SAN FRANCISCO – A peanut or egg allergy diagnosed when infants were 1 year of age often resolved by the time they turned 6, in a longitudinal, population-based study of more than 5,000 Australian children.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among 131 infants diagnosed with a peanut allergy when they were 1 year old and then followed with repeat testing 5 years later, 41 (31%) had complete resolution of their peanut allergy, while the allergy persisted in the other 90 children, Rachel L. Peters, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. The study also followed 404 infants diagnosed with an egg allergy at 1 year of age and found that by age 6 the allergy had resolved in 368 (91%), while persisting in 36 children, said Dr. Peters, an epidemiologist at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Parkville, Australia.


The analysis also identified risk factors that linked with an increased rate of allergy persistence. For peanut allergy persistence beyond the first year, the correlating factors were early-onset eczema, tree nut allergy, and a stronger peanut allergy identified by a greater than 4-mm reaction to a peanut skin-prick test. Factors that linked with an increased rate of persistent egg allergy were eczema, peanut allergy, gastrointestinal or respiratory reaction symptoms to milk, and reaction on an oral food challenge elicited by a low dose (less than 0.5 mL) of milk.

A consequence of the frequent resolution of these food allergies was that a positive skin-prick test reaction to either peanut or egg at 1 year old was poorly predictive of allergy status at age 6, while skin-prick tests at age 6 worked well for identifying a persistent food allergy at that age.

The analyses that Dr. Peters and her associates ran used data collected in the HealthNuts study, a comprehensive, prospective, population-based study of food allergies in children that enrolled 5,276 infants at 1 year old. The HealthNuts researchers enrolled infants at immunization clinics in the Melbourne area, with enrollment stratified to represent the people who live in that region (Clin Exp Allergy. 2010 Oct;40[10]:1516-22).

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Peters R et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019 Feb;143[2]:AB421.

SAN FRANCISCO – A peanut or egg allergy diagnosed when infants were 1 year of age often resolved by the time they turned 6, in a longitudinal, population-based study of more than 5,000 Australian children.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among 131 infants diagnosed with a peanut allergy when they were 1 year old and then followed with repeat testing 5 years later, 41 (31%) had complete resolution of their peanut allergy, while the allergy persisted in the other 90 children, Rachel L. Peters, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. The study also followed 404 infants diagnosed with an egg allergy at 1 year of age and found that by age 6 the allergy had resolved in 368 (91%), while persisting in 36 children, said Dr. Peters, an epidemiologist at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Parkville, Australia.


The analysis also identified risk factors that linked with an increased rate of allergy persistence. For peanut allergy persistence beyond the first year, the correlating factors were early-onset eczema, tree nut allergy, and a stronger peanut allergy identified by a greater than 4-mm reaction to a peanut skin-prick test. Factors that linked with an increased rate of persistent egg allergy were eczema, peanut allergy, gastrointestinal or respiratory reaction symptoms to milk, and reaction on an oral food challenge elicited by a low dose (less than 0.5 mL) of milk.

A consequence of the frequent resolution of these food allergies was that a positive skin-prick test reaction to either peanut or egg at 1 year old was poorly predictive of allergy status at age 6, while skin-prick tests at age 6 worked well for identifying a persistent food allergy at that age.

The analyses that Dr. Peters and her associates ran used data collected in the HealthNuts study, a comprehensive, prospective, population-based study of food allergies in children that enrolled 5,276 infants at 1 year old. The HealthNuts researchers enrolled infants at immunization clinics in the Melbourne area, with enrollment stratified to represent the people who live in that region (Clin Exp Allergy. 2010 Oct;40[10]:1516-22).

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Peters R et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019 Feb;143[2]:AB421.

SAN FRANCISCO – A peanut or egg allergy diagnosed when infants were 1 year of age often resolved by the time they turned 6, in a longitudinal, population-based study of more than 5,000 Australian children.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among 131 infants diagnosed with a peanut allergy when they were 1 year old and then followed with repeat testing 5 years later, 41 (31%) had complete resolution of their peanut allergy, while the allergy persisted in the other 90 children, Rachel L. Peters, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. The study also followed 404 infants diagnosed with an egg allergy at 1 year of age and found that by age 6 the allergy had resolved in 368 (91%), while persisting in 36 children, said Dr. Peters, an epidemiologist at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Parkville, Australia.


The analysis also identified risk factors that linked with an increased rate of allergy persistence. For peanut allergy persistence beyond the first year, the correlating factors were early-onset eczema, tree nut allergy, and a stronger peanut allergy identified by a greater than 4-mm reaction to a peanut skin-prick test. Factors that linked with an increased rate of persistent egg allergy were eczema, peanut allergy, gastrointestinal or respiratory reaction symptoms to milk, and reaction on an oral food challenge elicited by a low dose (less than 0.5 mL) of milk.

A consequence of the frequent resolution of these food allergies was that a positive skin-prick test reaction to either peanut or egg at 1 year old was poorly predictive of allergy status at age 6, while skin-prick tests at age 6 worked well for identifying a persistent food allergy at that age.

The analyses that Dr. Peters and her associates ran used data collected in the HealthNuts study, a comprehensive, prospective, population-based study of food allergies in children that enrolled 5,276 infants at 1 year old. The HealthNuts researchers enrolled infants at immunization clinics in the Melbourne area, with enrollment stratified to represent the people who live in that region (Clin Exp Allergy. 2010 Oct;40[10]:1516-22).

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Peters R et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019 Feb;143[2]:AB421.

Single-patient use (SPU) of investigational therapies via the Food and Drug Administration’s Expanded Access program is an option worth considering for heavily pretreated cancer patients, according to a retrospective analysis of SPUs at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Although approximately 2% of cancer cases at Kettering are pediatric, 34.1% of SPUs were for children, reported lead author Noah Z. Feit of Cornell University, New York, and his colleagues.

Therefore, “SPUs may provide an important means of pediatric drug access,” the investigators wrote in a JAMA Oncology letter.

The analysis involved 179 patients with 43 cancer types; these were more often solid tumors than hematologic malignancies (57.9% vs. 42.1%). The most common solid tumor type was neuroblastoma (15.3%), followed by lung (7.9%), primary brain (7.9%), and breast (5.9%). Sixty-six investigational products were given; the top three types were kinase inhibitors (28.8%), naked antibodies (12.5%), and allogeneic cell therapy (12.0%). Therapies were in various stages of development, including phase 3 (39.4%), phase 2 (36.1%), and phase 1 (18.8%). SPU approval was most often based on previous clinical experience (61.5%), although genomic data (38.0%) and preclinical evidence (30.8%) were also cited. The median number of prior treatments was four, suggesting a heavily pretreated patient population.

Analysis showed that the overall response rate to SPU agents was 20.1%, and patients with hematologic cancers responded more often than did those with solid tumors (30.4% vs. 12.2%). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.9 months and 11.4 months, respectively. About one-third of patients (29.7%) had at least one serious treatment-related adverse event, with adults more often affected than children (35.3% vs. 19.1%). No treatment-related deaths occurred.

“In summary, our data provide an initial evidence basis to evaluate the FDA Expanded Access mechanism. We find its use is broad, involving a wide variety of patients and products, and clinical benefit was observed,” the investigators concluded. “Routine prospective collection of key safety and efficacy metrics should be considered moving forward.”

The study was funded by National Institutes of Health, the St. Baldrick’s Foundation, and the Nonna’s Garden Foundation Initiative in Precision Oncology. The investigators reported financial relationships with Mylan, Atara Biotherapeutics, Chugai Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, and others.

SOURCE: Feit et al. JAMA Onc. 2019 Feb 28. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.7002.

Single-patient use (SPU) of investigational therapies via the Food and Drug Administration’s Expanded Access program is an option worth considering for heavily pretreated cancer patients, according to a retrospective analysis of SPUs at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Although approximately 2% of cancer cases at Kettering are pediatric, 34.1% of SPUs were for children, reported lead author Noah Z. Feit of Cornell University, New York, and his colleagues.

Therefore, “SPUs may provide an important means of pediatric drug access,” the investigators wrote in a JAMA Oncology letter.

The analysis involved 179 patients with 43 cancer types; these were more often solid tumors than hematologic malignancies (57.9% vs. 42.1%). The most common solid tumor type was neuroblastoma (15.3%), followed by lung (7.9%), primary brain (7.9%), and breast (5.9%). Sixty-six investigational products were given; the top three types were kinase inhibitors (28.8%), naked antibodies (12.5%), and allogeneic cell therapy (12.0%). Therapies were in various stages of development, including phase 3 (39.4%), phase 2 (36.1%), and phase 1 (18.8%). SPU approval was most often based on previous clinical experience (61.5%), although genomic data (38.0%) and preclinical evidence (30.8%) were also cited. The median number of prior treatments was four, suggesting a heavily pretreated patient population.

Analysis showed that the overall response rate to SPU agents was 20.1%, and patients with hematologic cancers responded more often than did those with solid tumors (30.4% vs. 12.2%). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.9 months and 11.4 months, respectively. About one-third of patients (29.7%) had at least one serious treatment-related adverse event, with adults more often affected than children (35.3% vs. 19.1%). No treatment-related deaths occurred.

“In summary, our data provide an initial evidence basis to evaluate the FDA Expanded Access mechanism. We find its use is broad, involving a wide variety of patients and products, and clinical benefit was observed,” the investigators concluded. “Routine prospective collection of key safety and efficacy metrics should be considered moving forward.”

The study was funded by National Institutes of Health, the St. Baldrick’s Foundation, and the Nonna’s Garden Foundation Initiative in Precision Oncology. The investigators reported financial relationships with Mylan, Atara Biotherapeutics, Chugai Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, and others.

SOURCE: Feit et al. JAMA Onc. 2019 Feb 28. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.7002.

Single-patient use (SPU) of investigational therapies via the Food and Drug Administration’s Expanded Access program is an option worth considering for heavily pretreated cancer patients, according to a retrospective analysis of SPUs at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Although approximately 2% of cancer cases at Kettering are pediatric, 34.1% of SPUs were for children, reported lead author Noah Z. Feit of Cornell University, New York, and his colleagues.

Therefore, “SPUs may provide an important means of pediatric drug access,” the investigators wrote in a JAMA Oncology letter.

The analysis involved 179 patients with 43 cancer types; these were more often solid tumors than hematologic malignancies (57.9% vs. 42.1%). The most common solid tumor type was neuroblastoma (15.3%), followed by lung (7.9%), primary brain (7.9%), and breast (5.9%). Sixty-six investigational products were given; the top three types were kinase inhibitors (28.8%), naked antibodies (12.5%), and allogeneic cell therapy (12.0%). Therapies were in various stages of development, including phase 3 (39.4%), phase 2 (36.1%), and phase 1 (18.8%). SPU approval was most often based on previous clinical experience (61.5%), although genomic data (38.0%) and preclinical evidence (30.8%) were also cited. The median number of prior treatments was four, suggesting a heavily pretreated patient population.

Analysis showed that the overall response rate to SPU agents was 20.1%, and patients with hematologic cancers responded more often than did those with solid tumors (30.4% vs. 12.2%). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.9 months and 11.4 months, respectively. About one-third of patients (29.7%) had at least one serious treatment-related adverse event, with adults more often affected than children (35.3% vs. 19.1%). No treatment-related deaths occurred.

“In summary, our data provide an initial evidence basis to evaluate the FDA Expanded Access mechanism. We find its use is broad, involving a wide variety of patients and products, and clinical benefit was observed,” the investigators concluded. “Routine prospective collection of key safety and efficacy metrics should be considered moving forward.”

The study was funded by National Institutes of Health, the St. Baldrick’s Foundation, and the Nonna’s Garden Foundation Initiative in Precision Oncology. The investigators reported financial relationships with Mylan, Atara Biotherapeutics, Chugai Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, and others.

SOURCE: Feit et al. JAMA Onc. 2019 Feb 28. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.7002.

Evidence-based research and guidelines regarding contraception are continually changing. Health care providers often have difficulty memorizing and staying up-to-date on all the important developments around family planning. Those who provide contraceptive counseling may not all use guidelines to inform their choices, and some may have misperceptions about patient eligibility for certain methods.^1,2 Mobile health applications (apps) that present this information in an easily accessible fashion have the potential to improve family planning services.

In a search for contraception apps, Dr. Rachel Perry and colleagues identified two contraception apps that were evaluated highly: 1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (MEC) app and 2) the iContraception app.³

Two free contraception apps for clinician use. Both the CDC Contraception and iContraception apps are based on CDC MEC information and provide guidance on contraceptive initiation and maintenance.⁴ Notably, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) endorses the use of the CDC MEC.⁵

These two apps can aid physicians in prescribing appropriate and safe contraceptive methods and can help them tailor the extensive CDC MEC guidelines for an individual patient. Additionally, the iContraception app allows a user to input multiple clinical and demographic characteristics to determine an individual patient’s eligibility for a specific contraceptive method (that is, it incorporates a clinical decision tree).

The recommended contraception apps are listed in the TABLE and are detailed with a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).⁶ I hope that the apps described here will assist you in managing patients who need contraception counseling.

Evidence-based research and guidelines regarding contraception are continually changing. Health care providers often have difficulty memorizing and staying up-to-date on all the important developments around family planning. Those who provide contraceptive counseling may not all use guidelines to inform their choices, and some may have misperceptions about patient eligibility for certain methods.^1,2 Mobile health applications (apps) that present this information in an easily accessible fashion have the potential to improve family planning services.

In a search for contraception apps, Dr. Rachel Perry and colleagues identified two contraception apps that were evaluated highly: 1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (MEC) app and 2) the iContraception app.³

Two free contraception apps for clinician use. Both the CDC Contraception and iContraception apps are based on CDC MEC information and provide guidance on contraceptive initiation and maintenance.⁴ Notably, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) endorses the use of the CDC MEC.⁵

These two apps can aid physicians in prescribing appropriate and safe contraceptive methods and can help them tailor the extensive CDC MEC guidelines for an individual patient. Additionally, the iContraception app allows a user to input multiple clinical and demographic characteristics to determine an individual patient’s eligibility for a specific contraceptive method (that is, it incorporates a clinical decision tree).

The recommended contraception apps are listed in the TABLE and are detailed with a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).⁶ I hope that the apps described here will assist you in managing patients who need contraception counseling.

Evidence-based research and guidelines regarding contraception are continually changing. Health care providers often have difficulty memorizing and staying up-to-date on all the important developments around family planning. Those who provide contraceptive counseling may not all use guidelines to inform their choices, and some may have misperceptions about patient eligibility for certain methods.^1,2 Mobile health applications (apps) that present this information in an easily accessible fashion have the potential to improve family planning services.

In a search for contraception apps, Dr. Rachel Perry and colleagues identified two contraception apps that were evaluated highly: 1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (MEC) app and 2) the iContraception app.³

Two free contraception apps for clinician use. Both the CDC Contraception and iContraception apps are based on CDC MEC information and provide guidance on contraceptive initiation and maintenance.⁴ Notably, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) endorses the use of the CDC MEC.⁵

These two apps can aid physicians in prescribing appropriate and safe contraceptive methods and can help them tailor the extensive CDC MEC guidelines for an individual patient. Additionally, the iContraception app allows a user to input multiple clinical and demographic characteristics to determine an individual patient’s eligibility for a specific contraceptive method (that is, it incorporates a clinical decision tree).

The recommended contraception apps are listed in the TABLE and are detailed with a shortened version of the APPLICATIONS scoring system, APPLI (app comprehensiveness, price, platform, literature used, and important special features).⁶ I hope that the apps described here will assist you in managing patients who need contraception counseling.

Psoriasis is a chronic skin condition affecting approximately 2% to 3% of the population.^1,2 Beyond cutaneous manifestations, psoriasis is a systemic inflammatory state that is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, including obesity,^3,4 type 2 diabetes mellitus,^5,6 hypertension,⁵ dyslipidemia,^3,7 metabolic syndrome,⁷ atherosclerosis,⁸ peripheral vascular disease,⁹ coronary artery calcification,¹⁰ myocardial infarction,^11-13 stroke,^9,14 and cardiac death.^15,16

Psoriasis also has been associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), possibly because of similar autoimmune mechanisms in the pathogenesis of both diseases.^17,18 However, there is no literature regarding the risk for acute gastrointestinal pathologies such as appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis in patients with psoriasis.

The primary objective of this study was to examine if patients with psoriasis are at increased risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis compared to the general population. The secondary objective was to determine if patients with severe psoriasis (ie, patients treated with phototherapy or systemic therapy) are at a higher risk for these conditions compared to patients with mild psoriasis.

Methods

Patients and Tools
A descriptive, population-based cohort study design with controls from a matched cohort was used to ascertain the effect of psoriasis status on patients’ risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis. Our cohort was selected using administrative data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) during the study period (January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2016).

Kaiser Permanente Southern California is a large integrated health maintenance organization that includes approximately 4 million patients as of December 31, 2016, and includes roughly 20% of the region’s population. The geographic area served extends from Bakersfield in the lower California Central Valley to San Diego on the border with Mexico. Membership demographics, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity composition are representative of California.

Patients were included if they had a diagnosis of psoriasis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 696.1; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-10-CM] codes L40.0, L40.4, L40.8, or L40.9) for at least 3 visits between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2016. Patients were not excluded if they also had a diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (ICD-9-CM code 696.0; ICD-10-CM code L40.5x). Patients also must have been continuously enrolled for at least 1 year before and 1 year after the index date, which was defined as the date of the third psoriasis diagnosis.

Each patient with psoriasis was assigned to 1 of 2 cohorts: (1) severe psoriasis: patients who received UVB phototherapy, psoralen plus UVA phototherapy, methotrexate, acitretin, cyclosporine, apremilast, etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, efalizumab, alefacept, secukinumab, or ixekizumab during the study period; and (2) mild psoriasis: patients who had a diagnosis of psoriasis who did not receive one of these therapies during the study period.

Patients were excluded if they had a history of appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis at any time before the index date. Only patients older than 18 years were included.

Patients with psoriasis were frequency matched (1:5) with healthy patients, also from the KPSC network. Individuals were matched by age, sex, and ethnicity.

Statistical Analysis
Baseline characteristics were described with means and SD for continuous variables as well as percentages for categorical variables. Chi-square tests for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U Test for continuous variables were used to compare the patients’ characteristics by psoriasis status. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis among patients with and without psoriasis and among patients with mild and severe psoriasis. Proportionality assumption was validated using Pearson product moment correlation between the scaled Schoenfeld residuals and log transformed time for each covariate.

Results were presented as crude (unadjusted) hazard ratios (HRs) and adjusted HRs, where confounding factors (ie, age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index [BMI], alcohol use, smoking status, income, education, and membership length) were adjusted. All tests were performed with SAS EG 5.1 and R software. P<.05 was considered statistically significant. Results are reported with the 95% confidence interval (CI), when appropriate.

Results

A total of 1,690,214 KPSC patients were eligible for the study; 10,307 (0.6%) met diagnostic and inclusion criteria for the psoriasis cohort. Patients with psoriasis had a significantly higher mean BMI (29.9 vs 28.7; P<.0001) as well as higher mean rates of alcohol use (56% vs 53%; P<.0001) and smoking (47% vs 38%; P<.01) compared to controls. Psoriasis patients had a shorter average duration of membership within the Kaiser network (P=.0001) compared to controls.

A total of 7416 patients met criteria for mild psoriasis and 2891 patients met criteria for severe psoriasis (eTable). Patients with severe psoriasis were significantly younger and had significantly higher mean BMI compared to patients with mild psoriasis (P<.0001 and P=.0001, respectively). No significant difference in rates of alcohol or tobacco use was detected among patients with mild and severe psoriasis.

Diverticulitis
Patients with psoriasis had a significantly greater prevalence of diverticulitis compared to the control cohort (5.1% vs 4.2%; P<.0001). There was no difference in prevalence between the severe psoriasis group and the mild psoriasis group (P=.96), but the time to diagnosis of diverticulitis was shorter in the severe psoriasis group than in the mild psoriasis group (7.2 years vs 7.9 years; P<.0001). Psoriasis patients had an incidence rate of diverticulitis of 6.61 per 1000 patient-years compared to 5.38 per 1000 patient-years in the control group. Psoriasis conferred a higher risk for diverticulitis in both the crude and adjusted models (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.11-1.35 [P<.001] and HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29; [P<.01], respectively)(Table 3); however, when stratified by disease severity, only patients with severe psoriasis were found to be at higher risk (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.15-1.61; P<.001 for the adjusted model).

Comment

The objective of this study was to examine the background risks for specific gastrointestinal pathologies in a large cohort of patients with psoriasis compared to the general population. After adjusting for measured confounders, patients with severe psoriasis had a significantly higher risk of diverticulitis compared to the general population. Although more patients with severe psoriasis developed appendicitis or cholecystitis, the difference was not significant.

The pathogenesis of diverticulosis and diverticulitis has been thought to be related to increased intracolonic pressure and decreased dietary fiber intake, leading to formation of diverticula in the colon.¹⁹ Our study did not correct for differences in diet between the 2 groups, making it a possible confounding variable. Studies evaluating dietary habits of psoriatic patients have found that adult males with psoriasis might consume less fiber compared to healthy patients,²⁰ and psoriasis patients also might consume less whole-grain fiber.²¹ Furthermore, fiber deficiency also might affect gut flora, causing low-grade chronic inflammation,¹⁸ which also has been supported by response to anti-inflammatory medications such as mesalazine.²² Given the autoimmune association between psoriasis and IBD, it is possible that psoriasis also might create an environment of chronic inflammation in the gut, predisposing patients with psoriasis to diverticulitis. However, further research is needed to better evaluate this possibility.

Our study also does not address any potential effects on outcomes of specific treatments for psoriasis. Brandl et al²³ found that patients on immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune diseases had longer hospital and intensive care unit stays, higher rates of emergency operations, and higher mortality while hospitalized. Because our results suggest that patients with severe psoriasis, who are therefore more likely to require treatment with an immunomodulator, are at higher risk for diverticulitis, these patients also might be at risk for poorer outcomes.

There is no literature evaluating the relationship between psoriasis and appendicitis. Our study found a slightly lower incidence rate compared to the national trend (9.38 per 10,000 patient-years in the United States in 2008) in both healthy patients and psoriasis patients.²⁴ Of note, this statistic includes children, whereas our study did not, which might in part account for the lower rate. However, Cheluvappa et al²⁵ hypothesized a relationship between appendicitis and subsequent appendectomy at a young age and protection against IBD. They also found that the mechanism for protection involves downregulation of the helper T cell (T_H17) pathway,²⁵ which also has been found to play a role in psoriasis pathogenesis.^26,27 Although our results suggest that the risk for appendicitis is not increased for patients with psoriasis, further research might be able to determine if appendicitis and subsequent appendectomy also can offer protection against development of psoriasis.

We found that patients with severe psoriasis had a higher incidence rate of cholecystitis compared to patients with mild psoriasis. Egeberg et al²⁸ found an increased risk for cholelithiasis among patients with psoriasis, which may contribute to a higher rate of cholecystitis. Although both acute and chronic cholecystitis were incorporated in this study, a Russian study found that chronic cholecystitis may be a predictor of progression of psoriasis.²⁹ Moreover, patients with severe psoriasis had a shorter duration to diagnosis of cholecystitis than patients with mild psoriasis. It is possible that patients with severe psoriasis are in a state of greater chronic inflammation than those with mild psoriasis, and therefore, when combined with other risk factors for cholecystitis, may progress to disease more quickly. Alternatively, this finding could be treatment related, as there have been reported cases of cholecystitis related to etanercept use in patients treated for psoriasis and juvenile polyarticular rheumatoid arthritis.^30,31 The relationship is not yet well defined, however, and further research is necessary to evaluate this association.

Study Strengths
Key strengths of this study include the large sample size and diversity of the patient population. Kaiser Permanente Southern California membership generally is representative of the broader community, making our results fairly generalizable to populations with health insurance. Use of a matched control cohort allows the results to be more specific to the disease of interest, and the population-based design minimizes bias.

Study Limitations
This study has several limitations. Although the cohorts were categorized based on type of treatment received, exact therapies were not specified. As a retrospective study, it is difficult to control for potential confounding variables that are not included in the electronic medical record. The results of this study also demonstrated significantly shorter durations to diagnosis of all 3 conditions, indicating that surveillance bias may be present.

Conclusion

Patients with psoriasis may be at an increased risk for diverticulitis compared to patients without psoriasis, which could be due to the chronic inflammatory state induced by psoriasis. Therefore, it may be beneficial for clinicians to evaluate psoriasis patients for other risk factors for diverticulitis and subsequently provide counseling to these patients to minimize their risk for diverticulitis. Psoriasis patients do not appear to be at an increased risk for appendicitis or cholecystitis compared to controls; however, further research is needed for confirmation.

Psoriasis is a chronic skin condition affecting approximately 2% to 3% of the population.^1,2 Beyond cutaneous manifestations, psoriasis is a systemic inflammatory state that is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, including obesity,^3,4 type 2 diabetes mellitus,^5,6 hypertension,⁵ dyslipidemia,^3,7 metabolic syndrome,⁷ atherosclerosis,⁸ peripheral vascular disease,⁹ coronary artery calcification,¹⁰ myocardial infarction,^11-13 stroke,^9,14 and cardiac death.^15,16

Psoriasis also has been associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), possibly because of similar autoimmune mechanisms in the pathogenesis of both diseases.^17,18 However, there is no literature regarding the risk for acute gastrointestinal pathologies such as appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis in patients with psoriasis.

The primary objective of this study was to examine if patients with psoriasis are at increased risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis compared to the general population. The secondary objective was to determine if patients with severe psoriasis (ie, patients treated with phototherapy or systemic therapy) are at a higher risk for these conditions compared to patients with mild psoriasis.

Methods

Patients and Tools
A descriptive, population-based cohort study design with controls from a matched cohort was used to ascertain the effect of psoriasis status on patients’ risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis. Our cohort was selected using administrative data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) during the study period (January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2016).

Kaiser Permanente Southern California is a large integrated health maintenance organization that includes approximately 4 million patients as of December 31, 2016, and includes roughly 20% of the region’s population. The geographic area served extends from Bakersfield in the lower California Central Valley to San Diego on the border with Mexico. Membership demographics, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity composition are representative of California.

Patients were included if they had a diagnosis of psoriasis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 696.1; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-10-CM] codes L40.0, L40.4, L40.8, or L40.9) for at least 3 visits between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2016. Patients were not excluded if they also had a diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (ICD-9-CM code 696.0; ICD-10-CM code L40.5x). Patients also must have been continuously enrolled for at least 1 year before and 1 year after the index date, which was defined as the date of the third psoriasis diagnosis.

Each patient with psoriasis was assigned to 1 of 2 cohorts: (1) severe psoriasis: patients who received UVB phototherapy, psoralen plus UVA phototherapy, methotrexate, acitretin, cyclosporine, apremilast, etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, efalizumab, alefacept, secukinumab, or ixekizumab during the study period; and (2) mild psoriasis: patients who had a diagnosis of psoriasis who did not receive one of these therapies during the study period.

Patients were excluded if they had a history of appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis at any time before the index date. Only patients older than 18 years were included.

Patients with psoriasis were frequency matched (1:5) with healthy patients, also from the KPSC network. Individuals were matched by age, sex, and ethnicity.

Statistical Analysis
Baseline characteristics were described with means and SD for continuous variables as well as percentages for categorical variables. Chi-square tests for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U Test for continuous variables were used to compare the patients’ characteristics by psoriasis status. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis among patients with and without psoriasis and among patients with mild and severe psoriasis. Proportionality assumption was validated using Pearson product moment correlation between the scaled Schoenfeld residuals and log transformed time for each covariate.

Results were presented as crude (unadjusted) hazard ratios (HRs) and adjusted HRs, where confounding factors (ie, age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index [BMI], alcohol use, smoking status, income, education, and membership length) were adjusted. All tests were performed with SAS EG 5.1 and R software. P<.05 was considered statistically significant. Results are reported with the 95% confidence interval (CI), when appropriate.

Results

A total of 1,690,214 KPSC patients were eligible for the study; 10,307 (0.6%) met diagnostic and inclusion criteria for the psoriasis cohort. Patients with psoriasis had a significantly higher mean BMI (29.9 vs 28.7; P<.0001) as well as higher mean rates of alcohol use (56% vs 53%; P<.0001) and smoking (47% vs 38%; P<.01) compared to controls. Psoriasis patients had a shorter average duration of membership within the Kaiser network (P=.0001) compared to controls.

A total of 7416 patients met criteria for mild psoriasis and 2891 patients met criteria for severe psoriasis (eTable). Patients with severe psoriasis were significantly younger and had significantly higher mean BMI compared to patients with mild psoriasis (P<.0001 and P=.0001, respectively). No significant difference in rates of alcohol or tobacco use was detected among patients with mild and severe psoriasis.

Diverticulitis
Patients with psoriasis had a significantly greater prevalence of diverticulitis compared to the control cohort (5.1% vs 4.2%; P<.0001). There was no difference in prevalence between the severe psoriasis group and the mild psoriasis group (P=.96), but the time to diagnosis of diverticulitis was shorter in the severe psoriasis group than in the mild psoriasis group (7.2 years vs 7.9 years; P<.0001). Psoriasis patients had an incidence rate of diverticulitis of 6.61 per 1000 patient-years compared to 5.38 per 1000 patient-years in the control group. Psoriasis conferred a higher risk for diverticulitis in both the crude and adjusted models (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.11-1.35 [P<.001] and HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29; [P<.01], respectively)(Table 3); however, when stratified by disease severity, only patients with severe psoriasis were found to be at higher risk (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.15-1.61; P<.001 for the adjusted model).

Comment

The objective of this study was to examine the background risks for specific gastrointestinal pathologies in a large cohort of patients with psoriasis compared to the general population. After adjusting for measured confounders, patients with severe psoriasis had a significantly higher risk of diverticulitis compared to the general population. Although more patients with severe psoriasis developed appendicitis or cholecystitis, the difference was not significant.

The pathogenesis of diverticulosis and diverticulitis has been thought to be related to increased intracolonic pressure and decreased dietary fiber intake, leading to formation of diverticula in the colon.¹⁹ Our study did not correct for differences in diet between the 2 groups, making it a possible confounding variable. Studies evaluating dietary habits of psoriatic patients have found that adult males with psoriasis might consume less fiber compared to healthy patients,²⁰ and psoriasis patients also might consume less whole-grain fiber.²¹ Furthermore, fiber deficiency also might affect gut flora, causing low-grade chronic inflammation,¹⁸ which also has been supported by response to anti-inflammatory medications such as mesalazine.²² Given the autoimmune association between psoriasis and IBD, it is possible that psoriasis also might create an environment of chronic inflammation in the gut, predisposing patients with psoriasis to diverticulitis. However, further research is needed to better evaluate this possibility.

Our study also does not address any potential effects on outcomes of specific treatments for psoriasis. Brandl et al²³ found that patients on immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune diseases had longer hospital and intensive care unit stays, higher rates of emergency operations, and higher mortality while hospitalized. Because our results suggest that patients with severe psoriasis, who are therefore more likely to require treatment with an immunomodulator, are at higher risk for diverticulitis, these patients also might be at risk for poorer outcomes.

There is no literature evaluating the relationship between psoriasis and appendicitis. Our study found a slightly lower incidence rate compared to the national trend (9.38 per 10,000 patient-years in the United States in 2008) in both healthy patients and psoriasis patients.²⁴ Of note, this statistic includes children, whereas our study did not, which might in part account for the lower rate. However, Cheluvappa et al²⁵ hypothesized a relationship between appendicitis and subsequent appendectomy at a young age and protection against IBD. They also found that the mechanism for protection involves downregulation of the helper T cell (T_H17) pathway,²⁵ which also has been found to play a role in psoriasis pathogenesis.^26,27 Although our results suggest that the risk for appendicitis is not increased for patients with psoriasis, further research might be able to determine if appendicitis and subsequent appendectomy also can offer protection against development of psoriasis.

We found that patients with severe psoriasis had a higher incidence rate of cholecystitis compared to patients with mild psoriasis. Egeberg et al²⁸ found an increased risk for cholelithiasis among patients with psoriasis, which may contribute to a higher rate of cholecystitis. Although both acute and chronic cholecystitis were incorporated in this study, a Russian study found that chronic cholecystitis may be a predictor of progression of psoriasis.²⁹ Moreover, patients with severe psoriasis had a shorter duration to diagnosis of cholecystitis than patients with mild psoriasis. It is possible that patients with severe psoriasis are in a state of greater chronic inflammation than those with mild psoriasis, and therefore, when combined with other risk factors for cholecystitis, may progress to disease more quickly. Alternatively, this finding could be treatment related, as there have been reported cases of cholecystitis related to etanercept use in patients treated for psoriasis and juvenile polyarticular rheumatoid arthritis.^30,31 The relationship is not yet well defined, however, and further research is necessary to evaluate this association.

Study Strengths
Key strengths of this study include the large sample size and diversity of the patient population. Kaiser Permanente Southern California membership generally is representative of the broader community, making our results fairly generalizable to populations with health insurance. Use of a matched control cohort allows the results to be more specific to the disease of interest, and the population-based design minimizes bias.

Study Limitations
This study has several limitations. Although the cohorts were categorized based on type of treatment received, exact therapies were not specified. As a retrospective study, it is difficult to control for potential confounding variables that are not included in the electronic medical record. The results of this study also demonstrated significantly shorter durations to diagnosis of all 3 conditions, indicating that surveillance bias may be present.

Conclusion

Patients with psoriasis may be at an increased risk for diverticulitis compared to patients without psoriasis, which could be due to the chronic inflammatory state induced by psoriasis. Therefore, it may be beneficial for clinicians to evaluate psoriasis patients for other risk factors for diverticulitis and subsequently provide counseling to these patients to minimize their risk for diverticulitis. Psoriasis patients do not appear to be at an increased risk for appendicitis or cholecystitis compared to controls; however, further research is needed for confirmation.

Psoriasis is a chronic skin condition affecting approximately 2% to 3% of the population.^1,2 Beyond cutaneous manifestations, psoriasis is a systemic inflammatory state that is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, including obesity,^3,4 type 2 diabetes mellitus,^5,6 hypertension,⁵ dyslipidemia,^3,7 metabolic syndrome,⁷ atherosclerosis,⁸ peripheral vascular disease,⁹ coronary artery calcification,¹⁰ myocardial infarction,^11-13 stroke,^9,14 and cardiac death.^15,16

Psoriasis also has been associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), possibly because of similar autoimmune mechanisms in the pathogenesis of both diseases.^17,18 However, there is no literature regarding the risk for acute gastrointestinal pathologies such as appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis in patients with psoriasis.

The primary objective of this study was to examine if patients with psoriasis are at increased risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis compared to the general population. The secondary objective was to determine if patients with severe psoriasis (ie, patients treated with phototherapy or systemic therapy) are at a higher risk for these conditions compared to patients with mild psoriasis.

Methods

Patients and Tools
A descriptive, population-based cohort study design with controls from a matched cohort was used to ascertain the effect of psoriasis status on patients’ risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis. Our cohort was selected using administrative data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) during the study period (January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2016).

Kaiser Permanente Southern California is a large integrated health maintenance organization that includes approximately 4 million patients as of December 31, 2016, and includes roughly 20% of the region’s population. The geographic area served extends from Bakersfield in the lower California Central Valley to San Diego on the border with Mexico. Membership demographics, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity composition are representative of California.

Patients were included if they had a diagnosis of psoriasis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 696.1; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-10-CM] codes L40.0, L40.4, L40.8, or L40.9) for at least 3 visits between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2016. Patients were not excluded if they also had a diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (ICD-9-CM code 696.0; ICD-10-CM code L40.5x). Patients also must have been continuously enrolled for at least 1 year before and 1 year after the index date, which was defined as the date of the third psoriasis diagnosis.

Each patient with psoriasis was assigned to 1 of 2 cohorts: (1) severe psoriasis: patients who received UVB phototherapy, psoralen plus UVA phototherapy, methotrexate, acitretin, cyclosporine, apremilast, etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, efalizumab, alefacept, secukinumab, or ixekizumab during the study period; and (2) mild psoriasis: patients who had a diagnosis of psoriasis who did not receive one of these therapies during the study period.

Patients were excluded if they had a history of appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis at any time before the index date. Only patients older than 18 years were included.

Patients with psoriasis were frequency matched (1:5) with healthy patients, also from the KPSC network. Individuals were matched by age, sex, and ethnicity.

Statistical Analysis
Baseline characteristics were described with means and SD for continuous variables as well as percentages for categorical variables. Chi-square tests for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U Test for continuous variables were used to compare the patients’ characteristics by psoriasis status. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis among patients with and without psoriasis and among patients with mild and severe psoriasis. Proportionality assumption was validated using Pearson product moment correlation between the scaled Schoenfeld residuals and log transformed time for each covariate.

Results were presented as crude (unadjusted) hazard ratios (HRs) and adjusted HRs, where confounding factors (ie, age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index [BMI], alcohol use, smoking status, income, education, and membership length) were adjusted. All tests were performed with SAS EG 5.1 and R software. P<.05 was considered statistically significant. Results are reported with the 95% confidence interval (CI), when appropriate.

Results

A total of 1,690,214 KPSC patients were eligible for the study; 10,307 (0.6%) met diagnostic and inclusion criteria for the psoriasis cohort. Patients with psoriasis had a significantly higher mean BMI (29.9 vs 28.7; P<.0001) as well as higher mean rates of alcohol use (56% vs 53%; P<.0001) and smoking (47% vs 38%; P<.01) compared to controls. Psoriasis patients had a shorter average duration of membership within the Kaiser network (P=.0001) compared to controls.

A total of 7416 patients met criteria for mild psoriasis and 2891 patients met criteria for severe psoriasis (eTable). Patients with severe psoriasis were significantly younger and had significantly higher mean BMI compared to patients with mild psoriasis (P<.0001 and P=.0001, respectively). No significant difference in rates of alcohol or tobacco use was detected among patients with mild and severe psoriasis.

Diverticulitis
Patients with psoriasis had a significantly greater prevalence of diverticulitis compared to the control cohort (5.1% vs 4.2%; P<.0001). There was no difference in prevalence between the severe psoriasis group and the mild psoriasis group (P=.96), but the time to diagnosis of diverticulitis was shorter in the severe psoriasis group than in the mild psoriasis group (7.2 years vs 7.9 years; P<.0001). Psoriasis patients had an incidence rate of diverticulitis of 6.61 per 1000 patient-years compared to 5.38 per 1000 patient-years in the control group. Psoriasis conferred a higher risk for diverticulitis in both the crude and adjusted models (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.11-1.35 [P<.001] and HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29; [P<.01], respectively)(Table 3); however, when stratified by disease severity, only patients with severe psoriasis were found to be at higher risk (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.15-1.61; P<.001 for the adjusted model).

Comment

The objective of this study was to examine the background risks for specific gastrointestinal pathologies in a large cohort of patients with psoriasis compared to the general population. After adjusting for measured confounders, patients with severe psoriasis had a significantly higher risk of diverticulitis compared to the general population. Although more patients with severe psoriasis developed appendicitis or cholecystitis, the difference was not significant.

The pathogenesis of diverticulosis and diverticulitis has been thought to be related to increased intracolonic pressure and decreased dietary fiber intake, leading to formation of diverticula in the colon.¹⁹ Our study did not correct for differences in diet between the 2 groups, making it a possible confounding variable. Studies evaluating dietary habits of psoriatic patients have found that adult males with psoriasis might consume less fiber compared to healthy patients,²⁰ and psoriasis patients also might consume less whole-grain fiber.²¹ Furthermore, fiber deficiency also might affect gut flora, causing low-grade chronic inflammation,¹⁸ which also has been supported by response to anti-inflammatory medications such as mesalazine.²² Given the autoimmune association between psoriasis and IBD, it is possible that psoriasis also might create an environment of chronic inflammation in the gut, predisposing patients with psoriasis to diverticulitis. However, further research is needed to better evaluate this possibility.

Our study also does not address any potential effects on outcomes of specific treatments for psoriasis. Brandl et al²³ found that patients on immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune diseases had longer hospital and intensive care unit stays, higher rates of emergency operations, and higher mortality while hospitalized. Because our results suggest that patients with severe psoriasis, who are therefore more likely to require treatment with an immunomodulator, are at higher risk for diverticulitis, these patients also might be at risk for poorer outcomes.

There is no literature evaluating the relationship between psoriasis and appendicitis. Our study found a slightly lower incidence rate compared to the national trend (9.38 per 10,000 patient-years in the United States in 2008) in both healthy patients and psoriasis patients.²⁴ Of note, this statistic includes children, whereas our study did not, which might in part account for the lower rate. However, Cheluvappa et al²⁵ hypothesized a relationship between appendicitis and subsequent appendectomy at a young age and protection against IBD. They also found that the mechanism for protection involves downregulation of the helper T cell (T_H17) pathway,²⁵ which also has been found to play a role in psoriasis pathogenesis.^26,27 Although our results suggest that the risk for appendicitis is not increased for patients with psoriasis, further research might be able to determine if appendicitis and subsequent appendectomy also can offer protection against development of psoriasis.

We found that patients with severe psoriasis had a higher incidence rate of cholecystitis compared to patients with mild psoriasis. Egeberg et al²⁸ found an increased risk for cholelithiasis among patients with psoriasis, which may contribute to a higher rate of cholecystitis. Although both acute and chronic cholecystitis were incorporated in this study, a Russian study found that chronic cholecystitis may be a predictor of progression of psoriasis.²⁹ Moreover, patients with severe psoriasis had a shorter duration to diagnosis of cholecystitis than patients with mild psoriasis. It is possible that patients with severe psoriasis are in a state of greater chronic inflammation than those with mild psoriasis, and therefore, when combined with other risk factors for cholecystitis, may progress to disease more quickly. Alternatively, this finding could be treatment related, as there have been reported cases of cholecystitis related to etanercept use in patients treated for psoriasis and juvenile polyarticular rheumatoid arthritis.^30,31 The relationship is not yet well defined, however, and further research is necessary to evaluate this association.

Study Strengths
Key strengths of this study include the large sample size and diversity of the patient population. Kaiser Permanente Southern California membership generally is representative of the broader community, making our results fairly generalizable to populations with health insurance. Use of a matched control cohort allows the results to be more specific to the disease of interest, and the population-based design minimizes bias.

Study Limitations
This study has several limitations. Although the cohorts were categorized based on type of treatment received, exact therapies were not specified. As a retrospective study, it is difficult to control for potential confounding variables that are not included in the electronic medical record. The results of this study also demonstrated significantly shorter durations to diagnosis of all 3 conditions, indicating that surveillance bias may be present.

Conclusion

Patients with psoriasis may be at an increased risk for diverticulitis compared to patients without psoriasis, which could be due to the chronic inflammatory state induced by psoriasis. Therefore, it may be beneficial for clinicians to evaluate psoriasis patients for other risk factors for diverticulitis and subsequently provide counseling to these patients to minimize their risk for diverticulitis. Psoriasis patients do not appear to be at an increased risk for appendicitis or cholecystitis compared to controls; however, further research is needed for confirmation.

Case Report

A 31-year-old black woman presented with a slow-spreading pruritic rash on the right thigh of 1 year’s duration. She had previously seen a dermatologist and was prescribed triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% and mupirocin ointment 2% but declined a biopsy. Review of symptoms was negative for any constitutional symptoms. Family history included hypertension and eczema with a personal history of anxiety. Clinical examination revealed grouped flesh-colored to light pink papules and plaques within a hyperpigmented patch on the right medial thigh (Figure 1).

Histopathology
A punch biopsy was negative for fungal, bacterial, or acid-fast bacilli culture. Histopathologic evaluation demonstrated a dense dermal infiltrate of large histiocytes admixed with inflammatory cells composed predominantly of lymphocytes and plasma cells. The histiocytes within the inflammatory infiltrate had vesicular nuclei and abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm (Figure 2A). Areas of emperipolesis were noted (Figure 2B). The large histiocytes stained positive for S-100 protein (Figure 2C) and negative for CD1a.

Comment

Rosai-Dorfman disease (also known as sinus histiocytosis with massive lymphadenopathy) is a non–Langerhans cell histiocytosis.¹ There are 2 main forms of RDD: one form that affects the lymph nodes and in certain cases the extranodal organs, and the other is purely CRDD. Cutaneous RDD is extremely rare and the etiology is unknown, though a number of viral and immune causes have been postulated. Cutaneous RDD presents as solitary or numerous papules, nodules, and/or plaques. Treatment options include steroids, methotrexate, dapsone, thalidomide, and isotretinoin, with varying efficacy reported.¹

Extranodal forms occur in 43% of RDD cases, with the skin being the most common site.¹ Other extranodal sites include the soft tissue, upper and lower respiratory tract, bones, genitourinary tract, oral cavity, gastrointestinal tract, orbits, testes, and rarely central nervous system involvement.²

Cutaneous RDD and RDD may be distinct clinical entities. Cutaneous RDD has a later age of onset than RDD (median age, 43.5 years vs 20.6 years) and a female predominance (2:1 vs 1.4:1). It most commonly affects Asian and white individuals while the majority of patients with RDD are of African descent with rare reports in Asians.¹

The etiology of CRDD remains unknown with hypotheses of viral and immune causes such as human herpesvirus 6, Epstein-Barr virus, and parvovirus B19. The polyclonal nature of the cell infiltrate and the clinical progression of RDD suggest a reactive process rather than a neoplastic disorder.¹ Rosai-Dorfman disease has been hypothesized to be closely related to autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome, an inherited disorder associated with defects in Fas-mediated apoptosis.⁵

Histologic findings in CRDD are similar to those in RDD, with a superficial and deep perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes and plasma cells. A diffuse and nodular dermal infiltrate of foamy histiocytes exists in a background infiltrate of lymphocytes and plasma cells. Foamy histiocytes may be seen in dermal lymphatics, and lymphoid follicles with reactive germinal centers also may be present. Emperipolesis, the presence of intact inflammatory cells within histiocytes, is common in CRDD. Less often, histiocytes may contain plasma cells, neutrophils, and red blood cells. Mitoses and nuclear atypia are rare. Cutaneous RDD histiocytes stain positive for S-100 protein, CD4, factor XIIIa, and CD68, and negative for CD1a. Birbeck granules are absent on electronic microscopy of CRDD tissue, eliminating Langerhans cell histiocytosis.^1,3,5

The clinical diagnosis of CRDD is hard to confirm in the absence of lymphadenopathy. The lesions in CRDD may be solitary or numerous, usually presenting as papules, nodules, and/or plaques. More rarely, the lesions may present as pustules, acneform lesions, mimickers of vasculitis and panniculitis, macular erythema, large annular lesions resembling granuloma annulare, or even a breast mass.^1,3 One case report with involvement of deep subcutaneous fat presented with flank swelling beneath papules and nodules.⁶

The most common site of lesions in CRDD is the face, with the eyelids and malar regions frequently involved, followed by the back, chest, thighs, flanks, and shoulders.^1,5 Rarely, CRDD may be associated with other disorders, including bilateral uveitis, antinuclear antibody–positive lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, hypothyroidism, lymphoma, and human immunodeficiency virus.¹

Numerous treatments have been attempted, yet the response often is poor. Because RDD is a benign and self-limiting disease, less aggressive therapeutic approaches should be used, if possible. Surgical excision of the lesions has been helpful in certain cases.⁶ Cryotherapy and local radiation, topical steroids, or laser treatment also have been found to improve the condition.^1,7 For refractory cases, dapsone and thalidomide have been effective. Mixed results have been observed with isotretinoin and imatinib; some patients improved whereas others did not. Utikal et al⁸ described a patient with complete remission of CRDD after receiving imatinib therapy; however, a different study reported a patient with CRDD who was completely resistant to this treatment.⁹ One case presenting on the breast did not respond to topical steroids, acitretin, and thalidomide but later responded to methotrexate.¹⁰

Conclusion

Cutaneous RDD is an unusual clinical entity with varied lesions. Generally, CRDD follows a benign clinical course, with a possibility of spontaneous remission. Further studies are required to confidently classify the etiology and variance between both RDD and CRDD.

Case Report

A 31-year-old black woman presented with a slow-spreading pruritic rash on the right thigh of 1 year’s duration. She had previously seen a dermatologist and was prescribed triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% and mupirocin ointment 2% but declined a biopsy. Review of symptoms was negative for any constitutional symptoms. Family history included hypertension and eczema with a personal history of anxiety. Clinical examination revealed grouped flesh-colored to light pink papules and plaques within a hyperpigmented patch on the right medial thigh (Figure 1).

Histopathology
A punch biopsy was negative for fungal, bacterial, or acid-fast bacilli culture. Histopathologic evaluation demonstrated a dense dermal infiltrate of large histiocytes admixed with inflammatory cells composed predominantly of lymphocytes and plasma cells. The histiocytes within the inflammatory infiltrate had vesicular nuclei and abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm (Figure 2A). Areas of emperipolesis were noted (Figure 2B). The large histiocytes stained positive for S-100 protein (Figure 2C) and negative for CD1a.

Comment

Rosai-Dorfman disease (also known as sinus histiocytosis with massive lymphadenopathy) is a non–Langerhans cell histiocytosis.¹ There are 2 main forms of RDD: one form that affects the lymph nodes and in certain cases the extranodal organs, and the other is purely CRDD. Cutaneous RDD is extremely rare and the etiology is unknown, though a number of viral and immune causes have been postulated. Cutaneous RDD presents as solitary or numerous papules, nodules, and/or plaques. Treatment options include steroids, methotrexate, dapsone, thalidomide, and isotretinoin, with varying efficacy reported.¹

Extranodal forms occur in 43% of RDD cases, with the skin being the most common site.¹ Other extranodal sites include the soft tissue, upper and lower respiratory tract, bones, genitourinary tract, oral cavity, gastrointestinal tract, orbits, testes, and rarely central nervous system involvement.²

Cutaneous RDD and RDD may be distinct clinical entities. Cutaneous RDD has a later age of onset than RDD (median age, 43.5 years vs 20.6 years) and a female predominance (2:1 vs 1.4:1). It most commonly affects Asian and white individuals while the majority of patients with RDD are of African descent with rare reports in Asians.¹

The etiology of CRDD remains unknown with hypotheses of viral and immune causes such as human herpesvirus 6, Epstein-Barr virus, and parvovirus B19. The polyclonal nature of the cell infiltrate and the clinical progression of RDD suggest a reactive process rather than a neoplastic disorder.¹ Rosai-Dorfman disease has been hypothesized to be closely related to autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome, an inherited disorder associated with defects in Fas-mediated apoptosis.⁵

Histologic findings in CRDD are similar to those in RDD, with a superficial and deep perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes and plasma cells. A diffuse and nodular dermal infiltrate of foamy histiocytes exists in a background infiltrate of lymphocytes and plasma cells. Foamy histiocytes may be seen in dermal lymphatics, and lymphoid follicles with reactive germinal centers also may be present. Emperipolesis, the presence of intact inflammatory cells within histiocytes, is common in CRDD. Less often, histiocytes may contain plasma cells, neutrophils, and red blood cells. Mitoses and nuclear atypia are rare. Cutaneous RDD histiocytes stain positive for S-100 protein, CD4, factor XIIIa, and CD68, and negative for CD1a. Birbeck granules are absent on electronic microscopy of CRDD tissue, eliminating Langerhans cell histiocytosis.^1,3,5

The clinical diagnosis of CRDD is hard to confirm in the absence of lymphadenopathy. The lesions in CRDD may be solitary or numerous, usually presenting as papules, nodules, and/or plaques. More rarely, the lesions may present as pustules, acneform lesions, mimickers of vasculitis and panniculitis, macular erythema, large annular lesions resembling granuloma annulare, or even a breast mass.^1,3 One case report with involvement of deep subcutaneous fat presented with flank swelling beneath papules and nodules.⁶

The most common site of lesions in CRDD is the face, with the eyelids and malar regions frequently involved, followed by the back, chest, thighs, flanks, and shoulders.^1,5 Rarely, CRDD may be associated with other disorders, including bilateral uveitis, antinuclear antibody–positive lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, hypothyroidism, lymphoma, and human immunodeficiency virus.¹

Numerous treatments have been attempted, yet the response often is poor. Because RDD is a benign and self-limiting disease, less aggressive therapeutic approaches should be used, if possible. Surgical excision of the lesions has been helpful in certain cases.⁶ Cryotherapy and local radiation, topical steroids, or laser treatment also have been found to improve the condition.^1,7 For refractory cases, dapsone and thalidomide have been effective. Mixed results have been observed with isotretinoin and imatinib; some patients improved whereas others did not. Utikal et al⁸ described a patient with complete remission of CRDD after receiving imatinib therapy; however, a different study reported a patient with CRDD who was completely resistant to this treatment.⁹ One case presenting on the breast did not respond to topical steroids, acitretin, and thalidomide but later responded to methotrexate.¹⁰

Conclusion

Cutaneous RDD is an unusual clinical entity with varied lesions. Generally, CRDD follows a benign clinical course, with a possibility of spontaneous remission. Further studies are required to confidently classify the etiology and variance between both RDD and CRDD.

Case Report

A 31-year-old black woman presented with a slow-spreading pruritic rash on the right thigh of 1 year’s duration. She had previously seen a dermatologist and was prescribed triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% and mupirocin ointment 2% but declined a biopsy. Review of symptoms was negative for any constitutional symptoms. Family history included hypertension and eczema with a personal history of anxiety. Clinical examination revealed grouped flesh-colored to light pink papules and plaques within a hyperpigmented patch on the right medial thigh (Figure 1).

Histopathology
A punch biopsy was negative for fungal, bacterial, or acid-fast bacilli culture. Histopathologic evaluation demonstrated a dense dermal infiltrate of large histiocytes admixed with inflammatory cells composed predominantly of lymphocytes and plasma cells. The histiocytes within the inflammatory infiltrate had vesicular nuclei and abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm (Figure 2A). Areas of emperipolesis were noted (Figure 2B). The large histiocytes stained positive for S-100 protein (Figure 2C) and negative for CD1a.

Comment

Rosai-Dorfman disease (also known as sinus histiocytosis with massive lymphadenopathy) is a non–Langerhans cell histiocytosis.¹ There are 2 main forms of RDD: one form that affects the lymph nodes and in certain cases the extranodal organs, and the other is purely CRDD. Cutaneous RDD is extremely rare and the etiology is unknown, though a number of viral and immune causes have been postulated. Cutaneous RDD presents as solitary or numerous papules, nodules, and/or plaques. Treatment options include steroids, methotrexate, dapsone, thalidomide, and isotretinoin, with varying efficacy reported.¹

Extranodal forms occur in 43% of RDD cases, with the skin being the most common site.¹ Other extranodal sites include the soft tissue, upper and lower respiratory tract, bones, genitourinary tract, oral cavity, gastrointestinal tract, orbits, testes, and rarely central nervous system involvement.²

Cutaneous RDD and RDD may be distinct clinical entities. Cutaneous RDD has a later age of onset than RDD (median age, 43.5 years vs 20.6 years) and a female predominance (2:1 vs 1.4:1). It most commonly affects Asian and white individuals while the majority of patients with RDD are of African descent with rare reports in Asians.¹

The etiology of CRDD remains unknown with hypotheses of viral and immune causes such as human herpesvirus 6, Epstein-Barr virus, and parvovirus B19. The polyclonal nature of the cell infiltrate and the clinical progression of RDD suggest a reactive process rather than a neoplastic disorder.¹ Rosai-Dorfman disease has been hypothesized to be closely related to autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome, an inherited disorder associated with defects in Fas-mediated apoptosis.⁵

Histologic findings in CRDD are similar to those in RDD, with a superficial and deep perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes and plasma cells. A diffuse and nodular dermal infiltrate of foamy histiocytes exists in a background infiltrate of lymphocytes and plasma cells. Foamy histiocytes may be seen in dermal lymphatics, and lymphoid follicles with reactive germinal centers also may be present. Emperipolesis, the presence of intact inflammatory cells within histiocytes, is common in CRDD. Less often, histiocytes may contain plasma cells, neutrophils, and red blood cells. Mitoses and nuclear atypia are rare. Cutaneous RDD histiocytes stain positive for S-100 protein, CD4, factor XIIIa, and CD68, and negative for CD1a. Birbeck granules are absent on electronic microscopy of CRDD tissue, eliminating Langerhans cell histiocytosis.^1,3,5

The clinical diagnosis of CRDD is hard to confirm in the absence of lymphadenopathy. The lesions in CRDD may be solitary or numerous, usually presenting as papules, nodules, and/or plaques. More rarely, the lesions may present as pustules, acneform lesions, mimickers of vasculitis and panniculitis, macular erythema, large annular lesions resembling granuloma annulare, or even a breast mass.^1,3 One case report with involvement of deep subcutaneous fat presented with flank swelling beneath papules and nodules.⁶

The most common site of lesions in CRDD is the face, with the eyelids and malar regions frequently involved, followed by the back, chest, thighs, flanks, and shoulders.^1,5 Rarely, CRDD may be associated with other disorders, including bilateral uveitis, antinuclear antibody–positive lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, hypothyroidism, lymphoma, and human immunodeficiency virus.¹

Numerous treatments have been attempted, yet the response often is poor. Because RDD is a benign and self-limiting disease, less aggressive therapeutic approaches should be used, if possible. Surgical excision of the lesions has been helpful in certain cases.⁶ Cryotherapy and local radiation, topical steroids, or laser treatment also have been found to improve the condition.^1,7 For refractory cases, dapsone and thalidomide have been effective. Mixed results have been observed with isotretinoin and imatinib; some patients improved whereas others did not. Utikal et al⁸ described a patient with complete remission of CRDD after receiving imatinib therapy; however, a different study reported a patient with CRDD who was completely resistant to this treatment.⁹ One case presenting on the breast did not respond to topical steroids, acitretin, and thalidomide but later responded to methotrexate.¹⁰

Conclusion

Cutaneous RDD is an unusual clinical entity with varied lesions. Generally, CRDD follows a benign clinical course, with a possibility of spontaneous remission. Further studies are required to confidently classify the etiology and variance between both RDD and CRDD.

To the Editor:

I read with interest the informative Cutis article by Hashim et al,¹ which not only summarized the key features of vaginal rejuvenation but also concisely reviewed noninvasive treatments, including lasers and radiofrequency devices, that can be used to address this important issue. The authors emphasized that these treatments may represent a valuable addition to the cosmetic landscape. In addition, they also asserted that noninvasive vaginal rejuvenation is an expanding focus of cosmetic dermatology.¹

Genital rejuvenation includes rejuvenation of the vagina in women and the scrotum in men. Since the term initially appeared in the literature in 2007,² a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE yields an increasing number of articles on vaginal rejuvenation. More recently, the concept of scrotal rejuvenation was introduced in 2018.³

Similar to vaginal rejuvenation, scrotal rejuvenation includes procedures to remedy medical or cosmetic conditions of the scrotum. Hashim et al¹ focused on morphology-associated vaginal changes for which rejuvenation techniques have been successful, such as excess clitoral hood; excess labia majora or minora; vaginal laxity; and vulvovaginal atrophy, which is considered to be a component of genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Morphology-associated changes of the scrotum include wrinkling (cutis scrotum gyratum or scrotum rugosum) and laxity (low-hanging or sagging scrotum or scrotomegaly). Potential treatments of noninvasive scrotal rejuvenation include botulinum toxin for wrinkling and the SCROTUM (Sutures Can Raise by Orienting Threads in an Upward Manner) procedure for laxity.^3,4

Intrinsic (aging) and extrinsic (trauma) alterations also can result in other changes that may be amenable to vaginal or scrotal rejuvenation; for example, in addition to changes in morphology, there are hair (eg, alopecia, hypertrichosis) and vascular (eg, angiokeratomas) conditions of the vagina and scrotum that may be suitable for rejuvenation.^3-5 Dermatologists have the opportunity to provide treatment for the genital rejuvenation of their patients.

To the Editor:

I read with interest the informative Cutis article by Hashim et al,¹ which not only summarized the key features of vaginal rejuvenation but also concisely reviewed noninvasive treatments, including lasers and radiofrequency devices, that can be used to address this important issue. The authors emphasized that these treatments may represent a valuable addition to the cosmetic landscape. In addition, they also asserted that noninvasive vaginal rejuvenation is an expanding focus of cosmetic dermatology.¹

Genital rejuvenation includes rejuvenation of the vagina in women and the scrotum in men. Since the term initially appeared in the literature in 2007,² a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE yields an increasing number of articles on vaginal rejuvenation. More recently, the concept of scrotal rejuvenation was introduced in 2018.³

Similar to vaginal rejuvenation, scrotal rejuvenation includes procedures to remedy medical or cosmetic conditions of the scrotum. Hashim et al¹ focused on morphology-associated vaginal changes for which rejuvenation techniques have been successful, such as excess clitoral hood; excess labia majora or minora; vaginal laxity; and vulvovaginal atrophy, which is considered to be a component of genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Morphology-associated changes of the scrotum include wrinkling (cutis scrotum gyratum or scrotum rugosum) and laxity (low-hanging or sagging scrotum or scrotomegaly). Potential treatments of noninvasive scrotal rejuvenation include botulinum toxin for wrinkling and the SCROTUM (Sutures Can Raise by Orienting Threads in an Upward Manner) procedure for laxity.^3,4

Intrinsic (aging) and extrinsic (trauma) alterations also can result in other changes that may be amenable to vaginal or scrotal rejuvenation; for example, in addition to changes in morphology, there are hair (eg, alopecia, hypertrichosis) and vascular (eg, angiokeratomas) conditions of the vagina and scrotum that may be suitable for rejuvenation.^3-5 Dermatologists have the opportunity to provide treatment for the genital rejuvenation of their patients.

To the Editor:

I read with interest the informative Cutis article by Hashim et al,¹ which not only summarized the key features of vaginal rejuvenation but also concisely reviewed noninvasive treatments, including lasers and radiofrequency devices, that can be used to address this important issue. The authors emphasized that these treatments may represent a valuable addition to the cosmetic landscape. In addition, they also asserted that noninvasive vaginal rejuvenation is an expanding focus of cosmetic dermatology.¹

Genital rejuvenation includes rejuvenation of the vagina in women and the scrotum in men. Since the term initially appeared in the literature in 2007,² a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE yields an increasing number of articles on vaginal rejuvenation. More recently, the concept of scrotal rejuvenation was introduced in 2018.³

Similar to vaginal rejuvenation, scrotal rejuvenation includes procedures to remedy medical or cosmetic conditions of the scrotum. Hashim et al¹ focused on morphology-associated vaginal changes for which rejuvenation techniques have been successful, such as excess clitoral hood; excess labia majora or minora; vaginal laxity; and vulvovaginal atrophy, which is considered to be a component of genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Morphology-associated changes of the scrotum include wrinkling (cutis scrotum gyratum or scrotum rugosum) and laxity (low-hanging or sagging scrotum or scrotomegaly). Potential treatments of noninvasive scrotal rejuvenation include botulinum toxin for wrinkling and the SCROTUM (Sutures Can Raise by Orienting Threads in an Upward Manner) procedure for laxity.^3,4

Intrinsic (aging) and extrinsic (trauma) alterations also can result in other changes that may be amenable to vaginal or scrotal rejuvenation; for example, in addition to changes in morphology, there are hair (eg, alopecia, hypertrichosis) and vascular (eg, angiokeratomas) conditions of the vagina and scrotum that may be suitable for rejuvenation.^3-5 Dermatologists have the opportunity to provide treatment for the genital rejuvenation of their patients.

An expert panel appointed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology has issued a new guideline for the treatment and follow-up of patients with early-stage colorectal cancer.

The multidisciplinary, multinational panel identified and reviewed previous guidelines from 12 different developers to create the new ASCO guideline; of these, recommendations from six guidelines were adapted into the evidence base. All recommendations have a consensus rate of at least 75%.

For patients with basic, nonobstructing stage I-IIA colon cancer, open resection is recommended; those with enhanced disease should receive laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery. For nonobstructing stage IIB-IIC colon cancer, recommended treatment for basic disease is open resection; emergency surgical resection is recommended in enhanced disease.

Treatment for basic, obstructing IIB-IIC disease is resection and/or diversion and is emergency surgical resection in enhanced disease. In left-sided, stage IIB-IIC disease, colonic stent placement is recommended. In high-risk, obstructing stage II disease or in T4N0/T3N0 disease with high-risk features, adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended.

In cT1N0 and cT2n0 rectal cancer, total mesorectal excision is recommended; for cT3n0, total mesorectal excision is recommended in basic and limited cases, with diversion recommended in other cases. For resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer, patients should receive base neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

For follow-up, patients should receive a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy, with the frequency depending on patient setting.

More information, including a data supplement with additional evidence tables, a methodology supplement with information about evidence quality and strength of recommendations, slide sets, and clinical tools and resources is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines, according to the guideline.

Several members of the expert panel reported conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Costas-Chavarri A et al. J Glob Oncol. 2019 Feb 25. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00214.

An expert panel appointed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology has issued a new guideline for the treatment and follow-up of patients with early-stage colorectal cancer.

The multidisciplinary, multinational panel identified and reviewed previous guidelines from 12 different developers to create the new ASCO guideline; of these, recommendations from six guidelines were adapted into the evidence base. All recommendations have a consensus rate of at least 75%.

For patients with basic, nonobstructing stage I-IIA colon cancer, open resection is recommended; those with enhanced disease should receive laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery. For nonobstructing stage IIB-IIC colon cancer, recommended treatment for basic disease is open resection; emergency surgical resection is recommended in enhanced disease.

Treatment for basic, obstructing IIB-IIC disease is resection and/or diversion and is emergency surgical resection in enhanced disease. In left-sided, stage IIB-IIC disease, colonic stent placement is recommended. In high-risk, obstructing stage II disease or in T4N0/T3N0 disease with high-risk features, adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended.

In cT1N0 and cT2n0 rectal cancer, total mesorectal excision is recommended; for cT3n0, total mesorectal excision is recommended in basic and limited cases, with diversion recommended in other cases. For resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer, patients should receive base neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

For follow-up, patients should receive a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy, with the frequency depending on patient setting.

More information, including a data supplement with additional evidence tables, a methodology supplement with information about evidence quality and strength of recommendations, slide sets, and clinical tools and resources is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines, according to the guideline.

Several members of the expert panel reported conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Costas-Chavarri A et al. J Glob Oncol. 2019 Feb 25. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00214.

An expert panel appointed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology has issued a new guideline for the treatment and follow-up of patients with early-stage colorectal cancer.

The multidisciplinary, multinational panel identified and reviewed previous guidelines from 12 different developers to create the new ASCO guideline; of these, recommendations from six guidelines were adapted into the evidence base. All recommendations have a consensus rate of at least 75%.

For patients with basic, nonobstructing stage I-IIA colon cancer, open resection is recommended; those with enhanced disease should receive laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery. For nonobstructing stage IIB-IIC colon cancer, recommended treatment for basic disease is open resection; emergency surgical resection is recommended in enhanced disease.

Treatment for basic, obstructing IIB-IIC disease is resection and/or diversion and is emergency surgical resection in enhanced disease. In left-sided, stage IIB-IIC disease, colonic stent placement is recommended. In high-risk, obstructing stage II disease or in T4N0/T3N0 disease with high-risk features, adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended.

In cT1N0 and cT2n0 rectal cancer, total mesorectal excision is recommended; for cT3n0, total mesorectal excision is recommended in basic and limited cases, with diversion recommended in other cases. For resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer, patients should receive base neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

For follow-up, patients should receive a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy, with the frequency depending on patient setting.

More information, including a data supplement with additional evidence tables, a methodology supplement with information about evidence quality and strength of recommendations, slide sets, and clinical tools and resources is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines, according to the guideline.

Several members of the expert panel reported conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Costas-Chavarri A et al. J Glob Oncol. 2019 Feb 25. doi: 10.1200/JGO.18.00214.

Incidence and Characteristics

Stingrays are the most common cause of fish-related stings worldwide.¹ The Urolophidae and Dasyatidae stingray families are responsible for most marine stingray injuries, including approximately 1500 reported injuries in the United States annually.^1,2 Saltwater stingrays from these families commonly are encountered in shallow temperate and tropical coastal waters across the globe and possess dorsally and distally located spines capable of injuring humans that step on them (Figure 1).^1,3 Freshwater stingrays (Potamotrygonidae family)(Figure 2) are not present in North America but rather inhabit lakes and river systems in South America, Africa, Laos, and Vietnam.⁴ Although recent incidence is unknown, Marinkelle⁵ estimated that thousands of stingray injuries occurred annually in the freshwater of Columbia during the 1960s. Unfortunately, the annual worldwide incidence of stingray injuries is generally unknown and is difficult to estimate, in part because injuries often go unreported.

Stingrays are dorsoventrally flattened, diamond-shaped fish with light-colored ventral and dark-colored dorsal surfaces. They have strong pectoral wings that allow them to swim forward and backward and even launch off waves.³ Stingrays range in size from the palm of a human hand to 6.5 ft in width. They possess 1 or more spines (2.5 to >30 cm in length) that are disguised by much longer tails.^6,7 They often are encountered accidentally because they bury themselves in the sand or mud of shallow coastal waters or rivers with only their eyes and tails exposed to fool prey and avoid predators.

Injury Clinical Presentation

Stingray injuries typically involve the lower legs, ankles, or feet after stepping on a stingray.⁸ Fishermen can present with injuries of the upper extremities after handling fish with their hands.⁹ Other rarer injuries occur when individuals are swimming alongside stingrays or when stingrays catapult off waves into moving boats.^10,11 Stingrays impale victims by using their tails to direct a retroserrate barb composed of a strong cartilaginous material called vasodentin. The barb releases venom by breaking through the venom-containing integumentary sheath that encapsulates it. Stingray venom contains phosphodiesterase, serotonin, and 5′-nucleotidase. It causes severe pain, vasoconstriction, ischemia, and poor wound healing, along with systemic effects such as disorientation, syncope, seizures, salivation, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, muscle cramps or fasciculations, pruritus, allergic reaction, hypotension, cardiac arrhythmias, dyspnea, paralysis, and possibly death.^1,8,12,13

Management

Pain Relief
As with many marine envenomations, immersion in hot but not scalding water can inactivate venom and reduce symptoms.^8,9 In one retrospective review, 52 of 75 (69%) patients reporting to a California poison center with stingray injuries had improvement in pain within 1 hour of hot water immersion before any analgesics were instituted.⁸ In another review, 65 of 74 (88%) patients presenting to a California emergency department within 24 hours of sustaining a stingray injury had complete relief of pain within 30 minutes of hot water immersion. Patients who received analgesics in addition to hot water immersion did not require a second dose.⁹ In concordance with these studies, we suggest immersing areas affected by stingray injuries in hot water (temperature, 43.3°C to 46.1°C [110°F–115°F]; or as close to this range as tolerated) until pain subsides.^8,9,14 Ice packs are an alternative to hot water immersion that may be more readily available to patients. If pain does not resolve following hot water immersion or application of an ice pack, additional analgesics and xylocaine without epinephrine may be helpful.^9,15

Infection
One major complication of stingray injuries is infection.^8,9 Many bacterial species reside in stingray mucus, the marine environment, or on human skin that may be introduced during a single injury. Marine envenomations can involve organisms such as Vibrio, Aeromonas, and Mycobacterium species, which often are resistant to antibiotic prophylaxis covering common causes of soft-tissue infection such as Staphylococcus and Streptococcus species.^8,9,16,17 Additionally, physicians should cover for Clostridium species and ensure patients are up-to-date on vaccinations because severe cases of tetanus following stingray injuries have been reported.¹⁸ Lastly, fungal infections including fusariosis have been reported following stingray injuries and should be considered if a patient develops an infection.¹⁹

Several authors support the use of prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotics in all but mild stingray injuries.^8,9,20,21 Although no standardized definition exists, mild injuries generally represent patients with superficial lacerations or less, while deeper lacerations and puncture wounds require prophylaxis. Several authors agree on the use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics (eg, ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily) for 5 to 7 days following severe stingray injuries.^1,9,13,22 Other proposed antibiotic regimens include trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (160/800 mg twice daily) or tetracycline (500 mg 4 times daily) for 7 days.¹³ Failure of ciprofloxacin therapy after 7 days has been reported, with resolution of infection after treatment with an intravenous cephalosporin for 7 days.²⁰ Failure of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole therapy also has been reported, with one case requiring levofloxacin for a much longer course.²¹ Clinical follow-up remains essential after prescribing prophylactic antibiotics, as resistance is common.

Foreign Bodies
Stingray injuries also are often complicated by foreign bodies or retained spines.^3,8 Although these complications are less severe than infection, all wounds should be explored for material under local anesthesia. Furthermore, there has been support for thorough debridement of necrotic tissue with referral to a hand specialist for deeper injuries to the hands as well as referral to a foot and ankle specialist for deeper injuries of the lower extremities.^23,24 More serious injuries with penetration of vital structures, such as through the chest or abdomen, require immediate exploration in an operating room.^1,24

Imaging
Routine imaging of stingray injuries remains controversial. In a case series of 119 patients presenting to a California emergency department with stingray injuries, Clark et al⁹ found that radiographs were not helpful. This finding likely is due in part to an inability to detect hypodense material such as integumentary or glandular tissue via radiography.³ However, radiographs have been used to identify retained stingray barbs in select cases in which retained barbs are suspected.^2,25 Lastly, ultrasonography potentially may offer a better first choice when a barb is not readily apparent; magnetic resonance imaging may be indicated for more involved areas and for further visualization of suspected hypodense material, though at a higher expense.^2,9

Biopsy
Biopsies of stingray injuries are rarely performed, and the findings are not well characterized. One case biopsied 2 months after injury showed a large zone of paucicellular necrosis with superficial ulceration and granulomatous inflammation. The stingray venom was most likely responsible for the pattern of necrosis noted in the biopsy.²¹

Avoidance and Prevention

Patients traveling to areas of the world inhabited by stingrays should receive counseling on how to avoid injury. Prior to entry, individuals can throw stones or use a long stick to clear their walking or swimming areas of venomous fish.²⁶ Polarized sunglasses may help spot stingrays in shallow water. Furthermore, wading through water with a shuffling gait can help individuals avoid stepping directly on a stingray and also warns stingrays that someone is in the area. Individuals who spend more time in coastal waters or river systems inhabited by stingrays may invest in protective stingray gear such as leg guards or specialized wading boots.²⁶ Lastly, fishermen should be advised to avoid handling stingrays with their hands and instead cut their fishing line to release the fish.

Incidence and Characteristics

Stingrays are the most common cause of fish-related stings worldwide.¹ The Urolophidae and Dasyatidae stingray families are responsible for most marine stingray injuries, including approximately 1500 reported injuries in the United States annually.^1,2 Saltwater stingrays from these families commonly are encountered in shallow temperate and tropical coastal waters across the globe and possess dorsally and distally located spines capable of injuring humans that step on them (Figure 1).^1,3 Freshwater stingrays (Potamotrygonidae family)(Figure 2) are not present in North America but rather inhabit lakes and river systems in South America, Africa, Laos, and Vietnam.⁴ Although recent incidence is unknown, Marinkelle⁵ estimated that thousands of stingray injuries occurred annually in the freshwater of Columbia during the 1960s. Unfortunately, the annual worldwide incidence of stingray injuries is generally unknown and is difficult to estimate, in part because injuries often go unreported.

Stingrays are dorsoventrally flattened, diamond-shaped fish with light-colored ventral and dark-colored dorsal surfaces. They have strong pectoral wings that allow them to swim forward and backward and even launch off waves.³ Stingrays range in size from the palm of a human hand to 6.5 ft in width. They possess 1 or more spines (2.5 to >30 cm in length) that are disguised by much longer tails.^6,7 They often are encountered accidentally because they bury themselves in the sand or mud of shallow coastal waters or rivers with only their eyes and tails exposed to fool prey and avoid predators.

Injury Clinical Presentation

Stingray injuries typically involve the lower legs, ankles, or feet after stepping on a stingray.⁸ Fishermen can present with injuries of the upper extremities after handling fish with their hands.⁹ Other rarer injuries occur when individuals are swimming alongside stingrays or when stingrays catapult off waves into moving boats.^10,11 Stingrays impale victims by using their tails to direct a retroserrate barb composed of a strong cartilaginous material called vasodentin. The barb releases venom by breaking through the venom-containing integumentary sheath that encapsulates it. Stingray venom contains phosphodiesterase, serotonin, and 5′-nucleotidase. It causes severe pain, vasoconstriction, ischemia, and poor wound healing, along with systemic effects such as disorientation, syncope, seizures, salivation, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, muscle cramps or fasciculations, pruritus, allergic reaction, hypotension, cardiac arrhythmias, dyspnea, paralysis, and possibly death.^1,8,12,13

Management

Pain Relief
As with many marine envenomations, immersion in hot but not scalding water can inactivate venom and reduce symptoms.^8,9 In one retrospective review, 52 of 75 (69%) patients reporting to a California poison center with stingray injuries had improvement in pain within 1 hour of hot water immersion before any analgesics were instituted.⁸ In another review, 65 of 74 (88%) patients presenting to a California emergency department within 24 hours of sustaining a stingray injury had complete relief of pain within 30 minutes of hot water immersion. Patients who received analgesics in addition to hot water immersion did not require a second dose.⁹ In concordance with these studies, we suggest immersing areas affected by stingray injuries in hot water (temperature, 43.3°C to 46.1°C [110°F–115°F]; or as close to this range as tolerated) until pain subsides.^8,9,14 Ice packs are an alternative to hot water immersion that may be more readily available to patients. If pain does not resolve following hot water immersion or application of an ice pack, additional analgesics and xylocaine without epinephrine may be helpful.^9,15

Infection
One major complication of stingray injuries is infection.^8,9 Many bacterial species reside in stingray mucus, the marine environment, or on human skin that may be introduced during a single injury. Marine envenomations can involve organisms such as Vibrio, Aeromonas, and Mycobacterium species, which often are resistant to antibiotic prophylaxis covering common causes of soft-tissue infection such as Staphylococcus and Streptococcus species.^8,9,16,17 Additionally, physicians should cover for Clostridium species and ensure patients are up-to-date on vaccinations because severe cases of tetanus following stingray injuries have been reported.¹⁸ Lastly, fungal infections including fusariosis have been reported following stingray injuries and should be considered if a patient develops an infection.¹⁹

Several authors support the use of prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotics in all but mild stingray injuries.^8,9,20,21 Although no standardized definition exists, mild injuries generally represent patients with superficial lacerations or less, while deeper lacerations and puncture wounds require prophylaxis. Several authors agree on the use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics (eg, ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily) for 5 to 7 days following severe stingray injuries.^1,9,13,22 Other proposed antibiotic regimens include trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (160/800 mg twice daily) or tetracycline (500 mg 4 times daily) for 7 days.¹³ Failure of ciprofloxacin therapy after 7 days has been reported, with resolution of infection after treatment with an intravenous cephalosporin for 7 days.²⁰ Failure of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole therapy also has been reported, with one case requiring levofloxacin for a much longer course.²¹ Clinical follow-up remains essential after prescribing prophylactic antibiotics, as resistance is common.

Foreign Bodies
Stingray injuries also are often complicated by foreign bodies or retained spines.^3,8 Although these complications are less severe than infection, all wounds should be explored for material under local anesthesia. Furthermore, there has been support for thorough debridement of necrotic tissue with referral to a hand specialist for deeper injuries to the hands as well as referral to a foot and ankle specialist for deeper injuries of the lower extremities.^23,24 More serious injuries with penetration of vital structures, such as through the chest or abdomen, require immediate exploration in an operating room.^1,24

Imaging
Routine imaging of stingray injuries remains controversial. In a case series of 119 patients presenting to a California emergency department with stingray injuries, Clark et al⁹ found that radiographs were not helpful. This finding likely is due in part to an inability to detect hypodense material such as integumentary or glandular tissue via radiography.³ However, radiographs have been used to identify retained stingray barbs in select cases in which retained barbs are suspected.^2,25 Lastly, ultrasonography potentially may offer a better first choice when a barb is not readily apparent; magnetic resonance imaging may be indicated for more involved areas and for further visualization of suspected hypodense material, though at a higher expense.^2,9

Biopsy
Biopsies of stingray injuries are rarely performed, and the findings are not well characterized. One case biopsied 2 months after injury showed a large zone of paucicellular necrosis with superficial ulceration and granulomatous inflammation. The stingray venom was most likely responsible for the pattern of necrosis noted in the biopsy.²¹

Avoidance and Prevention

Patients traveling to areas of the world inhabited by stingrays should receive counseling on how to avoid injury. Prior to entry, individuals can throw stones or use a long stick to clear their walking or swimming areas of venomous fish.²⁶ Polarized sunglasses may help spot stingrays in shallow water. Furthermore, wading through water with a shuffling gait can help individuals avoid stepping directly on a stingray and also warns stingrays that someone is in the area. Individuals who spend more time in coastal waters or river systems inhabited by stingrays may invest in protective stingray gear such as leg guards or specialized wading boots.²⁶ Lastly, fishermen should be advised to avoid handling stingrays with their hands and instead cut their fishing line to release the fish.

Incidence and Characteristics

Stingrays are the most common cause of fish-related stings worldwide.¹ The Urolophidae and Dasyatidae stingray families are responsible for most marine stingray injuries, including approximately 1500 reported injuries in the United States annually.^1,2 Saltwater stingrays from these families commonly are encountered in shallow temperate and tropical coastal waters across the globe and possess dorsally and distally located spines capable of injuring humans that step on them (Figure 1).^1,3 Freshwater stingrays (Potamotrygonidae family)(Figure 2) are not present in North America but rather inhabit lakes and river systems in South America, Africa, Laos, and Vietnam.⁴ Although recent incidence is unknown, Marinkelle⁵ estimated that thousands of stingray injuries occurred annually in the freshwater of Columbia during the 1960s. Unfortunately, the annual worldwide incidence of stingray injuries is generally unknown and is difficult to estimate, in part because injuries often go unreported.

Stingrays are dorsoventrally flattened, diamond-shaped fish with light-colored ventral and dark-colored dorsal surfaces. They have strong pectoral wings that allow them to swim forward and backward and even launch off waves.³ Stingrays range in size from the palm of a human hand to 6.5 ft in width. They possess 1 or more spines (2.5 to >30 cm in length) that are disguised by much longer tails.^6,7 They often are encountered accidentally because they bury themselves in the sand or mud of shallow coastal waters or rivers with only their eyes and tails exposed to fool prey and avoid predators.

Injury Clinical Presentation

Stingray injuries typically involve the lower legs, ankles, or feet after stepping on a stingray.⁸ Fishermen can present with injuries of the upper extremities after handling fish with their hands.⁹ Other rarer injuries occur when individuals are swimming alongside stingrays or when stingrays catapult off waves into moving boats.^10,11 Stingrays impale victims by using their tails to direct a retroserrate barb composed of a strong cartilaginous material called vasodentin. The barb releases venom by breaking through the venom-containing integumentary sheath that encapsulates it. Stingray venom contains phosphodiesterase, serotonin, and 5′-nucleotidase. It causes severe pain, vasoconstriction, ischemia, and poor wound healing, along with systemic effects such as disorientation, syncope, seizures, salivation, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, muscle cramps or fasciculations, pruritus, allergic reaction, hypotension, cardiac arrhythmias, dyspnea, paralysis, and possibly death.^1,8,12,13

Management

Pain Relief
As with many marine envenomations, immersion in hot but not scalding water can inactivate venom and reduce symptoms.^8,9 In one retrospective review, 52 of 75 (69%) patients reporting to a California poison center with stingray injuries had improvement in pain within 1 hour of hot water immersion before any analgesics were instituted.⁸ In another review, 65 of 74 (88%) patients presenting to a California emergency department within 24 hours of sustaining a stingray injury had complete relief of pain within 30 minutes of hot water immersion. Patients who received analgesics in addition to hot water immersion did not require a second dose.⁹ In concordance with these studies, we suggest immersing areas affected by stingray injuries in hot water (temperature, 43.3°C to 46.1°C [110°F–115°F]; or as close to this range as tolerated) until pain subsides.^8,9,14 Ice packs are an alternative to hot water immersion that may be more readily available to patients. If pain does not resolve following hot water immersion or application of an ice pack, additional analgesics and xylocaine without epinephrine may be helpful.^9,15

Infection
One major complication of stingray injuries is infection.^8,9 Many bacterial species reside in stingray mucus, the marine environment, or on human skin that may be introduced during a single injury. Marine envenomations can involve organisms such as Vibrio, Aeromonas, and Mycobacterium species, which often are resistant to antibiotic prophylaxis covering common causes of soft-tissue infection such as Staphylococcus and Streptococcus species.^8,9,16,17 Additionally, physicians should cover for Clostridium species and ensure patients are up-to-date on vaccinations because severe cases of tetanus following stingray injuries have been reported.¹⁸ Lastly, fungal infections including fusariosis have been reported following stingray injuries and should be considered if a patient develops an infection.¹⁹

Several authors support the use of prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotics in all but mild stingray injuries.^8,9,20,21 Although no standardized definition exists, mild injuries generally represent patients with superficial lacerations or less, while deeper lacerations and puncture wounds require prophylaxis. Several authors agree on the use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics (eg, ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily) for 5 to 7 days following severe stingray injuries.^1,9,13,22 Other proposed antibiotic regimens include trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (160/800 mg twice daily) or tetracycline (500 mg 4 times daily) for 7 days.¹³ Failure of ciprofloxacin therapy after 7 days has been reported, with resolution of infection after treatment with an intravenous cephalosporin for 7 days.²⁰ Failure of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole therapy also has been reported, with one case requiring levofloxacin for a much longer course.²¹ Clinical follow-up remains essential after prescribing prophylactic antibiotics, as resistance is common.

Foreign Bodies
Stingray injuries also are often complicated by foreign bodies or retained spines.^3,8 Although these complications are less severe than infection, all wounds should be explored for material under local anesthesia. Furthermore, there has been support for thorough debridement of necrotic tissue with referral to a hand specialist for deeper injuries to the hands as well as referral to a foot and ankle specialist for deeper injuries of the lower extremities.^23,24 More serious injuries with penetration of vital structures, such as through the chest or abdomen, require immediate exploration in an operating room.^1,24

Imaging
Routine imaging of stingray injuries remains controversial. In a case series of 119 patients presenting to a California emergency department with stingray injuries, Clark et al⁹ found that radiographs were not helpful. This finding likely is due in part to an inability to detect hypodense material such as integumentary or glandular tissue via radiography.³ However, radiographs have been used to identify retained stingray barbs in select cases in which retained barbs are suspected.^2,25 Lastly, ultrasonography potentially may offer a better first choice when a barb is not readily apparent; magnetic resonance imaging may be indicated for more involved areas and for further visualization of suspected hypodense material, though at a higher expense.^2,9

Biopsy
Biopsies of stingray injuries are rarely performed, and the findings are not well characterized. One case biopsied 2 months after injury showed a large zone of paucicellular necrosis with superficial ulceration and granulomatous inflammation. The stingray venom was most likely responsible for the pattern of necrosis noted in the biopsy.²¹

Avoidance and Prevention

Patients traveling to areas of the world inhabited by stingrays should receive counseling on how to avoid injury. Prior to entry, individuals can throw stones or use a long stick to clear their walking or swimming areas of venomous fish.²⁶ Polarized sunglasses may help spot stingrays in shallow water. Furthermore, wading through water with a shuffling gait can help individuals avoid stepping directly on a stingray and also warns stingrays that someone is in the area. Individuals who spend more time in coastal waters or river systems inhabited by stingrays may invest in protective stingray gear such as leg guards or specialized wading boots.²⁶ Lastly, fishermen should be advised to avoid handling stingrays with their hands and instead cut their fishing line to release the fish.

Eccrine porocarcinoma (EPC), originally described by Pinkus and Mehregan¹ in 1963, is an exceedingly rare sweat gland tumor most commonly seen in older patients. Fewer than 300 cases have been reported in the literature, and it is believed to represent only 0.005% to 0.01% of cutaneous malignancies.² In the absence of established guidelines, wide local excision (WLE) has traditionally been considered the standard of treatment; however, local recurrence and nodal metastasis rates associated with WLE have been reported as high as 20%.³ More recently, a number of case reports and small case series have demonstrated higher cure rates with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), though follow-up is limited.^3-5 We describe a case of EPC presenting as a recurrent wart in a 36-year-old man that was successfully treated with MMS.

Case Report

A 36-year-old man with no notable medical history presented with a 0.5×0.5-cm, asymptomatic, flesh-colored, hyperkeratotic, polypoid papule on the right medial thigh (Figure 1). The lesion was diagnosed as a wart and treated with cryotherapy by another dermatologist several years prior to presentation. Dermatoscopic examination at the current presentation showed a homogenous yellow center with a few peripheral vessels and a faint pink-tan halo (Figure 2). Our differential diagnosis included a recurrent wart, fibrosed pyogenic granuloma, irritated intradermal nevus, skin tag, and adnexal neoplasm. A shave biopsy was performed. Histopathologic analysis revealed multiple aggregations of mildly pleomorphic epithelial cells emanating from the epidermis, with many aggregations containing ductal structures (Figure 3). Rare necrotic and pyknotic cells were present, but no mitotic figures or lymphovascular invasion were identified. Immunohistochemical staining was positive for carcinoembryonic antigen and epithelial membrane antigen but negative for Ber-EP4. These findings were consistent with a well-differentiated EPC.

The patient was offered MMS or WLE, with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). He opted for MMS. The initial 1-cm margin taken during MMS was sufficient to achieve complete tumor extirpation, and the final 3.7×2.5-cm defect was closed primarily. The MMS debulking specimen was sent for permanent sectioning and showed a small focus of residual tumor cells, but no mitoses or lymphovascular invasion were seen. The patient was referred to surgical oncology to discuss the option of SLNB, which he ultimately declined. He also was offered regional or whole-body positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT) to rule out metastatic disease, which he also declined. There was no evidence of recurrence or lymphadenopathy 19 months postoperatively.

Comment

Eccrine porocarcinoma is an exceptionally rare adnexal neoplasm that most commonly affects older adults. The average age at diagnosis is 71 years in men and 75 years in women.² Our case is rare because of the patient’s age. Benign eccrine poromas occur most frequently on the palms, soles, axillae, and forehead where eccrine density is highest; EPC occurs most frequently on the lower extremities.⁶ It may arise de novo or from malignant transformation of a preexisting benign poroma. Clinically, EPC may present as an asymptomatic pink-brown papule, plaque, or nodule and may have a polypoid or verrucous appearance, as in our patient. Ulceration is common.⁷ The differential diagnosis often includes nodular basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, pyogenic granuloma, and seborrheic keratosis.

Histologically, EPCs are characterized by aggregations of cohesive basaloid epithelial cells forming eccrine ductal structures.² Cellular atypia may be extremely subtle but, if present, can be helpful in differentiating malignant from benign lesions. Features of basal and squamous cell carcinoma also may be present. Definitive diagnosis is frequently based on the overall invasive architectural pattern.⁵ Robson et al² examined 69 cases of EPC for high-risk histologic features and concluded that tumor depth greater than 7 mm, mitoses greater than 14 per high-power field, and the presence of lymphovascular invasion were independently predictive of mortality. Moreover, after adjusting for mitosis and depth, an infiltrative border vs a pushing border was strongly predictive of local recurrence.² Immunohistochemical stains, although not necessary for diagnosis, may have utility as adjunctive tools. Cells lining the ducts within EPCs commonly stain positive for carcinoembryonic antigen, though glandular myoepithelial cells stain positive for S-100. Negative Ber-EP4 staining helps to differentiate EPC from basal cell carcinoma. Abnormal expression of p53 and overexpression of p16 also has been described.⁴

The rarity of EPC has precluded the development of any evidence-based management guidelines. Historically, the standard of care has been WLE with 2- to 3-cm margins. A review of 105 cases of EPC treated with WLE showed 20% local recurrence, 20% regional metastases, and 12% distant metastasis rates.⁸ Mohs micrographic surgery, which allows examination of 100% of the surgical margin vs less than 1% for WLE with the standard bread-loafing technique, might be expected to achieve higher cure rates. A review of 29 cases treated with MMS monotherapy demonstrated no local recurrences, distant metastasis, or disease-specific deaths with follow-up ranging from 19 months to 6 years.⁵ One case was associated with regional lymph node metastases that were treated with completion lymphadenectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy.⁷ The high mortality rate of patients with nodal disease has led some to recommend PET-CT and SLNB for patients with EPC. However, the prognostic value of such procedures has not been clearly defined and there is no demonstrated survival benefit for treatment of widespread disease. Our patient declined both SLNB and PET-CT, and our plan was to follow him clinically with symptom-directed imaging only.

Conclusion

Patients with EPC generally have a favorable prognosis with prompt diagnosis and complete surgical excision. Although most commonly seen in elderly patients, EPC may present in younger patients and may be clinically and histologically nondescript with little cytologic atypia. Based on a small but growing body of literature, MMS appears to be at least as effective as WLE as a primary treatment modality for EPC, while offering the advantage of tissue sparing in cosmetically or functionally important areas.

Eccrine porocarcinoma (EPC), originally described by Pinkus and Mehregan¹ in 1963, is an exceedingly rare sweat gland tumor most commonly seen in older patients. Fewer than 300 cases have been reported in the literature, and it is believed to represent only 0.005% to 0.01% of cutaneous malignancies.² In the absence of established guidelines, wide local excision (WLE) has traditionally been considered the standard of treatment; however, local recurrence and nodal metastasis rates associated with WLE have been reported as high as 20%.³ More recently, a number of case reports and small case series have demonstrated higher cure rates with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), though follow-up is limited.^3-5 We describe a case of EPC presenting as a recurrent wart in a 36-year-old man that was successfully treated with MMS.

Case Report

A 36-year-old man with no notable medical history presented with a 0.5×0.5-cm, asymptomatic, flesh-colored, hyperkeratotic, polypoid papule on the right medial thigh (Figure 1). The lesion was diagnosed as a wart and treated with cryotherapy by another dermatologist several years prior to presentation. Dermatoscopic examination at the current presentation showed a homogenous yellow center with a few peripheral vessels and a faint pink-tan halo (Figure 2). Our differential diagnosis included a recurrent wart, fibrosed pyogenic granuloma, irritated intradermal nevus, skin tag, and adnexal neoplasm. A shave biopsy was performed. Histopathologic analysis revealed multiple aggregations of mildly pleomorphic epithelial cells emanating from the epidermis, with many aggregations containing ductal structures (Figure 3). Rare necrotic and pyknotic cells were present, but no mitotic figures or lymphovascular invasion were identified. Immunohistochemical staining was positive for carcinoembryonic antigen and epithelial membrane antigen but negative for Ber-EP4. These findings were consistent with a well-differentiated EPC.

The patient was offered MMS or WLE, with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). He opted for MMS. The initial 1-cm margin taken during MMS was sufficient to achieve complete tumor extirpation, and the final 3.7×2.5-cm defect was closed primarily. The MMS debulking specimen was sent for permanent sectioning and showed a small focus of residual tumor cells, but no mitoses or lymphovascular invasion were seen. The patient was referred to surgical oncology to discuss the option of SLNB, which he ultimately declined. He also was offered regional or whole-body positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT) to rule out metastatic disease, which he also declined. There was no evidence of recurrence or lymphadenopathy 19 months postoperatively.

Comment

Eccrine porocarcinoma is an exceptionally rare adnexal neoplasm that most commonly affects older adults. The average age at diagnosis is 71 years in men and 75 years in women.² Our case is rare because of the patient’s age. Benign eccrine poromas occur most frequently on the palms, soles, axillae, and forehead where eccrine density is highest; EPC occurs most frequently on the lower extremities.⁶ It may arise de novo or from malignant transformation of a preexisting benign poroma. Clinically, EPC may present as an asymptomatic pink-brown papule, plaque, or nodule and may have a polypoid or verrucous appearance, as in our patient. Ulceration is common.⁷ The differential diagnosis often includes nodular basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, pyogenic granuloma, and seborrheic keratosis.

Histologically, EPCs are characterized by aggregations of cohesive basaloid epithelial cells forming eccrine ductal structures.² Cellular atypia may be extremely subtle but, if present, can be helpful in differentiating malignant from benign lesions. Features of basal and squamous cell carcinoma also may be present. Definitive diagnosis is frequently based on the overall invasive architectural pattern.⁵ Robson et al² examined 69 cases of EPC for high-risk histologic features and concluded that tumor depth greater than 7 mm, mitoses greater than 14 per high-power field, and the presence of lymphovascular invasion were independently predictive of mortality. Moreover, after adjusting for mitosis and depth, an infiltrative border vs a pushing border was strongly predictive of local recurrence.² Immunohistochemical stains, although not necessary for diagnosis, may have utility as adjunctive tools. Cells lining the ducts within EPCs commonly stain positive for carcinoembryonic antigen, though glandular myoepithelial cells stain positive for S-100. Negative Ber-EP4 staining helps to differentiate EPC from basal cell carcinoma. Abnormal expression of p53 and overexpression of p16 also has been described.⁴

The rarity of EPC has precluded the development of any evidence-based management guidelines. Historically, the standard of care has been WLE with 2- to 3-cm margins. A review of 105 cases of EPC treated with WLE showed 20% local recurrence, 20% regional metastases, and 12% distant metastasis rates.⁸ Mohs micrographic surgery, which allows examination of 100% of the surgical margin vs less than 1% for WLE with the standard bread-loafing technique, might be expected to achieve higher cure rates. A review of 29 cases treated with MMS monotherapy demonstrated no local recurrences, distant metastasis, or disease-specific deaths with follow-up ranging from 19 months to 6 years.⁵ One case was associated with regional lymph node metastases that were treated with completion lymphadenectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy.⁷ The high mortality rate of patients with nodal disease has led some to recommend PET-CT and SLNB for patients with EPC. However, the prognostic value of such procedures has not been clearly defined and there is no demonstrated survival benefit for treatment of widespread disease. Our patient declined both SLNB and PET-CT, and our plan was to follow him clinically with symptom-directed imaging only.

Conclusion

Patients with EPC generally have a favorable prognosis with prompt diagnosis and complete surgical excision. Although most commonly seen in elderly patients, EPC may present in younger patients and may be clinically and histologically nondescript with little cytologic atypia. Based on a small but growing body of literature, MMS appears to be at least as effective as WLE as a primary treatment modality for EPC, while offering the advantage of tissue sparing in cosmetically or functionally important areas.

Eccrine porocarcinoma (EPC), originally described by Pinkus and Mehregan¹ in 1963, is an exceedingly rare sweat gland tumor most commonly seen in older patients. Fewer than 300 cases have been reported in the literature, and it is believed to represent only 0.005% to 0.01% of cutaneous malignancies.² In the absence of established guidelines, wide local excision (WLE) has traditionally been considered the standard of treatment; however, local recurrence and nodal metastasis rates associated with WLE have been reported as high as 20%.³ More recently, a number of case reports and small case series have demonstrated higher cure rates with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), though follow-up is limited.^3-5 We describe a case of EPC presenting as a recurrent wart in a 36-year-old man that was successfully treated with MMS.

Case Report

A 36-year-old man with no notable medical history presented with a 0.5×0.5-cm, asymptomatic, flesh-colored, hyperkeratotic, polypoid papule on the right medial thigh (Figure 1). The lesion was diagnosed as a wart and treated with cryotherapy by another dermatologist several years prior to presentation. Dermatoscopic examination at the current presentation showed a homogenous yellow center with a few peripheral vessels and a faint pink-tan halo (Figure 2). Our differential diagnosis included a recurrent wart, fibrosed pyogenic granuloma, irritated intradermal nevus, skin tag, and adnexal neoplasm. A shave biopsy was performed. Histopathologic analysis revealed multiple aggregations of mildly pleomorphic epithelial cells emanating from the epidermis, with many aggregations containing ductal structures (Figure 3). Rare necrotic and pyknotic cells were present, but no mitotic figures or lymphovascular invasion were identified. Immunohistochemical staining was positive for carcinoembryonic antigen and epithelial membrane antigen but negative for Ber-EP4. These findings were consistent with a well-differentiated EPC.

The patient was offered MMS or WLE, with or without sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). He opted for MMS. The initial 1-cm margin taken during MMS was sufficient to achieve complete tumor extirpation, and the final 3.7×2.5-cm defect was closed primarily. The MMS debulking specimen was sent for permanent sectioning and showed a small focus of residual tumor cells, but no mitoses or lymphovascular invasion were seen. The patient was referred to surgical oncology to discuss the option of SLNB, which he ultimately declined. He also was offered regional or whole-body positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT) to rule out metastatic disease, which he also declined. There was no evidence of recurrence or lymphadenopathy 19 months postoperatively.

Comment

Eccrine porocarcinoma is an exceptionally rare adnexal neoplasm that most commonly affects older adults. The average age at diagnosis is 71 years in men and 75 years in women.² Our case is rare because of the patient’s age. Benign eccrine poromas occur most frequently on the palms, soles, axillae, and forehead where eccrine density is highest; EPC occurs most frequently on the lower extremities.⁶ It may arise de novo or from malignant transformation of a preexisting benign poroma. Clinically, EPC may present as an asymptomatic pink-brown papule, plaque, or nodule and may have a polypoid or verrucous appearance, as in our patient. Ulceration is common.⁷ The differential diagnosis often includes nodular basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, pyogenic granuloma, and seborrheic keratosis.

Histologically, EPCs are characterized by aggregations of cohesive basaloid epithelial cells forming eccrine ductal structures.² Cellular atypia may be extremely subtle but, if present, can be helpful in differentiating malignant from benign lesions. Features of basal and squamous cell carcinoma also may be present. Definitive diagnosis is frequently based on the overall invasive architectural pattern.⁵ Robson et al² examined 69 cases of EPC for high-risk histologic features and concluded that tumor depth greater than 7 mm, mitoses greater than 14 per high-power field, and the presence of lymphovascular invasion were independently predictive of mortality. Moreover, after adjusting for mitosis and depth, an infiltrative border vs a pushing border was strongly predictive of local recurrence.² Immunohistochemical stains, although not necessary for diagnosis, may have utility as adjunctive tools. Cells lining the ducts within EPCs commonly stain positive for carcinoembryonic antigen, though glandular myoepithelial cells stain positive for S-100. Negative Ber-EP4 staining helps to differentiate EPC from basal cell carcinoma. Abnormal expression of p53 and overexpression of p16 also has been described.⁴

The rarity of EPC has precluded the development of any evidence-based management guidelines. Historically, the standard of care has been WLE with 2- to 3-cm margins. A review of 105 cases of EPC treated with WLE showed 20% local recurrence, 20% regional metastases, and 12% distant metastasis rates.⁸ Mohs micrographic surgery, which allows examination of 100% of the surgical margin vs less than 1% for WLE with the standard bread-loafing technique, might be expected to achieve higher cure rates. A review of 29 cases treated with MMS monotherapy demonstrated no local recurrences, distant metastasis, or disease-specific deaths with follow-up ranging from 19 months to 6 years.⁵ One case was associated with regional lymph node metastases that were treated with completion lymphadenectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy.⁷ The high mortality rate of patients with nodal disease has led some to recommend PET-CT and SLNB for patients with EPC. However, the prognostic value of such procedures has not been clearly defined and there is no demonstrated survival benefit for treatment of widespread disease. Our patient declined both SLNB and PET-CT, and our plan was to follow him clinically with symptom-directed imaging only.

Conclusion

Patients with EPC generally have a favorable prognosis with prompt diagnosis and complete surgical excision. Although most commonly seen in elderly patients, EPC may present in younger patients and may be clinically and histologically nondescript with little cytologic atypia. Based on a small but growing body of literature, MMS appears to be at least as effective as WLE as a primary treatment modality for EPC, while offering the advantage of tissue sparing in cosmetically or functionally important areas.

Hailey-Hailey disease (HHD), also known as benign familial chronic pemphigus, is an autosomal-dominant genodermatosis caused by mutations of the ATPase secretory pathway Ca²⁺ transporting 1 gene, ATP2C1.¹ It is characterized by crusted macerated erosions and velvety, fissured, hypertrophic plaques classically involving the intertriginous areas. The diagnosis is suggested by characteristic clinical morphology, involvement of the intertriginous areas, and a positive family history. Histology often confirms the diagnosis and demonstrates a characteristic dilapidated brick wall appearance. If there is a need to distinguish HHD from pemphigus, direct immunofluorescence studies also should be performed, which would be negative.^2,3 However, HHD often is misdiagnosed due to lack of knowledge of this uncommon disorder and its resemblance to other dermatoses of the intertriginous areas.⁴ We present an unusual presentation of HHD with late onset and involvement of the skin of the abdomen and foot.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman presented with a 3×4-cm fissured plaque with erosions and a peripheral yellow crust on the left side of the anterior abdomen (Figure 1A). There was another fissured plaque with surrounding erythema and scaling on the fifth digit of the right foot (Figure 1B). For the last 11 years, she periodically experienced erosive and scabbing skin plaques under the breasts and on the axillae and groin. Her mother and maternal grandfather had a history of similar skin lesions. Due to a suspicion of HHD, a skin biopsy specimen of the abdominal plaque was performed, which demonstrated epidermal acanthosis and suprabasal acantholysis with lacunae formation (Figure 2). There was uneven thickening of the epidermal keratin layer with parakeratotic nests. The upper layer of the dermis demonstrated edema and focal fibrosis, enlarged capillaries, and pericapillary lymphohistiocytic infiltration with eosinophils and neutrophils. Accordingly, a diagnosis of HHD was established.

Comment

Hailey-Hailey disease occurs in 1 to 4 per 100,000 individuals without predilection for sex or ethnic group.^5-9 Onset usually occurs after puberty, most commonly in the third decade of life.^8,10-12 Mutations of the ATP2C1 gene on band 3q22.1 cause haploinsufficiency of Ca²⁺/Mn²⁺−ATPase protein 1 (hSPCA1) that alters the intracellular calcium gradient, leading to disruptions in assembly and trafficking of desmosomal proteins to the cell membrane. Consequently, altered intercellular connections and acantholysis of the epidermis occur.^1,13-16

Hailey-Hailey disease initially manifests as grouped flaccid vesicles that rupture easily, leaving behind crusted erosions and dry, scaly, eczematous patches.^17,18 Over time, velvety, fissured, and hypertrophic plaques develop. Up to 80% of patients experience secondary bacterial and fungal superinfections that may cause vegetative or malodorous plaques.⁹ Although HHD has no specific treatment, symptoms are managed with topical corticosteroids and antimicrobial agents. Patients should be advised to avoid irritants such as friction, sunlight, or sweat. For severe cases, botulinum toxin type A, laser therapy, dermabrasion, and surgery have been utilized with variable success.^19-22 The responsiveness of HHD to corticosteroids and antimicrobial agents facilitates misdiagnosis as intertrigo, erythrasma, or dermatophytosis.

Our patient presented with late-onset HHD (age, 50 years) compared to the typical age of onset in the third decade of life.⁸ Furthermore, her presentation was atypical for HHD, which characteristically affects intertriginous areas due to sweat, heat, friction, and microorganisms. Hailey-Hailey disease involving the abdominal skin is unusual, as it typically occurs in regions of friction such as the belt area.²³ Our patient lacked a history of friction or trauma at the site of the abdominal plaque. In addition, HHD involving the feet is exceedingly rare. It is plausible that friction and heat caused by footwear may have predisposed her to these skin changes.

Conclusion

This case highlights the difficulties of diagnosing HHD, especially if it appears in atypical locations.²⁴ Obtaining a thorough family history and detailed dermatologic examination as well as maintaining a high level of suspicion can assist in diagnosing this uncommon disorder.

Hailey-Hailey disease (HHD), also known as benign familial chronic pemphigus, is an autosomal-dominant genodermatosis caused by mutations of the ATPase secretory pathway Ca²⁺ transporting 1 gene, ATP2C1.¹ It is characterized by crusted macerated erosions and velvety, fissured, hypertrophic plaques classically involving the intertriginous areas. The diagnosis is suggested by characteristic clinical morphology, involvement of the intertriginous areas, and a positive family history. Histology often confirms the diagnosis and demonstrates a characteristic dilapidated brick wall appearance. If there is a need to distinguish HHD from pemphigus, direct immunofluorescence studies also should be performed, which would be negative.^2,3 However, HHD often is misdiagnosed due to lack of knowledge of this uncommon disorder and its resemblance to other dermatoses of the intertriginous areas.⁴ We present an unusual presentation of HHD with late onset and involvement of the skin of the abdomen and foot.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman presented with a 3×4-cm fissured plaque with erosions and a peripheral yellow crust on the left side of the anterior abdomen (Figure 1A). There was another fissured plaque with surrounding erythema and scaling on the fifth digit of the right foot (Figure 1B). For the last 11 years, she periodically experienced erosive and scabbing skin plaques under the breasts and on the axillae and groin. Her mother and maternal grandfather had a history of similar skin lesions. Due to a suspicion of HHD, a skin biopsy specimen of the abdominal plaque was performed, which demonstrated epidermal acanthosis and suprabasal acantholysis with lacunae formation (Figure 2). There was uneven thickening of the epidermal keratin layer with parakeratotic nests. The upper layer of the dermis demonstrated edema and focal fibrosis, enlarged capillaries, and pericapillary lymphohistiocytic infiltration with eosinophils and neutrophils. Accordingly, a diagnosis of HHD was established.

Comment

Hailey-Hailey disease occurs in 1 to 4 per 100,000 individuals without predilection for sex or ethnic group.^5-9 Onset usually occurs after puberty, most commonly in the third decade of life.^8,10-12 Mutations of the ATP2C1 gene on band 3q22.1 cause haploinsufficiency of Ca²⁺/Mn²⁺−ATPase protein 1 (hSPCA1) that alters the intracellular calcium gradient, leading to disruptions in assembly and trafficking of desmosomal proteins to the cell membrane. Consequently, altered intercellular connections and acantholysis of the epidermis occur.^1,13-16

Hailey-Hailey disease initially manifests as grouped flaccid vesicles that rupture easily, leaving behind crusted erosions and dry, scaly, eczematous patches.^17,18 Over time, velvety, fissured, and hypertrophic plaques develop. Up to 80% of patients experience secondary bacterial and fungal superinfections that may cause vegetative or malodorous plaques.⁹ Although HHD has no specific treatment, symptoms are managed with topical corticosteroids and antimicrobial agents. Patients should be advised to avoid irritants such as friction, sunlight, or sweat. For severe cases, botulinum toxin type A, laser therapy, dermabrasion, and surgery have been utilized with variable success.^19-22 The responsiveness of HHD to corticosteroids and antimicrobial agents facilitates misdiagnosis as intertrigo, erythrasma, or dermatophytosis.

Our patient presented with late-onset HHD (age, 50 years) compared to the typical age of onset in the third decade of life.⁸ Furthermore, her presentation was atypical for HHD, which characteristically affects intertriginous areas due to sweat, heat, friction, and microorganisms. Hailey-Hailey disease involving the abdominal skin is unusual, as it typically occurs in regions of friction such as the belt area.²³ Our patient lacked a history of friction or trauma at the site of the abdominal plaque. In addition, HHD involving the feet is exceedingly rare. It is plausible that friction and heat caused by footwear may have predisposed her to these skin changes.

Conclusion

This case highlights the difficulties of diagnosing HHD, especially if it appears in atypical locations.²⁴ Obtaining a thorough family history and detailed dermatologic examination as well as maintaining a high level of suspicion can assist in diagnosing this uncommon disorder.

Hailey-Hailey disease (HHD), also known as benign familial chronic pemphigus, is an autosomal-dominant genodermatosis caused by mutations of the ATPase secretory pathway Ca²⁺ transporting 1 gene, ATP2C1.¹ It is characterized by crusted macerated erosions and velvety, fissured, hypertrophic plaques classically involving the intertriginous areas. The diagnosis is suggested by characteristic clinical morphology, involvement of the intertriginous areas, and a positive family history. Histology often confirms the diagnosis and demonstrates a characteristic dilapidated brick wall appearance. If there is a need to distinguish HHD from pemphigus, direct immunofluorescence studies also should be performed, which would be negative.^2,3 However, HHD often is misdiagnosed due to lack of knowledge of this uncommon disorder and its resemblance to other dermatoses of the intertriginous areas.⁴ We present an unusual presentation of HHD with late onset and involvement of the skin of the abdomen and foot.

Case Report

A 61-year-old woman presented with a 3×4-cm fissured plaque with erosions and a peripheral yellow crust on the left side of the anterior abdomen (Figure 1A). There was another fissured plaque with surrounding erythema and scaling on the fifth digit of the right foot (Figure 1B). For the last 11 years, she periodically experienced erosive and scabbing skin plaques under the breasts and on the axillae and groin. Her mother and maternal grandfather had a history of similar skin lesions. Due to a suspicion of HHD, a skin biopsy specimen of the abdominal plaque was performed, which demonstrated epidermal acanthosis and suprabasal acantholysis with lacunae formation (Figure 2). There was uneven thickening of the epidermal keratin layer with parakeratotic nests. The upper layer of the dermis demonstrated edema and focal fibrosis, enlarged capillaries, and pericapillary lymphohistiocytic infiltration with eosinophils and neutrophils. Accordingly, a diagnosis of HHD was established.

Comment

Hailey-Hailey disease occurs in 1 to 4 per 100,000 individuals without predilection for sex or ethnic group.^5-9 Onset usually occurs after puberty, most commonly in the third decade of life.^8,10-12 Mutations of the ATP2C1 gene on band 3q22.1 cause haploinsufficiency of Ca²⁺/Mn²⁺−ATPase protein 1 (hSPCA1) that alters the intracellular calcium gradient, leading to disruptions in assembly and trafficking of desmosomal proteins to the cell membrane. Consequently, altered intercellular connections and acantholysis of the epidermis occur.^1,13-16

Hailey-Hailey disease initially manifests as grouped flaccid vesicles that rupture easily, leaving behind crusted erosions and dry, scaly, eczematous patches.^17,18 Over time, velvety, fissured, and hypertrophic plaques develop. Up to 80% of patients experience secondary bacterial and fungal superinfections that may cause vegetative or malodorous plaques.⁹ Although HHD has no specific treatment, symptoms are managed with topical corticosteroids and antimicrobial agents. Patients should be advised to avoid irritants such as friction, sunlight, or sweat. For severe cases, botulinum toxin type A, laser therapy, dermabrasion, and surgery have been utilized with variable success.^19-22 The responsiveness of HHD to corticosteroids and antimicrobial agents facilitates misdiagnosis as intertrigo, erythrasma, or dermatophytosis.

Our patient presented with late-onset HHD (age, 50 years) compared to the typical age of onset in the third decade of life.⁸ Furthermore, her presentation was atypical for HHD, which characteristically affects intertriginous areas due to sweat, heat, friction, and microorganisms. Hailey-Hailey disease involving the abdominal skin is unusual, as it typically occurs in regions of friction such as the belt area.²³ Our patient lacked a history of friction or trauma at the site of the abdominal plaque. In addition, HHD involving the feet is exceedingly rare. It is plausible that friction and heat caused by footwear may have predisposed her to these skin changes.

Conclusion

This case highlights the difficulties of diagnosing HHD, especially if it appears in atypical locations.²⁴ Obtaining a thorough family history and detailed dermatologic examination as well as maintaining a high level of suspicion can assist in diagnosing this uncommon disorder.