exposure of the underlying dermis was noted with remarkable tenderness. These lesions were noted to be in various stages of healing (Figure 1). Figure 2 displays a lesion in early development. The mucosal surfaces of the lips and eyes demonstrated hemorrhagic crusting, and some tissue sloughing was noted on the ears. A widespread erythematous exanthema with fine scaling was noted on the face, neck, chest, back, abdomen, arms, and legs (Figure 3).

Laboratory evaluation revealed positive antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), anti-Ro/SS-A antibodies, anti-La/Sjögren syndrome antigen B (SS-B) antibodies, and anti–double-stranded DNA. The hemoglobin level was 9.4 g/dL (reference range, 12–15 g/dL) and hematocrit was 28.8% (reference range, 36%–47%). The mean corpuscular hemoglobin level was 32 pg/cell (reference range, 27–31 pg/cell), and the mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration was 32.5 g/dL (reference range, 30–35 g/dL). Rheumatoid factor (RF) and herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2 IgM were all found to be negative.

A deep shave biopsy obtained from the patient’s right knee revealed an atrophic interface dermatitis associated with a lymphocytic eccrine hidradenitis accompanied by abundant mesenchymal mucin deposition (Figure 4). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) from the same area demonstrated IgG and IgM along the dermoepidermal junction with some granular deposition. Frozen sections performed on acral lesions demonstrated epidermal necrosis (Figure 5). Direct immunofluorescence of acral lesions was negative. In light of these findings, a diagnosis of Rowell syndrome (RS) was suspected to be the most likely explanation for the presentation.

Intravenous corticosteroids and antibiotics were administered, and over a 2-week hospitalization, the lesions on the feet and hands slowly reepithelialized. Physical therapy was required to aid in ambulation. The patient was discharged on a tapering course of oral prednisone and hydroxychloroquine. After 6 months of therapy with hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily, the patient continued to experience recurrent bouts of acral lesions, and pulse doses of oral prednisone were required. The lesions currently are controlled with azathioprine 50 mg twice daily and prednisone 10 mg by mouth daily.

Comment

The 4 prototypical patients identified by Rowell et al¹ in 1963 in the first account of the eponymous syndrome were all females with discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) and perniosis. In addition, they all displayed positive RF and saline extract of human tissue antibodies (analogous to anti-Ro/SS-A and anti-La/SS-B).² Since then, at least 132 patients with clinical symptoms suspicious of RS have been identified with variations on these original criteria.³ The reported permutations of the lupus component of the disease include cutaneous LE (CLE), bullous systemic LE, necrotic lesions associated with antiphospholipid syndrome, annular/polycyclic SCLE, systemic LE (SLE) without CLE, SLE with lupus nephritis, SLE with pericarditis, SLE with systemic vasculitis, Sjögren syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and necrotizing lymphadenitis.² In addition, variations of the erythema multiforme (EM)–like lesions found in reported cases include changes to their gross appearance (flat vs raised), location (acral or mucosal involvement), and resemblance to other conditions (Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis).^2,3 From this information alone, it is clear that, as further cases have been chronicled, defining exact criteria for the disease has been challenging.

The essential question concerning the existence of RS hinges on the strength of its distinctiveness: Is it a unique disorder or merely another variant of lupus? Antiga et al² concluded that it should be characterized as a variant of SCLE. Lee at al⁴ agreed, stating that “[i]n view of the lack of specific features that distinguish RS from LE, Kuhn et al⁵ suggested that [RS] is probably not a distinct entity and is now widely considered to be a variant of SCLE.” One of the primary contributors to this conclusion is that the laboratory findings of reported patients with SCLE have more closely mirrored the original cases from Rowell et al’s¹ report than those of typical LE. Patients with SCLE have demonstrated positive ANA antibodies in 60% to 80% of cases, positive anti-Ro/SS-A antibodies in 40% to 100% of cases, positive anti-La/SS-B antibodies in 12% to 42% of cases, positive anti–double-stranded DNA in 1.2% to 10% of cases, and positive RF antibodies in 33% of cases.² An argument could certainly be made to ascribe our patient’s condition to an SCLE variant, as 4 of 5 preceding laboratory findings were found to be positive; however, the majority of reported cases of SCLE have been linked to drugs (ie, hydrochlorothiazide, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, terbinafine),² which has not commonly been the attributable etiology of other cases of RS, including the 4 cases reported by Rowell et al.¹

In a review of the literature on RS since 2010 in addition to their report of 132 new cases, Torchia et al³ outlined a set of diagnostic standards for the condition consisting of major and minor criteria. According to the authors, if all 4 major and 1 minor criteria are met, the patient meets the standards for true RS. The major criteria include the following: (1) presence of chronic CLE [DLE and/or chilblain]; (2) presence of EM-like lesions [typical or atypical targets]; (3) at least 1 positivity among speckled ANA, anti-Ro/SS-A, and anti-La/SS-B antibodies; and (4) negative DIF on lesional EM-like targetoid lesions. The minor criteria include the following: (1) absence of infectious or pharmacologic triggers; (2) absence of typical EM location (acral and mucosal); and (3) presence of at least 1 additional American College of Rheumatology criterion for diagnosis of SLE⁸ besides discoid rash and positive ANA antibodies and excluding photosensitivity, malar rash, and oral ulcers. Using these criteria, the patient in our case met the standards for diagnosis of RS.

One area of disagreement that has been encountered in the literature is the exact histologic determination of true RS, specifically related to the microscopic findings of the EM-like lesions. Two cases presented by Modi et al⁶ were interpreted under the stipulation that true RS must contain histologic LE and histologic EM. Because the EM-appearing lesions revealed LE histology, the cases were concluded to be variants of LE. These cases are similar to our case in that the EM-like lesions in our patient demonstrated LE pathology. Torchia et al,³ as demonstrated in the above criteria, seemed to be less concerned about the histology of the EM-like lesions, only requiring them to show negative DIF.

Conclusion

In the search for answers concerning RS, many unanswered questions remain: Where should the line be drawn in the inclusion of so many variations of both the LE and EM components of the condition? Also, should these elements even be approached as distinct components in the first place? Viewing the majority of RS cases as simply simultaneous LE and EM, Shteyngarts et al⁷ concluded that “the concomitant occurrence of EM with LE did not change the course, therapy, or prognosis of either disease. SLE and DLE can coexist with EM, but the coexistence does not impart any unusual characteristic to either illness. Rowell’s syndrome is not reproducible, and the immunologic disturbances in such patients are probably coincidental.”

If the condition is a genuine pathological individuality, should we not view the seemingly separate LE and EM as the product of a single underlying biochemical process? These questions and others in the search for a true definition of the disease should continue to be debated. It is clear that further investigation is warranted in the understanding of the underlying mechanism of the pathology.

Case Report

A 37-year-old woman was admitted to the intensive care unit secondary to the acute development of an erythematous rash with tissue sloughing that involved acral sites and mucosal surfaces. Her medical history was notable for anti-Ro/Sjögren syndrome antigen A (SS-A)–positive lupus erythematosus (LE) with a morphologic semblance to subacute cutaneous LE (SCLE). Prior treatment had included oral corticosteroids. In addition, she reported a concurrent history of acral and mucosal lesions that appeared to flare with her lupus. The nature of these lesions was not clear to the patient or her physicians. Before this particular episode, her primary care physician had attempted to wean her off of the corticosteroids. As she dropped below 20 mg of prednisone daily, new lesions developed. The patient stated that her social situation was poor and that these lesions did seem to develop more frequently during times of physical and emotional stress. She recounted her first episode developing during her second pregnancy. Oral prednisone and over-the-counter calcium with vitamin D were her only reported medications. She denied the use of any other medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and recent antibiotic therapy.

Dermatology was called in for consultation, and physical examination revealed areas of epidermal sloughing on the hands and feet. Complete clinical exposure of the underlying dermis was noted with remarkable tenderness. These lesions were noted to be in various stages of healing (Figure 1). Figure 2 displays a lesion in early development. The mucosal surfaces of the lips and eyes demonstrated hemorrhagic crusting, and some tissue sloughing was noted on the ears. A widespread erythematous exanthema with fine scaling was noted on the face, neck, chest, back, abdomen, arms, and legs (Figure 3).

Laboratory evaluation revealed positive antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), anti-Ro/SS-A antibodies, anti-La/Sjögren syndrome antigen B (SS-B) antibodies, and anti–double-stranded DNA. The hemoglobin level was 9.4 g/dL (reference range, 12–15 g/dL) and hematocrit was 28.8% (reference range, 36%–47%). The mean corpuscular hemoglobin level was 32 pg/cell (reference range, 27–31 pg/cell), and the mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration was 32.5 g/dL (reference range, 30–35 g/dL). Rheumatoid factor (RF) and herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2 IgM were all found to be negative.

A deep shave biopsy obtained from the patient’s right knee revealed an atrophic interface dermatitis associated with a lymphocytic eccrine hidradenitis accompanied by abundant mesenchymal mucin deposition (Figure 4). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) from the same area demonstrated IgG and IgM along the dermoepidermal junction with some granular deposition. Frozen sections performed on acral lesions demonstrated epidermal necrosis (Figure 5). Direct immunofluorescence of acral lesions was negative. In light of these findings, a diagnosis of Rowell syndrome (RS) was suspected to be the most likely explanation for the presentation.

Intravenous corticosteroids and antibiotics were administered, and over a 2-week hospitalization, the lesions on the feet and hands slowly reepithelialized. Physical therapy was required to aid in ambulation. The patient was discharged on a tapering course of oral prednisone and hydroxychloroquine. After 6 months of therapy with hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily, the patient continued to experience recurrent bouts of acral lesions, and pulse doses of oral prednisone were required. The lesions currently are controlled with azathioprine 50 mg twice daily and prednisone 10 mg by mouth daily.

Comment

The 4 prototypical patients identified by Rowell et al¹ in 1963 in the first account of the eponymous syndrome were all females with discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) and perniosis. In addition, they all displayed positive RF and saline extract of human tissue antibodies (analogous to anti-Ro/SS-A and anti-La/SS-B).² Since then, at least 132 patients with clinical symptoms suspicious of RS have been identified with variations on these original criteria.³ The reported permutations of the lupus component of the disease include cutaneous LE (CLE), bullous systemic LE, necrotic lesions associated with antiphospholipid syndrome, annular/polycyclic SCLE, systemic LE (SLE) without CLE, SLE with lupus nephritis, SLE with pericarditis, SLE with systemic vasculitis, Sjögren syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and necrotizing lymphadenitis.² In addition, variations of the erythema multiforme (EM)–like lesions found in reported cases include changes to their gross appearance (flat vs raised), location (acral or mucosal involvement), and resemblance to other conditions (Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis).^2,3 From this information alone, it is clear that, as further cases have been chronicled, defining exact criteria for the disease has been challenging.

The essential question concerning the existence of RS hinges on the strength of its distinctiveness: Is it a unique disorder or merely another variant of lupus? Antiga et al² concluded that it should be characterized as a variant of SCLE. Lee at al⁴ agreed, stating that “[i]n view of the lack of specific features that distinguish RS from LE, Kuhn et al⁵ suggested that [RS] is probably not a distinct entity and is now widely considered to be a variant of SCLE.” One of the primary contributors to this conclusion is that the laboratory findings of reported patients with SCLE have more closely mirrored the original cases from Rowell et al’s¹ report than those of typical LE. Patients with SCLE have demonstrated positive ANA antibodies in 60% to 80% of cases, positive anti-Ro/SS-A antibodies in 40% to 100% of cases, positive anti-La/SS-B antibodies in 12% to 42% of cases, positive anti–double-stranded DNA in 1.2% to 10% of cases, and positive RF antibodies in 33% of cases.² An argument could certainly be made to ascribe our patient’s condition to an SCLE variant, as 4 of 5 preceding laboratory findings were found to be positive; however, the majority of reported cases of SCLE have been linked to drugs (ie, hydrochlorothiazide, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, terbinafine),² which has not commonly been the attributable etiology of other cases of RS, including the 4 cases reported by Rowell et al.¹

In a review of the literature on RS since 2010 in addition to their report of 132 new cases, Torchia et al³ outlined a set of diagnostic standards for the condition consisting of major and minor criteria. According to the authors, if all 4 major and 1 minor criteria are met, the patient meets the standards for true RS. The major criteria include the following: (1) presence of chronic CLE [DLE and/or chilblain]; (2) presence of EM-like lesions [typical or atypical targets]; (3) at least 1 positivity among speckled ANA, anti-Ro/SS-A, and anti-La/SS-B antibodies; and (4) negative DIF on lesional EM-like targetoid lesions. The minor criteria include the following: (1) absence of infectious or pharmacologic triggers; (2) absence of typical EM location (acral and mucosal); and (3) presence of at least 1 additional American College of Rheumatology criterion for diagnosis of SLE⁸ besides discoid rash and positive ANA antibodies and excluding photosensitivity, malar rash, and oral ulcers. Using these criteria, the patient in our case met the standards for diagnosis of RS.

One area of disagreement that has been encountered in the literature is the exact histologic determination of true RS, specifically related to the microscopic findings of the EM-like lesions. Two cases presented by Modi et al⁶ were interpreted under the stipulation that true RS must contain histologic LE and histologic EM. Because the EM-appearing lesions revealed LE histology, the cases were concluded to be variants of LE. These cases are similar to our case in that the EM-like lesions in our patient demonstrated LE pathology. Torchia et al,³ as demonstrated in the above criteria, seemed to be less concerned about the histology of the EM-like lesions, only requiring them to show negative DIF.

Conclusion

In the search for answers concerning RS, many unanswered questions remain: Where should the line be drawn in the inclusion of so many variations of both the LE and EM components of the condition? Also, should these elements even be approached as distinct components in the first place? Viewing the majority of RS cases as simply simultaneous LE and EM, Shteyngarts et al⁷ concluded that “the concomitant occurrence of EM with LE did not change the course, therapy, or prognosis of either disease. SLE and DLE can coexist with EM, but the coexistence does not impart any unusual characteristic to either illness. Rowell’s syndrome is not reproducible, and the immunologic disturbances in such patients are probably coincidental.”

If the condition is a genuine pathological individuality, should we not view the seemingly separate LE and EM as the product of a single underlying biochemical process? These questions and others in the search for a true definition of the disease should continue to be debated. It is clear that further investigation is warranted in the understanding of the underlying mechanism of the pathology.

Case Report

A 37-year-old woman was admitted to the intensive care unit secondary to the acute development of an erythematous rash with tissue sloughing that involved acral sites and mucosal surfaces. Her medical history was notable for anti-Ro/Sjögren syndrome antigen A (SS-A)–positive lupus erythematosus (LE) with a morphologic semblance to subacute cutaneous LE (SCLE). Prior treatment had included oral corticosteroids. In addition, she reported a concurrent history of acral and mucosal lesions that appeared to flare with her lupus. The nature of these lesions was not clear to the patient or her physicians. Before this particular episode, her primary care physician had attempted to wean her off of the corticosteroids. As she dropped below 20 mg of prednisone daily, new lesions developed. The patient stated that her social situation was poor and that these lesions did seem to develop more frequently during times of physical and emotional stress. She recounted her first episode developing during her second pregnancy. Oral prednisone and over-the-counter calcium with vitamin D were her only reported medications. She denied the use of any other medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and recent antibiotic therapy.

Dermatology was called in for consultation, and physical examination revealed areas of epidermal sloughing on the hands and feet. Complete clinical exposure of the underlying dermis was noted with remarkable tenderness. These lesions were noted to be in various stages of healing (Figure 1). Figure 2 displays a lesion in early development. The mucosal surfaces of the lips and eyes demonstrated hemorrhagic crusting, and some tissue sloughing was noted on the ears. A widespread erythematous exanthema with fine scaling was noted on the face, neck, chest, back, abdomen, arms, and legs (Figure 3).

Laboratory evaluation revealed positive antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), anti-Ro/SS-A antibodies, anti-La/Sjögren syndrome antigen B (SS-B) antibodies, and anti–double-stranded DNA. The hemoglobin level was 9.4 g/dL (reference range, 12–15 g/dL) and hematocrit was 28.8% (reference range, 36%–47%). The mean corpuscular hemoglobin level was 32 pg/cell (reference range, 27–31 pg/cell), and the mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration was 32.5 g/dL (reference range, 30–35 g/dL). Rheumatoid factor (RF) and herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2 IgM were all found to be negative.

A deep shave biopsy obtained from the patient’s right knee revealed an atrophic interface dermatitis associated with a lymphocytic eccrine hidradenitis accompanied by abundant mesenchymal mucin deposition (Figure 4). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) from the same area demonstrated IgG and IgM along the dermoepidermal junction with some granular deposition. Frozen sections performed on acral lesions demonstrated epidermal necrosis (Figure 5). Direct immunofluorescence of acral lesions was negative. In light of these findings, a diagnosis of Rowell syndrome (RS) was suspected to be the most likely explanation for the presentation.

Intravenous corticosteroids and antibiotics were administered, and over a 2-week hospitalization, the lesions on the feet and hands slowly reepithelialized. Physical therapy was required to aid in ambulation. The patient was discharged on a tapering course of oral prednisone and hydroxychloroquine. After 6 months of therapy with hydroxychloroquine 200 mg twice daily, the patient continued to experience recurrent bouts of acral lesions, and pulse doses of oral prednisone were required. The lesions currently are controlled with azathioprine 50 mg twice daily and prednisone 10 mg by mouth daily.

Comment

The 4 prototypical patients identified by Rowell et al¹ in 1963 in the first account of the eponymous syndrome were all females with discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) and perniosis. In addition, they all displayed positive RF and saline extract of human tissue antibodies (analogous to anti-Ro/SS-A and anti-La/SS-B).² Since then, at least 132 patients with clinical symptoms suspicious of RS have been identified with variations on these original criteria.³ The reported permutations of the lupus component of the disease include cutaneous LE (CLE), bullous systemic LE, necrotic lesions associated with antiphospholipid syndrome, annular/polycyclic SCLE, systemic LE (SLE) without CLE, SLE with lupus nephritis, SLE with pericarditis, SLE with systemic vasculitis, Sjögren syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and necrotizing lymphadenitis.² In addition, variations of the erythema multiforme (EM)–like lesions found in reported cases include changes to their gross appearance (flat vs raised), location (acral or mucosal involvement), and resemblance to other conditions (Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis).^2,3 From this information alone, it is clear that, as further cases have been chronicled, defining exact criteria for the disease has been challenging.

The essential question concerning the existence of RS hinges on the strength of its distinctiveness: Is it a unique disorder or merely another variant of lupus? Antiga et al² concluded that it should be characterized as a variant of SCLE. Lee at al⁴ agreed, stating that “[i]n view of the lack of specific features that distinguish RS from LE, Kuhn et al⁵ suggested that [RS] is probably not a distinct entity and is now widely considered to be a variant of SCLE.” One of the primary contributors to this conclusion is that the laboratory findings of reported patients with SCLE have more closely mirrored the original cases from Rowell et al’s¹ report than those of typical LE. Patients with SCLE have demonstrated positive ANA antibodies in 60% to 80% of cases, positive anti-Ro/SS-A antibodies in 40% to 100% of cases, positive anti-La/SS-B antibodies in 12% to 42% of cases, positive anti–double-stranded DNA in 1.2% to 10% of cases, and positive RF antibodies in 33% of cases.² An argument could certainly be made to ascribe our patient’s condition to an SCLE variant, as 4 of 5 preceding laboratory findings were found to be positive; however, the majority of reported cases of SCLE have been linked to drugs (ie, hydrochlorothiazide, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, terbinafine),² which has not commonly been the attributable etiology of other cases of RS, including the 4 cases reported by Rowell et al.¹

In a review of the literature on RS since 2010 in addition to their report of 132 new cases, Torchia et al³ outlined a set of diagnostic standards for the condition consisting of major and minor criteria. According to the authors, if all 4 major and 1 minor criteria are met, the patient meets the standards for true RS. The major criteria include the following: (1) presence of chronic CLE [DLE and/or chilblain]; (2) presence of EM-like lesions [typical or atypical targets]; (3) at least 1 positivity among speckled ANA, anti-Ro/SS-A, and anti-La/SS-B antibodies; and (4) negative DIF on lesional EM-like targetoid lesions. The minor criteria include the following: (1) absence of infectious or pharmacologic triggers; (2) absence of typical EM location (acral and mucosal); and (3) presence of at least 1 additional American College of Rheumatology criterion for diagnosis of SLE⁸ besides discoid rash and positive ANA antibodies and excluding photosensitivity, malar rash, and oral ulcers. Using these criteria, the patient in our case met the standards for diagnosis of RS.

One area of disagreement that has been encountered in the literature is the exact histologic determination of true RS, specifically related to the microscopic findings of the EM-like lesions. Two cases presented by Modi et al⁶ were interpreted under the stipulation that true RS must contain histologic LE and histologic EM. Because the EM-appearing lesions revealed LE histology, the cases were concluded to be variants of LE. These cases are similar to our case in that the EM-like lesions in our patient demonstrated LE pathology. Torchia et al,³ as demonstrated in the above criteria, seemed to be less concerned about the histology of the EM-like lesions, only requiring them to show negative DIF.

Conclusion

In the search for answers concerning RS, many unanswered questions remain: Where should the line be drawn in the inclusion of so many variations of both the LE and EM components of the condition? Also, should these elements even be approached as distinct components in the first place? Viewing the majority of RS cases as simply simultaneous LE and EM, Shteyngarts et al⁷ concluded that “the concomitant occurrence of EM with LE did not change the course, therapy, or prognosis of either disease. SLE and DLE can coexist with EM, but the coexistence does not impart any unusual characteristic to either illness. Rowell’s syndrome is not reproducible, and the immunologic disturbances in such patients are probably coincidental.”

If the condition is a genuine pathological individuality, should we not view the seemingly separate LE and EM as the product of a single underlying biochemical process? These questions and others in the search for a true definition of the disease should continue to be debated. It is clear that further investigation is warranted in the understanding of the underlying mechanism of the pathology.

The Diagnosis: Lymphomatoid Papulosis

A shave biopsy of an established lesion on the volar aspect of the left wrist was performed (Figure 1). The biopsy showed an ulcerated nodular lesion characterized by a dense mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate in the dermis composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, scattered neutrophils, and numerous eosinophils (Figure 2). Notably there was a minor population of large atypical cells with immunoblastic and anaplastic morphology present individually and in small clusters most prominently within the upper dermis (Figures 3 and 4). Immunohistochemistry of the anaplastic cells revealed a CD30⁺, CD3⁻, CD4⁺, CD5⁻, CD8⁻, CD2⁻, CD7⁻, CD56⁻, ALK1⁻ (anaplastic lymphoma kinase-1), PAX5⁻ (paired box protein-5), CD20⁻, and CD15⁻ phenotype. These morphologic and immunohistochemical features suggested a CD30⁺ cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorder. The clinical history of recurrent self-healing papulonodules in an otherwise-healthy patient established the diagnosis of lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP).

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a lymphoproliferative disorder characterized by recurrent crops of self-resolving eruptive papulonodular skin lesions that may show a variety of histologic features including a CD30⁺ malignant T-cell lymphoma.¹ Lymphomatoid papulosis was first described in 1968¹ but debate continues whether the condition should be considered malignant or benign.² Although the prognosis is excellent, LyP is characterized by a protracted course, often lasting many years. Additionally, these patients have a lifelong increased risk for development of a second cutaneous or systemic lymphoma such as mycosis fungoides (MF), cutaneous or nodal anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), or Hodgkin lymphoma, among others.

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a rare disease occurring in all ethnic groups and at any age, though most commonly presenting in the fifth decade of life. Finding large atypical T cells expressing CD30 in recurring skin lesions is highly suggestive of LyP; however, large CD30⁺ cells also can be seen in numerous benign reactive processes such as arthropod assault, drug eruption, viral skin infections, and other dermatoses, thus clinical correlation is always paramount. The cause of LyP is largely unknown; however, spontaneous regression may be explained by CD30-CD30 ligand interaction³ as well as an increased proapoptotic milieu.⁴ Specific translocations such as interferon regulatory factor-4 have been hypothesized as a risk factor for malignant progression.^5-7 Additionally, an inactivating gene mutation resulting in loss of transforming growth factor β1 receptor expression and subsequent unresponsiveness to the growth inhibitory effect of transforming growth factor β may play a role in progression of LyP to ALCL.⁸

Clinically, LyP consists of red-brown papules and nodules generally smaller than 2 cm, often with central hemorrhage, necrosis, and crusting. Lesions are at different stages of eruption and resolution. They are often grouped but may be disseminated. Spontaneous regression typically occurs within 3 to 8 weeks. Pruritus or mild tenderness may occur as well as residual hyperpigmentation or scarring. Systemic symptoms are notably absent.

The histologic features of LyP vary according to the age of the lesion and subtype.² Early lesions may only show a few inflammatory cells, but as lesions evolve, larger immunoblastlike CD30⁺ atypical cells accumulate that may resemble the Reed-Sternberg cells of Hodgkin lymphoma. Of the 5 subtypes, the most common is type A. It is characterized by a wedge-shaped infiltrate with a mixed population of scattered or clustered, large, atypical CD30⁺ cells, lymphocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, and histiocytes.⁹ Frequent mitoses often are seen. Type B appears similar to MF due to a predominantly epidermotropic infiltrate of CD3⁺ and often CD30⁻ atypical cells. Spontaneously regressing papules favor LyP, whereas persistent patches or plaques favor MF. Type C appears identical to ALCL with diffuse sheets of large atypical CD30⁺ cells and relatively few inflammatory cells, but spontaneously regressing lesions again favor LyP, whereas persistent tumors favor ALCL. Type D appears similar to primary cutaneous aggressive epidermotropic CD8⁺ cytotoxic T cell lymphoma due to a markedly epidermotropic infiltrate of small atypical CD8⁺ and CD30⁺ lymphocytes, often TIA-1⁺ (T-cell intracytoplasmic antigen-1) or granzyme B⁺, but CD30 positivity and self-resolving lesions favor LyP. Type E mimics extranodal natural killer/T cell lymphoma (nasal type) due to angioinvasive CD30⁺ and beta F1⁺ T lymphocytes, often CD8⁺ and/or TIA-1⁺, but self-resolving lesions again favor LyP, as well as absence of Epstein-Barr virus and CD56⁻.⁹

The most common therapeutic approaches to LyP include topical steroids, phototherapy, and low-dose methotrexate.¹⁰ However, treatment does not change overall disease course or reduce the future risk for developing an associated lymphoma. Accordingly, abstaining from active therapeutic intervention is reasonable, especially in patients with only a few asymptomatic lesions.

The Diagnosis: Lymphomatoid Papulosis

A shave biopsy of an established lesion on the volar aspect of the left wrist was performed (Figure 1). The biopsy showed an ulcerated nodular lesion characterized by a dense mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate in the dermis composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, scattered neutrophils, and numerous eosinophils (Figure 2). Notably there was a minor population of large atypical cells with immunoblastic and anaplastic morphology present individually and in small clusters most prominently within the upper dermis (Figures 3 and 4). Immunohistochemistry of the anaplastic cells revealed a CD30⁺, CD3⁻, CD4⁺, CD5⁻, CD8⁻, CD2⁻, CD7⁻, CD56⁻, ALK1⁻ (anaplastic lymphoma kinase-1), PAX5⁻ (paired box protein-5), CD20⁻, and CD15⁻ phenotype. These morphologic and immunohistochemical features suggested a CD30⁺ cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorder. The clinical history of recurrent self-healing papulonodules in an otherwise-healthy patient established the diagnosis of lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP).

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a lymphoproliferative disorder characterized by recurrent crops of self-resolving eruptive papulonodular skin lesions that may show a variety of histologic features including a CD30⁺ malignant T-cell lymphoma.¹ Lymphomatoid papulosis was first described in 1968¹ but debate continues whether the condition should be considered malignant or benign.² Although the prognosis is excellent, LyP is characterized by a protracted course, often lasting many years. Additionally, these patients have a lifelong increased risk for development of a second cutaneous or systemic lymphoma such as mycosis fungoides (MF), cutaneous or nodal anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), or Hodgkin lymphoma, among others.

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a rare disease occurring in all ethnic groups and at any age, though most commonly presenting in the fifth decade of life. Finding large atypical T cells expressing CD30 in recurring skin lesions is highly suggestive of LyP; however, large CD30⁺ cells also can be seen in numerous benign reactive processes such as arthropod assault, drug eruption, viral skin infections, and other dermatoses, thus clinical correlation is always paramount. The cause of LyP is largely unknown; however, spontaneous regression may be explained by CD30-CD30 ligand interaction³ as well as an increased proapoptotic milieu.⁴ Specific translocations such as interferon regulatory factor-4 have been hypothesized as a risk factor for malignant progression.^5-7 Additionally, an inactivating gene mutation resulting in loss of transforming growth factor β1 receptor expression and subsequent unresponsiveness to the growth inhibitory effect of transforming growth factor β may play a role in progression of LyP to ALCL.⁸

Clinically, LyP consists of red-brown papules and nodules generally smaller than 2 cm, often with central hemorrhage, necrosis, and crusting. Lesions are at different stages of eruption and resolution. They are often grouped but may be disseminated. Spontaneous regression typically occurs within 3 to 8 weeks. Pruritus or mild tenderness may occur as well as residual hyperpigmentation or scarring. Systemic symptoms are notably absent.

The histologic features of LyP vary according to the age of the lesion and subtype.² Early lesions may only show a few inflammatory cells, but as lesions evolve, larger immunoblastlike CD30⁺ atypical cells accumulate that may resemble the Reed-Sternberg cells of Hodgkin lymphoma. Of the 5 subtypes, the most common is type A. It is characterized by a wedge-shaped infiltrate with a mixed population of scattered or clustered, large, atypical CD30⁺ cells, lymphocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, and histiocytes.⁹ Frequent mitoses often are seen. Type B appears similar to MF due to a predominantly epidermotropic infiltrate of CD3⁺ and often CD30⁻ atypical cells. Spontaneously regressing papules favor LyP, whereas persistent patches or plaques favor MF. Type C appears identical to ALCL with diffuse sheets of large atypical CD30⁺ cells and relatively few inflammatory cells, but spontaneously regressing lesions again favor LyP, whereas persistent tumors favor ALCL. Type D appears similar to primary cutaneous aggressive epidermotropic CD8⁺ cytotoxic T cell lymphoma due to a markedly epidermotropic infiltrate of small atypical CD8⁺ and CD30⁺ lymphocytes, often TIA-1⁺ (T-cell intracytoplasmic antigen-1) or granzyme B⁺, but CD30 positivity and self-resolving lesions favor LyP. Type E mimics extranodal natural killer/T cell lymphoma (nasal type) due to angioinvasive CD30⁺ and beta F1⁺ T lymphocytes, often CD8⁺ and/or TIA-1⁺, but self-resolving lesions again favor LyP, as well as absence of Epstein-Barr virus and CD56⁻.⁹

The most common therapeutic approaches to LyP include topical steroids, phototherapy, and low-dose methotrexate.¹⁰ However, treatment does not change overall disease course or reduce the future risk for developing an associated lymphoma. Accordingly, abstaining from active therapeutic intervention is reasonable, especially in patients with only a few asymptomatic lesions.

The Diagnosis: Lymphomatoid Papulosis

A shave biopsy of an established lesion on the volar aspect of the left wrist was performed (Figure 1). The biopsy showed an ulcerated nodular lesion characterized by a dense mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate in the dermis composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, scattered neutrophils, and numerous eosinophils (Figure 2). Notably there was a minor population of large atypical cells with immunoblastic and anaplastic morphology present individually and in small clusters most prominently within the upper dermis (Figures 3 and 4). Immunohistochemistry of the anaplastic cells revealed a CD30⁺, CD3⁻, CD4⁺, CD5⁻, CD8⁻, CD2⁻, CD7⁻, CD56⁻, ALK1⁻ (anaplastic lymphoma kinase-1), PAX5⁻ (paired box protein-5), CD20⁻, and CD15⁻ phenotype. These morphologic and immunohistochemical features suggested a CD30⁺ cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorder. The clinical history of recurrent self-healing papulonodules in an otherwise-healthy patient established the diagnosis of lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP).

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a lymphoproliferative disorder characterized by recurrent crops of self-resolving eruptive papulonodular skin lesions that may show a variety of histologic features including a CD30⁺ malignant T-cell lymphoma.¹ Lymphomatoid papulosis was first described in 1968¹ but debate continues whether the condition should be considered malignant or benign.² Although the prognosis is excellent, LyP is characterized by a protracted course, often lasting many years. Additionally, these patients have a lifelong increased risk for development of a second cutaneous or systemic lymphoma such as mycosis fungoides (MF), cutaneous or nodal anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), or Hodgkin lymphoma, among others.

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a rare disease occurring in all ethnic groups and at any age, though most commonly presenting in the fifth decade of life. Finding large atypical T cells expressing CD30 in recurring skin lesions is highly suggestive of LyP; however, large CD30⁺ cells also can be seen in numerous benign reactive processes such as arthropod assault, drug eruption, viral skin infections, and other dermatoses, thus clinical correlation is always paramount. The cause of LyP is largely unknown; however, spontaneous regression may be explained by CD30-CD30 ligand interaction³ as well as an increased proapoptotic milieu.⁴ Specific translocations such as interferon regulatory factor-4 have been hypothesized as a risk factor for malignant progression.^5-7 Additionally, an inactivating gene mutation resulting in loss of transforming growth factor β1 receptor expression and subsequent unresponsiveness to the growth inhibitory effect of transforming growth factor β may play a role in progression of LyP to ALCL.⁸

Clinically, LyP consists of red-brown papules and nodules generally smaller than 2 cm, often with central hemorrhage, necrosis, and crusting. Lesions are at different stages of eruption and resolution. They are often grouped but may be disseminated. Spontaneous regression typically occurs within 3 to 8 weeks. Pruritus or mild tenderness may occur as well as residual hyperpigmentation or scarring. Systemic symptoms are notably absent.

The histologic features of LyP vary according to the age of the lesion and subtype.² Early lesions may only show a few inflammatory cells, but as lesions evolve, larger immunoblastlike CD30⁺ atypical cells accumulate that may resemble the Reed-Sternberg cells of Hodgkin lymphoma. Of the 5 subtypes, the most common is type A. It is characterized by a wedge-shaped infiltrate with a mixed population of scattered or clustered, large, atypical CD30⁺ cells, lymphocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, and histiocytes.⁹ Frequent mitoses often are seen. Type B appears similar to MF due to a predominantly epidermotropic infiltrate of CD3⁺ and often CD30⁻ atypical cells. Spontaneously regressing papules favor LyP, whereas persistent patches or plaques favor MF. Type C appears identical to ALCL with diffuse sheets of large atypical CD30⁺ cells and relatively few inflammatory cells, but spontaneously regressing lesions again favor LyP, whereas persistent tumors favor ALCL. Type D appears similar to primary cutaneous aggressive epidermotropic CD8⁺ cytotoxic T cell lymphoma due to a markedly epidermotropic infiltrate of small atypical CD8⁺ and CD30⁺ lymphocytes, often TIA-1⁺ (T-cell intracytoplasmic antigen-1) or granzyme B⁺, but CD30 positivity and self-resolving lesions favor LyP. Type E mimics extranodal natural killer/T cell lymphoma (nasal type) due to angioinvasive CD30⁺ and beta F1⁺ T lymphocytes, often CD8⁺ and/or TIA-1⁺, but self-resolving lesions again favor LyP, as well as absence of Epstein-Barr virus and CD56⁻.⁹

The most common therapeutic approaches to LyP include topical steroids, phototherapy, and low-dose methotrexate.¹⁰ However, treatment does not change overall disease course or reduce the future risk for developing an associated lymphoma. Accordingly, abstaining from active therapeutic intervention is reasonable, especially in patients with only a few asymptomatic lesions.