Case Letter

To the Editor:

An otherwise healthy 26-year-old man presented to our outpatient clinic with a 15- to 20-mm, shiny, friable-appearing, red umbilical nodule with clear malodorous discharge (Figure 1). The lesion developed 2 weeks prior and gradually increased in size and discomfort. The patient reported mild associated abdominal pain. He had no fever, changes in urination or bowel movements, or prior history of umbilical growths or drainage. The abdomen was tender to palpation.

Differential diagnoses included pyogenic granuloma, umbilical hernia, epidermoid cyst or abscess, and malignancy (low suspicion). A biopsy was not performed due to concern for bleeding or communication with the bowel. A complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, and urinalysis were unremarkable except for mild leukocytosis and elevated C-reactive protein. Ultrasonography revealed a 1.4×1.3-cm inflammatory umbilical mass with no communication with the bowel. The patient was referred to the emergency department (ED) for further evaluation. Computed tomography (CT) revealed periumbilical inflammation and an associated 1-cm calcification that appeared to be connected to a potential tract from the bladder, suggestive of a urachal remnant calcification (Figure 2). The patient was diagnosed with a persistent urachal remnant, discharged home with ciprofloxacin, and scheduled for a follow-up with urology.

The patient returned to the ED 3 days later with painful umbilical bleeding (Figure 3). While there, the patient extracted a 1-cm stone from the lesion, consistent with the calcification visualized on CT scan. Computed tomographic virtual cystoscopy showed no connection between the bladder and umbilicus. He was diagnosed with an umbilical-urachal sinus. Complete surgical excision was recommended and performed by urology without complication.

We report an unusual presentation of a symptomatic urachal remnant in an adult. During embryogenesis, the urachus connects the umbilicus to the developing bladder and normally involutes during development. Incomplete regression can cause rare pathological urachal anomalies. The clinical presentation is nonspecific and differs between children and adults, with most cases presenting during infancy or childhood.¹ Pediatric urachal abnormalities often present with umbilical drainage, abdominal pain, a palpable mass, an abnormal appearance of the umbilicus, or urinary tract infections.^2,3 In adults, the most common symptoms include hematuria, pain, or dysuria. Alternatively, they may be asympomatic³ or present with periumbilical dermatitis⁴ or abscess. Rodrigues and Gandhi⁵ reported another case of a symptomatic calculus formed within a urachal remnant. Calcifications in urachal remnants are rare and usually are reported as incidental radiologic findings.

Overall, visible umbilical masses occur infrequently. In addition to urachal anomalies, the differential diagnosis includes several benign and malignant pathologies. Benign causes include epidermoid cysts, foreign body granulomas, pyogenic granulomas, abscesses, hamartomas, nevi, hemangiomas, dermatofibromas, neurofibromas, lipomas, granular cell tumors, desmoid tumors, keloid scars, omphaliths, hernias, or omphalomesenteric duct remnants.⁶ Primary malignancies (eg, skin cancers, urachal adenocarcinoma, mesenchymal tumors) or metastasis (ie, Sister Mary Joseph nodule) also can present as umbilical nodules.

The wide range of clinical presentations of urachal anomalies combined with the rarity make diagnosis difficult. Thus, it is essential to have a high index of suspicion and awareness of how they can present. Ultrasonography and CT scan are useful tools in making the diagnosis. Urachal anomalies are prone to infection or can be associated with malignancy; therefore, timely and correct diagnosis is critical. Although surgical removal is the primary treatment for urachal anomalies, it may not be the primary treatment of the other entities included in the differential diagnosis of umbilical nodules. For example, the Sister Mary Joseph nodule can be associated with various primary malignancies, which should be treated accordingly.

To the Editor:

An otherwise healthy 26-year-old man presented to our outpatient clinic with a 15- to 20-mm, shiny, friable-appearing, red umbilical nodule with clear malodorous discharge (Figure 1). The lesion developed 2 weeks prior and gradually increased in size and discomfort. The patient reported mild associated abdominal pain. He had no fever, changes in urination or bowel movements, or prior history of umbilical growths or drainage. The abdomen was tender to palpation.

Differential diagnoses included pyogenic granuloma, umbilical hernia, epidermoid cyst or abscess, and malignancy (low suspicion). A biopsy was not performed due to concern for bleeding or communication with the bowel. A complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, and urinalysis were unremarkable except for mild leukocytosis and elevated C-reactive protein. Ultrasonography revealed a 1.4×1.3-cm inflammatory umbilical mass with no communication with the bowel. The patient was referred to the emergency department (ED) for further evaluation. Computed tomography (CT) revealed periumbilical inflammation and an associated 1-cm calcification that appeared to be connected to a potential tract from the bladder, suggestive of a urachal remnant calcification (Figure 2). The patient was diagnosed with a persistent urachal remnant, discharged home with ciprofloxacin, and scheduled for a follow-up with urology.

The patient returned to the ED 3 days later with painful umbilical bleeding (Figure 3). While there, the patient extracted a 1-cm stone from the lesion, consistent with the calcification visualized on CT scan. Computed tomographic virtual cystoscopy showed no connection between the bladder and umbilicus. He was diagnosed with an umbilical-urachal sinus. Complete surgical excision was recommended and performed by urology without complication.

We report an unusual presentation of a symptomatic urachal remnant in an adult. During embryogenesis, the urachus connects the umbilicus to the developing bladder and normally involutes during development. Incomplete regression can cause rare pathological urachal anomalies. The clinical presentation is nonspecific and differs between children and adults, with most cases presenting during infancy or childhood.¹ Pediatric urachal abnormalities often present with umbilical drainage, abdominal pain, a palpable mass, an abnormal appearance of the umbilicus, or urinary tract infections.^2,3 In adults, the most common symptoms include hematuria, pain, or dysuria. Alternatively, they may be asympomatic³ or present with periumbilical dermatitis⁴ or abscess. Rodrigues and Gandhi⁵ reported another case of a symptomatic calculus formed within a urachal remnant. Calcifications in urachal remnants are rare and usually are reported as incidental radiologic findings.

Overall, visible umbilical masses occur infrequently. In addition to urachal anomalies, the differential diagnosis includes several benign and malignant pathologies. Benign causes include epidermoid cysts, foreign body granulomas, pyogenic granulomas, abscesses, hamartomas, nevi, hemangiomas, dermatofibromas, neurofibromas, lipomas, granular cell tumors, desmoid tumors, keloid scars, omphaliths, hernias, or omphalomesenteric duct remnants.⁶ Primary malignancies (eg, skin cancers, urachal adenocarcinoma, mesenchymal tumors) or metastasis (ie, Sister Mary Joseph nodule) also can present as umbilical nodules.

The wide range of clinical presentations of urachal anomalies combined with the rarity make diagnosis difficult. Thus, it is essential to have a high index of suspicion and awareness of how they can present. Ultrasonography and CT scan are useful tools in making the diagnosis. Urachal anomalies are prone to infection or can be associated with malignancy; therefore, timely and correct diagnosis is critical. Although surgical removal is the primary treatment for urachal anomalies, it may not be the primary treatment of the other entities included in the differential diagnosis of umbilical nodules. For example, the Sister Mary Joseph nodule can be associated with various primary malignancies, which should be treated accordingly.

To the Editor:

An otherwise healthy 26-year-old man presented to our outpatient clinic with a 15- to 20-mm, shiny, friable-appearing, red umbilical nodule with clear malodorous discharge (Figure 1). The lesion developed 2 weeks prior and gradually increased in size and discomfort. The patient reported mild associated abdominal pain. He had no fever, changes in urination or bowel movements, or prior history of umbilical growths or drainage. The abdomen was tender to palpation.

Differential diagnoses included pyogenic granuloma, umbilical hernia, epidermoid cyst or abscess, and malignancy (low suspicion). A biopsy was not performed due to concern for bleeding or communication with the bowel. A complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, and urinalysis were unremarkable except for mild leukocytosis and elevated C-reactive protein. Ultrasonography revealed a 1.4×1.3-cm inflammatory umbilical mass with no communication with the bowel. The patient was referred to the emergency department (ED) for further evaluation. Computed tomography (CT) revealed periumbilical inflammation and an associated 1-cm calcification that appeared to be connected to a potential tract from the bladder, suggestive of a urachal remnant calcification (Figure 2). The patient was diagnosed with a persistent urachal remnant, discharged home with ciprofloxacin, and scheduled for a follow-up with urology.

The patient returned to the ED 3 days later with painful umbilical bleeding (Figure 3). While there, the patient extracted a 1-cm stone from the lesion, consistent with the calcification visualized on CT scan. Computed tomographic virtual cystoscopy showed no connection between the bladder and umbilicus. He was diagnosed with an umbilical-urachal sinus. Complete surgical excision was recommended and performed by urology without complication.

We report an unusual presentation of a symptomatic urachal remnant in an adult. During embryogenesis, the urachus connects the umbilicus to the developing bladder and normally involutes during development. Incomplete regression can cause rare pathological urachal anomalies. The clinical presentation is nonspecific and differs between children and adults, with most cases presenting during infancy or childhood.¹ Pediatric urachal abnormalities often present with umbilical drainage, abdominal pain, a palpable mass, an abnormal appearance of the umbilicus, or urinary tract infections.^2,3 In adults, the most common symptoms include hematuria, pain, or dysuria. Alternatively, they may be asympomatic³ or present with periumbilical dermatitis⁴ or abscess. Rodrigues and Gandhi⁵ reported another case of a symptomatic calculus formed within a urachal remnant. Calcifications in urachal remnants are rare and usually are reported as incidental radiologic findings.

Overall, visible umbilical masses occur infrequently. In addition to urachal anomalies, the differential diagnosis includes several benign and malignant pathologies. Benign causes include epidermoid cysts, foreign body granulomas, pyogenic granulomas, abscesses, hamartomas, nevi, hemangiomas, dermatofibromas, neurofibromas, lipomas, granular cell tumors, desmoid tumors, keloid scars, omphaliths, hernias, or omphalomesenteric duct remnants.⁶ Primary malignancies (eg, skin cancers, urachal adenocarcinoma, mesenchymal tumors) or metastasis (ie, Sister Mary Joseph nodule) also can present as umbilical nodules.

The wide range of clinical presentations of urachal anomalies combined with the rarity make diagnosis difficult. Thus, it is essential to have a high index of suspicion and awareness of how they can present. Ultrasonography and CT scan are useful tools in making the diagnosis. Urachal anomalies are prone to infection or can be associated with malignancy; therefore, timely and correct diagnosis is critical. Although surgical removal is the primary treatment for urachal anomalies, it may not be the primary treatment of the other entities included in the differential diagnosis of umbilical nodules. For example, the Sister Mary Joseph nodule can be associated with various primary malignancies, which should be treated accordingly.

To the Editor:

Postirradiation pseudosclerodermatous panniculitis (PIPP) is a rarely reported complication of megavoltage external beam radiotherapy that was first identified in 1993 by Winkelmann et al.¹ The condition presents as an erythematous or hyperpigmented indurated plaque at a site of prior radiotherapy. Lesions caused by PIPP most commonly arise several months after treatment, although they may emerge up to 17 years following exposure.² Herein, we report a rare case of a patient with PIPP occurring on the leg who previously had been treated for Kaposi sarcoma.

An 84-year-old woman presented with a tender plaque on the right lower leg of 2 months’ duration. Her medical history was remarkable for Kaposi sarcoma, with multiple sites on the body treated with megavoltage external beam radiotherapy during the prior 4 years. The most recent treatment occurred 8 months prior to presentation, at which time she had undergone radiotherapy for lesions on the posterior lower right leg. Physical examination demonstrated a hyperpigmented and indurated plaque at the treatment site (Figure 1). Skin biopsy results showed a mildly sclerotic dermis with atypical radiation fibroblasts scattered interstitially between collagen bundles, and a lobular panniculitis with degenerated adipocytes and foamy histiocytes (Figure 2). Hyalinized dermal vessels also were present. Based on the constellation of these biopsy findings, a diagnosis of PIPP was made.

The diagnosis of PIPP is challenging and invariably requires histologic examination. Clinically, the differential diagnosis includes cutaneous metastasis of the primary neoplasm, cellulitis, lipodermatosclerosis, morphea, and chronic radiation dermatitis.

Histologically, PIPP is characterized by a lobular panniculitis without vasculitis. Typical findings include the presence of centrilobular necrotic adipocytes along with a foamy histiocytic infiltrate containing lipophagic granulomas at the periphery of the fat lobules. Septal thickening and sclerosis around fat lobules also have been described, and dermal changes associated with chronic radiation dermatitis, such as papillary dermal sclerosis, endothelial swelling, vascular hyaline arteriosclerosis, and atypical star-shaped radiation fibroblasts, may be present.² Features of radiation-induced vasculopathy commonly are seen, although the appearance of these features varies over time. Intimal injury and mural thrombosis can develop within 5 years of radiation therapy, fibrosis of the vessel wall can occur within 10 years of radiation therapy, and atherosclerosis and periarterial fibrosis can appear within 20 years of radiation therapy.^2,3 The histologic findings in our patient showed characteristic dermal findings seen in radiation dermatitis in addition to a lobular panniculitis with foamy histiocytes and mild vessel damage.

In contrast, lipodermatosclerosis is a septal and lobular panniculitis with septal fibrosis. Membranocystic fat necrosis is present, characterized by fat microcysts lined by feathery eosinophilic material. Stasis changes in the dermis and epidermis are accompanied by a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate.

Patients with traumatic panniculitis, which also may enter the clinical differential diagnosis of PIPP, often demonstrate nonspecific histologic changes. Early lesions show a perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes and macrophages. Evolving lesions show variably sized fat microcysts surrounded by histiocytes, in addition to possible calcifications and a foreign-body giant cell reaction. A fibrous capsule may develop, surrounding the fat necrosis to form a mobile encapsulated lipoma. Late lesions frequently demonstrate lipomembranous changes and calcium deposits.⁴

To date, nearly all cases of PIPP in the literature have been described in breast cancer patients.^1,2,5,6 However, Sandoval et al⁷ reported a case of PIPP occurring in the leg of a patient after radiotherapy for a soft tissue sarcoma. Similar to our patient, this patient presented with a painful, dully erythematous, indurated plaque, although her symptoms arose 5 years after radiotherapy.

Megavoltage external beam radiotherapy has become a widely used modality in the treatment of various cancers. As such, PIPP may represent an underdiagnosed condition with potential cases remaining unidentified when the clinical differential diagnosis does not lead to biopsy. Effective therapies have yet to be widely reported, and our patient failed to experience notable improvement with either topical or intralesional corticosteroids. Further studies are needed in order to address this knowledge gap.

To the Editor:

Postirradiation pseudosclerodermatous panniculitis (PIPP) is a rarely reported complication of megavoltage external beam radiotherapy that was first identified in 1993 by Winkelmann et al.¹ The condition presents as an erythematous or hyperpigmented indurated plaque at a site of prior radiotherapy. Lesions caused by PIPP most commonly arise several months after treatment, although they may emerge up to 17 years following exposure.² Herein, we report a rare case of a patient with PIPP occurring on the leg who previously had been treated for Kaposi sarcoma.

An 84-year-old woman presented with a tender plaque on the right lower leg of 2 months’ duration. Her medical history was remarkable for Kaposi sarcoma, with multiple sites on the body treated with megavoltage external beam radiotherapy during the prior 4 years. The most recent treatment occurred 8 months prior to presentation, at which time she had undergone radiotherapy for lesions on the posterior lower right leg. Physical examination demonstrated a hyperpigmented and indurated plaque at the treatment site (Figure 1). Skin biopsy results showed a mildly sclerotic dermis with atypical radiation fibroblasts scattered interstitially between collagen bundles, and a lobular panniculitis with degenerated adipocytes and foamy histiocytes (Figure 2). Hyalinized dermal vessels also were present. Based on the constellation of these biopsy findings, a diagnosis of PIPP was made.

The diagnosis of PIPP is challenging and invariably requires histologic examination. Clinically, the differential diagnosis includes cutaneous metastasis of the primary neoplasm, cellulitis, lipodermatosclerosis, morphea, and chronic radiation dermatitis.

Histologically, PIPP is characterized by a lobular panniculitis without vasculitis. Typical findings include the presence of centrilobular necrotic adipocytes along with a foamy histiocytic infiltrate containing lipophagic granulomas at the periphery of the fat lobules. Septal thickening and sclerosis around fat lobules also have been described, and dermal changes associated with chronic radiation dermatitis, such as papillary dermal sclerosis, endothelial swelling, vascular hyaline arteriosclerosis, and atypical star-shaped radiation fibroblasts, may be present.² Features of radiation-induced vasculopathy commonly are seen, although the appearance of these features varies over time. Intimal injury and mural thrombosis can develop within 5 years of radiation therapy, fibrosis of the vessel wall can occur within 10 years of radiation therapy, and atherosclerosis and periarterial fibrosis can appear within 20 years of radiation therapy.^2,3 The histologic findings in our patient showed characteristic dermal findings seen in radiation dermatitis in addition to a lobular panniculitis with foamy histiocytes and mild vessel damage.

In contrast, lipodermatosclerosis is a septal and lobular panniculitis with septal fibrosis. Membranocystic fat necrosis is present, characterized by fat microcysts lined by feathery eosinophilic material. Stasis changes in the dermis and epidermis are accompanied by a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate.

Patients with traumatic panniculitis, which also may enter the clinical differential diagnosis of PIPP, often demonstrate nonspecific histologic changes. Early lesions show a perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes and macrophages. Evolving lesions show variably sized fat microcysts surrounded by histiocytes, in addition to possible calcifications and a foreign-body giant cell reaction. A fibrous capsule may develop, surrounding the fat necrosis to form a mobile encapsulated lipoma. Late lesions frequently demonstrate lipomembranous changes and calcium deposits.⁴

To date, nearly all cases of PIPP in the literature have been described in breast cancer patients.^1,2,5,6 However, Sandoval et al⁷ reported a case of PIPP occurring in the leg of a patient after radiotherapy for a soft tissue sarcoma. Similar to our patient, this patient presented with a painful, dully erythematous, indurated plaque, although her symptoms arose 5 years after radiotherapy.

Megavoltage external beam radiotherapy has become a widely used modality in the treatment of various cancers. As such, PIPP may represent an underdiagnosed condition with potential cases remaining unidentified when the clinical differential diagnosis does not lead to biopsy. Effective therapies have yet to be widely reported, and our patient failed to experience notable improvement with either topical or intralesional corticosteroids. Further studies are needed in order to address this knowledge gap.

To the Editor:

Postirradiation pseudosclerodermatous panniculitis (PIPP) is a rarely reported complication of megavoltage external beam radiotherapy that was first identified in 1993 by Winkelmann et al.¹ The condition presents as an erythematous or hyperpigmented indurated plaque at a site of prior radiotherapy. Lesions caused by PIPP most commonly arise several months after treatment, although they may emerge up to 17 years following exposure.² Herein, we report a rare case of a patient with PIPP occurring on the leg who previously had been treated for Kaposi sarcoma.

An 84-year-old woman presented with a tender plaque on the right lower leg of 2 months’ duration. Her medical history was remarkable for Kaposi sarcoma, with multiple sites on the body treated with megavoltage external beam radiotherapy during the prior 4 years. The most recent treatment occurred 8 months prior to presentation, at which time she had undergone radiotherapy for lesions on the posterior lower right leg. Physical examination demonstrated a hyperpigmented and indurated plaque at the treatment site (Figure 1). Skin biopsy results showed a mildly sclerotic dermis with atypical radiation fibroblasts scattered interstitially between collagen bundles, and a lobular panniculitis with degenerated adipocytes and foamy histiocytes (Figure 2). Hyalinized dermal vessels also were present. Based on the constellation of these biopsy findings, a diagnosis of PIPP was made.

The diagnosis of PIPP is challenging and invariably requires histologic examination. Clinically, the differential diagnosis includes cutaneous metastasis of the primary neoplasm, cellulitis, lipodermatosclerosis, morphea, and chronic radiation dermatitis.

Histologically, PIPP is characterized by a lobular panniculitis without vasculitis. Typical findings include the presence of centrilobular necrotic adipocytes along with a foamy histiocytic infiltrate containing lipophagic granulomas at the periphery of the fat lobules. Septal thickening and sclerosis around fat lobules also have been described, and dermal changes associated with chronic radiation dermatitis, such as papillary dermal sclerosis, endothelial swelling, vascular hyaline arteriosclerosis, and atypical star-shaped radiation fibroblasts, may be present.² Features of radiation-induced vasculopathy commonly are seen, although the appearance of these features varies over time. Intimal injury and mural thrombosis can develop within 5 years of radiation therapy, fibrosis of the vessel wall can occur within 10 years of radiation therapy, and atherosclerosis and periarterial fibrosis can appear within 20 years of radiation therapy.^2,3 The histologic findings in our patient showed characteristic dermal findings seen in radiation dermatitis in addition to a lobular panniculitis with foamy histiocytes and mild vessel damage.

In contrast, lipodermatosclerosis is a septal and lobular panniculitis with septal fibrosis. Membranocystic fat necrosis is present, characterized by fat microcysts lined by feathery eosinophilic material. Stasis changes in the dermis and epidermis are accompanied by a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate.

Patients with traumatic panniculitis, which also may enter the clinical differential diagnosis of PIPP, often demonstrate nonspecific histologic changes. Early lesions show a perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes and macrophages. Evolving lesions show variably sized fat microcysts surrounded by histiocytes, in addition to possible calcifications and a foreign-body giant cell reaction. A fibrous capsule may develop, surrounding the fat necrosis to form a mobile encapsulated lipoma. Late lesions frequently demonstrate lipomembranous changes and calcium deposits.⁴

To date, nearly all cases of PIPP in the literature have been described in breast cancer patients.^1,2,5,6 However, Sandoval et al⁷ reported a case of PIPP occurring in the leg of a patient after radiotherapy for a soft tissue sarcoma. Similar to our patient, this patient presented with a painful, dully erythematous, indurated plaque, although her symptoms arose 5 years after radiotherapy.

Megavoltage external beam radiotherapy has become a widely used modality in the treatment of various cancers. As such, PIPP may represent an underdiagnosed condition with potential cases remaining unidentified when the clinical differential diagnosis does not lead to biopsy. Effective therapies have yet to be widely reported, and our patient failed to experience notable improvement with either topical or intralesional corticosteroids. Further studies are needed in order to address this knowledge gap.

To the Editor:

Several techniques can be used to destroy milia including electrocautery, electrodesiccation, and laser therapy. Manual extraction of milia uses a scalpel blade, needle, or stylet followed by the application of pressure to the lesion with a curette, comedone extractor, paper clip, cotton-tipped applicator, tongue blade, or hypodermic needle.^1-4 Many of these techniques fail to stabilize milia, particularly in sensitive areas such as around the eyes or mouth, which can make extraction challenging, inefficient, and painful for the patient. We report a novel technique that quickly and effectively removes milia with equipment commonly used in the practice of clinical dermatology.

A 74-year-old woman presented with an asymptomatic papule on the right lower vermilion border of several years' duration. Physical examination of the lesion revealed a 3-mm, firm, white, dome-shaped papule. Clinical features were most consistent with a benign acquired milium. The patient desired removal for cosmesis. The area was cleaned with an alcohol swab, the surface of the milium was nicked with a No. 11 blade (Figure, A), and then tips of nontoothed Adson forceps were used to gently secure and pinch the base of the papule (Figure, B). The intact cyst was quickly and effortlessly expressed through the epidermal nick. The patient tolerated the procedure well, experiencing minimal pain and bleeding.

Histologically, milia represent infundibular keratin-filled cysts lined with stratified squamous epithelial tissue that contains a granular cell layer. These lesions are classified as primary or secondary; the former represent spontaneous occurrence, and the latter are associated with medications, trauma, or genodermatoses.² Multiple milia are associated with conditions such as Bazex-Dupré-Christol syndrome, Rombo syndrome, Brooke-Spiegler syndrome, oro-facial-digital syndrome type I, atrichia with papular lesions, pachyonychia congenita type 2, basal cell nevus syndrome, basaloid follicular hamartoma syndrome, and hereditary vitamin D–dependent rickets type 2.^5-9 The most common subtype seen in clinical practice includes benign primary milia, which tends to favor the cheeks and eyelids.²

Although these lesions are benign, many patients seek extraction for cosmesis. Milia extraction is a common procedure performed in dermatology clinical practice. Proposed extraction techniques using destructive methods include electrocautery, electrodesiccation, and laser therapy, and manual methods include nicking the surface of the lesion with a scalpel blade, needle, or stylet and then applying tangential pressure with a curette, comedone extractor, paper clip, cotton-tipped applicator, tongue blade, or hypodermic needle.^1-4 Topical retinoids have been proposed as treatment of multiple milia.¹⁰ Many of these techniques do not use equipment common to clinical practice, or they fail to stabilize milia in sensitive areas, which makes extraction challenging. We describe a case with a new manual technique that successfully extracts milia in an efficient and safe manner.

To the Editor:

Several techniques can be used to destroy milia including electrocautery, electrodesiccation, and laser therapy. Manual extraction of milia uses a scalpel blade, needle, or stylet followed by the application of pressure to the lesion with a curette, comedone extractor, paper clip, cotton-tipped applicator, tongue blade, or hypodermic needle.^1-4 Many of these techniques fail to stabilize milia, particularly in sensitive areas such as around the eyes or mouth, which can make extraction challenging, inefficient, and painful for the patient. We report a novel technique that quickly and effectively removes milia with equipment commonly used in the practice of clinical dermatology.

A 74-year-old woman presented with an asymptomatic papule on the right lower vermilion border of several years' duration. Physical examination of the lesion revealed a 3-mm, firm, white, dome-shaped papule. Clinical features were most consistent with a benign acquired milium. The patient desired removal for cosmesis. The area was cleaned with an alcohol swab, the surface of the milium was nicked with a No. 11 blade (Figure, A), and then tips of nontoothed Adson forceps were used to gently secure and pinch the base of the papule (Figure, B). The intact cyst was quickly and effortlessly expressed through the epidermal nick. The patient tolerated the procedure well, experiencing minimal pain and bleeding.

Histologically, milia represent infundibular keratin-filled cysts lined with stratified squamous epithelial tissue that contains a granular cell layer. These lesions are classified as primary or secondary; the former represent spontaneous occurrence, and the latter are associated with medications, trauma, or genodermatoses.² Multiple milia are associated with conditions such as Bazex-Dupré-Christol syndrome, Rombo syndrome, Brooke-Spiegler syndrome, oro-facial-digital syndrome type I, atrichia with papular lesions, pachyonychia congenita type 2, basal cell nevus syndrome, basaloid follicular hamartoma syndrome, and hereditary vitamin D–dependent rickets type 2.^5-9 The most common subtype seen in clinical practice includes benign primary milia, which tends to favor the cheeks and eyelids.²

Although these lesions are benign, many patients seek extraction for cosmesis. Milia extraction is a common procedure performed in dermatology clinical practice. Proposed extraction techniques using destructive methods include electrocautery, electrodesiccation, and laser therapy, and manual methods include nicking the surface of the lesion with a scalpel blade, needle, or stylet and then applying tangential pressure with a curette, comedone extractor, paper clip, cotton-tipped applicator, tongue blade, or hypodermic needle.^1-4 Topical retinoids have been proposed as treatment of multiple milia.¹⁰ Many of these techniques do not use equipment common to clinical practice, or they fail to stabilize milia in sensitive areas, which makes extraction challenging. We describe a case with a new manual technique that successfully extracts milia in an efficient and safe manner.

To the Editor:

Several techniques can be used to destroy milia including electrocautery, electrodesiccation, and laser therapy. Manual extraction of milia uses a scalpel blade, needle, or stylet followed by the application of pressure to the lesion with a curette, comedone extractor, paper clip, cotton-tipped applicator, tongue blade, or hypodermic needle.^1-4 Many of these techniques fail to stabilize milia, particularly in sensitive areas such as around the eyes or mouth, which can make extraction challenging, inefficient, and painful for the patient. We report a novel technique that quickly and effectively removes milia with equipment commonly used in the practice of clinical dermatology.

A 74-year-old woman presented with an asymptomatic papule on the right lower vermilion border of several years' duration. Physical examination of the lesion revealed a 3-mm, firm, white, dome-shaped papule. Clinical features were most consistent with a benign acquired milium. The patient desired removal for cosmesis. The area was cleaned with an alcohol swab, the surface of the milium was nicked with a No. 11 blade (Figure, A), and then tips of nontoothed Adson forceps were used to gently secure and pinch the base of the papule (Figure, B). The intact cyst was quickly and effortlessly expressed through the epidermal nick. The patient tolerated the procedure well, experiencing minimal pain and bleeding.

Histologically, milia represent infundibular keratin-filled cysts lined with stratified squamous epithelial tissue that contains a granular cell layer. These lesions are classified as primary or secondary; the former represent spontaneous occurrence, and the latter are associated with medications, trauma, or genodermatoses.² Multiple milia are associated with conditions such as Bazex-Dupré-Christol syndrome, Rombo syndrome, Brooke-Spiegler syndrome, oro-facial-digital syndrome type I, atrichia with papular lesions, pachyonychia congenita type 2, basal cell nevus syndrome, basaloid follicular hamartoma syndrome, and hereditary vitamin D–dependent rickets type 2.^5-9 The most common subtype seen in clinical practice includes benign primary milia, which tends to favor the cheeks and eyelids.²

Although these lesions are benign, many patients seek extraction for cosmesis. Milia extraction is a common procedure performed in dermatology clinical practice. Proposed extraction techniques using destructive methods include electrocautery, electrodesiccation, and laser therapy, and manual methods include nicking the surface of the lesion with a scalpel blade, needle, or stylet and then applying tangential pressure with a curette, comedone extractor, paper clip, cotton-tipped applicator, tongue blade, or hypodermic needle.^1-4 Topical retinoids have been proposed as treatment of multiple milia.¹⁰ Many of these techniques do not use equipment common to clinical practice, or they fail to stabilize milia in sensitive areas, which makes extraction challenging. We describe a case with a new manual technique that successfully extracts milia in an efficient and safe manner.

To the Editor:

A 58-year-old man with a pigmented lesion on the left lower eyelid was referred to the oculoplastic clinic by an outside ophthalmologist. The patient had noticed the lesion growing over the course of the last 4 to 5 months. He reported scant amounts of blood and discharge coming from the nose and left eye the week prior, which persisted for 3 days. He had no associated pain or discomfort. A slit-lamp examination revealed a pigmented left lower eyelid lesion measuring 20×15 mm with telangiectasia and an eyelid margin abnormality with no palpable lymphadenopathy. The patient was diagnosed with clinical stage T3N0M0 malignant conjunctival melanoma of the left eyelid based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification. It is thought to have originated from conjunctival primary acquired melanosis (PAM). The T3 stage is defined as malignant melanoma with local invasion; the lesion involved the eyelid and puncta as well as canalicular portions of the lacrimal drainage system.¹ The bloody discharge was attributed to the involvement of the canalicular system, which drains tears from the eye to the nose. Melanomas can bleed, so any bloody discharge from the eye also will come through the ipsilateral nasal passage. Oncology evaluated the lesion to help determine the stage, and they found no lymph node involvement or brain, neck, chest, abdominal, or pelvic metastasis by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was discussed with head and neck oncology specialists and was ultimately not performed per the recommendation from the Head and Neck Oncology Board; it is not a common modality for managing conjunctival melanoma because it has not been shown to alter morbidity and mortality.

The entire eyelid from the medial canthus to the lateral canthus was removed without touching the pigmented mass to ensure a “no-touch” technique removal of the mass. The no-touch technique primarily is utilized to decrease the likelihood of instrumental seeding of healthy tissues or the vascular system.² This technique focuses on preventing any direct manipulation of the tumor and avoiding an incisional biopsy as well as removal of the tumor en bloc. The margins were cutaneous—3 mm lateral to the lateral canthus, 5 mm below the lid margin, and 3 mm medial to the medial canthus—with dissection of the medial tissue from the orbital rim and lacrimal sac fossa. The lacrimal sac and lower canaliculus were then resected. The conjunctiva 5 mm inferior to the pigmented mass and the entire palpebral conjunctiva was resected to the inferior fornix across the entire palpebral conjunctiva of the lower eyelid (Figure). The eyelid and lacrimal portions were removed as a unit. Essentially, the entire lower eyelid (full thickness), including the lateral canthus, medial canthus, canaliculus, and lacrimal sac, were removed en bloc. The final tumor staging after tissue evaluation by pathology and systemic evaluation by oncology was pT3N0bM0.

A tarsoconjunctival (Hughes) flap from the upper eyelid was used to reconstruct the posterior lamella (tarsus/conjunctiva) of the lower eyelid, and a full-thickness skin graft harvested from the ipsilateral upper eyelid was used to reconstruct the anterior lamella (skin) of the lower eyelid. The reconstruction site was allowed to heal for 4 weeks before severing the tarsoconjunctival graft to allow the separation of the upper and lower eyelids. Adjunctive topical ophthalmic chemotherapy (mitomycin C 0.04%) was started 4 weeks after the last surgery. The medication was applied 4 times daily for 1 week and restarted after the conjunctival erythema and injection subsided, which was approximately 2.5 weeks, on average. The regimen of applying the medication (1 week on and 2.5 weeks off) was completed for 4 cycles. At 1 year follow-up after his diagnosis, the patient was without local recurrence or evidence of systemic metastasis. We plan to have him continue ophthalmic and oncologic evaluation every 3 to 4 months for the next 24 months, and then every 6 months for years 2 through 5.

Ocular melanoma can be further divided into uveal and conjunctival types, both arising from the respective tissue. Melanoma of the conjunctiva commonly arises from PAM with atypia, which is an acquired conjunctival pigmented lesion similar to a skin nevus that has the potential to become dysplastic. In a genetic analysis of 78 conjunctival melanomas, BRAF mutations were identified in 29% (23/78) of tumors, and NRAS mutations were detected in 18% (14/78) of tumors³; however, in our case, there were no BRAF or NRAS mutations detected. In a study of 84,836 cases that included a diagnosis of melanoma, ocular melanoma comprised 5.2% of melanomas, with cutaneous, mucosal, and unknown primary sites totaling the remaining percentage of melanomas. Of 4522 patients with ocular melanomas, 85% had uveal melanomas; 4.8% had conjunctival melanoma; and 10.2% were classified as other—comprised of cornea, not otherwise specified (NOS); retina; lacrimal gland; orbit, NOS; overlapping lesion of the eye; and eye, NOS.⁴ Melanomas of the uvea, including the ciliary body, choroid, and iris, result from a notably different pathogenesis than conjunctival melanoma, with the former being primarily associated with GNAQ and GNA mutations.³ Ciliary body and choroidal melanomas each have a different pathogenesis for occurrence, with choroidal melanoma being mostly from metastasis and ciliary body melanoma from mutations or metastasis.

Pigmented lesions on the conjunctiva or sclera arise from either melanocytes or nonmelanocytes and have a diverse differential diagnosis, including congenital melanosis, conjunctival nevi, PAM or secondary acquired melanosis, or conjunctival melanoma. The diagnosis of uveal melanoma should be based on fundoscopic examination by an experienced clinician. Uveal melanoma is unlike most other cancers in that diagnosis can be by clinical fundoscopic examination alone. Imaging studies such as ultrasound and fluorescein angiography can be performed for prognostication and characterization. Fine needle aspiration biopsy for molecular analysis is becoming more routine, but the results rarely affect the plan of care. Primary treatment of uveal melanoma should strive to preserve vision and prevent metastasis; however, a primary modality has yet to show notable results in decreasing distant disease spread or overall survival. Treatment of the primary tumor should involve consideration of tumor size, location, health of the patient, and patient preference.^1,5

For patients with melanoma arising from the conjunctiva, initial management should focus on local disease control, including wide local excision to avoid seeding, supplemented with cryotherapy and alcohol epitheliectomy to the cornea to ensure local tumor extinction.^2,6 Techniques including enucleation and orbital exenteration historically have been used for treatment of extensive disease, but this approach has not been associated with improvement in mortality and is a cause of notable morbidity.^7,8 Sentinel lymph node biopsy has an established role in the management of cutaneous melanoma, but its use in the setting of conjunctival melanoma is controversial, with studies showing that up to 50% of patients with local recurrence can develop distant metastasis with no evidence of regional lymph node involvement.^9,10 When the tumor is present at the surgical margins or in the case that lesions cannot be fully excised, adjuvant therapy may improve long-term control and prevent recurrence following surgical intervention. Mitomycin C 0.04% is the most commonly used topical chemotherapy agent because it has an established role in the treatment of PAM, but it remains adjuvant therapy for conjunctival melanoma due to the relatively poor outcomes when it is used for primary therapy.¹¹

In one study, recurrence rates for conjunctival melanoma were 26%, 51%, and 65% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively.¹² Risk factors for recurrence include increased tumor thickness, incomplete excision, positive margins, surgical excision without adjuvant therapy, and nonlimbal location.¹³ A multivariate analysis of 150 patients showed that the melanoma location not touching the limbus (P=.01) and pathologic evidence of tumor to the lateral margin (P=.02) were related to tumor recurrence, with relative risks (IQR) of 2.3 (1.2-4.6) and 2.9 (1.2-7.1), respectively. Careful surgical planning using wide microsurgical excisional biopsy emphasizing a no-touch technique as well as supplemental alcohol therapy for the cornea and conjunctiva is advised.¹²

To the Editor:

A 58-year-old man with a pigmented lesion on the left lower eyelid was referred to the oculoplastic clinic by an outside ophthalmologist. The patient had noticed the lesion growing over the course of the last 4 to 5 months. He reported scant amounts of blood and discharge coming from the nose and left eye the week prior, which persisted for 3 days. He had no associated pain or discomfort. A slit-lamp examination revealed a pigmented left lower eyelid lesion measuring 20×15 mm with telangiectasia and an eyelid margin abnormality with no palpable lymphadenopathy. The patient was diagnosed with clinical stage T3N0M0 malignant conjunctival melanoma of the left eyelid based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification. It is thought to have originated from conjunctival primary acquired melanosis (PAM). The T3 stage is defined as malignant melanoma with local invasion; the lesion involved the eyelid and puncta as well as canalicular portions of the lacrimal drainage system.¹ The bloody discharge was attributed to the involvement of the canalicular system, which drains tears from the eye to the nose. Melanomas can bleed, so any bloody discharge from the eye also will come through the ipsilateral nasal passage. Oncology evaluated the lesion to help determine the stage, and they found no lymph node involvement or brain, neck, chest, abdominal, or pelvic metastasis by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was discussed with head and neck oncology specialists and was ultimately not performed per the recommendation from the Head and Neck Oncology Board; it is not a common modality for managing conjunctival melanoma because it has not been shown to alter morbidity and mortality.

The entire eyelid from the medial canthus to the lateral canthus was removed without touching the pigmented mass to ensure a “no-touch” technique removal of the mass. The no-touch technique primarily is utilized to decrease the likelihood of instrumental seeding of healthy tissues or the vascular system.² This technique focuses on preventing any direct manipulation of the tumor and avoiding an incisional biopsy as well as removal of the tumor en bloc. The margins were cutaneous—3 mm lateral to the lateral canthus, 5 mm below the lid margin, and 3 mm medial to the medial canthus—with dissection of the medial tissue from the orbital rim and lacrimal sac fossa. The lacrimal sac and lower canaliculus were then resected. The conjunctiva 5 mm inferior to the pigmented mass and the entire palpebral conjunctiva was resected to the inferior fornix across the entire palpebral conjunctiva of the lower eyelid (Figure). The eyelid and lacrimal portions were removed as a unit. Essentially, the entire lower eyelid (full thickness), including the lateral canthus, medial canthus, canaliculus, and lacrimal sac, were removed en bloc. The final tumor staging after tissue evaluation by pathology and systemic evaluation by oncology was pT3N0bM0.

A tarsoconjunctival (Hughes) flap from the upper eyelid was used to reconstruct the posterior lamella (tarsus/conjunctiva) of the lower eyelid, and a full-thickness skin graft harvested from the ipsilateral upper eyelid was used to reconstruct the anterior lamella (skin) of the lower eyelid. The reconstruction site was allowed to heal for 4 weeks before severing the tarsoconjunctival graft to allow the separation of the upper and lower eyelids. Adjunctive topical ophthalmic chemotherapy (mitomycin C 0.04%) was started 4 weeks after the last surgery. The medication was applied 4 times daily for 1 week and restarted after the conjunctival erythema and injection subsided, which was approximately 2.5 weeks, on average. The regimen of applying the medication (1 week on and 2.5 weeks off) was completed for 4 cycles. At 1 year follow-up after his diagnosis, the patient was without local recurrence or evidence of systemic metastasis. We plan to have him continue ophthalmic and oncologic evaluation every 3 to 4 months for the next 24 months, and then every 6 months for years 2 through 5.

Ocular melanoma can be further divided into uveal and conjunctival types, both arising from the respective tissue. Melanoma of the conjunctiva commonly arises from PAM with atypia, which is an acquired conjunctival pigmented lesion similar to a skin nevus that has the potential to become dysplastic. In a genetic analysis of 78 conjunctival melanomas, BRAF mutations were identified in 29% (23/78) of tumors, and NRAS mutations were detected in 18% (14/78) of tumors³; however, in our case, there were no BRAF or NRAS mutations detected. In a study of 84,836 cases that included a diagnosis of melanoma, ocular melanoma comprised 5.2% of melanomas, with cutaneous, mucosal, and unknown primary sites totaling the remaining percentage of melanomas. Of 4522 patients with ocular melanomas, 85% had uveal melanomas; 4.8% had conjunctival melanoma; and 10.2% were classified as other—comprised of cornea, not otherwise specified (NOS); retina; lacrimal gland; orbit, NOS; overlapping lesion of the eye; and eye, NOS.⁴ Melanomas of the uvea, including the ciliary body, choroid, and iris, result from a notably different pathogenesis than conjunctival melanoma, with the former being primarily associated with GNAQ and GNA mutations.³ Ciliary body and choroidal melanomas each have a different pathogenesis for occurrence, with choroidal melanoma being mostly from metastasis and ciliary body melanoma from mutations or metastasis.

Pigmented lesions on the conjunctiva or sclera arise from either melanocytes or nonmelanocytes and have a diverse differential diagnosis, including congenital melanosis, conjunctival nevi, PAM or secondary acquired melanosis, or conjunctival melanoma. The diagnosis of uveal melanoma should be based on fundoscopic examination by an experienced clinician. Uveal melanoma is unlike most other cancers in that diagnosis can be by clinical fundoscopic examination alone. Imaging studies such as ultrasound and fluorescein angiography can be performed for prognostication and characterization. Fine needle aspiration biopsy for molecular analysis is becoming more routine, but the results rarely affect the plan of care. Primary treatment of uveal melanoma should strive to preserve vision and prevent metastasis; however, a primary modality has yet to show notable results in decreasing distant disease spread or overall survival. Treatment of the primary tumor should involve consideration of tumor size, location, health of the patient, and patient preference.^1,5

For patients with melanoma arising from the conjunctiva, initial management should focus on local disease control, including wide local excision to avoid seeding, supplemented with cryotherapy and alcohol epitheliectomy to the cornea to ensure local tumor extinction.^2,6 Techniques including enucleation and orbital exenteration historically have been used for treatment of extensive disease, but this approach has not been associated with improvement in mortality and is a cause of notable morbidity.^7,8 Sentinel lymph node biopsy has an established role in the management of cutaneous melanoma, but its use in the setting of conjunctival melanoma is controversial, with studies showing that up to 50% of patients with local recurrence can develop distant metastasis with no evidence of regional lymph node involvement.^9,10 When the tumor is present at the surgical margins or in the case that lesions cannot be fully excised, adjuvant therapy may improve long-term control and prevent recurrence following surgical intervention. Mitomycin C 0.04% is the most commonly used topical chemotherapy agent because it has an established role in the treatment of PAM, but it remains adjuvant therapy for conjunctival melanoma due to the relatively poor outcomes when it is used for primary therapy.¹¹

In one study, recurrence rates for conjunctival melanoma were 26%, 51%, and 65% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively.¹² Risk factors for recurrence include increased tumor thickness, incomplete excision, positive margins, surgical excision without adjuvant therapy, and nonlimbal location.¹³ A multivariate analysis of 150 patients showed that the melanoma location not touching the limbus (P=.01) and pathologic evidence of tumor to the lateral margin (P=.02) were related to tumor recurrence, with relative risks (IQR) of 2.3 (1.2-4.6) and 2.9 (1.2-7.1), respectively. Careful surgical planning using wide microsurgical excisional biopsy emphasizing a no-touch technique as well as supplemental alcohol therapy for the cornea and conjunctiva is advised.¹²

To the Editor:

A 58-year-old man with a pigmented lesion on the left lower eyelid was referred to the oculoplastic clinic by an outside ophthalmologist. The patient had noticed the lesion growing over the course of the last 4 to 5 months. He reported scant amounts of blood and discharge coming from the nose and left eye the week prior, which persisted for 3 days. He had no associated pain or discomfort. A slit-lamp examination revealed a pigmented left lower eyelid lesion measuring 20×15 mm with telangiectasia and an eyelid margin abnormality with no palpable lymphadenopathy. The patient was diagnosed with clinical stage T3N0M0 malignant conjunctival melanoma of the left eyelid based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification. It is thought to have originated from conjunctival primary acquired melanosis (PAM). The T3 stage is defined as malignant melanoma with local invasion; the lesion involved the eyelid and puncta as well as canalicular portions of the lacrimal drainage system.¹ The bloody discharge was attributed to the involvement of the canalicular system, which drains tears from the eye to the nose. Melanomas can bleed, so any bloody discharge from the eye also will come through the ipsilateral nasal passage. Oncology evaluated the lesion to help determine the stage, and they found no lymph node involvement or brain, neck, chest, abdominal, or pelvic metastasis by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was discussed with head and neck oncology specialists and was ultimately not performed per the recommendation from the Head and Neck Oncology Board; it is not a common modality for managing conjunctival melanoma because it has not been shown to alter morbidity and mortality.

The entire eyelid from the medial canthus to the lateral canthus was removed without touching the pigmented mass to ensure a “no-touch” technique removal of the mass. The no-touch technique primarily is utilized to decrease the likelihood of instrumental seeding of healthy tissues or the vascular system.² This technique focuses on preventing any direct manipulation of the tumor and avoiding an incisional biopsy as well as removal of the tumor en bloc. The margins were cutaneous—3 mm lateral to the lateral canthus, 5 mm below the lid margin, and 3 mm medial to the medial canthus—with dissection of the medial tissue from the orbital rim and lacrimal sac fossa. The lacrimal sac and lower canaliculus were then resected. The conjunctiva 5 mm inferior to the pigmented mass and the entire palpebral conjunctiva was resected to the inferior fornix across the entire palpebral conjunctiva of the lower eyelid (Figure). The eyelid and lacrimal portions were removed as a unit. Essentially, the entire lower eyelid (full thickness), including the lateral canthus, medial canthus, canaliculus, and lacrimal sac, were removed en bloc. The final tumor staging after tissue evaluation by pathology and systemic evaluation by oncology was pT3N0bM0.

A tarsoconjunctival (Hughes) flap from the upper eyelid was used to reconstruct the posterior lamella (tarsus/conjunctiva) of the lower eyelid, and a full-thickness skin graft harvested from the ipsilateral upper eyelid was used to reconstruct the anterior lamella (skin) of the lower eyelid. The reconstruction site was allowed to heal for 4 weeks before severing the tarsoconjunctival graft to allow the separation of the upper and lower eyelids. Adjunctive topical ophthalmic chemotherapy (mitomycin C 0.04%) was started 4 weeks after the last surgery. The medication was applied 4 times daily for 1 week and restarted after the conjunctival erythema and injection subsided, which was approximately 2.5 weeks, on average. The regimen of applying the medication (1 week on and 2.5 weeks off) was completed for 4 cycles. At 1 year follow-up after his diagnosis, the patient was without local recurrence or evidence of systemic metastasis. We plan to have him continue ophthalmic and oncologic evaluation every 3 to 4 months for the next 24 months, and then every 6 months for years 2 through 5.

Ocular melanoma can be further divided into uveal and conjunctival types, both arising from the respective tissue. Melanoma of the conjunctiva commonly arises from PAM with atypia, which is an acquired conjunctival pigmented lesion similar to a skin nevus that has the potential to become dysplastic. In a genetic analysis of 78 conjunctival melanomas, BRAF mutations were identified in 29% (23/78) of tumors, and NRAS mutations were detected in 18% (14/78) of tumors³; however, in our case, there were no BRAF or NRAS mutations detected. In a study of 84,836 cases that included a diagnosis of melanoma, ocular melanoma comprised 5.2% of melanomas, with cutaneous, mucosal, and unknown primary sites totaling the remaining percentage of melanomas. Of 4522 patients with ocular melanomas, 85% had uveal melanomas; 4.8% had conjunctival melanoma; and 10.2% were classified as other—comprised of cornea, not otherwise specified (NOS); retina; lacrimal gland; orbit, NOS; overlapping lesion of the eye; and eye, NOS.⁴ Melanomas of the uvea, including the ciliary body, choroid, and iris, result from a notably different pathogenesis than conjunctival melanoma, with the former being primarily associated with GNAQ and GNA mutations.³ Ciliary body and choroidal melanomas each have a different pathogenesis for occurrence, with choroidal melanoma being mostly from metastasis and ciliary body melanoma from mutations or metastasis.

Pigmented lesions on the conjunctiva or sclera arise from either melanocytes or nonmelanocytes and have a diverse differential diagnosis, including congenital melanosis, conjunctival nevi, PAM or secondary acquired melanosis, or conjunctival melanoma. The diagnosis of uveal melanoma should be based on fundoscopic examination by an experienced clinician. Uveal melanoma is unlike most other cancers in that diagnosis can be by clinical fundoscopic examination alone. Imaging studies such as ultrasound and fluorescein angiography can be performed for prognostication and characterization. Fine needle aspiration biopsy for molecular analysis is becoming more routine, but the results rarely affect the plan of care. Primary treatment of uveal melanoma should strive to preserve vision and prevent metastasis; however, a primary modality has yet to show notable results in decreasing distant disease spread or overall survival. Treatment of the primary tumor should involve consideration of tumor size, location, health of the patient, and patient preference.^1,5

For patients with melanoma arising from the conjunctiva, initial management should focus on local disease control, including wide local excision to avoid seeding, supplemented with cryotherapy and alcohol epitheliectomy to the cornea to ensure local tumor extinction.^2,6 Techniques including enucleation and orbital exenteration historically have been used for treatment of extensive disease, but this approach has not been associated with improvement in mortality and is a cause of notable morbidity.^7,8 Sentinel lymph node biopsy has an established role in the management of cutaneous melanoma, but its use in the setting of conjunctival melanoma is controversial, with studies showing that up to 50% of patients with local recurrence can develop distant metastasis with no evidence of regional lymph node involvement.^9,10 When the tumor is present at the surgical margins or in the case that lesions cannot be fully excised, adjuvant therapy may improve long-term control and prevent recurrence following surgical intervention. Mitomycin C 0.04% is the most commonly used topical chemotherapy agent because it has an established role in the treatment of PAM, but it remains adjuvant therapy for conjunctival melanoma due to the relatively poor outcomes when it is used for primary therapy.¹¹

In one study, recurrence rates for conjunctival melanoma were 26%, 51%, and 65% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively.¹² Risk factors for recurrence include increased tumor thickness, incomplete excision, positive margins, surgical excision without adjuvant therapy, and nonlimbal location.¹³ A multivariate analysis of 150 patients showed that the melanoma location not touching the limbus (P=.01) and pathologic evidence of tumor to the lateral margin (P=.02) were related to tumor recurrence, with relative risks (IQR) of 2.3 (1.2-4.6) and 2.9 (1.2-7.1), respectively. Careful surgical planning using wide microsurgical excisional biopsy emphasizing a no-touch technique as well as supplemental alcohol therapy for the cornea and conjunctiva is advised.¹²

To the Editor:

Wolf isotopic response describes the development of a skin disorder at the site of another healed and unrelated skin disease. Skin disorders presenting as isotopic responses have included inflammatory, malignant, granulomatous, and infectious processes. Discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) is a rare isotopic response. We report a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like isotopic response that presented at the site of a recent herpes zoster infection in a liver transplant recipient.

A 74-year-old immunocompromised woman was referred to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of a rash on the right leg. She was being treated with maintenance valganciclovir due to cytomegalovirus viremia, as well as tacrolimus, azathioprine, and prednisone following liver transplantation due to autoimmune hepatitis for 8 months prior to presentation. Eighteen days prior to the current presentation, she was clinically diagnosed with herpes zoster. As the grouped vesicles from the herpes zoster resolved, she developed pink scaly papules in the same distribution as the original vesicular eruption.

Physical examination revealed numerous erythematous, 2- to 3-mm, scaly papules that coalesced into small plaques with serous crusts; they originated above the supragluteal cleft and extended rightward in the L3 and L4 dermatomes to the right knee (Figure 1). A 3-mm punch biopsy specimen was obtained from the right anterior thigh. Histologic analysis revealed interface lymphocytic inflammation with squamatization of basal keratinocytes, basement membrane thickening, and follicular plugging by keratin (Figure 2). There was a moderately intense perivascular and periadnexal inflammatory infiltrate of mature lymphocytes with rare eosinophils within the papillary and superficial reticular dermis. There was no evidence of a viral cytopathic effect, and an immunohistochemical stain for varicella-zoster virus protein was negative. The histologic findings were suggestive of cutaneous involvement by DLE. A diagnosis of a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like Wolf isotopic response was made, and the patient’s rash resolved with the use of triamcinolone cream 0.1% applied twice daily for 2 weeks. At 6-week follow-up, there were postinflammatory pigmentation changes at the sites of the prior rash and persistent postherpetic neuralgia. Recent antinuclear antibody screening was negative, coupled with the patient’s lack of systemic symptoms and quick resolution of rash, indicating that additional testing for systemic lupus was not warranted.

Wolf isotopic response describes the occurrence of a new skin disorder at the site of a previously healed and unrelated skin disorder. The second disease may appear within days to years after the primary disease subsides and is clearly differentiated from the isomorphic response of the Koebner phenomenon, which describes an established skin disorder appearing at a previously uninvolved anatomic site following trauma.¹ As in our case, the initial cutaneous eruption resulting in a subsequent Wolf isotopic response frequently is herpes zoster and less commonly is herpes simplex virus.² The most common reported isotopic response is a granulomatous reaction.² Rare reports of leukemic infiltration, lymphoma, lichen planus, morphea, reactive perforating collagenosis, psoriasis, discoid lupus, lichen simplex chronicus, contact dermatitis, xanthomatous changes, malignant tumors, cutaneous graft-vs-host disease, pityriasis rosea, erythema annulare centrifugum, and other infectious-based isotopic responses exist.^2-6

Our patient presented with Wolf isotopic response that histologically mimicked DLE. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms isotopic response and lupus revealed only 3 cases of cutaneous lupus erythematosus presenting as an isotopic response in the English-language literature. One of those cases occurred in a patient with preexisting systemic lupus erythematosus, making a diagnosis of Koebner isomorphic phenomenon more appropriate than an isotopic response at the site of prior herpes zoster infection.⁷ The remaining 2 cases were clinically defined DLE lesions occurring at sites of prior infection—cutaneous leishmaniasis and herpes zoster—in patients without a prior history of cutaneous or systemic lupus erythematosus.^8,9 The latter case of DLE-like isotopic response occurring after herpes zoster infection was further complicated by local injections at the zoster site for herpes-related local pain. Injection sites are reported as a distinct nidus for Wolf isotopic response.⁹

The pathogenesis of Wolf isotopic response is unclear. Possible explanations include local interactions between persistent viral particles at prior herpes infection sites, vascular injury, neural injury, and an altered immune response.^1,5,6,10 The destruction of sensory nerve fibers by herpesviruses cause the release of neuropeptides that then modulate the local immune system and angiogenic responses.^5,6 Our patient’s immunocompromised state may have further propagated a local altered immune cell infiltrate at the site of the isotopic response. Despite its unclear etiology, Wolf isotopic response should be considered in the differential diagnosis for any patient who presents with a dermatomal eruption at the site of a prior cutaneous infection, particularly after infection with herpes zoster. Treatment with topical or intralesional corticosteroids usually suffices for inflammatory-based isotopic responses with an excellent prognosis.¹¹

We present a case of a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like isotopic response that occurred at the site of a recent herpes zoster eruption in an immunocompromised patient without prior history of systemic or cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Clinical recognition of Wolf isotopic response is important for accurate histopathologic diagnosis and management. Continued investigation into the underlying pathogenesis should be performed to fully understand and better treat this process.

To the Editor:

Wolf isotopic response describes the development of a skin disorder at the site of another healed and unrelated skin disease. Skin disorders presenting as isotopic responses have included inflammatory, malignant, granulomatous, and infectious processes. Discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) is a rare isotopic response. We report a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like isotopic response that presented at the site of a recent herpes zoster infection in a liver transplant recipient.

A 74-year-old immunocompromised woman was referred to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of a rash on the right leg. She was being treated with maintenance valganciclovir due to cytomegalovirus viremia, as well as tacrolimus, azathioprine, and prednisone following liver transplantation due to autoimmune hepatitis for 8 months prior to presentation. Eighteen days prior to the current presentation, she was clinically diagnosed with herpes zoster. As the grouped vesicles from the herpes zoster resolved, she developed pink scaly papules in the same distribution as the original vesicular eruption.

Physical examination revealed numerous erythematous, 2- to 3-mm, scaly papules that coalesced into small plaques with serous crusts; they originated above the supragluteal cleft and extended rightward in the L3 and L4 dermatomes to the right knee (Figure 1). A 3-mm punch biopsy specimen was obtained from the right anterior thigh. Histologic analysis revealed interface lymphocytic inflammation with squamatization of basal keratinocytes, basement membrane thickening, and follicular plugging by keratin (Figure 2). There was a moderately intense perivascular and periadnexal inflammatory infiltrate of mature lymphocytes with rare eosinophils within the papillary and superficial reticular dermis. There was no evidence of a viral cytopathic effect, and an immunohistochemical stain for varicella-zoster virus protein was negative. The histologic findings were suggestive of cutaneous involvement by DLE. A diagnosis of a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like Wolf isotopic response was made, and the patient’s rash resolved with the use of triamcinolone cream 0.1% applied twice daily for 2 weeks. At 6-week follow-up, there were postinflammatory pigmentation changes at the sites of the prior rash and persistent postherpetic neuralgia. Recent antinuclear antibody screening was negative, coupled with the patient’s lack of systemic symptoms and quick resolution of rash, indicating that additional testing for systemic lupus was not warranted.

Wolf isotopic response describes the occurrence of a new skin disorder at the site of a previously healed and unrelated skin disorder. The second disease may appear within days to years after the primary disease subsides and is clearly differentiated from the isomorphic response of the Koebner phenomenon, which describes an established skin disorder appearing at a previously uninvolved anatomic site following trauma.¹ As in our case, the initial cutaneous eruption resulting in a subsequent Wolf isotopic response frequently is herpes zoster and less commonly is herpes simplex virus.² The most common reported isotopic response is a granulomatous reaction.² Rare reports of leukemic infiltration, lymphoma, lichen planus, morphea, reactive perforating collagenosis, psoriasis, discoid lupus, lichen simplex chronicus, contact dermatitis, xanthomatous changes, malignant tumors, cutaneous graft-vs-host disease, pityriasis rosea, erythema annulare centrifugum, and other infectious-based isotopic responses exist.^2-6

Our patient presented with Wolf isotopic response that histologically mimicked DLE. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms isotopic response and lupus revealed only 3 cases of cutaneous lupus erythematosus presenting as an isotopic response in the English-language literature. One of those cases occurred in a patient with preexisting systemic lupus erythematosus, making a diagnosis of Koebner isomorphic phenomenon more appropriate than an isotopic response at the site of prior herpes zoster infection.⁷ The remaining 2 cases were clinically defined DLE lesions occurring at sites of prior infection—cutaneous leishmaniasis and herpes zoster—in patients without a prior history of cutaneous or systemic lupus erythematosus.^8,9 The latter case of DLE-like isotopic response occurring after herpes zoster infection was further complicated by local injections at the zoster site for herpes-related local pain. Injection sites are reported as a distinct nidus for Wolf isotopic response.⁹

The pathogenesis of Wolf isotopic response is unclear. Possible explanations include local interactions between persistent viral particles at prior herpes infection sites, vascular injury, neural injury, and an altered immune response.^1,5,6,10 The destruction of sensory nerve fibers by herpesviruses cause the release of neuropeptides that then modulate the local immune system and angiogenic responses.^5,6 Our patient’s immunocompromised state may have further propagated a local altered immune cell infiltrate at the site of the isotopic response. Despite its unclear etiology, Wolf isotopic response should be considered in the differential diagnosis for any patient who presents with a dermatomal eruption at the site of a prior cutaneous infection, particularly after infection with herpes zoster. Treatment with topical or intralesional corticosteroids usually suffices for inflammatory-based isotopic responses with an excellent prognosis.¹¹

We present a case of a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like isotopic response that occurred at the site of a recent herpes zoster eruption in an immunocompromised patient without prior history of systemic or cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Clinical recognition of Wolf isotopic response is important for accurate histopathologic diagnosis and management. Continued investigation into the underlying pathogenesis should be performed to fully understand and better treat this process.

To the Editor:

Wolf isotopic response describes the development of a skin disorder at the site of another healed and unrelated skin disease. Skin disorders presenting as isotopic responses have included inflammatory, malignant, granulomatous, and infectious processes. Discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) is a rare isotopic response. We report a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like isotopic response that presented at the site of a recent herpes zoster infection in a liver transplant recipient.

A 74-year-old immunocompromised woman was referred to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of a rash on the right leg. She was being treated with maintenance valganciclovir due to cytomegalovirus viremia, as well as tacrolimus, azathioprine, and prednisone following liver transplantation due to autoimmune hepatitis for 8 months prior to presentation. Eighteen days prior to the current presentation, she was clinically diagnosed with herpes zoster. As the grouped vesicles from the herpes zoster resolved, she developed pink scaly papules in the same distribution as the original vesicular eruption.

Physical examination revealed numerous erythematous, 2- to 3-mm, scaly papules that coalesced into small plaques with serous crusts; they originated above the supragluteal cleft and extended rightward in the L3 and L4 dermatomes to the right knee (Figure 1). A 3-mm punch biopsy specimen was obtained from the right anterior thigh. Histologic analysis revealed interface lymphocytic inflammation with squamatization of basal keratinocytes, basement membrane thickening, and follicular plugging by keratin (Figure 2). There was a moderately intense perivascular and periadnexal inflammatory infiltrate of mature lymphocytes with rare eosinophils within the papillary and superficial reticular dermis. There was no evidence of a viral cytopathic effect, and an immunohistochemical stain for varicella-zoster virus protein was negative. The histologic findings were suggestive of cutaneous involvement by DLE. A diagnosis of a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like Wolf isotopic response was made, and the patient’s rash resolved with the use of triamcinolone cream 0.1% applied twice daily for 2 weeks. At 6-week follow-up, there were postinflammatory pigmentation changes at the sites of the prior rash and persistent postherpetic neuralgia. Recent antinuclear antibody screening was negative, coupled with the patient’s lack of systemic symptoms and quick resolution of rash, indicating that additional testing for systemic lupus was not warranted.

Wolf isotopic response describes the occurrence of a new skin disorder at the site of a previously healed and unrelated skin disorder. The second disease may appear within days to years after the primary disease subsides and is clearly differentiated from the isomorphic response of the Koebner phenomenon, which describes an established skin disorder appearing at a previously uninvolved anatomic site following trauma.¹ As in our case, the initial cutaneous eruption resulting in a subsequent Wolf isotopic response frequently is herpes zoster and less commonly is herpes simplex virus.² The most common reported isotopic response is a granulomatous reaction.² Rare reports of leukemic infiltration, lymphoma, lichen planus, morphea, reactive perforating collagenosis, psoriasis, discoid lupus, lichen simplex chronicus, contact dermatitis, xanthomatous changes, malignant tumors, cutaneous graft-vs-host disease, pityriasis rosea, erythema annulare centrifugum, and other infectious-based isotopic responses exist.^2-6

Our patient presented with Wolf isotopic response that histologically mimicked DLE. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms isotopic response and lupus revealed only 3 cases of cutaneous lupus erythematosus presenting as an isotopic response in the English-language literature. One of those cases occurred in a patient with preexisting systemic lupus erythematosus, making a diagnosis of Koebner isomorphic phenomenon more appropriate than an isotopic response at the site of prior herpes zoster infection.⁷ The remaining 2 cases were clinically defined DLE lesions occurring at sites of prior infection—cutaneous leishmaniasis and herpes zoster—in patients without a prior history of cutaneous or systemic lupus erythematosus.^8,9 The latter case of DLE-like isotopic response occurring after herpes zoster infection was further complicated by local injections at the zoster site for herpes-related local pain. Injection sites are reported as a distinct nidus for Wolf isotopic response.⁹

The pathogenesis of Wolf isotopic response is unclear. Possible explanations include local interactions between persistent viral particles at prior herpes infection sites, vascular injury, neural injury, and an altered immune response.^1,5,6,10 The destruction of sensory nerve fibers by herpesviruses cause the release of neuropeptides that then modulate the local immune system and angiogenic responses.^5,6 Our patient’s immunocompromised state may have further propagated a local altered immune cell infiltrate at the site of the isotopic response. Despite its unclear etiology, Wolf isotopic response should be considered in the differential diagnosis for any patient who presents with a dermatomal eruption at the site of a prior cutaneous infection, particularly after infection with herpes zoster. Treatment with topical or intralesional corticosteroids usually suffices for inflammatory-based isotopic responses with an excellent prognosis.¹¹

We present a case of a cutaneous lupus erythematosus–like isotopic response that occurred at the site of a recent herpes zoster eruption in an immunocompromised patient without prior history of systemic or cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Clinical recognition of Wolf isotopic response is important for accurate histopathologic diagnosis and management. Continued investigation into the underlying pathogenesis should be performed to fully understand and better treat this process.

To the Editor:

A 57-year-old man with hypertension, dyslipidemia, and congestive heart failure presented with a disfiguring eruption comprised of asymptomatic papules on the face that appeared 12 months post–heart transplantation. Immunosuppressive medications included mycophenolic acid and tacrolimus ointment (FK506). The pinpoint papules spread from the central face to the ears, arms, and legs. Physical examination revealed multiple 0.5- to 1-mm flesh-colored papules over the glabella, nose, nasolabial folds, philtrum, chin, ears, arms, and legs sparing the trunk. The initial appearance of the facial rash resembled the surface of a nutmeg grater with central white spiny excrescences overlying fine papules (spinulosism)(Figure 1). In addition, eyebrow alopecia was present.

A 3-mm punch biopsy of a papule with a central spine was performed on the left thigh. Microscopic examination revealed marked dilatation of anagen hair follicles with a proliferation of haphazard inner root sheath cells replacing the follicular lumen. Hair shafts were absent, and plugged infundibula were observed (Figure 2). The inner root sheath keratinocytes were enlarged and dystrophic with deeply eosinophilic trichohyalin granules (Figure 3). The epidermis, outer root sheath epithelium, and eccrine structures were unremarkable.

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) confirmed the presence of intranuclear viral inclusions within affected inner root sheath keratinocytes composed of nonenveloped icosahedral viral particles measuring 33 to 38 nm in diameter (Figure 4). These findings morphologically were consistent with a polyomavirus. No intracytoplasmic or extracellular viral particles were identified. The clinical history, physical examination, histopathology, and electron microscopy features strongly supported the diagnosis of trichodysplasia spinulosa (TS) despite insufficient material being retrieved for polymerase chain reaction identification.

Trichodysplasia spinulosa was first described by Haycox et al¹ in 1999. The authors suggested a viral etiology. Eleven years later, TS-associated polyomavirus (TSPyV) was identified by van der Meijden et al.² Follicular keratinocytes are the specific target for TSPyV.³ Evidence has been presented suggesting that TS is caused by a primary infection or reactivation of TSPyV in the setting of immunosuppression.^4,5

Patients with TS present with papular eruptions that appear on the central face with spiny excrescences and various degrees of alopecia involving the eyebrows or eyelashes. Histopathologic features include distended hair follicles with expansion of inner root sheath cells, eosinophilic trichohyalin granules, and the absence of hair shafts. The viral protein can be verified through immunohistochemistry TSPyV VP1 staining that demonstrates co-localization with trichohyalin. Viral particles also can be visualized as 35- to 38-nm intranuclear particles with an organized crystalloid morphology on TEM.^6,7 The negative polymerase chain reaction in our patient could be the result of suboptimal template DNA concentration extracted from the limited amount of tissue remaining in the block after hematoxylin and eosin staining.

The clinical differential diagnosis of central facial spinulosism includes the follicular spicules of multiple myeloma (FSMM). In fact, FSMM and TS can only be differentiated after obtaining a blood profile and bone marrow biopsy that excludes the diagnosis of FSMM. A history of immunosuppression typically suggests TS. Histopathology often is equivocal in FSMM⁸; however, TEM reveals viral particles (TSPyV) in TS. Transmission electron microscopy in FSMM demonstrates fibrillary structures arranged in a paracrystalline configuration with unknown significance instead of viral particles. Despite the absence of viral particles on TEM, a low mean copy number of Merkel cell polyomavirus was isolated from a patient with FSMM who responded dramatically to treatment with topical cidofovir gel 1%.⁸ In addition to treating the underlying multiple myeloma in FSMM, topical cidofovir gel 1% also may have a role in treatment of these patients, suggesting a possible viral rather than simply paraneoplastic etiology of FSMM. Therefore, polyomavirus infection should be considered in the initial workup of any patient with fine facial follicular spicules.

The most effective management of TS in transplant recipients is to reduce immunosuppression to the lowest level possible without jeopardizing the transplanted organ.⁹ In our case, reduction of immunosuppressive drugs was not possible. In fact, immunosuppression in our patient was increased following evidence of early rejection of the heart transplant. Although manual extraction of the keratin spicules resulted in considerable improvement in a similar facial eruption in a patient with pediatric pre–B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia developing TS,¹⁰ it is impossible to apply this approach to patients such as ours who have thousands of tiny lesions. Fortunately, custom-compounded cidofovir gel 1% applied twice daily to the patient’s face and ears for 4 weeks led to near-complete clearance at follow-up (Figure 5). Due to the high cost of the medication (approaching $700 for one tube), our patient applied this medication to the face only several times weekly with excellent improvement. Thus, it appears that it is possible to suppress this virus with topical medication alone.

Polyomavirus infection should be considered in patients presenting with fine follicular spiny papules, especially those who are immunosuppressed. The possibility of coexisting multiple myeloma should be excluded.

Acknowledgment—We sincerely thank Glenn A. Hoskins (Jackson, Mississippi), the electron microscopy technologist, for the detection of viral particles and the electron microscope photographs.

To the Editor:

A 57-year-old man with hypertension, dyslipidemia, and congestive heart failure presented with a disfiguring eruption comprised of asymptomatic papules on the face that appeared 12 months post–heart transplantation. Immunosuppressive medications included mycophenolic acid and tacrolimus ointment (FK506). The pinpoint papules spread from the central face to the ears, arms, and legs. Physical examination revealed multiple 0.5- to 1-mm flesh-colored papules over the glabella, nose, nasolabial folds, philtrum, chin, ears, arms, and legs sparing the trunk. The initial appearance of the facial rash resembled the surface of a nutmeg grater with central white spiny excrescences overlying fine papules (spinulosism)(Figure 1). In addition, eyebrow alopecia was present.

A 3-mm punch biopsy of a papule with a central spine was performed on the left thigh. Microscopic examination revealed marked dilatation of anagen hair follicles with a proliferation of haphazard inner root sheath cells replacing the follicular lumen. Hair shafts were absent, and plugged infundibula were observed (Figure 2). The inner root sheath keratinocytes were enlarged and dystrophic with deeply eosinophilic trichohyalin granules (Figure 3). The epidermis, outer root sheath epithelium, and eccrine structures were unremarkable.

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) confirmed the presence of intranuclear viral inclusions within affected inner root sheath keratinocytes composed of nonenveloped icosahedral viral particles measuring 33 to 38 nm in diameter (Figure 4). These findings morphologically were consistent with a polyomavirus. No intracytoplasmic or extracellular viral particles were identified. The clinical history, physical examination, histopathology, and electron microscopy features strongly supported the diagnosis of trichodysplasia spinulosa (TS) despite insufficient material being retrieved for polymerase chain reaction identification.

Trichodysplasia spinulosa was first described by Haycox et al¹ in 1999. The authors suggested a viral etiology. Eleven years later, TS-associated polyomavirus (TSPyV) was identified by van der Meijden et al.² Follicular keratinocytes are the specific target for TSPyV.³ Evidence has been presented suggesting that TS is caused by a primary infection or reactivation of TSPyV in the setting of immunosuppression.^4,5

Patients with TS present with papular eruptions that appear on the central face with spiny excrescences and various degrees of alopecia involving the eyebrows or eyelashes. Histopathologic features include distended hair follicles with expansion of inner root sheath cells, eosinophilic trichohyalin granules, and the absence of hair shafts. The viral protein can be verified through immunohistochemistry TSPyV VP1 staining that demonstrates co-localization with trichohyalin. Viral particles also can be visualized as 35- to 38-nm intranuclear particles with an organized crystalloid morphology on TEM.^6,7 The negative polymerase chain reaction in our patient could be the result of suboptimal template DNA concentration extracted from the limited amount of tissue remaining in the block after hematoxylin and eosin staining.

The clinical differential diagnosis of central facial spinulosism includes the follicular spicules of multiple myeloma (FSMM). In fact, FSMM and TS can only be differentiated after obtaining a blood profile and bone marrow biopsy that excludes the diagnosis of FSMM. A history of immunosuppression typically suggests TS. Histopathology often is equivocal in FSMM⁸; however, TEM reveals viral particles (TSPyV) in TS. Transmission electron microscopy in FSMM demonstrates fibrillary structures arranged in a paracrystalline configuration with unknown significance instead of viral particles. Despite the absence of viral particles on TEM, a low mean copy number of Merkel cell polyomavirus was isolated from a patient with FSMM who responded dramatically to treatment with topical cidofovir gel 1%.⁸ In addition to treating the underlying multiple myeloma in FSMM, topical cidofovir gel 1% also may have a role in treatment of these patients, suggesting a possible viral rather than simply paraneoplastic etiology of FSMM. Therefore, polyomavirus infection should be considered in the initial workup of any patient with fine facial follicular spicules.

The most effective management of TS in transplant recipients is to reduce immunosuppression to the lowest level possible without jeopardizing the transplanted organ.⁹ In our case, reduction of immunosuppressive drugs was not possible. In fact, immunosuppression in our patient was increased following evidence of early rejection of the heart transplant. Although manual extraction of the keratin spicules resulted in considerable improvement in a similar facial eruption in a patient with pediatric pre–B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia developing TS,¹⁰ it is impossible to apply this approach to patients such as ours who have thousands of tiny lesions. Fortunately, custom-compounded cidofovir gel 1% applied twice daily to the patient’s face and ears for 4 weeks led to near-complete clearance at follow-up (Figure 5). Due to the high cost of the medication (approaching $700 for one tube), our patient applied this medication to the face only several times weekly with excellent improvement. Thus, it appears that it is possible to suppress this virus with topical medication alone.

Polyomavirus infection should be considered in patients presenting with fine follicular spiny papules, especially those who are immunosuppressed. The possibility of coexisting multiple myeloma should be excluded.

Acknowledgment—We sincerely thank Glenn A. Hoskins (Jackson, Mississippi), the electron microscopy technologist, for the detection of viral particles and the electron microscope photographs.

To the Editor:

A 57-year-old man with hypertension, dyslipidemia, and congestive heart failure presented with a disfiguring eruption comprised of asymptomatic papules on the face that appeared 12 months post–heart transplantation. Immunosuppressive medications included mycophenolic acid and tacrolimus ointment (FK506). The pinpoint papules spread from the central face to the ears, arms, and legs. Physical examination revealed multiple 0.5- to 1-mm flesh-colored papules over the glabella, nose, nasolabial folds, philtrum, chin, ears, arms, and legs sparing the trunk. The initial appearance of the facial rash resembled the surface of a nutmeg grater with central white spiny excrescences overlying fine papules (spinulosism)(Figure 1). In addition, eyebrow alopecia was present.

A 3-mm punch biopsy of a papule with a central spine was performed on the left thigh. Microscopic examination revealed marked dilatation of anagen hair follicles with a proliferation of haphazard inner root sheath cells replacing the follicular lumen. Hair shafts were absent, and plugged infundibula were observed (Figure 2). The inner root sheath keratinocytes were enlarged and dystrophic with deeply eosinophilic trichohyalin granules (Figure 3). The epidermis, outer root sheath epithelium, and eccrine structures were unremarkable.

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) confirmed the presence of intranuclear viral inclusions within affected inner root sheath keratinocytes composed of nonenveloped icosahedral viral particles measuring 33 to 38 nm in diameter (Figure 4). These findings morphologically were consistent with a polyomavirus. No intracytoplasmic or extracellular viral particles were identified. The clinical history, physical examination, histopathology, and electron microscopy features strongly supported the diagnosis of trichodysplasia spinulosa (TS) despite insufficient material being retrieved for polymerase chain reaction identification.

Trichodysplasia spinulosa was first described by Haycox et al¹ in 1999. The authors suggested a viral etiology. Eleven years later, TS-associated polyomavirus (TSPyV) was identified by van der Meijden et al.² Follicular keratinocytes are the specific target for TSPyV.³ Evidence has been presented suggesting that TS is caused by a primary infection or reactivation of TSPyV in the setting of immunosuppression.^4,5

Patients with TS present with papular eruptions that appear on the central face with spiny excrescences and various degrees of alopecia involving the eyebrows or eyelashes. Histopathologic features include distended hair follicles with expansion of inner root sheath cells, eosinophilic trichohyalin granules, and the absence of hair shafts. The viral protein can be verified through immunohistochemistry TSPyV VP1 staining that demonstrates co-localization with trichohyalin. Viral particles also can be visualized as 35- to 38-nm intranuclear particles with an organized crystalloid morphology on TEM.^6,7 The negative polymerase chain reaction in our patient could be the result of suboptimal template DNA concentration extracted from the limited amount of tissue remaining in the block after hematoxylin and eosin staining.

The clinical differential diagnosis of central facial spinulosism includes the follicular spicules of multiple myeloma (FSMM). In fact, FSMM and TS can only be differentiated after obtaining a blood profile and bone marrow biopsy that excludes the diagnosis of FSMM. A history of immunosuppression typically suggests TS. Histopathology often is equivocal in FSMM⁸; however, TEM reveals viral particles (TSPyV) in TS. Transmission electron microscopy in FSMM demonstrates fibrillary structures arranged in a paracrystalline configuration with unknown significance instead of viral particles. Despite the absence of viral particles on TEM, a low mean copy number of Merkel cell polyomavirus was isolated from a patient with FSMM who responded dramatically to treatment with topical cidofovir gel 1%.⁸ In addition to treating the underlying multiple myeloma in FSMM, topical cidofovir gel 1% also may have a role in treatment of these patients, suggesting a possible viral rather than simply paraneoplastic etiology of FSMM. Therefore, polyomavirus infection should be considered in the initial workup of any patient with fine facial follicular spicules.

The most effective management of TS in transplant recipients is to reduce immunosuppression to the lowest level possible without jeopardizing the transplanted organ.⁹ In our case, reduction of immunosuppressive drugs was not possible. In fact, immunosuppression in our patient was increased following evidence of early rejection of the heart transplant. Although manual extraction of the keratin spicules resulted in considerable improvement in a similar facial eruption in a patient with pediatric pre–B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia developing TS,¹⁰ it is impossible to apply this approach to patients such as ours who have thousands of tiny lesions. Fortunately, custom-compounded cidofovir gel 1% applied twice daily to the patient’s face and ears for 4 weeks led to near-complete clearance at follow-up (Figure 5). Due to the high cost of the medication (approaching $700 for one tube), our patient applied this medication to the face only several times weekly with excellent improvement. Thus, it appears that it is possible to suppress this virus with topical medication alone.

Polyomavirus infection should be considered in patients presenting with fine follicular spiny papules, especially those who are immunosuppressed. The possibility of coexisting multiple myeloma should be excluded.

Acknowledgment—We sincerely thank Glenn A. Hoskins (Jackson, Mississippi), the electron microscopy technologist, for the detection of viral particles and the electron microscope photographs.

To the Editor:

A 52-year-old man who was otherwise healthy and a long-distance runner presented with the sudden onset of diminished sweating on the left side of the body of 6 weeks’ duration. While training for a marathon, he reported that he perspired only on the right side of the body during runs of 12 to 15 miles; he observed a lack of sweating on the left side of the face, left side of the trunk, left arm, and left leg. This absence of sweating was accompanied by intense flushing on the right side of the face and trunk.

The patient did not take any medications. He reported no history of trauma and exhibited no neurologic deficits. A chest radiograph was negative. Thyroid function testing and a comprehensive metabolic panel were normal. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography of the chest and abdomen revealed a 4.3-cm soft-tissue mass in the left superior mediastinum that was superior to the aortic arch, posterior to the left subclavian artery in proximity to the sympathetic chain, and lateral to the trachea. The patient was diagnosed with Harlequin syndrome (HS).

Open thoracotomy was performed to remove the lesion. Analysis of the mass showed cystic areas, areas of hemorrhage (Figure 1A), and alternating zones of compact Antoni A spindle cells admixed with areas of less orderly Antoni B spindle cells within a hypocellular stroma (Figure 1B). Individual cells were characterized by eosinophilic cytoplasm and tapered nuclei. The mass appeared to be completely encapsulated. No mitotic figures were seen on multiple slides. The cells stained diffusely positive for S-100 proteins. At 6-month follow-up, the patient reported that he did not notice any return of normal sweating on the left side. However, the right-sided flushing had resolved.

Harlequin syndrome (also called the Harlequin sign) is a rare disorder of the sympathetic nervous system and should not be confused with lethal harlequin-type ichthyosis, an autosomal-recessive congenital disorder in which the affected newborn’s skin is hard and thickened over most of the body.¹ Harlequin syndrome usually is characterized by unilateral flushing and sweating that can affect the face, trunk, and extremities.² Physical stimuli, such as exercising (as in our patient), high body temperature, and the consumption of spicy or pungent food, or an emotional response can unmask or exacerbate symptoms of HS. The syndrome also can present with cluster headache.³ Harlequin syndrome is more common in females (66% of cases).⁴ Originally, the side of the face marked by increased sweating and flushing was perceived to be the pathologic side; now it is recognized that the anhidrotic side is affected by the causative pathology. The side of the face characterized by flushing might gradually darken as it compensates for lack of thermal regulation on the other side.^2,5

Usually, HS is an idiopathic condition associated with localized failure of upper thoracic sympathetic chain ganglia.⁵ A theory is that HS is part of a spectrum of autoimmune autonomic ganglionopathy.⁶ Typically, the syndrome is asymptomatic at rest, but testing can reveal an underlying sympathetic lesion.⁷ Structural lesions have been reported as a cause of the syndrome,⁶ similar to our patient.

Disrupted thermoregulatory vasodilation in HS is caused by an ipsilateral lesion of the sympathetic vasodilator neurons that innervate the face. Hemifacial anhidrosis also occurs because sudomotor neurons travel within the same pathways as vasodilator neurons.⁴

Our patient had a posterior mediastinal ancient schwannoma to the left of the subclavian artery, lateral to the trachea, with ipsilateral anhidrosis of the forehead, cheek, chin, and torso. In the medical literature, the forehead, cheek, and chin are described as being affected in HS when the lesion is located under the bifurcation of the carotid artery.^3,5 Most of the sudomotor and vasomotor fibers that innervate the face leave the spinal cord through ventral roots T2-T3⁴ (symptomatic areas are described in Figure 2), which correlates with the hypothesis that HS results from a deficit originating in the third thoracic nerve that is caused by a peripheral lesion affecting sympathetic outflow through the third thoracic root.² The location of our patient’s lesion supports this claim.

Harlequin syndrome can present simultaneously with ipsilateral Horner, Adie, and Ross syndromes.⁸ There are varying clinical presentations of Horner syndrome. Some patients with HS show autonomic ocular signs, such as miosis and ptosis, exhibiting Horner syndrome as an additional feature.⁵ Adie syndrome is characterized by tonic pupils with hyporeflexia and is unilateral in most cases. Ross syndrome is similar to Adie syndrome—including tonic pupils with hyporeflexia—in addition to a finding of segmental anhidrosis; it is bilateral in most cases.⁴

In some cases, Horner syndrome and HS originate from unilateral pharmaceutical sympathetic denervation (ie, as a consequence of paravertebral spread of local anesthetic to ipsilateral stellate ganglion).⁹ Facial nonflushing areas in HS typically are identical with anhidrotic areas¹⁰; Horner syndrome often is ipsilateral to the affected sympathetic region.¹¹

Our patient exhibited secondary HS from a tumor effect; however, an underlying tumor or infarct is absent in many cases. In primary (idiopathic) cases of HS, treatment is not recommended because the syndrome is benign.^10,11

If symptoms of HS cause notable social embarrassment, contralateral sympathectomy can be considered.^5,12 Repeated stellate ganglion block with a local anesthetic could be a less invasive treatment option.¹³ When considered on a case-by-case-basis, botulinum toxin type A has been effective as a treatment of compensatory hyperhidrosis on the unaffected side.¹⁴

In cases of secondary HS, surgical removal of the lesion may alleviate symptoms, though thoracotomy in our patient to remove the schwannoma did not alleviate anhidrosis. The Table lists treatment options for primary and secondary HS.^4,5,11

To the Editor:

A 52-year-old man who was otherwise healthy and a long-distance runner presented with the sudden onset of diminished sweating on the left side of the body of 6 weeks’ duration. While training for a marathon, he reported that he perspired only on the right side of the body during runs of 12 to 15 miles; he observed a lack of sweating on the left side of the face, left side of the trunk, left arm, and left leg. This absence of sweating was accompanied by intense flushing on the right side of the face and trunk.

The patient did not take any medications. He reported no history of trauma and exhibited no neurologic deficits. A chest radiograph was negative. Thyroid function testing and a comprehensive metabolic panel were normal. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography of the chest and abdomen revealed a 4.3-cm soft-tissue mass in the left superior mediastinum that was superior to the aortic arch, posterior to the left subclavian artery in proximity to the sympathetic chain, and lateral to the trachea. The patient was diagnosed with Harlequin syndrome (HS).

Open thoracotomy was performed to remove the lesion. Analysis of the mass showed cystic areas, areas of hemorrhage (Figure 1A), and alternating zones of compact Antoni A spindle cells admixed with areas of less orderly Antoni B spindle cells within a hypocellular stroma (Figure 1B). Individual cells were characterized by eosinophilic cytoplasm and tapered nuclei. The mass appeared to be completely encapsulated. No mitotic figures were seen on multiple slides. The cells stained diffusely positive for S-100 proteins. At 6-month follow-up, the patient reported that he did not notice any return of normal sweating on the left side. However, the right-sided flushing had resolved.

Harlequin syndrome (also called the Harlequin sign) is a rare disorder of the sympathetic nervous system and should not be confused with lethal harlequin-type ichthyosis, an autosomal-recessive congenital disorder in which the affected newborn’s skin is hard and thickened over most of the body.¹ Harlequin syndrome usually is characterized by unilateral flushing and sweating that can affect the face, trunk, and extremities.² Physical stimuli, such as exercising (as in our patient), high body temperature, and the consumption of spicy or pungent food, or an emotional response can unmask or exacerbate symptoms of HS. The syndrome also can present with cluster headache.³ Harlequin syndrome is more common in females (66% of cases).⁴ Originally, the side of the face marked by increased sweating and flushing was perceived to be the pathologic side; now it is recognized that the anhidrotic side is affected by the causative pathology. The side of the face characterized by flushing might gradually darken as it compensates for lack of thermal regulation on the other side.^2,5

Usually, HS is an idiopathic condition associated with localized failure of upper thoracic sympathetic chain ganglia.⁵ A theory is that HS is part of a spectrum of autoimmune autonomic ganglionopathy.⁶ Typically, the syndrome is asymptomatic at rest, but testing can reveal an underlying sympathetic lesion.⁷ Structural lesions have been reported as a cause of the syndrome,⁶ similar to our patient.

Disrupted thermoregulatory vasodilation in HS is caused by an ipsilateral lesion of the sympathetic vasodilator neurons that innervate the face. Hemifacial anhidrosis also occurs because sudomotor neurons travel within the same pathways as vasodilator neurons.⁴

Our patient had a posterior mediastinal ancient schwannoma to the left of the subclavian artery, lateral to the trachea, with ipsilateral anhidrosis of the forehead, cheek, chin, and torso. In the medical literature, the forehead, cheek, and chin are described as being affected in HS when the lesion is located under the bifurcation of the carotid artery.^3,5 Most of the sudomotor and vasomotor fibers that innervate the face leave the spinal cord through ventral roots T2-T3⁴ (symptomatic areas are described in Figure 2), which correlates with the hypothesis that HS results from a deficit originating in the third thoracic nerve that is caused by a peripheral lesion affecting sympathetic outflow through the third thoracic root.² The location of our patient’s lesion supports this claim.

Harlequin syndrome can present simultaneously with ipsilateral Horner, Adie, and Ross syndromes.⁸ There are varying clinical presentations of Horner syndrome. Some patients with HS show autonomic ocular signs, such as miosis and ptosis, exhibiting Horner syndrome as an additional feature.⁵ Adie syndrome is characterized by tonic pupils with hyporeflexia and is unilateral in most cases. Ross syndrome is similar to Adie syndrome—including tonic pupils with hyporeflexia—in addition to a finding of segmental anhidrosis; it is bilateral in most cases.⁴

In some cases, Horner syndrome and HS originate from unilateral pharmaceutical sympathetic denervation (ie, as a consequence of paravertebral spread of local anesthetic to ipsilateral stellate ganglion).⁹ Facial nonflushing areas in HS typically are identical with anhidrotic areas¹⁰; Horner syndrome often is ipsilateral to the affected sympathetic region.¹¹

Our patient exhibited secondary HS from a tumor effect; however, an underlying tumor or infarct is absent in many cases. In primary (idiopathic) cases of HS, treatment is not recommended because the syndrome is benign.^10,11

If symptoms of HS cause notable social embarrassment, contralateral sympathectomy can be considered.^5,12 Repeated stellate ganglion block with a local anesthetic could be a less invasive treatment option.¹³ When considered on a case-by-case-basis, botulinum toxin type A has been effective as a treatment of compensatory hyperhidrosis on the unaffected side.¹⁴

In cases of secondary HS, surgical removal of the lesion may alleviate symptoms, though thoracotomy in our patient to remove the schwannoma did not alleviate anhidrosis. The Table lists treatment options for primary and secondary HS.^4,5,11

To the Editor:

A 52-year-old man who was otherwise healthy and a long-distance runner presented with the sudden onset of diminished sweating on the left side of the body of 6 weeks’ duration. While training for a marathon, he reported that he perspired only on the right side of the body during runs of 12 to 15 miles; he observed a lack of sweating on the left side of the face, left side of the trunk, left arm, and left leg. This absence of sweating was accompanied by intense flushing on the right side of the face and trunk.

The patient did not take any medications. He reported no history of trauma and exhibited no neurologic deficits. A chest radiograph was negative. Thyroid function testing and a comprehensive metabolic panel were normal. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography of the chest and abdomen revealed a 4.3-cm soft-tissue mass in the left superior mediastinum that was superior to the aortic arch, posterior to the left subclavian artery in proximity to the sympathetic chain, and lateral to the trachea. The patient was diagnosed with Harlequin syndrome (HS).

Open thoracotomy was performed to remove the lesion. Analysis of the mass showed cystic areas, areas of hemorrhage (Figure 1A), and alternating zones of compact Antoni A spindle cells admixed with areas of less orderly Antoni B spindle cells within a hypocellular stroma (Figure 1B). Individual cells were characterized by eosinophilic cytoplasm and tapered nuclei. The mass appeared to be completely encapsulated. No mitotic figures were seen on multiple slides. The cells stained diffusely positive for S-100 proteins. At 6-month follow-up, the patient reported that he did not notice any return of normal sweating on the left side. However, the right-sided flushing had resolved.

Harlequin syndrome (also called the Harlequin sign) is a rare disorder of the sympathetic nervous system and should not be confused with lethal harlequin-type ichthyosis, an autosomal-recessive congenital disorder in which the affected newborn’s skin is hard and thickened over most of the body.¹ Harlequin syndrome usually is characterized by unilateral flushing and sweating that can affect the face, trunk, and extremities.² Physical stimuli, such as exercising (as in our patient), high body temperature, and the consumption of spicy or pungent food, or an emotional response can unmask or exacerbate symptoms of HS. The syndrome also can present with cluster headache.³ Harlequin syndrome is more common in females (66% of cases).⁴ Originally, the side of the face marked by increased sweating and flushing was perceived to be the pathologic side; now it is recognized that the anhidrotic side is affected by the causative pathology. The side of the face characterized by flushing might gradually darken as it compensates for lack of thermal regulation on the other side.^2,5

Usually, HS is an idiopathic condition associated with localized failure of upper thoracic sympathetic chain ganglia.⁵ A theory is that HS is part of a spectrum of autoimmune autonomic ganglionopathy.⁶ Typically, the syndrome is asymptomatic at rest, but testing can reveal an underlying sympathetic lesion.⁷ Structural lesions have been reported as a cause of the syndrome,⁶ similar to our patient.

Disrupted thermoregulatory vasodilation in HS is caused by an ipsilateral lesion of the sympathetic vasodilator neurons that innervate the face. Hemifacial anhidrosis also occurs because sudomotor neurons travel within the same pathways as vasodilator neurons.⁴

Our patient had a posterior mediastinal ancient schwannoma to the left of the subclavian artery, lateral to the trachea, with ipsilateral anhidrosis of the forehead, cheek, chin, and torso. In the medical literature, the forehead, cheek, and chin are described as being affected in HS when the lesion is located under the bifurcation of the carotid artery.^3,5 Most of the sudomotor and vasomotor fibers that innervate the face leave the spinal cord through ventral roots T2-T3⁴ (symptomatic areas are described in Figure 2), which correlates with the hypothesis that HS results from a deficit originating in the third thoracic nerve that is caused by a peripheral lesion affecting sympathetic outflow through the third thoracic root.² The location of our patient’s lesion supports this claim.

Harlequin syndrome can present simultaneously with ipsilateral Horner, Adie, and Ross syndromes.⁸ There are varying clinical presentations of Horner syndrome. Some patients with HS show autonomic ocular signs, such as miosis and ptosis, exhibiting Horner syndrome as an additional feature.⁵ Adie syndrome is characterized by tonic pupils with hyporeflexia and is unilateral in most cases. Ross syndrome is similar to Adie syndrome—including tonic pupils with hyporeflexia—in addition to a finding of segmental anhidrosis; it is bilateral in most cases.⁴

In some cases, Horner syndrome and HS originate from unilateral pharmaceutical sympathetic denervation (ie, as a consequence of paravertebral spread of local anesthetic to ipsilateral stellate ganglion).⁹ Facial nonflushing areas in HS typically are identical with anhidrotic areas¹⁰; Horner syndrome often is ipsilateral to the affected sympathetic region.¹¹

Our patient exhibited secondary HS from a tumor effect; however, an underlying tumor or infarct is absent in many cases. In primary (idiopathic) cases of HS, treatment is not recommended because the syndrome is benign.^10,11

If symptoms of HS cause notable social embarrassment, contralateral sympathectomy can be considered.^5,12 Repeated stellate ganglion block with a local anesthetic could be a less invasive treatment option.¹³ When considered on a case-by-case-basis, botulinum toxin type A has been effective as a treatment of compensatory hyperhidrosis on the unaffected side.¹⁴

In cases of secondary HS, surgical removal of the lesion may alleviate symptoms, though thoracotomy in our patient to remove the schwannoma did not alleviate anhidrosis. The Table lists treatment options for primary and secondary HS.^4,5,11

To the Editor:

A 53-year-old Hispanic woman presented to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of an expanding plaque on the right cheek of 2 months’ duration. The patient stated the plaque began as a pimple, which she picked with subsequent spread laterally across the cheek. The area was intermittently tender, but she denied tingling, burning, or pruritus of the site. She had been treated with doxycycline and amoxicillin–clavulanic acid prior to presentation without improvement. She had a history of levamisole-induced vasculitis approximately 6 months prior. A review of systems was notable for diffuse joint pain. The patient denied tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drug use in the preceding 3 months and denied any changes in her medications or in health within the last year.

Physical examination revealed a well-appearing, alert, and afebrile patient with a pink, well-demarcated plaque on the right cheek (Figure 1). The borders of the plaque were indurated, and the lateral aspect of the plaque was eroded secondary to digital manipulation by the patient. She had no cervical lymphadenopathy. There were no other abnormal cutaneous findings.

There is a broad differential diagnosis for a pink expanding plaque on the face, which requires histopathologic correlation for correct diagnosis. Three broad categories in the differential are infectious (eg, bacterial, fungal), medication related (eg, fixed drug eruption), and granulomatous (eg, granuloma faciale [GF], sarcoidosis, tumid lupus, leprosy, granulomatous rosacea). A biopsy of the lesion revealed a mixed inflammatory cell dermal infiltrate with perivascular accentuation and intense vasculitis that was consistent with GF (Figure 2). Gomori methenamine-silver, periodic acid–Schiff, Fite-Faraco, acid-fast bacilli, and Gram staining were negative for organisms. Tissue cultures were negative for bacterial, mycobacterial, and fungal etiology. The patient was started on high-potency topical steroids with a 50% improvement in the appearance of the skin lesion at 1-month follow-up.

Granuloma faciale is a rare chronic inflammatory dermatosis with a predilection for the face that is difficult to diagnose and treat. The diagnosis is based on clinical and histologic findings, and it typically presents as single or multiple, well-demarcated, red-brown nodules, papules, or plaques that range from several millimeters to centimeters in diameter.^1,2 Extrafacial lesions may be seen.³ Granuloma faciale usually is asymptomatic but occasionally has associated pruritus and rarely ulceration. The prevalence and pathophysiology of GF is not well defined; however, GF more commonly is reported in middle-aged White males.¹

Histologic examination of GF reveals a mixed inflammatory cellular infiltrate in the upper dermis. A grenz zone, which is a narrow area of the papillary dermis uninvolved by the underlying pathology, may be seen.¹ Contrary to the name, granulomas are not found histologically. Rather, vascular changes or damage frequently are present and may indicate a small vessel vasculitis pathologic mechanism. Granuloma faciale also has been associated with follicular ostia accentuation and telangiectases.⁴

Many cases of GF have been misdiagnosed as sarcoidosis, lymphoma, lupus, and basal cell carcinoma.¹ In addition, GF shares many clinical and histologic features with erythema elevatum diutinum (EED). However, the defining features that suggest EED over GF is that EED has a predilection for the skin overlying the joints. Histopathologically, EED displays granulomas and fibrosis with few eosinophils.^5,6

The variable response of GF to treatments and lack of efficacy data have contributed to the complexity and uncertainty of managing GF. The current first-line therapies are topical tacrolimus,⁷ cryotherapy,⁸ or corticosteroid therapy.⁹

To the Editor:

A 53-year-old Hispanic woman presented to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of an expanding plaque on the right cheek of 2 months’ duration. The patient stated the plaque began as a pimple, which she picked with subsequent spread laterally across the cheek. The area was intermittently tender, but she denied tingling, burning, or pruritus of the site. She had been treated with doxycycline and amoxicillin–clavulanic acid prior to presentation without improvement. She had a history of levamisole-induced vasculitis approximately 6 months prior. A review of systems was notable for diffuse joint pain. The patient denied tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drug use in the preceding 3 months and denied any changes in her medications or in health within the last year.

Physical examination revealed a well-appearing, alert, and afebrile patient with a pink, well-demarcated plaque on the right cheek (Figure 1). The borders of the plaque were indurated, and the lateral aspect of the plaque was eroded secondary to digital manipulation by the patient. She had no cervical lymphadenopathy. There were no other abnormal cutaneous findings.

There is a broad differential diagnosis for a pink expanding plaque on the face, which requires histopathologic correlation for correct diagnosis. Three broad categories in the differential are infectious (eg, bacterial, fungal), medication related (eg, fixed drug eruption), and granulomatous (eg, granuloma faciale [GF], sarcoidosis, tumid lupus, leprosy, granulomatous rosacea). A biopsy of the lesion revealed a mixed inflammatory cell dermal infiltrate with perivascular accentuation and intense vasculitis that was consistent with GF (Figure 2). Gomori methenamine-silver, periodic acid–Schiff, Fite-Faraco, acid-fast bacilli, and Gram staining were negative for organisms. Tissue cultures were negative for bacterial, mycobacterial, and fungal etiology. The patient was started on high-potency topical steroids with a 50% improvement in the appearance of the skin lesion at 1-month follow-up.

Granuloma faciale is a rare chronic inflammatory dermatosis with a predilection for the face that is difficult to diagnose and treat. The diagnosis is based on clinical and histologic findings, and it typically presents as single or multiple, well-demarcated, red-brown nodules, papules, or plaques that range from several millimeters to centimeters in diameter.^1,2 Extrafacial lesions may be seen.³ Granuloma faciale usually is asymptomatic but occasionally has associated pruritus and rarely ulceration. The prevalence and pathophysiology of GF is not well defined; however, GF more commonly is reported in middle-aged White males.¹

Histologic examination of GF reveals a mixed inflammatory cellular infiltrate in the upper dermis. A grenz zone, which is a narrow area of the papillary dermis uninvolved by the underlying pathology, may be seen.¹ Contrary to the name, granulomas are not found histologically. Rather, vascular changes or damage frequently are present and may indicate a small vessel vasculitis pathologic mechanism. Granuloma faciale also has been associated with follicular ostia accentuation and telangiectases.⁴

Many cases of GF have been misdiagnosed as sarcoidosis, lymphoma, lupus, and basal cell carcinoma.¹ In addition, GF shares many clinical and histologic features with erythema elevatum diutinum (EED). However, the defining features that suggest EED over GF is that EED has a predilection for the skin overlying the joints. Histopathologically, EED displays granulomas and fibrosis with few eosinophils.^5,6

The variable response of GF to treatments and lack of efficacy data have contributed to the complexity and uncertainty of managing GF. The current first-line therapies are topical tacrolimus,⁷ cryotherapy,⁸ or corticosteroid therapy.⁹

To the Editor:

A 53-year-old Hispanic woman presented to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of an expanding plaque on the right cheek of 2 months’ duration. The patient stated the plaque began as a pimple, which she picked with subsequent spread laterally across the cheek. The area was intermittently tender, but she denied tingling, burning, or pruritus of the site. She had been treated with doxycycline and amoxicillin–clavulanic acid prior to presentation without improvement. She had a history of levamisole-induced vasculitis approximately 6 months prior. A review of systems was notable for diffuse joint pain. The patient denied tobacco, alcohol, or illicit drug use in the preceding 3 months and denied any changes in her medications or in health within the last year.

Physical examination revealed a well-appearing, alert, and afebrile patient with a pink, well-demarcated plaque on the right cheek (Figure 1). The borders of the plaque were indurated, and the lateral aspect of the plaque was eroded secondary to digital manipulation by the patient. She had no cervical lymphadenopathy. There were no other abnormal cutaneous findings.

There is a broad differential diagnosis for a pink expanding plaque on the face, which requires histopathologic correlation for correct diagnosis. Three broad categories in the differential are infectious (eg, bacterial, fungal), medication related (eg, fixed drug eruption), and granulomatous (eg, granuloma faciale [GF], sarcoidosis, tumid lupus, leprosy, granulomatous rosacea). A biopsy of the lesion revealed a mixed inflammatory cell dermal infiltrate with perivascular accentuation and intense vasculitis that was consistent with GF (Figure 2). Gomori methenamine-silver, periodic acid–Schiff, Fite-Faraco, acid-fast bacilli, and Gram staining were negative for organisms. Tissue cultures were negative for bacterial, mycobacterial, and fungal etiology. The patient was started on high-potency topical steroids with a 50% improvement in the appearance of the skin lesion at 1-month follow-up.

Granuloma faciale is a rare chronic inflammatory dermatosis with a predilection for the face that is difficult to diagnose and treat. The diagnosis is based on clinical and histologic findings, and it typically presents as single or multiple, well-demarcated, red-brown nodules, papules, or plaques that range from several millimeters to centimeters in diameter.^1,2 Extrafacial lesions may be seen.³ Granuloma faciale usually is asymptomatic but occasionally has associated pruritus and rarely ulceration. The prevalence and pathophysiology of GF is not well defined; however, GF more commonly is reported in middle-aged White males.¹

Histologic examination of GF reveals a mixed inflammatory cellular infiltrate in the upper dermis. A grenz zone, which is a narrow area of the papillary dermis uninvolved by the underlying pathology, may be seen.¹ Contrary to the name, granulomas are not found histologically. Rather, vascular changes or damage frequently are present and may indicate a small vessel vasculitis pathologic mechanism. Granuloma faciale also has been associated with follicular ostia accentuation and telangiectases.⁴

Many cases of GF have been misdiagnosed as sarcoidosis, lymphoma, lupus, and basal cell carcinoma.¹ In addition, GF shares many clinical and histologic features with erythema elevatum diutinum (EED). However, the defining features that suggest EED over GF is that EED has a predilection for the skin overlying the joints. Histopathologically, EED displays granulomas and fibrosis with few eosinophils.^5,6

The variable response of GF to treatments and lack of efficacy data have contributed to the complexity and uncertainty of managing GF. The current first-line therapies are topical tacrolimus,⁷ cryotherapy,⁸ or corticosteroid therapy.⁹

To the Editor:

A fixed drug eruption (FDE) is a well-documented form of cutaneous hypersensitivity that typically manifests as a sharply demarcated, dusky, round to oval, edematous, red-violaceous macule or patch on the skin and mucous membranes. The lesion often resolves with residual postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, most commonly as a reaction to ingested drugs or drug components.¹ Lesions generally occur at the same anatomic site with repeated exposure to the offending drug. Typically, a single site is affected, but additional sites with more generalized involvement have been reported to occur with subsequent exposure to the offending medication. The diagnosis usually is clinical, but histopathologic findings can help confirm the diagnosis in unusual presentations. We present a novel case of a patient with an FDE from medroxyprogesterone acetate, a contraceptive injection that contains the hormone progestin.

A 35-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of a lesion on the left lower buttock of 1 year’s duration. She reported periodic swelling and associated pruritus of the lesion. She denied any growth in size, and no other similar lesions were present. The patient reported a medication history of medroxyprogesterone acetate for birth control, but she denied any other prescription or over-the-counter medication, oral supplements, or recreational drug use. Upon further inquiry, she reported that the recurrence of symptoms appeared to coincide with each administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate, which occurred approximately every 3 months. The eruption cleared between injections and recurred in the same location following subsequent injections. The lesion appeared approximately 2 weeks after the first injection (approximately 1 year prior to presentation to dermatology) and within 2 to 3 days after each subsequent injection. Physical examination revealed a 2×2-cm, circular, slightly violaceous patch on the left buttock (Figure 1). A biopsy was recommended to aid in diagnosis, and the patient was offered a topical steroid for symptomatic relief. A punch biopsy revealed subtle interface dermatitis with superficial perivascular lymphoid infiltrate and marked pigmentary incontinence consistent with an FDE (Figure 2).

An FDE was first reported in 1889 by Bourns,² and over time more implicated agents and varying clinical presentations have been linked to the disease. The FDE can be accompanied by symptoms of pruritus or paresthesia. Most cases are devoid of systemic symptoms. An FDE can be located anywhere on the body, but it most frequently manifests on the lips, face, hands, feet, and genitalia. Although the eruption often heals with residual postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, a nonpigmenting FDE due to pseudoephedrine has been reported.³

Common culprits include antibiotics (eg, sulfonamides, trimethoprim, fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (eg, naproxen sodium, ibuprofen, celecoxib), barbiturates, antimalarials, and anticonvulsants. Rare cases of FDE induced by foods and food additives also have been reported.⁴ Oral fluconazole, levocetirizine dihydrochloride, loperamide, and multivitamin-mineral preparations are other rare inducers of FDE.^5-8 In 2004, Ritter and Meffert⁹ described an FDE to the green dye used in inactive oral contraceptive pills. A similar case was reported by Rea et al¹⁰ that described an FDE from the inactive sugar pills in ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel, which is another combined oral contraceptive.

The time between ingestion of the offending agent and the manifestation of the disease usually is 1 to 2 weeks; however, upon subsequent exposure, the disease has been reported to manifest within hours.¹ CD8⁺ memory T cells have been shown to be major players in the development of FDE and can be found along the dermoepidermal junction as part of a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction.¹¹ Histopathology reveals superficial and deep interstitial and perivascular infiltrates consisting of lymphocytes with admixed eosinophils and possibly neutrophils in the dermis. In the epidermis, necrotic keratinocytes can be present. In rare cases, FDE may have atypical features, such as in generalized bullous FDE and nonpigmenting FDE, the latter of which more commonly is associated with pseudoephedrine.¹

The differential diagnosis for FDE includes erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, autoimmune progesterone dermatitis, and large plaque parapsoriasis. The number and morphology of lesions in erythema multiforme help differentiate it from FDE, as erythema multiforme presents with multiple targetoid lesions. The lesions of generalized bullous FDE can be similar to those of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and the pigmented patches of FDE can resemble large plaque parapsoriasis.

It is important to consider any medication ingested in the 1- to 2-week period before FDE onset, including over-the-counter medications, health food supplements, and prescription medications. Discontinuation of the implicated medication or any medication potentially cross-reacting with another medication is the most important step in management. Wound care may be needed for any bullous or eroded lesions. Lesions typically resolve within a few days to weeks of stopping the offending agent. Importantly, patients should be counseled on the secondary pigment alterations that may be persistent for several months. Other treatment for FDEs is aimed at symptomatic relief and may include topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines.¹

Medroxyprogesterone acetate is a highly effective contraceptive drug with low rates of failure.¹² It is a weak androgenic progestin that is administered as a single 150-mg intramuscular injection every 3 months and inhibits gonadotropins. Common side effects include local injection-site reactions, unscheduled bleeding, amenorrhea, weight gain, headache, and mood changes. However, FDE has not been reported as an adverse effect to medroxyprogesterone acetate, both in official US Food and Drug Administration information and in the current literature.¹²

Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis (also known as progestin hypersensitivity) is a well-characterized cyclic hypersensitivity reaction to the hormone progesterone that occurs during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. It is known to have a variable clinical presentation including urticaria, erythema multiforme, eczema, and angioedema.¹³ Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis also has been reported to present as an FDE.^14-16 The onset of the cutaneous manifestation often starts a few days before the onset of menses, with spontaneous resolution occurring after the onset of menstruation. The mechanism by which endogenous progesterone or other secretory products become antigenic is unknown. It has been suggested that there is an alteration in the properties of the hormone that would predispose it to be antigenic as it would not be considered self. In 2001, Warin¹⁷ proposed the following diagnostic criteria for autoimmune progesterone dermatitis: (1) skin lesions associated with menstrual cycle (premenstrual flare); (2) a positive response to the progesterone intradermal or intramuscular test; and (3) symptomatic improvement after inhibiting progesterone secretion by suppressing ovulation.¹⁷ The treatment includes antiallergy medications, progesterone desensitization, omalizumab injection, and leuprolide acetate injection.

Our case represents FDE from medroxyprogesterone acetate. Although we did not formally investigate the antigenicity of the exogenous progesterone, we postulate that the pathophysiology likely is similar to an FDE associated with endogenous progesterone. This reasoning is supported by the time course of the patient’s lesion as well as the worsening of symptoms in the days following the administration of the medication. Additionally, the patient had no history of skin lesions prior to the initiation of medroxyprogesterone acetate or similar lesions associated with her menstrual cycles.

A careful and detailed review of medication history is necessary to evaluate FDEs. Our case emphasizes that not only endogenous but also exogenous forms of progesterone may cause hypersensitivity, leading to an FDE. With more than 2 million prescriptions of medroxyprogesterone acetate written every year, dermatologists should be aware of the rare but potential risk for an FDE in patients using this medication.¹⁸

To the Editor:

A fixed drug eruption (FDE) is a well-documented form of cutaneous hypersensitivity that typically manifests as a sharply demarcated, dusky, round to oval, edematous, red-violaceous macule or patch on the skin and mucous membranes. The lesion often resolves with residual postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, most commonly as a reaction to ingested drugs or drug components.¹ Lesions generally occur at the same anatomic site with repeated exposure to the offending drug. Typically, a single site is affected, but additional sites with more generalized involvement have been reported to occur with subsequent exposure to the offending medication. The diagnosis usually is clinical, but histopathologic findings can help confirm the diagnosis in unusual presentations. We present a novel case of a patient with an FDE from medroxyprogesterone acetate, a contraceptive injection that contains the hormone progestin.

A 35-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of a lesion on the left lower buttock of 1 year’s duration. She reported periodic swelling and associated pruritus of the lesion. She denied any growth in size, and no other similar lesions were present. The patient reported a medication history of medroxyprogesterone acetate for birth control, but she denied any other prescription or over-the-counter medication, oral supplements, or recreational drug use. Upon further inquiry, she reported that the recurrence of symptoms appeared to coincide with each administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate, which occurred approximately every 3 months. The eruption cleared between injections and recurred in the same location following subsequent injections. The lesion appeared approximately 2 weeks after the first injection (approximately 1 year prior to presentation to dermatology) and within 2 to 3 days after each subsequent injection. Physical examination revealed a 2×2-cm, circular, slightly violaceous patch on the left buttock (Figure 1). A biopsy was recommended to aid in diagnosis, and the patient was offered a topical steroid for symptomatic relief. A punch biopsy revealed subtle interface dermatitis with superficial perivascular lymphoid infiltrate and marked pigmentary incontinence consistent with an FDE (Figure 2).

An FDE was first reported in 1889 by Bourns,² and over time more implicated agents and varying clinical presentations have been linked to the disease. The FDE can be accompanied by symptoms of pruritus or paresthesia. Most cases are devoid of systemic symptoms. An FDE can be located anywhere on the body, but it most frequently manifests on the lips, face, hands, feet, and genitalia. Although the eruption often heals with residual postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, a nonpigmenting FDE due to pseudoephedrine has been reported.³

Common culprits include antibiotics (eg, sulfonamides, trimethoprim, fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (eg, naproxen sodium, ibuprofen, celecoxib), barbiturates, antimalarials, and anticonvulsants. Rare cases of FDE induced by foods and food additives also have been reported.⁴ Oral fluconazole, levocetirizine dihydrochloride, loperamide, and multivitamin-mineral preparations are other rare inducers of FDE.^5-8 In 2004, Ritter and Meffert⁹ described an FDE to the green dye used in inactive oral contraceptive pills. A similar case was reported by Rea et al¹⁰ that described an FDE from the inactive sugar pills in ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel, which is another combined oral contraceptive.

The time between ingestion of the offending agent and the manifestation of the disease usually is 1 to 2 weeks; however, upon subsequent exposure, the disease has been reported to manifest within hours.¹ CD8⁺ memory T cells have been shown to be major players in the development of FDE and can be found along the dermoepidermal junction as part of a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction.¹¹ Histopathology reveals superficial and deep interstitial and perivascular infiltrates consisting of lymphocytes with admixed eosinophils and possibly neutrophils in the dermis. In the epidermis, necrotic keratinocytes can be present. In rare cases, FDE may have atypical features, such as in generalized bullous FDE and nonpigmenting FDE, the latter of which more commonly is associated with pseudoephedrine.¹

The differential diagnosis for FDE includes erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, autoimmune progesterone dermatitis, and large plaque parapsoriasis. The number and morphology of lesions in erythema multiforme help differentiate it from FDE, as erythema multiforme presents with multiple targetoid lesions. The lesions of generalized bullous FDE can be similar to those of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and the pigmented patches of FDE can resemble large plaque parapsoriasis.

It is important to consider any medication ingested in the 1- to 2-week period before FDE onset, including over-the-counter medications, health food supplements, and prescription medications. Discontinuation of the implicated medication or any medication potentially cross-reacting with another medication is the most important step in management. Wound care may be needed for any bullous or eroded lesions. Lesions typically resolve within a few days to weeks of stopping the offending agent. Importantly, patients should be counseled on the secondary pigment alterations that may be persistent for several months. Other treatment for FDEs is aimed at symptomatic relief and may include topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines.¹

Medroxyprogesterone acetate is a highly effective contraceptive drug with low rates of failure.¹² It is a weak androgenic progestin that is administered as a single 150-mg intramuscular injection every 3 months and inhibits gonadotropins. Common side effects include local injection-site reactions, unscheduled bleeding, amenorrhea, weight gain, headache, and mood changes. However, FDE has not been reported as an adverse effect to medroxyprogesterone acetate, both in official US Food and Drug Administration information and in the current literature.¹²

Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis (also known as progestin hypersensitivity) is a well-characterized cyclic hypersensitivity reaction to the hormone progesterone that occurs during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. It is known to have a variable clinical presentation including urticaria, erythema multiforme, eczema, and angioedema.¹³ Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis also has been reported to present as an FDE.^14-16 The onset of the cutaneous manifestation often starts a few days before the onset of menses, with spontaneous resolution occurring after the onset of menstruation. The mechanism by which endogenous progesterone or other secretory products become antigenic is unknown. It has been suggested that there is an alteration in the properties of the hormone that would predispose it to be antigenic as it would not be considered self. In 2001, Warin¹⁷ proposed the following diagnostic criteria for autoimmune progesterone dermatitis: (1) skin lesions associated with menstrual cycle (premenstrual flare); (2) a positive response to the progesterone intradermal or intramuscular test; and (3) symptomatic improvement after inhibiting progesterone secretion by suppressing ovulation.¹⁷ The treatment includes antiallergy medications, progesterone desensitization, omalizumab injection, and leuprolide acetate injection.

Our case represents FDE from medroxyprogesterone acetate. Although we did not formally investigate the antigenicity of the exogenous progesterone, we postulate that the pathophysiology likely is similar to an FDE associated with endogenous progesterone. This reasoning is supported by the time course of the patient’s lesion as well as the worsening of symptoms in the days following the administration of the medication. Additionally, the patient had no history of skin lesions prior to the initiation of medroxyprogesterone acetate or similar lesions associated with her menstrual cycles.

A careful and detailed review of medication history is necessary to evaluate FDEs. Our case emphasizes that not only endogenous but also exogenous forms of progesterone may cause hypersensitivity, leading to an FDE. With more than 2 million prescriptions of medroxyprogesterone acetate written every year, dermatologists should be aware of the rare but potential risk for an FDE in patients using this medication.¹⁸

To the Editor:

A fixed drug eruption (FDE) is a well-documented form of cutaneous hypersensitivity that typically manifests as a sharply demarcated, dusky, round to oval, edematous, red-violaceous macule or patch on the skin and mucous membranes. The lesion often resolves with residual postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, most commonly as a reaction to ingested drugs or drug components.¹ Lesions generally occur at the same anatomic site with repeated exposure to the offending drug. Typically, a single site is affected, but additional sites with more generalized involvement have been reported to occur with subsequent exposure to the offending medication. The diagnosis usually is clinical, but histopathologic findings can help confirm the diagnosis in unusual presentations. We present a novel case of a patient with an FDE from medroxyprogesterone acetate, a contraceptive injection that contains the hormone progestin.

A 35-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic for evaluation of a lesion on the left lower buttock of 1 year’s duration. She reported periodic swelling and associated pruritus of the lesion. She denied any growth in size, and no other similar lesions were present. The patient reported a medication history of medroxyprogesterone acetate for birth control, but she denied any other prescription or over-the-counter medication, oral supplements, or recreational drug use. Upon further inquiry, she reported that the recurrence of symptoms appeared to coincide with each administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate, which occurred approximately every 3 months. The eruption cleared between injections and recurred in the same location following subsequent injections. The lesion appeared approximately 2 weeks after the first injection (approximately 1 year prior to presentation to dermatology) and within 2 to 3 days after each subsequent injection. Physical examination revealed a 2×2-cm, circular, slightly violaceous patch on the left buttock (Figure 1). A biopsy was recommended to aid in diagnosis, and the patient was offered a topical steroid for symptomatic relief. A punch biopsy revealed subtle interface dermatitis with superficial perivascular lymphoid infiltrate and marked pigmentary incontinence consistent with an FDE (Figure 2).

An FDE was first reported in 1889 by Bourns,² and over time more implicated agents and varying clinical presentations have been linked to the disease. The FDE can be accompanied by symptoms of pruritus or paresthesia. Most cases are devoid of systemic symptoms. An FDE can be located anywhere on the body, but it most frequently manifests on the lips, face, hands, feet, and genitalia. Although the eruption often heals with residual postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, a nonpigmenting FDE due to pseudoephedrine has been reported.³

Common culprits include antibiotics (eg, sulfonamides, trimethoprim, fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (eg, naproxen sodium, ibuprofen, celecoxib), barbiturates, antimalarials, and anticonvulsants. Rare cases of FDE induced by foods and food additives also have been reported.⁴ Oral fluconazole, levocetirizine dihydrochloride, loperamide, and multivitamin-mineral preparations are other rare inducers of FDE.^5-8 In 2004, Ritter and Meffert⁹ described an FDE to the green dye used in inactive oral contraceptive pills. A similar case was reported by Rea et al¹⁰ that described an FDE from the inactive sugar pills in ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel, which is another combined oral contraceptive.

The time between ingestion of the offending agent and the manifestation of the disease usually is 1 to 2 weeks; however, upon subsequent exposure, the disease has been reported to manifest within hours.¹ CD8⁺ memory T cells have been shown to be major players in the development of FDE and can be found along the dermoepidermal junction as part of a delayed type IV hypersensitivity reaction.¹¹ Histopathology reveals superficial and deep interstitial and perivascular infiltrates consisting of lymphocytes with admixed eosinophils and possibly neutrophils in the dermis. In the epidermis, necrotic keratinocytes can be present. In rare cases, FDE may have atypical features, such as in generalized bullous FDE and nonpigmenting FDE, the latter of which more commonly is associated with pseudoephedrine.¹

The differential diagnosis for FDE includes erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, autoimmune progesterone dermatitis, and large plaque parapsoriasis. The number and morphology of lesions in erythema multiforme help differentiate it from FDE, as erythema multiforme presents with multiple targetoid lesions. The lesions of generalized bullous FDE can be similar to those of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and the pigmented patches of FDE can resemble large plaque parapsoriasis.

It is important to consider any medication ingested in the 1- to 2-week period before FDE onset, including over-the-counter medications, health food supplements, and prescription medications. Discontinuation of the implicated medication or any medication potentially cross-reacting with another medication is the most important step in management. Wound care may be needed for any bullous or eroded lesions. Lesions typically resolve within a few days to weeks of stopping the offending agent. Importantly, patients should be counseled on the secondary pigment alterations that may be persistent for several months. Other treatment for FDEs is aimed at symptomatic relief and may include topical corticosteroids and oral antihistamines.¹

Medroxyprogesterone acetate is a highly effective contraceptive drug with low rates of failure.¹² It is a weak androgenic progestin that is administered as a single 150-mg intramuscular injection every 3 months and inhibits gonadotropins. Common side effects include local injection-site reactions, unscheduled bleeding, amenorrhea, weight gain, headache, and mood changes. However, FDE has not been reported as an adverse effect to medroxyprogesterone acetate, both in official US Food and Drug Administration information and in the current literature.¹²

Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis (also known as progestin hypersensitivity) is a well-characterized cyclic hypersensitivity reaction to the hormone progesterone that occurs during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. It is known to have a variable clinical presentation including urticaria, erythema multiforme, eczema, and angioedema.¹³ Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis also has been reported to present as an FDE.^14-16 The onset of the cutaneous manifestation often starts a few days before the onset of menses, with spontaneous resolution occurring after the onset of menstruation. The mechanism by which endogenous progesterone or other secretory products become antigenic is unknown. It has been suggested that there is an alteration in the properties of the hormone that would predispose it to be antigenic as it would not be considered self. In 2001, Warin¹⁷ proposed the following diagnostic criteria for autoimmune progesterone dermatitis: (1) skin lesions associated with menstrual cycle (premenstrual flare); (2) a positive response to the progesterone intradermal or intramuscular test; and (3) symptomatic improvement after inhibiting progesterone secretion by suppressing ovulation.¹⁷ The treatment includes antiallergy medications, progesterone desensitization, omalizumab injection, and leuprolide acetate injection.

Our case represents FDE from medroxyprogesterone acetate. Although we did not formally investigate the antigenicity of the exogenous progesterone, we postulate that the pathophysiology likely is similar to an FDE associated with endogenous progesterone. This reasoning is supported by the time course of the patient’s lesion as well as the worsening of symptoms in the days following the administration of the medication. Additionally, the patient had no history of skin lesions prior to the initiation of medroxyprogesterone acetate or similar lesions associated with her menstrual cycles.

A careful and detailed review of medication history is necessary to evaluate FDEs. Our case emphasizes that not only endogenous but also exogenous forms of progesterone may cause hypersensitivity, leading to an FDE. With more than 2 million prescriptions of medroxyprogesterone acetate written every year, dermatologists should be aware of the rare but potential risk for an FDE in patients using this medication.¹⁸

To the Editor:

Iododerma is a rare dermatologic condition caused by exposure to iodinated contrast media, oral iodine suspensions, or topical povidone-iodine that can manifest as eruptive acneform lesions.^1-3

A 27-year-old woman in septic shock presented for worsening facial lesions that showed no improvement on broad-spectrum antibiotics, antifungals, and antivirals. She initially presented to an outside hospital with abdominal pain and underwent computed tomography (CT) with intravenous (IV) iodinated contrast; 24 hours after this imaging study, the family reported the appearance of “explosive acne overnight.” The lesions first appeared as vegetative and acneform ulcerations on the face. A second abdominal CT scan with IV contrast was performed 4 days after the initial scan, given the concern for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Hours after the second study, the lesions progressed to involve the buccal mucosae, tongue, mucosal airway, and distal arms and legs. She became progressively disoriented and developed an altered mentation over the course of the following week. Due to progressive facial edema, she required intubation 5 days after the second CT scan.

The patient had a medical history of end-stage renal disease secondary to crescenteric glomerulonephritis on peritoneal dialysis. Physical examination revealed numerous beefy-red, heaped-up, weepy, crusted nodules clustered on the face (Figure 1) and a few newer bullous-appearing lesions on the hands and feet. She had similar lesions involving the buccal mucosae and tongue with substantial facial edema. Infectious workup was notable for a positive skin culture growing methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. All blood and tissue cultures as well as serologies for fungal and viral etiologies were negative. A tissue biopsy revealed necrosis with a neutrophilic infiltrate with mixed cell inflammation (Figure 2), and direct immunofluorescence was negative.

The patient initially was thought to be septic due to viral or bacterial infection. She was transferred from an outside hospital 7 days after the initial appearance of the acneform lesions, having already received IV contrast on 2 occasions within the first 48 hours of illness. Infectious disease was consulted and initiated broad-spectrum antiviral, antimicrobial, and antifungal therapy with acyclovir, linezolid, meropenem, and later micafungin without improvement. The diagnosis of iododerma ultimately was established based on the patient’s elevated urinary iodine levels with preceding iodine exposure in the context of renal failure. The preferential involvement of sebaceous areas and pathology findings were supportive of this diagnosis. Aggressive supportive measures including respiratory support, IV fluids, and dialysis were initiated. Topical iodine solutions, iodine-containing medications, and additional contrast subsequently were avoided. Despite these supportive measures, the patient died within 48 hours of admission from acute respiratory failure. Her autopsy attributed “septic complications of multifocal ulcerative cutaneous disease” as the anatomic cause of death.

Iododerma is an extremely rare neutrophilic dermatosis. The proposed mechanism of action involves a cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction to iodine with induction of neutrophil degranulation.² There have been documented cases with exposure to oral potassium iodide supplements, amiodarone, topical povidone-iodine, and IV iodinated contrast material.^1-3 Iododerma typically presents 1 to 3 days after exposure to iodine. The most common source is IV radiocontrast. Diagnosis is based on the clinical presentation including acneform to vegetative nodular or bullous eruptions involving sebaceous areas in the context of recent iodine exposure. Elevated urinary iodine levels and histologic findings of neutrophilic infiltrate of the dermis support the diagnosis.^3,4

Although there have been reported cases of iododerma in patients with normal renal function, patients with renal failure are much more susceptible due to the decreased clearance of iodine.⁵ The plasma half-life of radiocontrast is 23 hours in patients with end-stage renal disease vs 2 hours in patients with normal kidney function.³ Dosage adjustments for renal impairment have not been well studied, and no specific guidelines exist for the prevention of iododerma in patients with renal failure.

The first step in treating iododerma is to remove the offending iodine-containing agent. In most cases, cutaneous lesions resolve in 4 to 6 weeks after discontinuation of the source of iodine; however, there have been reported fatalities in the literature secondary to pulmonary edema in patients with iododerma.^6,7 Despite the rarity and diagnostically challenging nature of iododerma, early recognition of this disease is crucial. Although our patient showed symptoms of iododerma after 1 dose of radiocontrast, she was not diagnosed at that time and received a second imaging study with contrast less than 48 hours later. These 2 consecutive exposures to iodine as well as the delayed diagnosis unfortunately resulted in rapid clinical deterioration.

The mainstay of therapy for iododerma includes avoidance of iodine-containing materials as soon as the diagnosis is suspected as well as supportive care. Patients have been successfully treated with systemic corticosteroids, with the addition of cyclosporine and hemodialysis in severe cases.³ Patients with a history of iododerma are advised to avoid iodine in their diet, in topical preparations, and in future imaging studies.⁸

To the Editor:

Iododerma is a rare dermatologic condition caused by exposure to iodinated contrast media, oral iodine suspensions, or topical povidone-iodine that can manifest as eruptive acneform lesions.^1-3

A 27-year-old woman in septic shock presented for worsening facial lesions that showed no improvement on broad-spectrum antibiotics, antifungals, and antivirals. She initially presented to an outside hospital with abdominal pain and underwent computed tomography (CT) with intravenous (IV) iodinated contrast; 24 hours after this imaging study, the family reported the appearance of “explosive acne overnight.” The lesions first appeared as vegetative and acneform ulcerations on the face. A second abdominal CT scan with IV contrast was performed 4 days after the initial scan, given the concern for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Hours after the second study, the lesions progressed to involve the buccal mucosae, tongue, mucosal airway, and distal arms and legs. She became progressively disoriented and developed an altered mentation over the course of the following week. Due to progressive facial edema, she required intubation 5 days after the second CT scan.

The patient had a medical history of end-stage renal disease secondary to crescenteric glomerulonephritis on peritoneal dialysis. Physical examination revealed numerous beefy-red, heaped-up, weepy, crusted nodules clustered on the face (Figure 1) and a few newer bullous-appearing lesions on the hands and feet. She had similar lesions involving the buccal mucosae and tongue with substantial facial edema. Infectious workup was notable for a positive skin culture growing methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. All blood and tissue cultures as well as serologies for fungal and viral etiologies were negative. A tissue biopsy revealed necrosis with a neutrophilic infiltrate with mixed cell inflammation (Figure 2), and direct immunofluorescence was negative.

The patient initially was thought to be septic due to viral or bacterial infection. She was transferred from an outside hospital 7 days after the initial appearance of the acneform lesions, having already received IV contrast on 2 occasions within the first 48 hours of illness. Infectious disease was consulted and initiated broad-spectrum antiviral, antimicrobial, and antifungal therapy with acyclovir, linezolid, meropenem, and later micafungin without improvement. The diagnosis of iododerma ultimately was established based on the patient’s elevated urinary iodine levels with preceding iodine exposure in the context of renal failure. The preferential involvement of sebaceous areas and pathology findings were supportive of this diagnosis. Aggressive supportive measures including respiratory support, IV fluids, and dialysis were initiated. Topical iodine solutions, iodine-containing medications, and additional contrast subsequently were avoided. Despite these supportive measures, the patient died within 48 hours of admission from acute respiratory failure. Her autopsy attributed “septic complications of multifocal ulcerative cutaneous disease” as the anatomic cause of death.

Iododerma is an extremely rare neutrophilic dermatosis. The proposed mechanism of action involves a cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction to iodine with induction of neutrophil degranulation.² There have been documented cases with exposure to oral potassium iodide supplements, amiodarone, topical povidone-iodine, and IV iodinated contrast material.^1-3 Iododerma typically presents 1 to 3 days after exposure to iodine. The most common source is IV radiocontrast. Diagnosis is based on the clinical presentation including acneform to vegetative nodular or bullous eruptions involving sebaceous areas in the context of recent iodine exposure. Elevated urinary iodine levels and histologic findings of neutrophilic infiltrate of the dermis support the diagnosis.^3,4

Although there have been reported cases of iododerma in patients with normal renal function, patients with renal failure are much more susceptible due to the decreased clearance of iodine.⁵ The plasma half-life of radiocontrast is 23 hours in patients with end-stage renal disease vs 2 hours in patients with normal kidney function.³ Dosage adjustments for renal impairment have not been well studied, and no specific guidelines exist for the prevention of iododerma in patients with renal failure.

The first step in treating iododerma is to remove the offending iodine-containing agent. In most cases, cutaneous lesions resolve in 4 to 6 weeks after discontinuation of the source of iodine; however, there have been reported fatalities in the literature secondary to pulmonary edema in patients with iododerma.^6,7 Despite the rarity and diagnostically challenging nature of iododerma, early recognition of this disease is crucial. Although our patient showed symptoms of iododerma after 1 dose of radiocontrast, she was not diagnosed at that time and received a second imaging study with contrast less than 48 hours later. These 2 consecutive exposures to iodine as well as the delayed diagnosis unfortunately resulted in rapid clinical deterioration.

The mainstay of therapy for iododerma includes avoidance of iodine-containing materials as soon as the diagnosis is suspected as well as supportive care. Patients have been successfully treated with systemic corticosteroids, with the addition of cyclosporine and hemodialysis in severe cases.³ Patients with a history of iododerma are advised to avoid iodine in their diet, in topical preparations, and in future imaging studies.⁸

To the Editor:

Iododerma is a rare dermatologic condition caused by exposure to iodinated contrast media, oral iodine suspensions, or topical povidone-iodine that can manifest as eruptive acneform lesions.^1-3

A 27-year-old woman in septic shock presented for worsening facial lesions that showed no improvement on broad-spectrum antibiotics, antifungals, and antivirals. She initially presented to an outside hospital with abdominal pain and underwent computed tomography (CT) with intravenous (IV) iodinated contrast; 24 hours after this imaging study, the family reported the appearance of “explosive acne overnight.” The lesions first appeared as vegetative and acneform ulcerations on the face. A second abdominal CT scan with IV contrast was performed 4 days after the initial scan, given the concern for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Hours after the second study, the lesions progressed to involve the buccal mucosae, tongue, mucosal airway, and distal arms and legs. She became progressively disoriented and developed an altered mentation over the course of the following week. Due to progressive facial edema, she required intubation 5 days after the second CT scan.

The patient had a medical history of end-stage renal disease secondary to crescenteric glomerulonephritis on peritoneal dialysis. Physical examination revealed numerous beefy-red, heaped-up, weepy, crusted nodules clustered on the face (Figure 1) and a few newer bullous-appearing lesions on the hands and feet. She had similar lesions involving the buccal mucosae and tongue with substantial facial edema. Infectious workup was notable for a positive skin culture growing methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. All blood and tissue cultures as well as serologies for fungal and viral etiologies were negative. A tissue biopsy revealed necrosis with a neutrophilic infiltrate with mixed cell inflammation (Figure 2), and direct immunofluorescence was negative.

The patient initially was thought to be septic due to viral or bacterial infection. She was transferred from an outside hospital 7 days after the initial appearance of the acneform lesions, having already received IV contrast on 2 occasions within the first 48 hours of illness. Infectious disease was consulted and initiated broad-spectrum antiviral, antimicrobial, and antifungal therapy with acyclovir, linezolid, meropenem, and later micafungin without improvement. The diagnosis of iododerma ultimately was established based on the patient’s elevated urinary iodine levels with preceding iodine exposure in the context of renal failure. The preferential involvement of sebaceous areas and pathology findings were supportive of this diagnosis. Aggressive supportive measures including respiratory support, IV fluids, and dialysis were initiated. Topical iodine solutions, iodine-containing medications, and additional contrast subsequently were avoided. Despite these supportive measures, the patient died within 48 hours of admission from acute respiratory failure. Her autopsy attributed “septic complications of multifocal ulcerative cutaneous disease” as the anatomic cause of death.

Iododerma is an extremely rare neutrophilic dermatosis. The proposed mechanism of action involves a cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction to iodine with induction of neutrophil degranulation.² There have been documented cases with exposure to oral potassium iodide supplements, amiodarone, topical povidone-iodine, and IV iodinated contrast material.^1-3 Iododerma typically presents 1 to 3 days after exposure to iodine. The most common source is IV radiocontrast. Diagnosis is based on the clinical presentation including acneform to vegetative nodular or bullous eruptions involving sebaceous areas in the context of recent iodine exposure. Elevated urinary iodine levels and histologic findings of neutrophilic infiltrate of the dermis support the diagnosis.^3,4

Although there have been reported cases of iododerma in patients with normal renal function, patients with renal failure are much more susceptible due to the decreased clearance of iodine.⁵ The plasma half-life of radiocontrast is 23 hours in patients with end-stage renal disease vs 2 hours in patients with normal kidney function.³ Dosage adjustments for renal impairment have not been well studied, and no specific guidelines exist for the prevention of iododerma in patients with renal failure.

The first step in treating iododerma is to remove the offending iodine-containing agent. In most cases, cutaneous lesions resolve in 4 to 6 weeks after discontinuation of the source of iodine; however, there have been reported fatalities in the literature secondary to pulmonary edema in patients with iododerma.^6,7 Despite the rarity and diagnostically challenging nature of iododerma, early recognition of this disease is crucial. Although our patient showed symptoms of iododerma after 1 dose of radiocontrast, she was not diagnosed at that time and received a second imaging study with contrast less than 48 hours later. These 2 consecutive exposures to iodine as well as the delayed diagnosis unfortunately resulted in rapid clinical deterioration.

The mainstay of therapy for iododerma includes avoidance of iodine-containing materials as soon as the diagnosis is suspected as well as supportive care. Patients have been successfully treated with systemic corticosteroids, with the addition of cyclosporine and hemodialysis in severe cases.³ Patients with a history of iododerma are advised to avoid iodine in their diet, in topical preparations, and in future imaging studies.⁸