Case Letter

Plasma cell cheilitis (PCC), also known as plasmocytosis circumorificialis and plasmocytosis mucosae,¹ is a poorly understood, uncommon inflammatory condition characterized by dense infiltration of mature plasma cells in the mucosal dermis of the lip.^2-5 The etiology of PCC is unknown but is thought to be a reactive immune process triggered by infection, mechanical friction, trauma, or solar damage.^1,5,6

The most common presentation of PCC is a slowly evolving, red-brown patch or plaque on the lower lip in older individuals.^2,3,5,7 Secondary changes with disease progression can include erosion, ulceration, fissures, edema, bleeding, or crusting.⁵ The diagnosis of PCC is challenging because it can mimic neoplastic, infectious, and inflammatory conditions.^8,9

Treatment strategies for PCC described in the literature vary, as does therapeutic response. Resolution of PCC has been documented after systemic steroids, intralesional steroids, systemic griseofulvin, and topical calcineurin inhibitors, among other agents.^6,7,10-16

We present the case of a patient with a lip lesion who ultimately was diagnosed with PCC after it progressed to an advanced necrotic stage.

Case Report

An 80-year-old male veteran of the Armed Services initially presented to our institution via teledermatology with redness and crusting of the lower lip (Figure 1). He had a history of myelodysplastic syndrome and anemia requiring iron transfusion. The process appeared to be consistent with actinic cheilitis vs squamous cell carcinoma. In-person dermatology consultation was recommended; however, the patient did not follow through with that appointment.

Five months later, additional photographs of the lesion were taken by the patient's primary care physician and sent through teledermatology, revealing progression to an erythematous, yellow-crusted erosion (Figure 2). The medical record indicated that a punch biopsy performed by the patient’s primary care physician showed hyperkeratosis and fungal organisms on periodic acid–Schiff staining. He subsequently applied ketoconazole and terbinafine cream to the lower lip without improvement. Prompt in-person evaluation by dermatology was again recommended.

Comment

The diagnosis and management of PCC is difficult because the condition is uncommon (though its true incidence is unknown) and the presentation is nonspecific, invoking a wide differential diagnosis. In the literature, PCC presents as a slowly progressive, red-brown patch or plaque on the lower lip in older individuals.^2,3,5,7 The lesion can progress to become eroded, ulcerated, fissured, or edematous.⁵

Differential Diagnosis
The clinical differential diagnosis of PCC is broad and includes inflammatory, infectious, and neoplastic causes, such as actinic cheilitis, allergic contact cheilitis, exfoliative cheilitis, granulomatous cheilitis, lichen planus, candidiasis, syphilis, and squamous cell carcinoma of the lip.^7,9 The histologic differential diagnosis includes allergic contact cheilitis, secondary syphilis, actinic cheilitis, squamous cell carcinoma, cheilitis granulomatosa, and plasmacytoma.^17-19

Histopathology
On biopsy, PCC usually is characterized by plasma cells in a bandlike pattern in the upper submucosa or even more diffusely throughout the submucosa.²⁰ In earlier studies, polyclonality of plasma cells with kappa and lambda light chains has been demonstrated⁵; in this case, such polyclonality militated against a plasma cell dyscrasia. There have been reports of a various number of eosinophils in PCC,^5,20 but eosinophils were not a prominent feature in our case.

Treatment
As reported in the literature, treatment of PCC has been attempted using a broad range of strategies; however, the optimal regimen has yet to be elucidated.¹⁵ Numerous therapies, including excision, radiation, electrocauterization, cryotherapy, steroids, systemic griseofulvin, topical fusidic acid, and topical calcineurin inhibitors, have yielded variable success.^6,7,10-16

The success of topical corticosteroids, as demonstrated in our case, has been unpredictable; the reported response has ranged from complete resolution to failure.⁹ This variability is thought to be related to epithelial width and the degree of acanthosis, with ulcerative lesions demonstrating a superior response to topical corticosteroids.⁹

Conclusion

Our case highlights the challenges of diagnosing and managing PCC, especially through teledermatology. Initial photographs of the lesion (Figure 1) that were submitted demonstrated a nonspecific erosion, which was concerning for any of several infectious, inflammatory, and malignant causes. Prompt in-person evaluation was warranted; regrettably, the patient’s condition worsened rapidly in the 10 days it took for him to be seen in-person by dermatology.

Furthermore, this case necessitated 3 separate biopsies because the pathology on the first 2 biopsies initially was equivocal, demonstrating ulceration and granulation tissue. The diagnosis was finally made after a third biopsy was recommended by a dermatopathologist, who eventually identified a bandlike distribution of polyclonal plasma cells in the upper submucosa, consistent with a diagnosis of PCC. Our patient’s final disease presentation (Figure 3) was exuberant and may represent the end point of untreated PCC.

Plasma cell cheilitis (PCC), also known as plasmocytosis circumorificialis and plasmocytosis mucosae,¹ is a poorly understood, uncommon inflammatory condition characterized by dense infiltration of mature plasma cells in the mucosal dermis of the lip.^2-5 The etiology of PCC is unknown but is thought to be a reactive immune process triggered by infection, mechanical friction, trauma, or solar damage.^1,5,6

The most common presentation of PCC is a slowly evolving, red-brown patch or plaque on the lower lip in older individuals.^2,3,5,7 Secondary changes with disease progression can include erosion, ulceration, fissures, edema, bleeding, or crusting.⁵ The diagnosis of PCC is challenging because it can mimic neoplastic, infectious, and inflammatory conditions.^8,9

Treatment strategies for PCC described in the literature vary, as does therapeutic response. Resolution of PCC has been documented after systemic steroids, intralesional steroids, systemic griseofulvin, and topical calcineurin inhibitors, among other agents.^6,7,10-16

We present the case of a patient with a lip lesion who ultimately was diagnosed with PCC after it progressed to an advanced necrotic stage.

Case Report

An 80-year-old male veteran of the Armed Services initially presented to our institution via teledermatology with redness and crusting of the lower lip (Figure 1). He had a history of myelodysplastic syndrome and anemia requiring iron transfusion. The process appeared to be consistent with actinic cheilitis vs squamous cell carcinoma. In-person dermatology consultation was recommended; however, the patient did not follow through with that appointment.

Five months later, additional photographs of the lesion were taken by the patient's primary care physician and sent through teledermatology, revealing progression to an erythematous, yellow-crusted erosion (Figure 2). The medical record indicated that a punch biopsy performed by the patient’s primary care physician showed hyperkeratosis and fungal organisms on periodic acid–Schiff staining. He subsequently applied ketoconazole and terbinafine cream to the lower lip without improvement. Prompt in-person evaluation by dermatology was again recommended.

Comment

The diagnosis and management of PCC is difficult because the condition is uncommon (though its true incidence is unknown) and the presentation is nonspecific, invoking a wide differential diagnosis. In the literature, PCC presents as a slowly progressive, red-brown patch or plaque on the lower lip in older individuals.^2,3,5,7 The lesion can progress to become eroded, ulcerated, fissured, or edematous.⁵

Differential Diagnosis
The clinical differential diagnosis of PCC is broad and includes inflammatory, infectious, and neoplastic causes, such as actinic cheilitis, allergic contact cheilitis, exfoliative cheilitis, granulomatous cheilitis, lichen planus, candidiasis, syphilis, and squamous cell carcinoma of the lip.^7,9 The histologic differential diagnosis includes allergic contact cheilitis, secondary syphilis, actinic cheilitis, squamous cell carcinoma, cheilitis granulomatosa, and plasmacytoma.^17-19

Histopathology
On biopsy, PCC usually is characterized by plasma cells in a bandlike pattern in the upper submucosa or even more diffusely throughout the submucosa.²⁰ In earlier studies, polyclonality of plasma cells with kappa and lambda light chains has been demonstrated⁵; in this case, such polyclonality militated against a plasma cell dyscrasia. There have been reports of a various number of eosinophils in PCC,^5,20 but eosinophils were not a prominent feature in our case.

Treatment
As reported in the literature, treatment of PCC has been attempted using a broad range of strategies; however, the optimal regimen has yet to be elucidated.¹⁵ Numerous therapies, including excision, radiation, electrocauterization, cryotherapy, steroids, systemic griseofulvin, topical fusidic acid, and topical calcineurin inhibitors, have yielded variable success.^6,7,10-16

The success of topical corticosteroids, as demonstrated in our case, has been unpredictable; the reported response has ranged from complete resolution to failure.⁹ This variability is thought to be related to epithelial width and the degree of acanthosis, with ulcerative lesions demonstrating a superior response to topical corticosteroids.⁹

Conclusion

Our case highlights the challenges of diagnosing and managing PCC, especially through teledermatology. Initial photographs of the lesion (Figure 1) that were submitted demonstrated a nonspecific erosion, which was concerning for any of several infectious, inflammatory, and malignant causes. Prompt in-person evaluation was warranted; regrettably, the patient’s condition worsened rapidly in the 10 days it took for him to be seen in-person by dermatology.

Furthermore, this case necessitated 3 separate biopsies because the pathology on the first 2 biopsies initially was equivocal, demonstrating ulceration and granulation tissue. The diagnosis was finally made after a third biopsy was recommended by a dermatopathologist, who eventually identified a bandlike distribution of polyclonal plasma cells in the upper submucosa, consistent with a diagnosis of PCC. Our patient’s final disease presentation (Figure 3) was exuberant and may represent the end point of untreated PCC.

Plasma cell cheilitis (PCC), also known as plasmocytosis circumorificialis and plasmocytosis mucosae,¹ is a poorly understood, uncommon inflammatory condition characterized by dense infiltration of mature plasma cells in the mucosal dermis of the lip.^2-5 The etiology of PCC is unknown but is thought to be a reactive immune process triggered by infection, mechanical friction, trauma, or solar damage.^1,5,6

The most common presentation of PCC is a slowly evolving, red-brown patch or plaque on the lower lip in older individuals.^2,3,5,7 Secondary changes with disease progression can include erosion, ulceration, fissures, edema, bleeding, or crusting.⁵ The diagnosis of PCC is challenging because it can mimic neoplastic, infectious, and inflammatory conditions.^8,9

Treatment strategies for PCC described in the literature vary, as does therapeutic response. Resolution of PCC has been documented after systemic steroids, intralesional steroids, systemic griseofulvin, and topical calcineurin inhibitors, among other agents.^6,7,10-16

We present the case of a patient with a lip lesion who ultimately was diagnosed with PCC after it progressed to an advanced necrotic stage.

Case Report

An 80-year-old male veteran of the Armed Services initially presented to our institution via teledermatology with redness and crusting of the lower lip (Figure 1). He had a history of myelodysplastic syndrome and anemia requiring iron transfusion. The process appeared to be consistent with actinic cheilitis vs squamous cell carcinoma. In-person dermatology consultation was recommended; however, the patient did not follow through with that appointment.

Five months later, additional photographs of the lesion were taken by the patient's primary care physician and sent through teledermatology, revealing progression to an erythematous, yellow-crusted erosion (Figure 2). The medical record indicated that a punch biopsy performed by the patient’s primary care physician showed hyperkeratosis and fungal organisms on periodic acid–Schiff staining. He subsequently applied ketoconazole and terbinafine cream to the lower lip without improvement. Prompt in-person evaluation by dermatology was again recommended.

Comment

The diagnosis and management of PCC is difficult because the condition is uncommon (though its true incidence is unknown) and the presentation is nonspecific, invoking a wide differential diagnosis. In the literature, PCC presents as a slowly progressive, red-brown patch or plaque on the lower lip in older individuals.^2,3,5,7 The lesion can progress to become eroded, ulcerated, fissured, or edematous.⁵

Differential Diagnosis
The clinical differential diagnosis of PCC is broad and includes inflammatory, infectious, and neoplastic causes, such as actinic cheilitis, allergic contact cheilitis, exfoliative cheilitis, granulomatous cheilitis, lichen planus, candidiasis, syphilis, and squamous cell carcinoma of the lip.^7,9 The histologic differential diagnosis includes allergic contact cheilitis, secondary syphilis, actinic cheilitis, squamous cell carcinoma, cheilitis granulomatosa, and plasmacytoma.^17-19

Histopathology
On biopsy, PCC usually is characterized by plasma cells in a bandlike pattern in the upper submucosa or even more diffusely throughout the submucosa.²⁰ In earlier studies, polyclonality of plasma cells with kappa and lambda light chains has been demonstrated⁵; in this case, such polyclonality militated against a plasma cell dyscrasia. There have been reports of a various number of eosinophils in PCC,^5,20 but eosinophils were not a prominent feature in our case.

Treatment
As reported in the literature, treatment of PCC has been attempted using a broad range of strategies; however, the optimal regimen has yet to be elucidated.¹⁵ Numerous therapies, including excision, radiation, electrocauterization, cryotherapy, steroids, systemic griseofulvin, topical fusidic acid, and topical calcineurin inhibitors, have yielded variable success.^6,7,10-16

The success of topical corticosteroids, as demonstrated in our case, has been unpredictable; the reported response has ranged from complete resolution to failure.⁹ This variability is thought to be related to epithelial width and the degree of acanthosis, with ulcerative lesions demonstrating a superior response to topical corticosteroids.⁹

Conclusion

Our case highlights the challenges of diagnosing and managing PCC, especially through teledermatology. Initial photographs of the lesion (Figure 1) that were submitted demonstrated a nonspecific erosion, which was concerning for any of several infectious, inflammatory, and malignant causes. Prompt in-person evaluation was warranted; regrettably, the patient’s condition worsened rapidly in the 10 days it took for him to be seen in-person by dermatology.

Furthermore, this case necessitated 3 separate biopsies because the pathology on the first 2 biopsies initially was equivocal, demonstrating ulceration and granulation tissue. The diagnosis was finally made after a third biopsy was recommended by a dermatopathologist, who eventually identified a bandlike distribution of polyclonal plasma cells in the upper submucosa, consistent with a diagnosis of PCC. Our patient’s final disease presentation (Figure 3) was exuberant and may represent the end point of untreated PCC.

To the Editor:

The art of tattooing continues to gain popularity in the 21st century, albeit with accompanying hazards.¹ Reported adverse reactions to tattoos include infections, tumors, and hypersensitivity and granulomatous reactions.² Various infectious agents may involve tattoos, including human papillomavirus (HPV), molluscum contagiosum, herpes simplex virus, hepatitis C virus, tuberculoid and nontuberculoid mycobacteria, and Staphylococcus aureus.² Verruca vulgaris infrequently has been reported to develop in tattoos.^3,4 Previously reported cases of verruca in tattoos suggest a predilection for blue or black pigment.^1-5 We report a case of verruca vulgaris occurring within the red-inked areas of a tattoo that first appeared approximately 18 years after the initial tattoo placement.

A 44-year-old woman presented with erythema, induration, and irritation of a tattoo on the left leg of 2 years’ duration. The tattoo initially was inscribed more than 20 years prior. The patient had a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. She reported no prior trauma to the area, prior rash or irritation, or similar changes to her other tattoos, including those with red ink. The affected tattoo was inscribed at a separate time from the other tattoos. Physical examination of the irritated tattoo revealed hyperkeratotic papules with firm scaling in the zone of dermal red pigment (Figure 1). Notable nodularity or deep induration was not present. The clinical differential diagnosis included a hypersensitivity reaction to red tattoo ink, sarcoidosis, and an infectious process, such as an atypical mycobacterial infection. A punch biopsy demonstrated papillomatous epidermal hyperplasia with hyperkeratosis, focal parakeratosis, and frequent vacuolization of keratinocytes with enlarged keratohyalin granules, diagnostic of verruca vulgaris (Figure 2). Of note, the patient did not have clinically apparent viral warts elsewhere on physical examination. The patient was successfully managedwith a combination of 2 treatments of intralesional Candida antigen and 3 treatments of cryotherapy with resolution of most lesions over the course of 8 months. Over the following several months, the patient applied topical salicylic acid, which led to the resolution of the remaining lesions. The verrucae had not recurred 19 months after the initial presentation.

The development of verruca vulgaris within a tattoo may occur secondary to various mechanisms of HPV inoculation, including introduction of the virus through contaminated ink, the tattoo artist’s saliva, autoinoculation, or koebnerization of a pre-existing verruca vulgaris.⁴ Local immune system dysregulation secondary to tattoo ink also has been proposed as a mechanism for HPV infection in this setting.^1,5 The contents of darker tattoo pigments may promote formation of reactive oxygen species inducing local immunocompromise.⁵

The pathogenic mechanism was elusive in our patient. Although the localization of verruca vulgaris to the zones of red pigment may be merely coincidental, this phenomenon raised suspicion for direct inoculation via contaminated red ink. The patient’s other red ink–containing tattoos that were inscribed separately were spared, compatible with contamination of the red ink used for the affected tattoo. However, the delayed onset of nearly 2 decades was exceptional, given the shorter previously reported latencies ranging from months to 10 years.⁴ Autoinoculation or koebnerization is plausible, though greater involvement of nonred pigments would be expected as well as a briefer latency. Finally, the possibility of local immune dysregulation seemed feasible, given the slow evolution of the lesions largely restricted to one pigment type.

We report a case of verruca vulgaris within the red area of a multicolored tattoo that occurred approximately 18 years after tattoo placement. This case highlights a rare presentation of an infectious agent that may complicate tattoos. Both predilection for red pigment rather than black or blue pigment and the long latency period raised interesting questions regarding pathogenesis. Confirmatory biopsy enables effective management of this tattoo complication.

To the Editor:

The art of tattooing continues to gain popularity in the 21st century, albeit with accompanying hazards.¹ Reported adverse reactions to tattoos include infections, tumors, and hypersensitivity and granulomatous reactions.² Various infectious agents may involve tattoos, including human papillomavirus (HPV), molluscum contagiosum, herpes simplex virus, hepatitis C virus, tuberculoid and nontuberculoid mycobacteria, and Staphylococcus aureus.² Verruca vulgaris infrequently has been reported to develop in tattoos.^3,4 Previously reported cases of verruca in tattoos suggest a predilection for blue or black pigment.^1-5 We report a case of verruca vulgaris occurring within the red-inked areas of a tattoo that first appeared approximately 18 years after the initial tattoo placement.

A 44-year-old woman presented with erythema, induration, and irritation of a tattoo on the left leg of 2 years’ duration. The tattoo initially was inscribed more than 20 years prior. The patient had a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. She reported no prior trauma to the area, prior rash or irritation, or similar changes to her other tattoos, including those with red ink. The affected tattoo was inscribed at a separate time from the other tattoos. Physical examination of the irritated tattoo revealed hyperkeratotic papules with firm scaling in the zone of dermal red pigment (Figure 1). Notable nodularity or deep induration was not present. The clinical differential diagnosis included a hypersensitivity reaction to red tattoo ink, sarcoidosis, and an infectious process, such as an atypical mycobacterial infection. A punch biopsy demonstrated papillomatous epidermal hyperplasia with hyperkeratosis, focal parakeratosis, and frequent vacuolization of keratinocytes with enlarged keratohyalin granules, diagnostic of verruca vulgaris (Figure 2). Of note, the patient did not have clinically apparent viral warts elsewhere on physical examination. The patient was successfully managedwith a combination of 2 treatments of intralesional Candida antigen and 3 treatments of cryotherapy with resolution of most lesions over the course of 8 months. Over the following several months, the patient applied topical salicylic acid, which led to the resolution of the remaining lesions. The verrucae had not recurred 19 months after the initial presentation.

The development of verruca vulgaris within a tattoo may occur secondary to various mechanisms of HPV inoculation, including introduction of the virus through contaminated ink, the tattoo artist’s saliva, autoinoculation, or koebnerization of a pre-existing verruca vulgaris.⁴ Local immune system dysregulation secondary to tattoo ink also has been proposed as a mechanism for HPV infection in this setting.^1,5 The contents of darker tattoo pigments may promote formation of reactive oxygen species inducing local immunocompromise.⁵

The pathogenic mechanism was elusive in our patient. Although the localization of verruca vulgaris to the zones of red pigment may be merely coincidental, this phenomenon raised suspicion for direct inoculation via contaminated red ink. The patient’s other red ink–containing tattoos that were inscribed separately were spared, compatible with contamination of the red ink used for the affected tattoo. However, the delayed onset of nearly 2 decades was exceptional, given the shorter previously reported latencies ranging from months to 10 years.⁴ Autoinoculation or koebnerization is plausible, though greater involvement of nonred pigments would be expected as well as a briefer latency. Finally, the possibility of local immune dysregulation seemed feasible, given the slow evolution of the lesions largely restricted to one pigment type.

We report a case of verruca vulgaris within the red area of a multicolored tattoo that occurred approximately 18 years after tattoo placement. This case highlights a rare presentation of an infectious agent that may complicate tattoos. Both predilection for red pigment rather than black or blue pigment and the long latency period raised interesting questions regarding pathogenesis. Confirmatory biopsy enables effective management of this tattoo complication.

To the Editor:

The art of tattooing continues to gain popularity in the 21st century, albeit with accompanying hazards.¹ Reported adverse reactions to tattoos include infections, tumors, and hypersensitivity and granulomatous reactions.² Various infectious agents may involve tattoos, including human papillomavirus (HPV), molluscum contagiosum, herpes simplex virus, hepatitis C virus, tuberculoid and nontuberculoid mycobacteria, and Staphylococcus aureus.² Verruca vulgaris infrequently has been reported to develop in tattoos.^3,4 Previously reported cases of verruca in tattoos suggest a predilection for blue or black pigment.^1-5 We report a case of verruca vulgaris occurring within the red-inked areas of a tattoo that first appeared approximately 18 years after the initial tattoo placement.

A 44-year-old woman presented with erythema, induration, and irritation of a tattoo on the left leg of 2 years’ duration. The tattoo initially was inscribed more than 20 years prior. The patient had a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. She reported no prior trauma to the area, prior rash or irritation, or similar changes to her other tattoos, including those with red ink. The affected tattoo was inscribed at a separate time from the other tattoos. Physical examination of the irritated tattoo revealed hyperkeratotic papules with firm scaling in the zone of dermal red pigment (Figure 1). Notable nodularity or deep induration was not present. The clinical differential diagnosis included a hypersensitivity reaction to red tattoo ink, sarcoidosis, and an infectious process, such as an atypical mycobacterial infection. A punch biopsy demonstrated papillomatous epidermal hyperplasia with hyperkeratosis, focal parakeratosis, and frequent vacuolization of keratinocytes with enlarged keratohyalin granules, diagnostic of verruca vulgaris (Figure 2). Of note, the patient did not have clinically apparent viral warts elsewhere on physical examination. The patient was successfully managedwith a combination of 2 treatments of intralesional Candida antigen and 3 treatments of cryotherapy with resolution of most lesions over the course of 8 months. Over the following several months, the patient applied topical salicylic acid, which led to the resolution of the remaining lesions. The verrucae had not recurred 19 months after the initial presentation.

The development of verruca vulgaris within a tattoo may occur secondary to various mechanisms of HPV inoculation, including introduction of the virus through contaminated ink, the tattoo artist’s saliva, autoinoculation, or koebnerization of a pre-existing verruca vulgaris.⁴ Local immune system dysregulation secondary to tattoo ink also has been proposed as a mechanism for HPV infection in this setting.^1,5 The contents of darker tattoo pigments may promote formation of reactive oxygen species inducing local immunocompromise.⁵

The pathogenic mechanism was elusive in our patient. Although the localization of verruca vulgaris to the zones of red pigment may be merely coincidental, this phenomenon raised suspicion for direct inoculation via contaminated red ink. The patient’s other red ink–containing tattoos that were inscribed separately were spared, compatible with contamination of the red ink used for the affected tattoo. However, the delayed onset of nearly 2 decades was exceptional, given the shorter previously reported latencies ranging from months to 10 years.⁴ Autoinoculation or koebnerization is plausible, though greater involvement of nonred pigments would be expected as well as a briefer latency. Finally, the possibility of local immune dysregulation seemed feasible, given the slow evolution of the lesions largely restricted to one pigment type.

We report a case of verruca vulgaris within the red area of a multicolored tattoo that occurred approximately 18 years after tattoo placement. This case highlights a rare presentation of an infectious agent that may complicate tattoos. Both predilection for red pigment rather than black or blue pigment and the long latency period raised interesting questions regarding pathogenesis. Confirmatory biopsy enables effective management of this tattoo complication.

To the Editor:

Lupus erythematosus panniculitis (LEP) is rare in the pediatric population. It can be difficult to manage, as patients may not respond to conventional treatments including hydroxychloroquine and prednisone. We report the use of rituximab in the treatment of a 20-year-old woman with LEP of the face, legs, and arms that was refractory to standard treatments. She also had a history of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH). Further studies are warranted to determine the role of rituximab in the treatment of pediatric patients with LEP.

A 20-year-old woman with history of LEP and HLH initially presented with migratory violaceous nodules on the face 16 years prior to the current presentation. A skin biopsy 3 years after that initial presentation suggested a diagnosis of cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Six years later, numerous asymptomatic lesions appeared on the legs, predominantly on the calves; she was successfully treated with hydroxychloroquine and high-dose prednisone. Four years prior to the current presentation, a febrile illness prompted discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine and hospitalization, where she was first was diagnosed with HLH; she achieved remission with cyclosporine. At the current presentation, she continued to have persistent violaceous lesions on the face, lower arms, and legs with underlying nodularity (Figure 1). Skin biopsies revealed LEP and were less suggestive of HLH. She was restarted on hydroxychloroquine, which did not adequately control the disease. Rheumatologic workup was only notable for an antinuclear antibody titer of 1:80 (reference range, <1:80) in a speckled pattern.

Rituximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeting B-cell surface marker CD20, results in depletion of mature B cells. Use of rituximab for LEP has been described in multiple case reports involving an 8-year-old boy, 22-year-old girl, and 2 middle-aged women.^2-4 In addition, a recently published case series of 4 patients with childhood-onset refractory LEP described improvement of disease activity with rituximab.⁵ It is important to rule out subcutaneous T-cell lymphoma before treatment with rituximab, as its histopathology can closely resemble that seen in LEP and HLH-associated cytophagic histiocytic panniculitis.^1,6

Rituximab may be an effective treatment option in pediatric patients with refractory LEP. Larger studies on the use of rituximab in the pediatric population are necessary.

To the Editor:

Lupus erythematosus panniculitis (LEP) is rare in the pediatric population. It can be difficult to manage, as patients may not respond to conventional treatments including hydroxychloroquine and prednisone. We report the use of rituximab in the treatment of a 20-year-old woman with LEP of the face, legs, and arms that was refractory to standard treatments. She also had a history of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH). Further studies are warranted to determine the role of rituximab in the treatment of pediatric patients with LEP.

A 20-year-old woman with history of LEP and HLH initially presented with migratory violaceous nodules on the face 16 years prior to the current presentation. A skin biopsy 3 years after that initial presentation suggested a diagnosis of cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Six years later, numerous asymptomatic lesions appeared on the legs, predominantly on the calves; she was successfully treated with hydroxychloroquine and high-dose prednisone. Four years prior to the current presentation, a febrile illness prompted discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine and hospitalization, where she was first was diagnosed with HLH; she achieved remission with cyclosporine. At the current presentation, she continued to have persistent violaceous lesions on the face, lower arms, and legs with underlying nodularity (Figure 1). Skin biopsies revealed LEP and were less suggestive of HLH. She was restarted on hydroxychloroquine, which did not adequately control the disease. Rheumatologic workup was only notable for an antinuclear antibody titer of 1:80 (reference range, <1:80) in a speckled pattern.

Rituximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeting B-cell surface marker CD20, results in depletion of mature B cells. Use of rituximab for LEP has been described in multiple case reports involving an 8-year-old boy, 22-year-old girl, and 2 middle-aged women.^2-4 In addition, a recently published case series of 4 patients with childhood-onset refractory LEP described improvement of disease activity with rituximab.⁵ It is important to rule out subcutaneous T-cell lymphoma before treatment with rituximab, as its histopathology can closely resemble that seen in LEP and HLH-associated cytophagic histiocytic panniculitis.^1,6

Rituximab may be an effective treatment option in pediatric patients with refractory LEP. Larger studies on the use of rituximab in the pediatric population are necessary.

To the Editor:

Lupus erythematosus panniculitis (LEP) is rare in the pediatric population. It can be difficult to manage, as patients may not respond to conventional treatments including hydroxychloroquine and prednisone. We report the use of rituximab in the treatment of a 20-year-old woman with LEP of the face, legs, and arms that was refractory to standard treatments. She also had a history of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH). Further studies are warranted to determine the role of rituximab in the treatment of pediatric patients with LEP.

A 20-year-old woman with history of LEP and HLH initially presented with migratory violaceous nodules on the face 16 years prior to the current presentation. A skin biopsy 3 years after that initial presentation suggested a diagnosis of cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Six years later, numerous asymptomatic lesions appeared on the legs, predominantly on the calves; she was successfully treated with hydroxychloroquine and high-dose prednisone. Four years prior to the current presentation, a febrile illness prompted discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine and hospitalization, where she was first was diagnosed with HLH; she achieved remission with cyclosporine. At the current presentation, she continued to have persistent violaceous lesions on the face, lower arms, and legs with underlying nodularity (Figure 1). Skin biopsies revealed LEP and were less suggestive of HLH. She was restarted on hydroxychloroquine, which did not adequately control the disease. Rheumatologic workup was only notable for an antinuclear antibody titer of 1:80 (reference range, <1:80) in a speckled pattern.

Rituximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeting B-cell surface marker CD20, results in depletion of mature B cells. Use of rituximab for LEP has been described in multiple case reports involving an 8-year-old boy, 22-year-old girl, and 2 middle-aged women.^2-4 In addition, a recently published case series of 4 patients with childhood-onset refractory LEP described improvement of disease activity with rituximab.⁵ It is important to rule out subcutaneous T-cell lymphoma before treatment with rituximab, as its histopathology can closely resemble that seen in LEP and HLH-associated cytophagic histiocytic panniculitis.^1,6

Rituximab may be an effective treatment option in pediatric patients with refractory LEP. Larger studies on the use of rituximab in the pediatric population are necessary.

To the Editor:

Protothecosis infections are caused by an achlorophyllic algae of the species Prototheca. Prototheca organisms are found mostly in soil and water.¹ Human infections are rare and involve 2 species, Prototheca wickerhamii and Prototheca zopfii. The former most commonly is responsible for human infections, though P zopfii results in more serious systemic infections with a poor prognosis. There are various types of Prototheca infection presentations, with a 2007 review of 117 cases reporting that cutaneous infections are most common (66%), followed by systemic infections (19%), and olecranon bursitis (15%).² Skin lesions most commonly occur on the extremities and face, and they present as vesiculobullous and ulcerative lesions with purulent drainage. The skin lesions also may appear as erythematous plaques or nodules, subcutaneous papules, verrucous or herpetiformis lesions, or pyogenic granuloma–like lesions.³ Protothecosis typically affects immunocompromised individuals, especially those with a history of chronic corticosteroid use, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, AIDS, and/or organ transplant.¹ We present a case of cutaneous protothecosis on the dorsal distal extremity of a 94-year-old woman. History of exposure to soil while gardening was elicited from the patient, and no immunosuppressive history was present aside from the patient’s age. This case may prompt workup for malignancy or immunosuppression in this patient subset.

A 94-year-old woman with a medical history of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) presented with a growing lesion on the dorsal surface of the left fourth digit of 2 months’ duration. The patient reported the lesion was painful, and she noted preceding trauma to the area that was suspected to have occurred while gardening. Physical examination revealed an ulcerated, hypertrophic, erythematous nodule on the dorsal surface of the left fourth metacarpophalangeal joint. The differential diagnosis included SCC, inflamed cyst, verruca vulgaris, and orf virus due to the clinical presentation. A shave biopsy was performed, and the lesion subsequently was treated with electrodesiccation and curettage.

Histopathologic evaluation revealed pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate including lymphocytes and histiocytes. A morula within the dermis was characteristic of a protothecosis infection (Figure 1). On follow-up visit 6 weeks later, the lesion had grown back to its original size and morphology (Figure 2). At this time, the lesion was again treated with shave removal, followed by electrodesiccation and curettage, and the patient was placed on oral fluconazole 200 mg daily for 1 month. When the lesion did not resolve with fluconazole, she was referred to infectious disease as well as general surgery for surgical removal and debridement of the lesion. Unfortunately, the patient was lost to follow-up.

Protothecosis is an infectious disease comprised of achlorophyllic algae found in soil and water that rarely affects humans. When it does affect humans, cutaneous infections are most common. All human cases in which organisms were identified to species level have been caused by P wickerhamii or P zopfii species.² Inoculation is suspected to occur through trauma to affected skin, especially when in the context of contaminated water. Our patient reported history of trauma to the hand, with soil from gardening as the potential aquagenic source of the infection.

The clinical presentation of protothecosis ranges from localized cutaneous to disseminated systemic infections, with most reported cases of systemic disease occurring in immunocompromised individuals. The cutaneous lesions of protothecosis vary greatly in clinical appearance including ulcerative nodules (as in our case), papules, plaques, pustules, and vesicles with erosion or crusting.⁴

Cutaneous protothecosis has the potential to mimic many other skin diseases and lesions, and, given its rarity, it may not be on the radar of dermatologists. Our patient’s lesion was presumed to be a skin cancer and was treated as such because of the history of SCC and clinical presentation. Although excision of individual lesions of protothecosis can be curative, electrodesiccation and curettage does not appear to be an adequate treatment, as the lesion subsequently recurred. It also is possible that this case represents P zopfii infection, as it did not respond to treatment with oral fluconazole, though in vitro studies with fluconazole to both P zopfii and P wickerhamii had variable treatment success.² Also, the histopathologic findings were most consistent with P wickerhamii, revealing small, round, symmetrical morula, compared to P zopfii, which typically will display oval or cylindrical, asymmetrical, random internal segmentation.⁵ This case may warrant determination of species, which can be accomplished by a culture on Sabouraud dextrose agar, carbohydrate and alcohol assimilation test, yeast biochemical card, serological typing by immunoblotting, immunofluorescence study using species-specific antibodies, or amplification by polymerase chain reaction for small subunit ribosomal DNA sequences.^2,6-8

The natural history of isolated skin disease is an indolent progressive course; however, reports do exist noting spontaneous resolution.^4,9 Treatment options for Prototheca infections can be disappointing and consist of both surgical and medical management, or a combination of the 2 approaches. Reports in the literature support the use of antifungals including ketoconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, fluconazole, and amphotericin B, with the latter displaying the best activity against Prototheca species.² Tetracycline has been used in combination with oral or topical amphotericin B and was found to be synergistic in vitro and in case reports at successfully treating cutaneous protothecosis infections. It is possible that our patient was not treated with fluconazole long enough for it to become therapeutic, as most reported treatment regimens are weeks to months in length. Conversely, it may have been of benefit to transition the patient to topical amphotericin B and tetracycline, as fluconazole failed in this patient. However, treatment successes and failures are limited to case reports/case series and in vitro studies, with prospective studies lacking. Due to the variability with in vitro susceptibility profiles for Prototheca species, it generally is not recommended to pursue in vitro susceptibility testing in the management of Prototheca skin infections due to the inconsistency demonstrated between in vitro activity and clinical response to therapy.²

To the Editor:

Protothecosis infections are caused by an achlorophyllic algae of the species Prototheca. Prototheca organisms are found mostly in soil and water.¹ Human infections are rare and involve 2 species, Prototheca wickerhamii and Prototheca zopfii. The former most commonly is responsible for human infections, though P zopfii results in more serious systemic infections with a poor prognosis. There are various types of Prototheca infection presentations, with a 2007 review of 117 cases reporting that cutaneous infections are most common (66%), followed by systemic infections (19%), and olecranon bursitis (15%).² Skin lesions most commonly occur on the extremities and face, and they present as vesiculobullous and ulcerative lesions with purulent drainage. The skin lesions also may appear as erythematous plaques or nodules, subcutaneous papules, verrucous or herpetiformis lesions, or pyogenic granuloma–like lesions.³ Protothecosis typically affects immunocompromised individuals, especially those with a history of chronic corticosteroid use, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, AIDS, and/or organ transplant.¹ We present a case of cutaneous protothecosis on the dorsal distal extremity of a 94-year-old woman. History of exposure to soil while gardening was elicited from the patient, and no immunosuppressive history was present aside from the patient’s age. This case may prompt workup for malignancy or immunosuppression in this patient subset.

A 94-year-old woman with a medical history of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) presented with a growing lesion on the dorsal surface of the left fourth digit of 2 months’ duration. The patient reported the lesion was painful, and she noted preceding trauma to the area that was suspected to have occurred while gardening. Physical examination revealed an ulcerated, hypertrophic, erythematous nodule on the dorsal surface of the left fourth metacarpophalangeal joint. The differential diagnosis included SCC, inflamed cyst, verruca vulgaris, and orf virus due to the clinical presentation. A shave biopsy was performed, and the lesion subsequently was treated with electrodesiccation and curettage.

Histopathologic evaluation revealed pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate including lymphocytes and histiocytes. A morula within the dermis was characteristic of a protothecosis infection (Figure 1). On follow-up visit 6 weeks later, the lesion had grown back to its original size and morphology (Figure 2). At this time, the lesion was again treated with shave removal, followed by electrodesiccation and curettage, and the patient was placed on oral fluconazole 200 mg daily for 1 month. When the lesion did not resolve with fluconazole, she was referred to infectious disease as well as general surgery for surgical removal and debridement of the lesion. Unfortunately, the patient was lost to follow-up.

Protothecosis is an infectious disease comprised of achlorophyllic algae found in soil and water that rarely affects humans. When it does affect humans, cutaneous infections are most common. All human cases in which organisms were identified to species level have been caused by P wickerhamii or P zopfii species.² Inoculation is suspected to occur through trauma to affected skin, especially when in the context of contaminated water. Our patient reported history of trauma to the hand, with soil from gardening as the potential aquagenic source of the infection.

The clinical presentation of protothecosis ranges from localized cutaneous to disseminated systemic infections, with most reported cases of systemic disease occurring in immunocompromised individuals. The cutaneous lesions of protothecosis vary greatly in clinical appearance including ulcerative nodules (as in our case), papules, plaques, pustules, and vesicles with erosion or crusting.⁴

Cutaneous protothecosis has the potential to mimic many other skin diseases and lesions, and, given its rarity, it may not be on the radar of dermatologists. Our patient’s lesion was presumed to be a skin cancer and was treated as such because of the history of SCC and clinical presentation. Although excision of individual lesions of protothecosis can be curative, electrodesiccation and curettage does not appear to be an adequate treatment, as the lesion subsequently recurred. It also is possible that this case represents P zopfii infection, as it did not respond to treatment with oral fluconazole, though in vitro studies with fluconazole to both P zopfii and P wickerhamii had variable treatment success.² Also, the histopathologic findings were most consistent with P wickerhamii, revealing small, round, symmetrical morula, compared to P zopfii, which typically will display oval or cylindrical, asymmetrical, random internal segmentation.⁵ This case may warrant determination of species, which can be accomplished by a culture on Sabouraud dextrose agar, carbohydrate and alcohol assimilation test, yeast biochemical card, serological typing by immunoblotting, immunofluorescence study using species-specific antibodies, or amplification by polymerase chain reaction for small subunit ribosomal DNA sequences.^2,6-8

The natural history of isolated skin disease is an indolent progressive course; however, reports do exist noting spontaneous resolution.^4,9 Treatment options for Prototheca infections can be disappointing and consist of both surgical and medical management, or a combination of the 2 approaches. Reports in the literature support the use of antifungals including ketoconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, fluconazole, and amphotericin B, with the latter displaying the best activity against Prototheca species.² Tetracycline has been used in combination with oral or topical amphotericin B and was found to be synergistic in vitro and in case reports at successfully treating cutaneous protothecosis infections. It is possible that our patient was not treated with fluconazole long enough for it to become therapeutic, as most reported treatment regimens are weeks to months in length. Conversely, it may have been of benefit to transition the patient to topical amphotericin B and tetracycline, as fluconazole failed in this patient. However, treatment successes and failures are limited to case reports/case series and in vitro studies, with prospective studies lacking. Due to the variability with in vitro susceptibility profiles for Prototheca species, it generally is not recommended to pursue in vitro susceptibility testing in the management of Prototheca skin infections due to the inconsistency demonstrated between in vitro activity and clinical response to therapy.²

To the Editor:

Protothecosis infections are caused by an achlorophyllic algae of the species Prototheca. Prototheca organisms are found mostly in soil and water.¹ Human infections are rare and involve 2 species, Prototheca wickerhamii and Prototheca zopfii. The former most commonly is responsible for human infections, though P zopfii results in more serious systemic infections with a poor prognosis. There are various types of Prototheca infection presentations, with a 2007 review of 117 cases reporting that cutaneous infections are most common (66%), followed by systemic infections (19%), and olecranon bursitis (15%).² Skin lesions most commonly occur on the extremities and face, and they present as vesiculobullous and ulcerative lesions with purulent drainage. The skin lesions also may appear as erythematous plaques or nodules, subcutaneous papules, verrucous or herpetiformis lesions, or pyogenic granuloma–like lesions.³ Protothecosis typically affects immunocompromised individuals, especially those with a history of chronic corticosteroid use, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, AIDS, and/or organ transplant.¹ We present a case of cutaneous protothecosis on the dorsal distal extremity of a 94-year-old woman. History of exposure to soil while gardening was elicited from the patient, and no immunosuppressive history was present aside from the patient’s age. This case may prompt workup for malignancy or immunosuppression in this patient subset.

A 94-year-old woman with a medical history of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) presented with a growing lesion on the dorsal surface of the left fourth digit of 2 months’ duration. The patient reported the lesion was painful, and she noted preceding trauma to the area that was suspected to have occurred while gardening. Physical examination revealed an ulcerated, hypertrophic, erythematous nodule on the dorsal surface of the left fourth metacarpophalangeal joint. The differential diagnosis included SCC, inflamed cyst, verruca vulgaris, and orf virus due to the clinical presentation. A shave biopsy was performed, and the lesion subsequently was treated with electrodesiccation and curettage.

Histopathologic evaluation revealed pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate including lymphocytes and histiocytes. A morula within the dermis was characteristic of a protothecosis infection (Figure 1). On follow-up visit 6 weeks later, the lesion had grown back to its original size and morphology (Figure 2). At this time, the lesion was again treated with shave removal, followed by electrodesiccation and curettage, and the patient was placed on oral fluconazole 200 mg daily for 1 month. When the lesion did not resolve with fluconazole, she was referred to infectious disease as well as general surgery for surgical removal and debridement of the lesion. Unfortunately, the patient was lost to follow-up.

Protothecosis is an infectious disease comprised of achlorophyllic algae found in soil and water that rarely affects humans. When it does affect humans, cutaneous infections are most common. All human cases in which organisms were identified to species level have been caused by P wickerhamii or P zopfii species.² Inoculation is suspected to occur through trauma to affected skin, especially when in the context of contaminated water. Our patient reported history of trauma to the hand, with soil from gardening as the potential aquagenic source of the infection.

The clinical presentation of protothecosis ranges from localized cutaneous to disseminated systemic infections, with most reported cases of systemic disease occurring in immunocompromised individuals. The cutaneous lesions of protothecosis vary greatly in clinical appearance including ulcerative nodules (as in our case), papules, plaques, pustules, and vesicles with erosion or crusting.⁴

Cutaneous protothecosis has the potential to mimic many other skin diseases and lesions, and, given its rarity, it may not be on the radar of dermatologists. Our patient’s lesion was presumed to be a skin cancer and was treated as such because of the history of SCC and clinical presentation. Although excision of individual lesions of protothecosis can be curative, electrodesiccation and curettage does not appear to be an adequate treatment, as the lesion subsequently recurred. It also is possible that this case represents P zopfii infection, as it did not respond to treatment with oral fluconazole, though in vitro studies with fluconazole to both P zopfii and P wickerhamii had variable treatment success.² Also, the histopathologic findings were most consistent with P wickerhamii, revealing small, round, symmetrical morula, compared to P zopfii, which typically will display oval or cylindrical, asymmetrical, random internal segmentation.⁵ This case may warrant determination of species, which can be accomplished by a culture on Sabouraud dextrose agar, carbohydrate and alcohol assimilation test, yeast biochemical card, serological typing by immunoblotting, immunofluorescence study using species-specific antibodies, or amplification by polymerase chain reaction for small subunit ribosomal DNA sequences.^2,6-8

The natural history of isolated skin disease is an indolent progressive course; however, reports do exist noting spontaneous resolution.^4,9 Treatment options for Prototheca infections can be disappointing and consist of both surgical and medical management, or a combination of the 2 approaches. Reports in the literature support the use of antifungals including ketoconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, fluconazole, and amphotericin B, with the latter displaying the best activity against Prototheca species.² Tetracycline has been used in combination with oral or topical amphotericin B and was found to be synergistic in vitro and in case reports at successfully treating cutaneous protothecosis infections. It is possible that our patient was not treated with fluconazole long enough for it to become therapeutic, as most reported treatment regimens are weeks to months in length. Conversely, it may have been of benefit to transition the patient to topical amphotericin B and tetracycline, as fluconazole failed in this patient. However, treatment successes and failures are limited to case reports/case series and in vitro studies, with prospective studies lacking. Due to the variability with in vitro susceptibility profiles for Prototheca species, it generally is not recommended to pursue in vitro susceptibility testing in the management of Prototheca skin infections due to the inconsistency demonstrated between in vitro activity and clinical response to therapy.²

To the Editor:

Broader availability and utilization of novel biologic treatments has heralded the emergence of unusual infections, including skin and soft tissue infections. These unusual infections may not be seen in clinical trials due to their overall rare incidence. In modern society, exposure to unusual pathogens can occur in locations far from their natural habitat.¹ Tissue culture remains the gold standard, as histopathology and smears may not identify the organisms. Tissue culture of these less-common pathogens is challenging and may require multiple samples and specialized laboratory evaluations.² In some cases, a skin biopsy with histopathologic examination is an efficient means to confirm or exclude a dermatologic manifestation of an inflammatory disease. This information can quickly change the course of treatment, especially for those on immunosuppressive medications.³ We report a case of unusual cutaneous infection with Chaetomium globosum in a patient concomitantly treated with vedolizumab, a gut-specific integrin inhibitor, alongside traditional immunosuppressive therapy.

A 33-year-old woman with Crohn disease on vedolizumab and mercaptopurine was referred to the dermatology clinic with firm, tender, erythematous lesions on the legs of 1 month’s duration (Figure, A). She had a history of inflammatory bowel disease with perianal fistula, sacroiliitis, uveitis, guttate psoriasis, and erythema nodosum. She denied recent medication changes, foreign travel, swimming in freshwater or a hot tub, chills, fever, malaise, night sweats, and weight loss. Physical examination revealed several tender, indurated, erythematous plaques across the legs, ranging in size from 4 to 12 cm. The plaques had central hyperpigmentation, atrophy, and scant scale without ulceration, drainage, or pustules. The largest plaque demonstrated a well-defined area of central fluctuance. Prednisone (60 mg) with taper was initiated for presumed recurrence of erythema nodosum with close follow-up.

This case illustrates the importance of a high index of suspicion for unusual infections in the setting of biologic therapy. An infectious etiology of a cutaneous eruption in an immunosuppressed patient should always be included in the differential diagnosis and actively pursued early on; tissue culture may shorten the treatment course and decrease severity of the disease. Although a direct link between the mechanism of action of vedolizumab and cutaneous infection is not clear, given the rare incidence of this infection, a report of such a case is important to the practicing clinician.

To the Editor:

Broader availability and utilization of novel biologic treatments has heralded the emergence of unusual infections, including skin and soft tissue infections. These unusual infections may not be seen in clinical trials due to their overall rare incidence. In modern society, exposure to unusual pathogens can occur in locations far from their natural habitat.¹ Tissue culture remains the gold standard, as histopathology and smears may not identify the organisms. Tissue culture of these less-common pathogens is challenging and may require multiple samples and specialized laboratory evaluations.² In some cases, a skin biopsy with histopathologic examination is an efficient means to confirm or exclude a dermatologic manifestation of an inflammatory disease. This information can quickly change the course of treatment, especially for those on immunosuppressive medications.³ We report a case of unusual cutaneous infection with Chaetomium globosum in a patient concomitantly treated with vedolizumab, a gut-specific integrin inhibitor, alongside traditional immunosuppressive therapy.

A 33-year-old woman with Crohn disease on vedolizumab and mercaptopurine was referred to the dermatology clinic with firm, tender, erythematous lesions on the legs of 1 month’s duration (Figure, A). She had a history of inflammatory bowel disease with perianal fistula, sacroiliitis, uveitis, guttate psoriasis, and erythema nodosum. She denied recent medication changes, foreign travel, swimming in freshwater or a hot tub, chills, fever, malaise, night sweats, and weight loss. Physical examination revealed several tender, indurated, erythematous plaques across the legs, ranging in size from 4 to 12 cm. The plaques had central hyperpigmentation, atrophy, and scant scale without ulceration, drainage, or pustules. The largest plaque demonstrated a well-defined area of central fluctuance. Prednisone (60 mg) with taper was initiated for presumed recurrence of erythema nodosum with close follow-up.

This case illustrates the importance of a high index of suspicion for unusual infections in the setting of biologic therapy. An infectious etiology of a cutaneous eruption in an immunosuppressed patient should always be included in the differential diagnosis and actively pursued early on; tissue culture may shorten the treatment course and decrease severity of the disease. Although a direct link between the mechanism of action of vedolizumab and cutaneous infection is not clear, given the rare incidence of this infection, a report of such a case is important to the practicing clinician.

To the Editor:

Broader availability and utilization of novel biologic treatments has heralded the emergence of unusual infections, including skin and soft tissue infections. These unusual infections may not be seen in clinical trials due to their overall rare incidence. In modern society, exposure to unusual pathogens can occur in locations far from their natural habitat.¹ Tissue culture remains the gold standard, as histopathology and smears may not identify the organisms. Tissue culture of these less-common pathogens is challenging and may require multiple samples and specialized laboratory evaluations.² In some cases, a skin biopsy with histopathologic examination is an efficient means to confirm or exclude a dermatologic manifestation of an inflammatory disease. This information can quickly change the course of treatment, especially for those on immunosuppressive medications.³ We report a case of unusual cutaneous infection with Chaetomium globosum in a patient concomitantly treated with vedolizumab, a gut-specific integrin inhibitor, alongside traditional immunosuppressive therapy.

A 33-year-old woman with Crohn disease on vedolizumab and mercaptopurine was referred to the dermatology clinic with firm, tender, erythematous lesions on the legs of 1 month’s duration (Figure, A). She had a history of inflammatory bowel disease with perianal fistula, sacroiliitis, uveitis, guttate psoriasis, and erythema nodosum. She denied recent medication changes, foreign travel, swimming in freshwater or a hot tub, chills, fever, malaise, night sweats, and weight loss. Physical examination revealed several tender, indurated, erythematous plaques across the legs, ranging in size from 4 to 12 cm. The plaques had central hyperpigmentation, atrophy, and scant scale without ulceration, drainage, or pustules. The largest plaque demonstrated a well-defined area of central fluctuance. Prednisone (60 mg) with taper was initiated for presumed recurrence of erythema nodosum with close follow-up.

This case illustrates the importance of a high index of suspicion for unusual infections in the setting of biologic therapy. An infectious etiology of a cutaneous eruption in an immunosuppressed patient should always be included in the differential diagnosis and actively pursued early on; tissue culture may shorten the treatment course and decrease severity of the disease. Although a direct link between the mechanism of action of vedolizumab and cutaneous infection is not clear, given the rare incidence of this infection, a report of such a case is important to the practicing clinician.

To the Editor:

Verrucous carcinoma is a rare, well-differentiated, locally aggressive squamous cell carcinoma first described by Ackerman in 1948.¹ There are 4 main clinicopathologic types: oral florid papillomatosis or Ackerman tumor, giant condyloma acuminatum or Buschke-Lowenstein tumor, plantar verrucous carcinoma, and cutaneous verrucous carcinoma.^2,3 Historically, most patients are older white men. The lesion commonly occurs in sites of inflammation⁴ or chronic irritation/trauma. Clinically, patients present with a slowly enlarging, exophytic, verrucous plaque violating the skin, fascia, and occasionally bone. Although these lesions have little tendency to metastasize, substantial morbidity can be seen due to local invasion. Despite surgical excision, recurrence is not uncommon and is associated with a poor prognosis and higher infiltrative potential.⁵

A 45-year-old male veteran initially presented to our dermatology clinic with a 4-cm, macerated, verrucous plaque on the left lateral ankle in the area of a skin graft placed during a prior limb salvage surgery (Figure 1). The patient experienced a traumatic blast injury while deployed 7 years prior with a subsequent right-sided below-the-knee amputation and left lower limb salvage. The lesion was clinically diagnosed as verruca vulgaris and treated with daily salicylic acid. Six weeks after the initial presentation, the lesion remained largely unchanged. A biopsy subsequently was obtained to confirm the diagnosis. At that time, the histopathology was consistent with verruca vulgaris without evidence of carcinoma. Due to the persistence of the lesion, lack of improvement with topical treatment, and overall size, the patient opted for surgical excision.

Verrucous carcinoma can represent a diagnostic dilemma, as histologic sections may mimic benign entities. The features of a well-differentiated squamous epithelium with hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, and acanthosis can be mistaken for verruca vulgaris, keratoacanthoma, and pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia,⁶ which are characteristic of verrucous hyperplasia. Accurate diagnosis can be difficult with a superficial biopsy because of the mature appearance of the epithelium,⁷ prompting the need for multiple and deeper biopsies⁸ to include sampling of the base of the hyperplastic epithelium in which the characteristic bulbous pushing growth pattern of the rete ridges is visualized. Precise histologic diagnosis can be further confounded by external mechanical factors, such as pressure, which can distort the classic histopathology.⁷ The histopathologic features leading to the diagnosis of verrucous carcinoma in our specimen were minimal squamous atypia present in a predominantly exophytic squamous proliferation with human papillomavirus cytopathic effect and focal endophytic pushing borders by rounded bulbous rete ridges into the mid and deep dermis (Figure 2).

To the Editor:

Verrucous carcinoma is a rare, well-differentiated, locally aggressive squamous cell carcinoma first described by Ackerman in 1948.¹ There are 4 main clinicopathologic types: oral florid papillomatosis or Ackerman tumor, giant condyloma acuminatum or Buschke-Lowenstein tumor, plantar verrucous carcinoma, and cutaneous verrucous carcinoma.^2,3 Historically, most patients are older white men. The lesion commonly occurs in sites of inflammation⁴ or chronic irritation/trauma. Clinically, patients present with a slowly enlarging, exophytic, verrucous plaque violating the skin, fascia, and occasionally bone. Although these lesions have little tendency to metastasize, substantial morbidity can be seen due to local invasion. Despite surgical excision, recurrence is not uncommon and is associated with a poor prognosis and higher infiltrative potential.⁵

A 45-year-old male veteran initially presented to our dermatology clinic with a 4-cm, macerated, verrucous plaque on the left lateral ankle in the area of a skin graft placed during a prior limb salvage surgery (Figure 1). The patient experienced a traumatic blast injury while deployed 7 years prior with a subsequent right-sided below-the-knee amputation and left lower limb salvage. The lesion was clinically diagnosed as verruca vulgaris and treated with daily salicylic acid. Six weeks after the initial presentation, the lesion remained largely unchanged. A biopsy subsequently was obtained to confirm the diagnosis. At that time, the histopathology was consistent with verruca vulgaris without evidence of carcinoma. Due to the persistence of the lesion, lack of improvement with topical treatment, and overall size, the patient opted for surgical excision.

Verrucous carcinoma can represent a diagnostic dilemma, as histologic sections may mimic benign entities. The features of a well-differentiated squamous epithelium with hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, and acanthosis can be mistaken for verruca vulgaris, keratoacanthoma, and pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia,⁶ which are characteristic of verrucous hyperplasia. Accurate diagnosis can be difficult with a superficial biopsy because of the mature appearance of the epithelium,⁷ prompting the need for multiple and deeper biopsies⁸ to include sampling of the base of the hyperplastic epithelium in which the characteristic bulbous pushing growth pattern of the rete ridges is visualized. Precise histologic diagnosis can be further confounded by external mechanical factors, such as pressure, which can distort the classic histopathology.⁷ The histopathologic features leading to the diagnosis of verrucous carcinoma in our specimen were minimal squamous atypia present in a predominantly exophytic squamous proliferation with human papillomavirus cytopathic effect and focal endophytic pushing borders by rounded bulbous rete ridges into the mid and deep dermis (Figure 2).

To the Editor:

Verrucous carcinoma is a rare, well-differentiated, locally aggressive squamous cell carcinoma first described by Ackerman in 1948.¹ There are 4 main clinicopathologic types: oral florid papillomatosis or Ackerman tumor, giant condyloma acuminatum or Buschke-Lowenstein tumor, plantar verrucous carcinoma, and cutaneous verrucous carcinoma.^2,3 Historically, most patients are older white men. The lesion commonly occurs in sites of inflammation⁴ or chronic irritation/trauma. Clinically, patients present with a slowly enlarging, exophytic, verrucous plaque violating the skin, fascia, and occasionally bone. Although these lesions have little tendency to metastasize, substantial morbidity can be seen due to local invasion. Despite surgical excision, recurrence is not uncommon and is associated with a poor prognosis and higher infiltrative potential.⁵

A 45-year-old male veteran initially presented to our dermatology clinic with a 4-cm, macerated, verrucous plaque on the left lateral ankle in the area of a skin graft placed during a prior limb salvage surgery (Figure 1). The patient experienced a traumatic blast injury while deployed 7 years prior with a subsequent right-sided below-the-knee amputation and left lower limb salvage. The lesion was clinically diagnosed as verruca vulgaris and treated with daily salicylic acid. Six weeks after the initial presentation, the lesion remained largely unchanged. A biopsy subsequently was obtained to confirm the diagnosis. At that time, the histopathology was consistent with verruca vulgaris without evidence of carcinoma. Due to the persistence of the lesion, lack of improvement with topical treatment, and overall size, the patient opted for surgical excision.

Verrucous carcinoma can represent a diagnostic dilemma, as histologic sections may mimic benign entities. The features of a well-differentiated squamous epithelium with hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, and acanthosis can be mistaken for verruca vulgaris, keratoacanthoma, and pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia,⁶ which are characteristic of verrucous hyperplasia. Accurate diagnosis can be difficult with a superficial biopsy because of the mature appearance of the epithelium,⁷ prompting the need for multiple and deeper biopsies⁸ to include sampling of the base of the hyperplastic epithelium in which the characteristic bulbous pushing growth pattern of the rete ridges is visualized. Precise histologic diagnosis can be further confounded by external mechanical factors, such as pressure, which can distort the classic histopathology.⁷ The histopathologic features leading to the diagnosis of verrucous carcinoma in our specimen were minimal squamous atypia present in a predominantly exophytic squamous proliferation with human papillomavirus cytopathic effect and focal endophytic pushing borders by rounded bulbous rete ridges into the mid and deep dermis (Figure 2).

To the Editor:

Granular parakeratosis is a rare condition with an unclear etiology that results from a myriad of factors, including exposure to irritants, friction, moisture, and heat. The diagnosis is made based on a distinct histologic reaction pattern that may be protective against the triggers. We present a case of isolated scrotal granular parakeratosis in a patient with compensatory hyperhidrosis after endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy.

A 52-year-old man presented with a 5-year history of a recurrent rash affecting the scrotum. He experienced monthly flares that were exacerbated by inguinal hyperhidrosis. His symptoms included a burning sensation and pruritus followed by superficial desquamation, with gradual yet temporary improvement. His medical history was remarkable for primary axillary and palmoplantar hyperhidrosis, with compensatory inguinal hyperhidrosis after endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy 8 years prior to presentation.

Physical examination revealed a well-demarcated, scaly, erythematous plaque affecting the scrotal skin with sparing of the median raphe, penis, and inguinal folds (Figure 1). There were no other lesions noted in the axillary region or other skin folds.

Murine models have postulated that granular parakeratosis may result from a deficiency in caspase 14, a protease vital to the formation of a well-functioning skin barrier.⁹ A cornified envelope often is noted in granular parakeratotic cells with no defects in desmosomes and cell membranes, suggesting that the pathogenesis lies within processing of profilaggrin to filaggrin, resulting in a failure to degrade keratohyalin granules and aggregation of keratin filaments.¹⁰ Granular parakeratosis is not known to be associated with other medical conditions, but it has been observed in patients receiving chemotherapy for breast¹¹ and ovarian¹² carcinomas. In infants with atopic dermatitis, granular parakeratosis was reported in 5 out of 7 cases.⁶ In our patient with secondary inguinal hyperhidrosis after thoracic sympathectomy, granular parakeratosis may be reactive to excess sweating and friction in the scrotal area.

Granular parakeratosis follows a waxing and waning pattern that may spontaneously resolve without any treatment; it also can follow a protracted course, as in a case with associated facial papules that persisted for 20 years.¹³ Topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with topical antifungal agents have been used for the treatment of granular parakeratosis with the goal of accelerating resolution.^2,14 However, the efficacy of these therapeutic interventions is limited, and no controlled trials are underway. Topical vitamin D analogues^15,16 and topical retinoids¹⁷ also have been reported with successful outcomes. Spontaneous resolution also has been observed in 2 different cases after previously being unresponsive to topical treatment.^18,19 Treatment with Clostridium botulinum toxin A resulted in complete remission of the disease observed at 6-month follow-up. The pharmacologic action of the neurotoxin disrupts the stimulation of eccrine sweat glands, resulting in decreased sweating, a known exacerbating factor of granular parakeratosis.²⁰

In summary, our case represents a unique clinical presentation of granular parakeratosis with classic histopathologic features. A high index of suspicion and a biopsy are vital to arriving at the correct diagnosis.

To the Editor:

Granular parakeratosis is a rare condition with an unclear etiology that results from a myriad of factors, including exposure to irritants, friction, moisture, and heat. The diagnosis is made based on a distinct histologic reaction pattern that may be protective against the triggers. We present a case of isolated scrotal granular parakeratosis in a patient with compensatory hyperhidrosis after endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy.

A 52-year-old man presented with a 5-year history of a recurrent rash affecting the scrotum. He experienced monthly flares that were exacerbated by inguinal hyperhidrosis. His symptoms included a burning sensation and pruritus followed by superficial desquamation, with gradual yet temporary improvement. His medical history was remarkable for primary axillary and palmoplantar hyperhidrosis, with compensatory inguinal hyperhidrosis after endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy 8 years prior to presentation.

Physical examination revealed a well-demarcated, scaly, erythematous plaque affecting the scrotal skin with sparing of the median raphe, penis, and inguinal folds (Figure 1). There were no other lesions noted in the axillary region or other skin folds.

Murine models have postulated that granular parakeratosis may result from a deficiency in caspase 14, a protease vital to the formation of a well-functioning skin barrier.⁹ A cornified envelope often is noted in granular parakeratotic cells with no defects in desmosomes and cell membranes, suggesting that the pathogenesis lies within processing of profilaggrin to filaggrin, resulting in a failure to degrade keratohyalin granules and aggregation of keratin filaments.¹⁰ Granular parakeratosis is not known to be associated with other medical conditions, but it has been observed in patients receiving chemotherapy for breast¹¹ and ovarian¹² carcinomas. In infants with atopic dermatitis, granular parakeratosis was reported in 5 out of 7 cases.⁶ In our patient with secondary inguinal hyperhidrosis after thoracic sympathectomy, granular parakeratosis may be reactive to excess sweating and friction in the scrotal area.

Granular parakeratosis follows a waxing and waning pattern that may spontaneously resolve without any treatment; it also can follow a protracted course, as in a case with associated facial papules that persisted for 20 years.¹³ Topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with topical antifungal agents have been used for the treatment of granular parakeratosis with the goal of accelerating resolution.^2,14 However, the efficacy of these therapeutic interventions is limited, and no controlled trials are underway. Topical vitamin D analogues^15,16 and topical retinoids¹⁷ also have been reported with successful outcomes. Spontaneous resolution also has been observed in 2 different cases after previously being unresponsive to topical treatment.^18,19 Treatment with Clostridium botulinum toxin A resulted in complete remission of the disease observed at 6-month follow-up. The pharmacologic action of the neurotoxin disrupts the stimulation of eccrine sweat glands, resulting in decreased sweating, a known exacerbating factor of granular parakeratosis.²⁰

In summary, our case represents a unique clinical presentation of granular parakeratosis with classic histopathologic features. A high index of suspicion and a biopsy are vital to arriving at the correct diagnosis.

To the Editor:

Granular parakeratosis is a rare condition with an unclear etiology that results from a myriad of factors, including exposure to irritants, friction, moisture, and heat. The diagnosis is made based on a distinct histologic reaction pattern that may be protective against the triggers. We present a case of isolated scrotal granular parakeratosis in a patient with compensatory hyperhidrosis after endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy.

A 52-year-old man presented with a 5-year history of a recurrent rash affecting the scrotum. He experienced monthly flares that were exacerbated by inguinal hyperhidrosis. His symptoms included a burning sensation and pruritus followed by superficial desquamation, with gradual yet temporary improvement. His medical history was remarkable for primary axillary and palmoplantar hyperhidrosis, with compensatory inguinal hyperhidrosis after endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy 8 years prior to presentation.

Physical examination revealed a well-demarcated, scaly, erythematous plaque affecting the scrotal skin with sparing of the median raphe, penis, and inguinal folds (Figure 1). There were no other lesions noted in the axillary region or other skin folds.

Murine models have postulated that granular parakeratosis may result from a deficiency in caspase 14, a protease vital to the formation of a well-functioning skin barrier.⁹ A cornified envelope often is noted in granular parakeratotic cells with no defects in desmosomes and cell membranes, suggesting that the pathogenesis lies within processing of profilaggrin to filaggrin, resulting in a failure to degrade keratohyalin granules and aggregation of keratin filaments.¹⁰ Granular parakeratosis is not known to be associated with other medical conditions, but it has been observed in patients receiving chemotherapy for breast¹¹ and ovarian¹² carcinomas. In infants with atopic dermatitis, granular parakeratosis was reported in 5 out of 7 cases.⁶ In our patient with secondary inguinal hyperhidrosis after thoracic sympathectomy, granular parakeratosis may be reactive to excess sweating and friction in the scrotal area.

Granular parakeratosis follows a waxing and waning pattern that may spontaneously resolve without any treatment; it also can follow a protracted course, as in a case with associated facial papules that persisted for 20 years.¹³ Topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with topical antifungal agents have been used for the treatment of granular parakeratosis with the goal of accelerating resolution.^2,14 However, the efficacy of these therapeutic interventions is limited, and no controlled trials are underway. Topical vitamin D analogues^15,16 and topical retinoids¹⁷ also have been reported with successful outcomes. Spontaneous resolution also has been observed in 2 different cases after previously being unresponsive to topical treatment.^18,19 Treatment with Clostridium botulinum toxin A resulted in complete remission of the disease observed at 6-month follow-up. The pharmacologic action of the neurotoxin disrupts the stimulation of eccrine sweat glands, resulting in decreased sweating, a known exacerbating factor of granular parakeratosis.²⁰

In summary, our case represents a unique clinical presentation of granular parakeratosis with classic histopathologic features. A high index of suspicion and a biopsy are vital to arriving at the correct diagnosis.

To the Editor:

A range of dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 have been reported, including nonspecific maculopapular exanthems, urticaria, and varicellalike eruptions.¹ Additionally, there have been sporadic accounts of cutaneous vasculopathic signs such as perniolike lesions, acro-ischemia, livedo reticularis, and retiform purpura.² We describe exuberant hemorrhagic bullae occurring on the extremities of 2 critically ill patients with COVID-19. We hypothesized that the bullae were vasculopathic in nature and possibly exacerbated by peripheral intravenous (IV)–related injury.

A 62-year-old woman with a history of diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was admitted to the intensive care unit for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 infection. Dermatology was consulted for evaluation of blisters on the right arm. A new peripheral IV line was inserted into the patient’s right forearm for treatment of secondary methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. The peripheral IV was inserted into the right proximal forearm for 2 days prior to development of ecchymosis and blisters. Intravenous medications included vancomycin, cefepime, methylprednisolone, and famotidine, as well as maintenance fluids (normal saline). Physical examination revealed extensive confluent ecchymoses with overlying tense bullae (Figure 1). Notable laboratory findings included an elevated D-dimer (peak of 8.67 μg/mL fibrinogen-equivalent units [FEUs], reference range <0.5 μg/mL FEU) and fibrinogen (789 mg/dL, reference range 200–400 mg/dL) levels. Three days later she developed worsening edema of the right arm, accompanied by more extensive bullae formation (Figure 2). Computed tomography of the right arm showed extensive subcutaneous stranding and subcutaneous edema. An orthopedic consultation determined that there was no compartment syndrome, and surgical intervention was not recommended. The patient’s course was complicated by multiorgan failure, and she died 18 days after admission.

Extravasation injury results from unintentional administration of potentially vesicant substances into tissues surrounding the intended vascular channel.⁴ The mechanism of action of these injuries is postulated to arise from direct tissue injury from cytotoxic substances, elevated osmotic pressure, and reduced blood supply if vasoconstrictive substances are infused.⁵ In our patients, these injuries also may have promoted vascular occlusion leading to the brisk reaction observed. Although ecchymoses typically are associated with hypocoagulable states, both of our patients were noted to have normal platelet levels throughout hospitalization. Additionally, findings of elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels point to a hypercoagulable state. However, there is a possibility of platelet dysfunction leading to the observed cutaneous findings of ecchymoses. Thrombocytopenia is a common finding in patients with COVID-19 and is found to be associated with increased in-hospital mortality.⁶ Additional study of these reactions is needed given the propensity for multiorgan failure and death in patients with COVID-19 from suspected diffuse microvascular damage.³

To the Editor:

A range of dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 have been reported, including nonspecific maculopapular exanthems, urticaria, and varicellalike eruptions.¹ Additionally, there have been sporadic accounts of cutaneous vasculopathic signs such as perniolike lesions, acro-ischemia, livedo reticularis, and retiform purpura.² We describe exuberant hemorrhagic bullae occurring on the extremities of 2 critically ill patients with COVID-19. We hypothesized that the bullae were vasculopathic in nature and possibly exacerbated by peripheral intravenous (IV)–related injury.

A 62-year-old woman with a history of diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was admitted to the intensive care unit for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 infection. Dermatology was consulted for evaluation of blisters on the right arm. A new peripheral IV line was inserted into the patient’s right forearm for treatment of secondary methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. The peripheral IV was inserted into the right proximal forearm for 2 days prior to development of ecchymosis and blisters. Intravenous medications included vancomycin, cefepime, methylprednisolone, and famotidine, as well as maintenance fluids (normal saline). Physical examination revealed extensive confluent ecchymoses with overlying tense bullae (Figure 1). Notable laboratory findings included an elevated D-dimer (peak of 8.67 μg/mL fibrinogen-equivalent units [FEUs], reference range <0.5 μg/mL FEU) and fibrinogen (789 mg/dL, reference range 200–400 mg/dL) levels. Three days later she developed worsening edema of the right arm, accompanied by more extensive bullae formation (Figure 2). Computed tomography of the right arm showed extensive subcutaneous stranding and subcutaneous edema. An orthopedic consultation determined that there was no compartment syndrome, and surgical intervention was not recommended. The patient’s course was complicated by multiorgan failure, and she died 18 days after admission.

Extravasation injury results from unintentional administration of potentially vesicant substances into tissues surrounding the intended vascular channel.⁴ The mechanism of action of these injuries is postulated to arise from direct tissue injury from cytotoxic substances, elevated osmotic pressure, and reduced blood supply if vasoconstrictive substances are infused.⁵ In our patients, these injuries also may have promoted vascular occlusion leading to the brisk reaction observed. Although ecchymoses typically are associated with hypocoagulable states, both of our patients were noted to have normal platelet levels throughout hospitalization. Additionally, findings of elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels point to a hypercoagulable state. However, there is a possibility of platelet dysfunction leading to the observed cutaneous findings of ecchymoses. Thrombocytopenia is a common finding in patients with COVID-19 and is found to be associated with increased in-hospital mortality.⁶ Additional study of these reactions is needed given the propensity for multiorgan failure and death in patients with COVID-19 from suspected diffuse microvascular damage.³

To the Editor:

A range of dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 have been reported, including nonspecific maculopapular exanthems, urticaria, and varicellalike eruptions.¹ Additionally, there have been sporadic accounts of cutaneous vasculopathic signs such as perniolike lesions, acro-ischemia, livedo reticularis, and retiform purpura.² We describe exuberant hemorrhagic bullae occurring on the extremities of 2 critically ill patients with COVID-19. We hypothesized that the bullae were vasculopathic in nature and possibly exacerbated by peripheral intravenous (IV)–related injury.

A 62-year-old woman with a history of diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was admitted to the intensive care unit for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 infection. Dermatology was consulted for evaluation of blisters on the right arm. A new peripheral IV line was inserted into the patient’s right forearm for treatment of secondary methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. The peripheral IV was inserted into the right proximal forearm for 2 days prior to development of ecchymosis and blisters. Intravenous medications included vancomycin, cefepime, methylprednisolone, and famotidine, as well as maintenance fluids (normal saline). Physical examination revealed extensive confluent ecchymoses with overlying tense bullae (Figure 1). Notable laboratory findings included an elevated D-dimer (peak of 8.67 μg/mL fibrinogen-equivalent units [FEUs], reference range <0.5 μg/mL FEU) and fibrinogen (789 mg/dL, reference range 200–400 mg/dL) levels. Three days later she developed worsening edema of the right arm, accompanied by more extensive bullae formation (Figure 2). Computed tomography of the right arm showed extensive subcutaneous stranding and subcutaneous edema. An orthopedic consultation determined that there was no compartment syndrome, and surgical intervention was not recommended. The patient’s course was complicated by multiorgan failure, and she died 18 days after admission.

Extravasation injury results from unintentional administration of potentially vesicant substances into tissues surrounding the intended vascular channel.⁴ The mechanism of action of these injuries is postulated to arise from direct tissue injury from cytotoxic substances, elevated osmotic pressure, and reduced blood supply if vasoconstrictive substances are infused.⁵ In our patients, these injuries also may have promoted vascular occlusion leading to the brisk reaction observed. Although ecchymoses typically are associated with hypocoagulable states, both of our patients were noted to have normal platelet levels throughout hospitalization. Additionally, findings of elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels point to a hypercoagulable state. However, there is a possibility of platelet dysfunction leading to the observed cutaneous findings of ecchymoses. Thrombocytopenia is a common finding in patients with COVID-19 and is found to be associated with increased in-hospital mortality.⁶ Additional study of these reactions is needed given the propensity for multiorgan failure and death in patients with COVID-19 from suspected diffuse microvascular damage.³

To the Editor:

A 62-year-old woman with a history of dermatomyositis (DM) presented to dermatology clinic for evaluation of multiple subcutaneous nodules. Two years prior to the current presentation, the patient was diagnosed by her primary care physician with DM based on clinical presentation. She initially developed body aches, muscle pain, and weakness of the upper extremities, specifically around the shoulders, and later the lower extremities, specifically around the thighs. The initial physical examination revealed pain with movement, tenderness to palpation, and proximal extremity weakness. The patient also noted a 50-lb weight loss. Over the next year, she noted dysphagia and developed multiple subcutaneous nodules on the right arm, chest, and left axilla. Subsequently, she developed a violaceous, hyperpigmented, periorbital rash and erythema of the anterior chest. She did not experience hair loss, oral ulcers, photosensitivity, or joint pain.

Laboratory testing in the months following the initial presentation revealed a creatine phosphokinase level of 436 U/L (reference range, 20–200 U/L), an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 60 mm/h (reference range, <31 mm/h), and an aldolase level of 10.4 U/L (reference range, 1.0–8.0 U/L). Lactate dehydrogenase and thyroid function tests were within normal limits. Antinuclear antibodies, anti–double-stranded DNA, anti-Smith antibodies, anti-ribonucleoprotein, anti–Jo-1 antibodies, and anti–smooth muscle antibodies all were negative. Total blood complement levels were elevated, but complement C3 and C4 were within normal limits. Imaging demonstrated normal chest radiographs, and a modified barium swallow confirmed swallowing dysfunction. A right quadricep muscle biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of DM. A malignancy work-up including mammography, colonoscopy, and computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis was negative aside from nodular opacities in the chest. She was treated with prednisone (60 mg, 0.9 mg/kg) daily and methotrexate (15–20 mg) weekly for several months. While the treatment attenuated the rash and improved weakness, the nodules persisted, prompting a referral to dermatology.

Physical examination at the dermatology clinic demonstrated the persistent subcutaneous nodules were indurated and bilaterally located on the arms, axillae, chest, abdomen, buttocks, and thighs with no pain or erythema (Figure). Laboratory tests demonstrated a normal creatine phosphokinase level, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (70 mm/h), and elevated aldolase level (9.3 U/L). Complement levels were elevated, though complement C3 and C4 remained within normal limits. Histopathology of nodules from the medial right upper arm and left thigh showed lobular panniculitis with fat necrosis, calcification, and interface changes. The patient was treated for several months with daily mycophenolate mofetil (1 g increased to 3 g) and daily hydroxychloroquine (200 mg) without any effect on the nodules.

A majority of the reported panniculitis cases in DM have responded to treatment with prednisone; however, treatment with prednisone has been more recalcitrant in other cases. Reports of successful additional therapies include methotrexate, cyclosporine, azathioprine, hydroxychloroquine, intravenous immunoglobulin, mepacrine, or a combination of these entities.^19,22 In most cases, improvement of the panniculitis and other DM symptoms occurred simultaneously.²⁵ It is noteworthy that the muscular symptoms often resolved more rapidly than cutaneous manifestations.³³ Few reported cases (6 including the current case) found a persistent panniculitis despite improvement and remission of the myositis.^3,5,10,11,30

Our patient was treated with both prednisone and methotrexate for several months, leading to remission of muscular symptoms (along with return to baseline of creatine phosphokinase), yet the panniculitis did not improve. The subcutaneous nodules also did not respond to treatment with mycophenolate mofetil and hydroxychloroquine.

Recent immunohistochemical studies have suggested that panniculitic lesions show better outcomes with immunosuppressive therapy when compared with other DM-related skin lesions.⁴⁰ However, this was not the case for our patient, who after months of immunosuppressive therapy showed complete resolution of the periorbital and chest rashes with persistence of multiple indurated subcutaneous nodules.

Our case adds to a number of reports of DM presenting with panniculitis. Our patient fit the classic demographic of previously reported cases, as she was an adult woman without evidence of underlying malignancy; however, our case remains an example of the therapeutic challenge that exists when encountering a persistent, treatment-resistant panniculitis despite resolution of all other features of DM.

TABLE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PDF OF THIS ARTICLE

To the Editor:

A 62-year-old woman with a history of dermatomyositis (DM) presented to dermatology clinic for evaluation of multiple subcutaneous nodules. Two years prior to the current presentation, the patient was diagnosed by her primary care physician with DM based on clinical presentation. She initially developed body aches, muscle pain, and weakness of the upper extremities, specifically around the shoulders, and later the lower extremities, specifically around the thighs. The initial physical examination revealed pain with movement, tenderness to palpation, and proximal extremity weakness. The patient also noted a 50-lb weight loss. Over the next year, she noted dysphagia and developed multiple subcutaneous nodules on the right arm, chest, and left axilla. Subsequently, she developed a violaceous, hyperpigmented, periorbital rash and erythema of the anterior chest. She did not experience hair loss, oral ulcers, photosensitivity, or joint pain.

Laboratory testing in the months following the initial presentation revealed a creatine phosphokinase level of 436 U/L (reference range, 20–200 U/L), an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 60 mm/h (reference range, <31 mm/h), and an aldolase level of 10.4 U/L (reference range, 1.0–8.0 U/L). Lactate dehydrogenase and thyroid function tests were within normal limits. Antinuclear antibodies, anti–double-stranded DNA, anti-Smith antibodies, anti-ribonucleoprotein, anti–Jo-1 antibodies, and anti–smooth muscle antibodies all were negative. Total blood complement levels were elevated, but complement C3 and C4 were within normal limits. Imaging demonstrated normal chest radiographs, and a modified barium swallow confirmed swallowing dysfunction. A right quadricep muscle biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of DM. A malignancy work-up including mammography, colonoscopy, and computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis was negative aside from nodular opacities in the chest. She was treated with prednisone (60 mg, 0.9 mg/kg) daily and methotrexate (15–20 mg) weekly for several months. While the treatment attenuated the rash and improved weakness, the nodules persisted, prompting a referral to dermatology.

Physical examination at the dermatology clinic demonstrated the persistent subcutaneous nodules were indurated and bilaterally located on the arms, axillae, chest, abdomen, buttocks, and thighs with no pain or erythema (Figure). Laboratory tests demonstrated a normal creatine phosphokinase level, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (70 mm/h), and elevated aldolase level (9.3 U/L). Complement levels were elevated, though complement C3 and C4 remained within normal limits. Histopathology of nodules from the medial right upper arm and left thigh showed lobular panniculitis with fat necrosis, calcification, and interface changes. The patient was treated for several months with daily mycophenolate mofetil (1 g increased to 3 g) and daily hydroxychloroquine (200 mg) without any effect on the nodules.

A majority of the reported panniculitis cases in DM have responded to treatment with prednisone; however, treatment with prednisone has been more recalcitrant in other cases. Reports of successful additional therapies include methotrexate, cyclosporine, azathioprine, hydroxychloroquine, intravenous immunoglobulin, mepacrine, or a combination of these entities.^19,22 In most cases, improvement of the panniculitis and other DM symptoms occurred simultaneously.²⁵ It is noteworthy that the muscular symptoms often resolved more rapidly than cutaneous manifestations.³³ Few reported cases (6 including the current case) found a persistent panniculitis despite improvement and remission of the myositis.^3,5,10,11,30

Our patient was treated with both prednisone and methotrexate for several months, leading to remission of muscular symptoms (along with return to baseline of creatine phosphokinase), yet the panniculitis did not improve. The subcutaneous nodules also did not respond to treatment with mycophenolate mofetil and hydroxychloroquine.

Recent immunohistochemical studies have suggested that panniculitic lesions show better outcomes with immunosuppressive therapy when compared with other DM-related skin lesions.⁴⁰ However, this was not the case for our patient, who after months of immunosuppressive therapy showed complete resolution of the periorbital and chest rashes with persistence of multiple indurated subcutaneous nodules.

Our case adds to a number of reports of DM presenting with panniculitis. Our patient fit the classic demographic of previously reported cases, as she was an adult woman without evidence of underlying malignancy; however, our case remains an example of the therapeutic challenge that exists when encountering a persistent, treatment-resistant panniculitis despite resolution of all other features of DM.

TABLE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PDF OF THIS ARTICLE

To the Editor:

A 62-year-old woman with a history of dermatomyositis (DM) presented to dermatology clinic for evaluation of multiple subcutaneous nodules. Two years prior to the current presentation, the patient was diagnosed by her primary care physician with DM based on clinical presentation. She initially developed body aches, muscle pain, and weakness of the upper extremities, specifically around the shoulders, and later the lower extremities, specifically around the thighs. The initial physical examination revealed pain with movement, tenderness to palpation, and proximal extremity weakness. The patient also noted a 50-lb weight loss. Over the next year, she noted dysphagia and developed multiple subcutaneous nodules on the right arm, chest, and left axilla. Subsequently, she developed a violaceous, hyperpigmented, periorbital rash and erythema of the anterior chest. She did not experience hair loss, oral ulcers, photosensitivity, or joint pain.

Laboratory testing in the months following the initial presentation revealed a creatine phosphokinase level of 436 U/L (reference range, 20–200 U/L), an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 60 mm/h (reference range, <31 mm/h), and an aldolase level of 10.4 U/L (reference range, 1.0–8.0 U/L). Lactate dehydrogenase and thyroid function tests were within normal limits. Antinuclear antibodies, anti–double-stranded DNA, anti-Smith antibodies, anti-ribonucleoprotein, anti–Jo-1 antibodies, and anti–smooth muscle antibodies all were negative. Total blood complement levels were elevated, but complement C3 and C4 were within normal limits. Imaging demonstrated normal chest radiographs, and a modified barium swallow confirmed swallowing dysfunction. A right quadricep muscle biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of DM. A malignancy work-up including mammography, colonoscopy, and computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis was negative aside from nodular opacities in the chest. She was treated with prednisone (60 mg, 0.9 mg/kg) daily and methotrexate (15–20 mg) weekly for several months. While the treatment attenuated the rash and improved weakness, the nodules persisted, prompting a referral to dermatology.

Physical examination at the dermatology clinic demonstrated the persistent subcutaneous nodules were indurated and bilaterally located on the arms, axillae, chest, abdomen, buttocks, and thighs with no pain or erythema (Figure). Laboratory tests demonstrated a normal creatine phosphokinase level, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (70 mm/h), and elevated aldolase level (9.3 U/L). Complement levels were elevated, though complement C3 and C4 remained within normal limits. Histopathology of nodules from the medial right upper arm and left thigh showed lobular panniculitis with fat necrosis, calcification, and interface changes. The patient was treated for several months with daily mycophenolate mofetil (1 g increased to 3 g) and daily hydroxychloroquine (200 mg) without any effect on the nodules.

A majority of the reported panniculitis cases in DM have responded to treatment with prednisone; however, treatment with prednisone has been more recalcitrant in other cases. Reports of successful additional therapies include methotrexate, cyclosporine, azathioprine, hydroxychloroquine, intravenous immunoglobulin, mepacrine, or a combination of these entities.^19,22 In most cases, improvement of the panniculitis and other DM symptoms occurred simultaneously.²⁵ It is noteworthy that the muscular symptoms often resolved more rapidly than cutaneous manifestations.³³ Few reported cases (6 including the current case) found a persistent panniculitis despite improvement and remission of the myositis.^3,5,10,11,30

Our patient was treated with both prednisone and methotrexate for several months, leading to remission of muscular symptoms (along with return to baseline of creatine phosphokinase), yet the panniculitis did not improve. The subcutaneous nodules also did not respond to treatment with mycophenolate mofetil and hydroxychloroquine.

Recent immunohistochemical studies have suggested that panniculitic lesions show better outcomes with immunosuppressive therapy when compared with other DM-related skin lesions.⁴⁰ However, this was not the case for our patient, who after months of immunosuppressive therapy showed complete resolution of the periorbital and chest rashes with persistence of multiple indurated subcutaneous nodules.

Our case adds to a number of reports of DM presenting with panniculitis. Our patient fit the classic demographic of previously reported cases, as she was an adult woman without evidence of underlying malignancy; however, our case remains an example of the therapeutic challenge that exists when encountering a persistent, treatment-resistant panniculitis despite resolution of all other features of DM.

TABLE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PDF OF THIS ARTICLE

To the Editor:

Etanercept is an immune-modulating drug used for the treatment of a variety of diseases including psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. It is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) fusion protein consisting of an extracellular domain of the p75 TNF receptor and the Fc portion of human IgG.¹ Etanercept is well known for its immunosuppressive side effects. A handful of case reports have provided evidence of squamous cell cancers in the setting of etanercept therapy. The most comprehensive description was a case series by Brewer et al² describing 4 patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that developed 1 to 17 months after the initiation of etanercept therapy. We present a case of a patient diagnosed with psoriasis and concomitant porokeratosis who developed multiple SCCs and squamous proliferations after initiation of etanercept therapy.

A 66-year-old man was referred to our clinic for treatment of psoriasis, as noted on a biopsy of the right ankle diagnosed several years prior. He was being treated with etanercept 50 mg twice weekly. Other treatments included calcipotriene–betamethasone dipropionate, salicylic acid gel, intralesional triamcinolone, clobetasol, and urea 40%. Physical examination revealed multiple erythematous tender nodules with hyperkeratotic scale distributed on the right arm and leg (Figure 1) that were concerning for SCC. Biopsies from 6 lesions revealed multiple SCC/keratoacanthomas (KAs) with verrucous features (Figure 2). Primers for human papillomavirus (HPV) 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, and 51 were all negative. At that time, etanercept was discontinued. The patient was referred for Mohs micrographic surgery and underwent excision of several SCC lesions including an approximately 7-cm SCC on the right ankle (Figure 1B). Positron emission tomography/computed tomography found hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy. A follow-up biopsy of the inguinal nodes identified no malignant cells. Given their multiplicity, the patient was initiated on a prolonged course of a retinoid with acitretin 35 mg daily. The clearance of the large 7-cm lesion with a single stage of Mohs micrographic surgery directed suspicion to a pseudoepitheliomatous or HPV-induced cause for the lesions. Rereview of the original 6 biopsies indicated 1 definitive SCC on the right wrist, 2 KAs, and 3 that were most consistent with verruca vulgaris. At 1-year follow-up, most of the hyperkeratotic lesions had resolved with continued acitretin. Baseline porokeratosis lesions that were abundantly present on the arms and legs resolved by 1-year follow-up (Figure 3A).

The link between classic porokeratosis and the development of squamous cell proliferations is well established. Ninomiya et al³ noted a possible mechanism of p53 overexpression in the epidermis of porokeratotic lesions that may make the lesions particularly susceptible to the development of immunosuppression-induced SCC. Etanercept is an immune-modulating drug with well-known immunosuppressive side effects including reactivation of HPV as well as the development of SCCs.

Our patient initially was diagnosed with psoriasis and etanercept was initiated. The presence of coexistent porokeratosis likely predisposed him to etanercept-induced squamous proliferations including 2 SCCs and verrucous lesions, with histologic features suggesting SCC/KA. Histopathology revealed a cornoid lamella in SCC (Figure 3B), suggesting development of malignancy within epithelial clones, as noted by Lee et al.⁴

Targeted systemic therapies may lead to the formation of SCCs. The association between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) kinase inhibitors and SCC formation is well known. For instance, sorafenib—a multikinase inhibitor that is downstream in the EGFR pathway—has been noted to induce epidermal growths including KAs and SCCs.⁵ There has been no definitive causal relationship identified between the development of SCC and TNF-α inhibitors. It has been suggested that perhaps there is an unmasking effect, as subclinical SCC manifests after TNF-α inhibition that leads to SCC development. Discontinuation of etanercept and resolution of lesions highlights a potential role of TNF-α inhibition and tumorigenesis of SCCs, especially in the background of porokeratosis. Vigilance for development of immunosuppression-induced malignancy, especially squamous cell proliferations, has become exceedingly important with exponentially increasing use of biologic therapies in medicine.

To the Editor:

Etanercept is an immune-modulating drug used for the treatment of a variety of diseases including psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. It is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) fusion protein consisting of an extracellular domain of the p75 TNF receptor and the Fc portion of human IgG.¹ Etanercept is well known for its immunosuppressive side effects. A handful of case reports have provided evidence of squamous cell cancers in the setting of etanercept therapy. The most comprehensive description was a case series by Brewer et al² describing 4 patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that developed 1 to 17 months after the initiation of etanercept therapy. We present a case of a patient diagnosed with psoriasis and concomitant porokeratosis who developed multiple SCCs and squamous proliferations after initiation of etanercept therapy.

A 66-year-old man was referred to our clinic for treatment of psoriasis, as noted on a biopsy of the right ankle diagnosed several years prior. He was being treated with etanercept 50 mg twice weekly. Other treatments included calcipotriene–betamethasone dipropionate, salicylic acid gel, intralesional triamcinolone, clobetasol, and urea 40%. Physical examination revealed multiple erythematous tender nodules with hyperkeratotic scale distributed on the right arm and leg (Figure 1) that were concerning for SCC. Biopsies from 6 lesions revealed multiple SCC/keratoacanthomas (KAs) with verrucous features (Figure 2). Primers for human papillomavirus (HPV) 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, and 51 were all negative. At that time, etanercept was discontinued. The patient was referred for Mohs micrographic surgery and underwent excision of several SCC lesions including an approximately 7-cm SCC on the right ankle (Figure 1B). Positron emission tomography/computed tomography found hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy. A follow-up biopsy of the inguinal nodes identified no malignant cells. Given their multiplicity, the patient was initiated on a prolonged course of a retinoid with acitretin 35 mg daily. The clearance of the large 7-cm lesion with a single stage of Mohs micrographic surgery directed suspicion to a pseudoepitheliomatous or HPV-induced cause for the lesions. Rereview of the original 6 biopsies indicated 1 definitive SCC on the right wrist, 2 KAs, and 3 that were most consistent with verruca vulgaris. At 1-year follow-up, most of the hyperkeratotic lesions had resolved with continued acitretin. Baseline porokeratosis lesions that were abundantly present on the arms and legs resolved by 1-year follow-up (Figure 3A).

The link between classic porokeratosis and the development of squamous cell proliferations is well established. Ninomiya et al³ noted a possible mechanism of p53 overexpression in the epidermis of porokeratotic lesions that may make the lesions particularly susceptible to the development of immunosuppression-induced SCC. Etanercept is an immune-modulating drug with well-known immunosuppressive side effects including reactivation of HPV as well as the development of SCCs.

Our patient initially was diagnosed with psoriasis and etanercept was initiated. The presence of coexistent porokeratosis likely predisposed him to etanercept-induced squamous proliferations including 2 SCCs and verrucous lesions, with histologic features suggesting SCC/KA. Histopathology revealed a cornoid lamella in SCC (Figure 3B), suggesting development of malignancy within epithelial clones, as noted by Lee et al.⁴

Targeted systemic therapies may lead to the formation of SCCs. The association between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) kinase inhibitors and SCC formation is well known. For instance, sorafenib—a multikinase inhibitor that is downstream in the EGFR pathway—has been noted to induce epidermal growths including KAs and SCCs.⁵ There has been no definitive causal relationship identified between the development of SCC and TNF-α inhibitors. It has been suggested that perhaps there is an unmasking effect, as subclinical SCC manifests after TNF-α inhibition that leads to SCC development. Discontinuation of etanercept and resolution of lesions highlights a potential role of TNF-α inhibition and tumorigenesis of SCCs, especially in the background of porokeratosis. Vigilance for development of immunosuppression-induced malignancy, especially squamous cell proliferations, has become exceedingly important with exponentially increasing use of biologic therapies in medicine.

To the Editor:

Etanercept is an immune-modulating drug used for the treatment of a variety of diseases including psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. It is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) fusion protein consisting of an extracellular domain of the p75 TNF receptor and the Fc portion of human IgG.¹ Etanercept is well known for its immunosuppressive side effects. A handful of case reports have provided evidence of squamous cell cancers in the setting of etanercept therapy. The most comprehensive description was a case series by Brewer et al² describing 4 patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that developed 1 to 17 months after the initiation of etanercept therapy. We present a case of a patient diagnosed with psoriasis and concomitant porokeratosis who developed multiple SCCs and squamous proliferations after initiation of etanercept therapy.

A 66-year-old man was referred to our clinic for treatment of psoriasis, as noted on a biopsy of the right ankle diagnosed several years prior. He was being treated with etanercept 50 mg twice weekly. Other treatments included calcipotriene–betamethasone dipropionate, salicylic acid gel, intralesional triamcinolone, clobetasol, and urea 40%. Physical examination revealed multiple erythematous tender nodules with hyperkeratotic scale distributed on the right arm and leg (Figure 1) that were concerning for SCC. Biopsies from 6 lesions revealed multiple SCC/keratoacanthomas (KAs) with verrucous features (Figure 2). Primers for human papillomavirus (HPV) 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, and 51 were all negative. At that time, etanercept was discontinued. The patient was referred for Mohs micrographic surgery and underwent excision of several SCC lesions including an approximately 7-cm SCC on the right ankle (Figure 1B). Positron emission tomography/computed tomography found hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy. A follow-up biopsy of the inguinal nodes identified no malignant cells. Given their multiplicity, the patient was initiated on a prolonged course of a retinoid with acitretin 35 mg daily. The clearance of the large 7-cm lesion with a single stage of Mohs micrographic surgery directed suspicion to a pseudoepitheliomatous or HPV-induced cause for the lesions. Rereview of the original 6 biopsies indicated 1 definitive SCC on the right wrist, 2 KAs, and 3 that were most consistent with verruca vulgaris. At 1-year follow-up, most of the hyperkeratotic lesions had resolved with continued acitretin. Baseline porokeratosis lesions that were abundantly present on the arms and legs resolved by 1-year follow-up (Figure 3A).

The link between classic porokeratosis and the development of squamous cell proliferations is well established. Ninomiya et al³ noted a possible mechanism of p53 overexpression in the epidermis of porokeratotic lesions that may make the lesions particularly susceptible to the development of immunosuppression-induced SCC. Etanercept is an immune-modulating drug with well-known immunosuppressive side effects including reactivation of HPV as well as the development of SCCs.

Our patient initially was diagnosed with psoriasis and etanercept was initiated. The presence of coexistent porokeratosis likely predisposed him to etanercept-induced squamous proliferations including 2 SCCs and verrucous lesions, with histologic features suggesting SCC/KA. Histopathology revealed a cornoid lamella in SCC (Figure 3B), suggesting development of malignancy within epithelial clones, as noted by Lee et al.⁴

Targeted systemic therapies may lead to the formation of SCCs. The association between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) kinase inhibitors and SCC formation is well known. For instance, sorafenib—a multikinase inhibitor that is downstream in the EGFR pathway—has been noted to induce epidermal growths including KAs and SCCs.⁵ There has been no definitive causal relationship identified between the development of SCC and TNF-α inhibitors. It has been suggested that perhaps there is an unmasking effect, as subclinical SCC manifests after TNF-α inhibition that leads to SCC development. Discontinuation of etanercept and resolution of lesions highlights a potential role of TNF-α inhibition and tumorigenesis of SCCs, especially in the background of porokeratosis. Vigilance for development of immunosuppression-induced malignancy, especially squamous cell proliferations, has become exceedingly important with exponentially increasing use of biologic therapies in medicine.