Mixed Topics

To the Editor:

Idiopathic gingival papillokeratosis with crypt formation (IGPC) is an uncommon benign condition that first was reported in 1967.¹ The condition manifests as white plaques with a papillary appearance on the gingival tissue. While data on the prevalence of IGPC are limited, it is known to occur more frequently in younger patients (ie, 9-24 years^1-3) and has been linked to use of orthodontic appliances.^3,4 The lesions typically are asymptomatic with a bilateral appearance along the mucogingival junction. Research on IGPC has not identified the underlying mechanisms that trigger the hyperkeratinization and papillary alterations within the gingival tissue.

Management of IGPC can be challenging due to the rarity of the condition and its uncertain pathogenesis. Wiping or brushing the affected area offers only temporary improvement of symptoms and the appearance of the lesions. Surgical excision is another option; however, it can result in aesthetic and/or functional periodontal defects.² Alternately, employing methods such as wiping or brushing the affected area offers only transient and temporary results in managing the condition. Additional investigative approaches and clinical studies are needed to identify more effective therapeutic modalities for the management of IGPC, particularly in pediatric patients, in whom aesthetic results may take on a heightened importance.^1-3 We report a case of IGPC in which cryotherapy yielded satisfactory results with no recurrence of the lesions.

A 32-year-old woman presented to the dental clinic with white spots on the gingiva of 5 months’ duration. The patient reported a history of smoking cigarettes (3 packs per year) and drinking alcohol in social situations; her medical history was otherwise unremarkable. Clinical examination of the oral cavity revealed a bilateral, irregular, verrucouslike plaque throughout the vestibular upper attached gingiva. An incisional biopsy from the attached gingiva between teeth 13 and 23 was performed. Histopathologic analysis revealed parakeratosis and papillary acanthosis of the gingival mucosa associated with multifocal epithelial invaginations resembling crypts as well as long tapered epithelial ridges with no inflammation in the lamina propria. Based on the histopathologic findings, a diagnosis of IGPC was made (Figure 1).

Given the patient’s clinical presentation, we suggested treatment with cryotherapy as a minimally invasive option that would preserve the gingival architecture and aesthetics while avoiding the potential complications of surgical excision. The patient consented to the procedure, and liquid nitrogen was administered through a handheld device using a 0.6-mm aperture spray tip. During application, the spray tip was positioned at a distance of 0.5 to 1.0 cm from the labial marginal gingiva at about a 45° angle. The freeze/thaw cycle involved a continuous one-way spray application of liquid nitrogen onto the lesion until solid ice formed over the entire area, followed by a waiting period until gradual thawing occurred.

A total of 5 cryotherapy sessions were conducted over an 8-week period; no recurrence of the lesions was observed during a 2-year follow-up period (Figure 2).

We present our case to add to the body of knowledge regarding management options for IGPC, specifically cryotherapy. Historically, brushing with a toothbrush and surgical excision have been the most commonly used interventions.² Gently brushing the affected areas can help stimulate local blood circulation, which can improve the health of the gingival tissue, promote oxygenation and delivery of nutrients to the cells, and aid in the removal of metabolic waste. Surgical excision is the most commonly used treatment method for IGPC to ensure that the lesions are safely and completely removed; however, this option can result in aesthetic and/or functional periodontal defects. There also is a risk for recurrence, although Noonan et al² reported no recurrence 4 years after performing a surgical excision for IGPC.

Cryotherapy reduces tissue sensitivity, provides local anesthesia, and reduces inflammation in the oral mucosa. Moreover, cryotherapy accelerates healing by stimulating vasoconstriction and reactive vasodilation, thus enhancing blood flow, oxygenation, and nutrient delivery for faster cell regeneration of the oral mucosa.^4,5 Cryotherapy generally is regarded as a simple noninvasive procedure that is relatively safe when performed by qualified professionals.^4,5 It can provide benefits such as minimal patient discomfort, rapid recovery, and potential reduction of complications associated with more invasive procedures.⁵

The efficacy of cryotherapy for IGPC may vary based on lesion severity, individual patient response, and the need for repeated treatment sessions. Robust scientific evidence concerning the long-term efficacy of cryotherapy as a treatment for IGPC is limited due to the rarity of this condition.

The etiopathogenesis of IGPC has been hypothesized to involve both genetic and environmental factors with equal significance. This suggestion is based on reports of IGPC occurring in multiple members of the same family and animal model studies indicating that gingival tissue is sensitive to environmental influences, such as nutritional factors.^1,6 However, it is important to emphasize that these hypotheses remain speculative, and the true etiopathogenesis of IGPC remains uncertain.⁶ Microscopically, biopsy fragments from suspected cases of IGPC reveal gingival mucosa characterized by parakeratosis and papillary acanthosis accompanied by multifocal epithelial invaginations resembling crypts.² Additionally, elongated and tapered epithelial ridges without inflammation in the lamina propria may be observed (as in our case), favoring the diagnosis of IGPC.³ The absence of inflammation is noteworthy because it suggests that the observed alterations are not attributed to typical inflammatory processes seen in some gingival conditions.

The limited number of studies reporting successful treatment outcomes with long-term follow-up for IGPC cases underscores the need for further exploration of effective treatment options. Cryotherapy emerges as a promising minimally invasive therapeutic approach, with our case offering support for its potential application. Additional research and clinical trials are essential to validate its efficacy and improve our understanding of cryotherapy as a treatment modality for IGPC lesions.

To the Editor:

Idiopathic gingival papillokeratosis with crypt formation (IGPC) is an uncommon benign condition that first was reported in 1967.¹ The condition manifests as white plaques with a papillary appearance on the gingival tissue. While data on the prevalence of IGPC are limited, it is known to occur more frequently in younger patients (ie, 9-24 years^1-3) and has been linked to use of orthodontic appliances.^3,4 The lesions typically are asymptomatic with a bilateral appearance along the mucogingival junction. Research on IGPC has not identified the underlying mechanisms that trigger the hyperkeratinization and papillary alterations within the gingival tissue.

Management of IGPC can be challenging due to the rarity of the condition and its uncertain pathogenesis. Wiping or brushing the affected area offers only temporary improvement of symptoms and the appearance of the lesions. Surgical excision is another option; however, it can result in aesthetic and/or functional periodontal defects.² Alternately, employing methods such as wiping or brushing the affected area offers only transient and temporary results in managing the condition. Additional investigative approaches and clinical studies are needed to identify more effective therapeutic modalities for the management of IGPC, particularly in pediatric patients, in whom aesthetic results may take on a heightened importance.^1-3 We report a case of IGPC in which cryotherapy yielded satisfactory results with no recurrence of the lesions.

A 32-year-old woman presented to the dental clinic with white spots on the gingiva of 5 months’ duration. The patient reported a history of smoking cigarettes (3 packs per year) and drinking alcohol in social situations; her medical history was otherwise unremarkable. Clinical examination of the oral cavity revealed a bilateral, irregular, verrucouslike plaque throughout the vestibular upper attached gingiva. An incisional biopsy from the attached gingiva between teeth 13 and 23 was performed. Histopathologic analysis revealed parakeratosis and papillary acanthosis of the gingival mucosa associated with multifocal epithelial invaginations resembling crypts as well as long tapered epithelial ridges with no inflammation in the lamina propria. Based on the histopathologic findings, a diagnosis of IGPC was made (Figure 1).

Given the patient’s clinical presentation, we suggested treatment with cryotherapy as a minimally invasive option that would preserve the gingival architecture and aesthetics while avoiding the potential complications of surgical excision. The patient consented to the procedure, and liquid nitrogen was administered through a handheld device using a 0.6-mm aperture spray tip. During application, the spray tip was positioned at a distance of 0.5 to 1.0 cm from the labial marginal gingiva at about a 45° angle. The freeze/thaw cycle involved a continuous one-way spray application of liquid nitrogen onto the lesion until solid ice formed over the entire area, followed by a waiting period until gradual thawing occurred.

A total of 5 cryotherapy sessions were conducted over an 8-week period; no recurrence of the lesions was observed during a 2-year follow-up period (Figure 2).

We present our case to add to the body of knowledge regarding management options for IGPC, specifically cryotherapy. Historically, brushing with a toothbrush and surgical excision have been the most commonly used interventions.² Gently brushing the affected areas can help stimulate local blood circulation, which can improve the health of the gingival tissue, promote oxygenation and delivery of nutrients to the cells, and aid in the removal of metabolic waste. Surgical excision is the most commonly used treatment method for IGPC to ensure that the lesions are safely and completely removed; however, this option can result in aesthetic and/or functional periodontal defects. There also is a risk for recurrence, although Noonan et al² reported no recurrence 4 years after performing a surgical excision for IGPC.

Cryotherapy reduces tissue sensitivity, provides local anesthesia, and reduces inflammation in the oral mucosa. Moreover, cryotherapy accelerates healing by stimulating vasoconstriction and reactive vasodilation, thus enhancing blood flow, oxygenation, and nutrient delivery for faster cell regeneration of the oral mucosa.^4,5 Cryotherapy generally is regarded as a simple noninvasive procedure that is relatively safe when performed by qualified professionals.^4,5 It can provide benefits such as minimal patient discomfort, rapid recovery, and potential reduction of complications associated with more invasive procedures.⁵

The efficacy of cryotherapy for IGPC may vary based on lesion severity, individual patient response, and the need for repeated treatment sessions. Robust scientific evidence concerning the long-term efficacy of cryotherapy as a treatment for IGPC is limited due to the rarity of this condition.

The etiopathogenesis of IGPC has been hypothesized to involve both genetic and environmental factors with equal significance. This suggestion is based on reports of IGPC occurring in multiple members of the same family and animal model studies indicating that gingival tissue is sensitive to environmental influences, such as nutritional factors.^1,6 However, it is important to emphasize that these hypotheses remain speculative, and the true etiopathogenesis of IGPC remains uncertain.⁶ Microscopically, biopsy fragments from suspected cases of IGPC reveal gingival mucosa characterized by parakeratosis and papillary acanthosis accompanied by multifocal epithelial invaginations resembling crypts.² Additionally, elongated and tapered epithelial ridges without inflammation in the lamina propria may be observed (as in our case), favoring the diagnosis of IGPC.³ The absence of inflammation is noteworthy because it suggests that the observed alterations are not attributed to typical inflammatory processes seen in some gingival conditions.

The limited number of studies reporting successful treatment outcomes with long-term follow-up for IGPC cases underscores the need for further exploration of effective treatment options. Cryotherapy emerges as a promising minimally invasive therapeutic approach, with our case offering support for its potential application. Additional research and clinical trials are essential to validate its efficacy and improve our understanding of cryotherapy as a treatment modality for IGPC lesions.

To the Editor:

Idiopathic gingival papillokeratosis with crypt formation (IGPC) is an uncommon benign condition that first was reported in 1967.¹ The condition manifests as white plaques with a papillary appearance on the gingival tissue. While data on the prevalence of IGPC are limited, it is known to occur more frequently in younger patients (ie, 9-24 years^1-3) and has been linked to use of orthodontic appliances.^3,4 The lesions typically are asymptomatic with a bilateral appearance along the mucogingival junction. Research on IGPC has not identified the underlying mechanisms that trigger the hyperkeratinization and papillary alterations within the gingival tissue.

Management of IGPC can be challenging due to the rarity of the condition and its uncertain pathogenesis. Wiping or brushing the affected area offers only temporary improvement of symptoms and the appearance of the lesions. Surgical excision is another option; however, it can result in aesthetic and/or functional periodontal defects.² Alternately, employing methods such as wiping or brushing the affected area offers only transient and temporary results in managing the condition. Additional investigative approaches and clinical studies are needed to identify more effective therapeutic modalities for the management of IGPC, particularly in pediatric patients, in whom aesthetic results may take on a heightened importance.^1-3 We report a case of IGPC in which cryotherapy yielded satisfactory results with no recurrence of the lesions.

A 32-year-old woman presented to the dental clinic with white spots on the gingiva of 5 months’ duration. The patient reported a history of smoking cigarettes (3 packs per year) and drinking alcohol in social situations; her medical history was otherwise unremarkable. Clinical examination of the oral cavity revealed a bilateral, irregular, verrucouslike plaque throughout the vestibular upper attached gingiva. An incisional biopsy from the attached gingiva between teeth 13 and 23 was performed. Histopathologic analysis revealed parakeratosis and papillary acanthosis of the gingival mucosa associated with multifocal epithelial invaginations resembling crypts as well as long tapered epithelial ridges with no inflammation in the lamina propria. Based on the histopathologic findings, a diagnosis of IGPC was made (Figure 1).

Given the patient’s clinical presentation, we suggested treatment with cryotherapy as a minimally invasive option that would preserve the gingival architecture and aesthetics while avoiding the potential complications of surgical excision. The patient consented to the procedure, and liquid nitrogen was administered through a handheld device using a 0.6-mm aperture spray tip. During application, the spray tip was positioned at a distance of 0.5 to 1.0 cm from the labial marginal gingiva at about a 45° angle. The freeze/thaw cycle involved a continuous one-way spray application of liquid nitrogen onto the lesion until solid ice formed over the entire area, followed by a waiting period until gradual thawing occurred.

A total of 5 cryotherapy sessions were conducted over an 8-week period; no recurrence of the lesions was observed during a 2-year follow-up period (Figure 2).

We present our case to add to the body of knowledge regarding management options for IGPC, specifically cryotherapy. Historically, brushing with a toothbrush and surgical excision have been the most commonly used interventions.² Gently brushing the affected areas can help stimulate local blood circulation, which can improve the health of the gingival tissue, promote oxygenation and delivery of nutrients to the cells, and aid in the removal of metabolic waste. Surgical excision is the most commonly used treatment method for IGPC to ensure that the lesions are safely and completely removed; however, this option can result in aesthetic and/or functional periodontal defects. There also is a risk for recurrence, although Noonan et al² reported no recurrence 4 years after performing a surgical excision for IGPC.

Cryotherapy reduces tissue sensitivity, provides local anesthesia, and reduces inflammation in the oral mucosa. Moreover, cryotherapy accelerates healing by stimulating vasoconstriction and reactive vasodilation, thus enhancing blood flow, oxygenation, and nutrient delivery for faster cell regeneration of the oral mucosa.^4,5 Cryotherapy generally is regarded as a simple noninvasive procedure that is relatively safe when performed by qualified professionals.^4,5 It can provide benefits such as minimal patient discomfort, rapid recovery, and potential reduction of complications associated with more invasive procedures.⁵

The efficacy of cryotherapy for IGPC may vary based on lesion severity, individual patient response, and the need for repeated treatment sessions. Robust scientific evidence concerning the long-term efficacy of cryotherapy as a treatment for IGPC is limited due to the rarity of this condition.

The etiopathogenesis of IGPC has been hypothesized to involve both genetic and environmental factors with equal significance. This suggestion is based on reports of IGPC occurring in multiple members of the same family and animal model studies indicating that gingival tissue is sensitive to environmental influences, such as nutritional factors.^1,6 However, it is important to emphasize that these hypotheses remain speculative, and the true etiopathogenesis of IGPC remains uncertain.⁶ Microscopically, biopsy fragments from suspected cases of IGPC reveal gingival mucosa characterized by parakeratosis and papillary acanthosis accompanied by multifocal epithelial invaginations resembling crypts.² Additionally, elongated and tapered epithelial ridges without inflammation in the lamina propria may be observed (as in our case), favoring the diagnosis of IGPC.³ The absence of inflammation is noteworthy because it suggests that the observed alterations are not attributed to typical inflammatory processes seen in some gingival conditions.

The limited number of studies reporting successful treatment outcomes with long-term follow-up for IGPC cases underscores the need for further exploration of effective treatment options. Cryotherapy emerges as a promising minimally invasive therapeutic approach, with our case offering support for its potential application. Additional research and clinical trials are essential to validate its efficacy and improve our understanding of cryotherapy as a treatment modality for IGPC lesions.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Atypical Spitz Tumor

The shave biopsy revealed extensive dermal proliferation with spitzoid cytomorphology containing large, spindled nuclei; prominent nucleoli; and abundant homogenous cytoplasm arranged in haphazard fascicles. The proliferation was associated with prominent pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia of the overlying epidermis, and anaplastic lymphoma kinase immunohistochemistry showed diffuse strong positivity. Fluorescence in situ hybridization confirmed fusion of the tropomyosin 3 (TPM3) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genes, which finalized the diagnosis of an ALK-mutated atypical spitz tumor. Due to the location and size of the lesion, Mohs micrographic surgery was performed to excise the tumor and clear the margins.

Spitz nevi are uncommon benign melanocytic neoplasms that typically occur in pediatric populations.¹ Atypical spitz nevi comprised fewer than 17% of all childhood melanocytic nevi in the United States and can be considered in the broader category of spitzoid tumors. Spitz nevi are divided into 3 classes: Spitz nevus, atypical Spitz nevus, and spitzoid melanoma. Atypical Spitz nevi have typical Spitz nevus and spitzoid melanoma features and often can be difficult to distinguish on dermoscopy. Malignant Spitz tumors typically occur in the fifth decade of life, though the age distribution can vary widely.¹

Black patients are less likely to be diagnosed with Spitz nevi, potentially due to a lower prevalence in this population, thus limiting the clinician’s clinical exposure and leading to increased rates of misdiagnoses.² Spitz nevi usually manifest as well-circumscribed, dome-shaped papules and frequently are described as pink to red due to increased vascularity and limited melanin content¹; however, these lesions may appear more violaceous, dusky, or dark brown in darker skin types. Additionally, approximately 71% of patients in a clinical review of Spitz nevi had a pigmented lesion, ranging from light brown to black.³ It is important for dermatologists to understand that the contrast in color between the nevus and the surrounding skin may not be as striking, prominent, or clinically concerning, particularly in darker skin types, such as in our patient.

Spitz nevi frequently manifest as rapidly growing solitary lesions most frequently developing in the lower legs (shown in 41% of lesions in one report).⁴ However, a recent retrospective review indicated that Spitz nevi in Black patients most commonly were found on the upper extremities, as was seen in our patient.² Compared to typical and common Spitz nevi, atypical Spitz nevi often are greater than 10 mm in diameter and have features of ulceration.

Diagnosing atypical spitzoid melanocytic lesions requires adequate clinical suspicion and confirmation via biopsy. Under dermoscopy, typical Spitz nevi often display a starburst or globular pattern with pinpoint vessels, though it can have variable manifestations of both patterns. Atypical Spitz nevi can be challenging to distinguish from melanoma on dermoscopy since both conditions can have atypical pigment networks or structureless homogenous areas.¹ Consequently, there often is a lower threshold for biopsy and possible follow-up excision for atypical Spitz nevi. Histopathology of atypical Spitz nevi includes epithelioid and spindle melanocytes but can share features of melanomas, including areas of prominent pagetoid spread, asymmetry, and poor circumscription.⁵ Furthermore, atypical Spitz nevi with ALK gene fusion, as seen in our patient, have been shown in the literature to demonstrate distinct histopathologic features, such as wedge-shaped extension into the dermis or a bulbous lower border that can resemble pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia.⁶

The differential diagnosis for this rapidly growing scaly nodule also should include pyogenic granuloma, bacillary angiomatosis, Kaposi sarcoma, and amelanotic melanoma. Pyogenic granuloma is a rapidly growing, benign, vascular tumor that often becomes ulcerated and can occur in any age group.⁷ Pyogenic granuloma frequently appears at sites of trauma as a solitary, bright pink to red, friable, pedunculated papule and often manifests on the arms, hands, and face, similar to atypical Spitz nevi, though they can appear anywhere on the body. Histology shows a lobular capillary network with a central feeder vessel.⁷

Bacillary angiomatosis is an uncommon cutaneous infection associated with vascular proliferation and neovascularization due to the gram-negative organism Bartonella henselae.⁸ Bacillary nodules typically are reddish to purple and appear on the arms, sometimes with central ulceration and bleeding. Patients may present with multiple papules and nodules of varying sizes, as the lesions can arise in crops and follow a sporotrichoid pattern. Most patients with bacillary angiomatosis are immunosuppressed, though it rarely can affect immunocompetent patients. Histologically, bacillary angiomatosis is similar to pyogenic granuloma, though Gram or Warthin-Starry stains can help differentiate B henselae.⁸

Kaposi sarcoma is a malignant vascular neoplasm that often manifests in immunocompromised patients as violaceous, purple, or red patches, plaques, and nodules on the skin or oral mucosa. Histopathology shows spindle cell proliferation of irregular complex vascular channels dissecting through the dermis. Human herpesvirus 8 immunohistochemistry can be used to confirm diagnosis on histopathology.⁹ In contrast, amelanotic melanoma consists of lack of pigmentation, asymmetry with polymorphous vascular pattern, and high mitotic rate and is commonly found in sun-exposed areas. Dermoscopic features include irregular globules with blue-whitish veil.¹⁰

Treatment of atypical Spitz nevi depends mainly on the age of the patient and the histologic features of the nevus. Adults with atypical Spitz nevi frequently require excision, while the preferred choice for treatment in children with common Spitz nevi is regular clinical monitoring when there are no concerning clinical, dermoscopic, or histologic features.⁸ Compared to common Spitz nevi, atypical Spitz nevi have more melanoma-like features, resulting in a stronger recommendation for excision. Excision allows for a more thorough histologic evaluation and minimizes the likelihood of a recurrent atypical lesion.¹¹ In all cases, close clinical follow-up is recommended to monitor for reoccurrence.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Atypical Spitz Tumor

The shave biopsy revealed extensive dermal proliferation with spitzoid cytomorphology containing large, spindled nuclei; prominent nucleoli; and abundant homogenous cytoplasm arranged in haphazard fascicles. The proliferation was associated with prominent pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia of the overlying epidermis, and anaplastic lymphoma kinase immunohistochemistry showed diffuse strong positivity. Fluorescence in situ hybridization confirmed fusion of the tropomyosin 3 (TPM3) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genes, which finalized the diagnosis of an ALK-mutated atypical spitz tumor. Due to the location and size of the lesion, Mohs micrographic surgery was performed to excise the tumor and clear the margins.

Spitz nevi are uncommon benign melanocytic neoplasms that typically occur in pediatric populations.¹ Atypical spitz nevi comprised fewer than 17% of all childhood melanocytic nevi in the United States and can be considered in the broader category of spitzoid tumors. Spitz nevi are divided into 3 classes: Spitz nevus, atypical Spitz nevus, and spitzoid melanoma. Atypical Spitz nevi have typical Spitz nevus and spitzoid melanoma features and often can be difficult to distinguish on dermoscopy. Malignant Spitz tumors typically occur in the fifth decade of life, though the age distribution can vary widely.¹

Black patients are less likely to be diagnosed with Spitz nevi, potentially due to a lower prevalence in this population, thus limiting the clinician’s clinical exposure and leading to increased rates of misdiagnoses.² Spitz nevi usually manifest as well-circumscribed, dome-shaped papules and frequently are described as pink to red due to increased vascularity and limited melanin content¹; however, these lesions may appear more violaceous, dusky, or dark brown in darker skin types. Additionally, approximately 71% of patients in a clinical review of Spitz nevi had a pigmented lesion, ranging from light brown to black.³ It is important for dermatologists to understand that the contrast in color between the nevus and the surrounding skin may not be as striking, prominent, or clinically concerning, particularly in darker skin types, such as in our patient.

Spitz nevi frequently manifest as rapidly growing solitary lesions most frequently developing in the lower legs (shown in 41% of lesions in one report).⁴ However, a recent retrospective review indicated that Spitz nevi in Black patients most commonly were found on the upper extremities, as was seen in our patient.² Compared to typical and common Spitz nevi, atypical Spitz nevi often are greater than 10 mm in diameter and have features of ulceration.

Diagnosing atypical spitzoid melanocytic lesions requires adequate clinical suspicion and confirmation via biopsy. Under dermoscopy, typical Spitz nevi often display a starburst or globular pattern with pinpoint vessels, though it can have variable manifestations of both patterns. Atypical Spitz nevi can be challenging to distinguish from melanoma on dermoscopy since both conditions can have atypical pigment networks or structureless homogenous areas.¹ Consequently, there often is a lower threshold for biopsy and possible follow-up excision for atypical Spitz nevi. Histopathology of atypical Spitz nevi includes epithelioid and spindle melanocytes but can share features of melanomas, including areas of prominent pagetoid spread, asymmetry, and poor circumscription.⁵ Furthermore, atypical Spitz nevi with ALK gene fusion, as seen in our patient, have been shown in the literature to demonstrate distinct histopathologic features, such as wedge-shaped extension into the dermis or a bulbous lower border that can resemble pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia.⁶

The differential diagnosis for this rapidly growing scaly nodule also should include pyogenic granuloma, bacillary angiomatosis, Kaposi sarcoma, and amelanotic melanoma. Pyogenic granuloma is a rapidly growing, benign, vascular tumor that often becomes ulcerated and can occur in any age group.⁷ Pyogenic granuloma frequently appears at sites of trauma as a solitary, bright pink to red, friable, pedunculated papule and often manifests on the arms, hands, and face, similar to atypical Spitz nevi, though they can appear anywhere on the body. Histology shows a lobular capillary network with a central feeder vessel.⁷

Bacillary angiomatosis is an uncommon cutaneous infection associated with vascular proliferation and neovascularization due to the gram-negative organism Bartonella henselae.⁸ Bacillary nodules typically are reddish to purple and appear on the arms, sometimes with central ulceration and bleeding. Patients may present with multiple papules and nodules of varying sizes, as the lesions can arise in crops and follow a sporotrichoid pattern. Most patients with bacillary angiomatosis are immunosuppressed, though it rarely can affect immunocompetent patients. Histologically, bacillary angiomatosis is similar to pyogenic granuloma, though Gram or Warthin-Starry stains can help differentiate B henselae.⁸

Kaposi sarcoma is a malignant vascular neoplasm that often manifests in immunocompromised patients as violaceous, purple, or red patches, plaques, and nodules on the skin or oral mucosa. Histopathology shows spindle cell proliferation of irregular complex vascular channels dissecting through the dermis. Human herpesvirus 8 immunohistochemistry can be used to confirm diagnosis on histopathology.⁹ In contrast, amelanotic melanoma consists of lack of pigmentation, asymmetry with polymorphous vascular pattern, and high mitotic rate and is commonly found in sun-exposed areas. Dermoscopic features include irregular globules with blue-whitish veil.¹⁰

Treatment of atypical Spitz nevi depends mainly on the age of the patient and the histologic features of the nevus. Adults with atypical Spitz nevi frequently require excision, while the preferred choice for treatment in children with common Spitz nevi is regular clinical monitoring when there are no concerning clinical, dermoscopic, or histologic features.⁸ Compared to common Spitz nevi, atypical Spitz nevi have more melanoma-like features, resulting in a stronger recommendation for excision. Excision allows for a more thorough histologic evaluation and minimizes the likelihood of a recurrent atypical lesion.¹¹ In all cases, close clinical follow-up is recommended to monitor for reoccurrence.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Atypical Spitz Tumor

The shave biopsy revealed extensive dermal proliferation with spitzoid cytomorphology containing large, spindled nuclei; prominent nucleoli; and abundant homogenous cytoplasm arranged in haphazard fascicles. The proliferation was associated with prominent pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia of the overlying epidermis, and anaplastic lymphoma kinase immunohistochemistry showed diffuse strong positivity. Fluorescence in situ hybridization confirmed fusion of the tropomyosin 3 (TPM3) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) genes, which finalized the diagnosis of an ALK-mutated atypical spitz tumor. Due to the location and size of the lesion, Mohs micrographic surgery was performed to excise the tumor and clear the margins.

Spitz nevi are uncommon benign melanocytic neoplasms that typically occur in pediatric populations.¹ Atypical spitz nevi comprised fewer than 17% of all childhood melanocytic nevi in the United States and can be considered in the broader category of spitzoid tumors. Spitz nevi are divided into 3 classes: Spitz nevus, atypical Spitz nevus, and spitzoid melanoma. Atypical Spitz nevi have typical Spitz nevus and spitzoid melanoma features and often can be difficult to distinguish on dermoscopy. Malignant Spitz tumors typically occur in the fifth decade of life, though the age distribution can vary widely.¹

Black patients are less likely to be diagnosed with Spitz nevi, potentially due to a lower prevalence in this population, thus limiting the clinician’s clinical exposure and leading to increased rates of misdiagnoses.² Spitz nevi usually manifest as well-circumscribed, dome-shaped papules and frequently are described as pink to red due to increased vascularity and limited melanin content¹; however, these lesions may appear more violaceous, dusky, or dark brown in darker skin types. Additionally, approximately 71% of patients in a clinical review of Spitz nevi had a pigmented lesion, ranging from light brown to black.³ It is important for dermatologists to understand that the contrast in color between the nevus and the surrounding skin may not be as striking, prominent, or clinically concerning, particularly in darker skin types, such as in our patient.

Spitz nevi frequently manifest as rapidly growing solitary lesions most frequently developing in the lower legs (shown in 41% of lesions in one report).⁴ However, a recent retrospective review indicated that Spitz nevi in Black patients most commonly were found on the upper extremities, as was seen in our patient.² Compared to typical and common Spitz nevi, atypical Spitz nevi often are greater than 10 mm in diameter and have features of ulceration.

Diagnosing atypical spitzoid melanocytic lesions requires adequate clinical suspicion and confirmation via biopsy. Under dermoscopy, typical Spitz nevi often display a starburst or globular pattern with pinpoint vessels, though it can have variable manifestations of both patterns. Atypical Spitz nevi can be challenging to distinguish from melanoma on dermoscopy since both conditions can have atypical pigment networks or structureless homogenous areas.¹ Consequently, there often is a lower threshold for biopsy and possible follow-up excision for atypical Spitz nevi. Histopathology of atypical Spitz nevi includes epithelioid and spindle melanocytes but can share features of melanomas, including areas of prominent pagetoid spread, asymmetry, and poor circumscription.⁵ Furthermore, atypical Spitz nevi with ALK gene fusion, as seen in our patient, have been shown in the literature to demonstrate distinct histopathologic features, such as wedge-shaped extension into the dermis or a bulbous lower border that can resemble pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia.⁶

The differential diagnosis for this rapidly growing scaly nodule also should include pyogenic granuloma, bacillary angiomatosis, Kaposi sarcoma, and amelanotic melanoma. Pyogenic granuloma is a rapidly growing, benign, vascular tumor that often becomes ulcerated and can occur in any age group.⁷ Pyogenic granuloma frequently appears at sites of trauma as a solitary, bright pink to red, friable, pedunculated papule and often manifests on the arms, hands, and face, similar to atypical Spitz nevi, though they can appear anywhere on the body. Histology shows a lobular capillary network with a central feeder vessel.⁷

Bacillary angiomatosis is an uncommon cutaneous infection associated with vascular proliferation and neovascularization due to the gram-negative organism Bartonella henselae.⁸ Bacillary nodules typically are reddish to purple and appear on the arms, sometimes with central ulceration and bleeding. Patients may present with multiple papules and nodules of varying sizes, as the lesions can arise in crops and follow a sporotrichoid pattern. Most patients with bacillary angiomatosis are immunosuppressed, though it rarely can affect immunocompetent patients. Histologically, bacillary angiomatosis is similar to pyogenic granuloma, though Gram or Warthin-Starry stains can help differentiate B henselae.⁸

Kaposi sarcoma is a malignant vascular neoplasm that often manifests in immunocompromised patients as violaceous, purple, or red patches, plaques, and nodules on the skin or oral mucosa. Histopathology shows spindle cell proliferation of irregular complex vascular channels dissecting through the dermis. Human herpesvirus 8 immunohistochemistry can be used to confirm diagnosis on histopathology.⁹ In contrast, amelanotic melanoma consists of lack of pigmentation, asymmetry with polymorphous vascular pattern, and high mitotic rate and is commonly found in sun-exposed areas. Dermoscopic features include irregular globules with blue-whitish veil.¹⁰

Treatment of atypical Spitz nevi depends mainly on the age of the patient and the histologic features of the nevus. Adults with atypical Spitz nevi frequently require excision, while the preferred choice for treatment in children with common Spitz nevi is regular clinical monitoring when there are no concerning clinical, dermoscopic, or histologic features.⁸ Compared to common Spitz nevi, atypical Spitz nevi have more melanoma-like features, resulting in a stronger recommendation for excision. Excision allows for a more thorough histologic evaluation and minimizes the likelihood of a recurrent atypical lesion.¹¹ In all cases, close clinical follow-up is recommended to monitor for reoccurrence.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Rheumatoid Vasculitis

A diagnosis of rheumatoid vasculitis (RV) was made based on the clinical features, histopathology, and laboratory results in the setting of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The distal gangrene was surgically managed with bilateral transmetatarsal amputation followed by ankle collagen graft placement. The patient was started on a prednisone taper for 1 month (40 mg/d for 3 days, then 30 mg/d for 3 days, then 20 mg/d for 24 days) before transitioning to rituximab (375 mg/m² once weekly for 4 weeks), which improved the size and depth of the ulcers.

Rheumatoid vasculitis is an inflammatory disease that affects small- to medium-sized blood vessels in patients with RA. The pathogenesis involves immune complex deposition and complement system activation, leading to vessel wall destruction.¹ Rheumatoid vasculitis is an extra-articular complication of RA that primarily is observed in seropositive patients with long-standing severe disease.^1,2 The mean duration between RA diagnosis and RV onset is 10 to 14 years.² Rheumatoid vasculitis manifests heterogeneously and can affect many organs; however, it most frequently affects the skin. Cutaneous manifestations vary in severity. Palpable purpura, pyoderma gangrenosum, and distal ulcers can be seen in addition to extensive digital ischemia with necrosis, as was present in our patient.¹

When RA patients present with skin changes that are concerning for vasculitis, RV should be suspected. Currently, there are no validated diagnostic criteria for RV. Diagnosis is made based on clinical presentation and tissue biopsy. Histopathology shows small- and medium-sized vessel wall destruction with neutrophilic, granulomatous, or lymphocytic infiltration, which may be observed only in the lower dermis sparing superficial vessels.³ Direct immunofluorescence shows IgM, IgA, and C3 deposition within and around vessels.^3,4 Laboratory findings including elevated inflammatory markers, positive rheumatoid factor, positive anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide, and hypocomplementemia support a diagnosis of RV.^1,2

Mortality rates for RV remain high, necessitating aggressive treatment. High-dose corticosteroids typically are combined with immunosuppressant or biologic agents, frequently cyclophosphamide or rituximab.¹ Consistent with other reported cases, our patient’s ulcers improved with rituximab and oral steroids.

The differential diagnosis for our patient included type I cryoglobulinemia, cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa (CPAN), peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and nonuremic calciphylaxis. Type I cryoglobulinemia manifests due to direct occlusion of vessels by precipitation of monoclonal immunoglobulin.⁵ It commonly is associated with lymphoproliferative diseases such as Waldenström macroglobulinemia and multiple myeloma. While our patient’s history of RA was a risk factor for mixed cryoglobulinemia as opposed to type I cryoglobulinemia, the clinical presentation aligned more closely with type I cryoglobulinemia. The clinical manifestations of type I cryoglobulinemia are related to intravascular obstruction, including Raynaud phenomenon, retiform purpura, ischemic ulcers, distal gangrene, and cold-induced urticaria.^6-8 Type I cryoglobulinemia also frequently has neurologic and renal manifestations. Histopathology, along with the detection of serum cryoglobulins, is the gold standard for diagnosing cryoglobulinemia.⁶ On histopathology, type I cryoglobulinemia typically shows a thrombotic vasculopathy with amorphous eosinophilic periodic acid–Schiff–positive thrombi.⁷ False-negative results are particularly common with serum cryoglobulins, so repeat testing often is needed. While many clinical features overlap, RV is the most likely diagnosis in a patient with long-standing RA who is negative for cryoglobulins and has no history of lymphoproliferative disorders.

Cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa is a necrotizing vasculitis that similarly affects small- and medium-sized vessels. The exact etiology is unknown, but the high prevalence of anti–phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex antibodies among patients with CPAN suggests that prothrombin bound to apoptotic endothelial cells may initiate the immune response.⁹ Underlying infection and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases (including group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus, hepatitis B, inflammatory bowel disease, myasthenia gravis, and RA) also may trigger CPAN.^9,10,11 The most common clinical manifestations of CPAN are tender subcutaneous nodules, livedo reticularis, leg ulcers, and cutaneous necrosis. Extracutaneous symptoms such as myalgias and arthralgias also can be associated with CPAN. There is no specific serologic test to diagnose CPAN; the diagnosis is made based on clinicopathologic correlation, with characteristic histopathology showing leukocytoclastic vasculitis in the small- and medium-sized arteries of the deep dermis or hypodermis.⁹

Peripheral vascular disease is a manifestation of atherosclerosis that affects the legs. Risk factors for atherosclerosis, especially smoking and diabetes mellitus, similarly increase the risk for PVD.¹² The most common clinical manifestation of PVD is intermittent claudication, but rarely PVD can progress to critical limb ischemia, which is characterized by pain at rest, nonhealing ulcers, or gangrene of the legs.¹² Common findings on physical examination include diminished or absent pedal pulses, abnormal skin color, and skin that is cool to the touch.¹² The standard diagnostic test for PVD affecting the legs is evaluation via the ankle-brachial index, with a score of 0.90 or lower being diagnostic of PVD, a score of 0.91 to 1.00 being borderline, and a score of 1.01 to 1.40 being normal.¹³

Calciphylaxis most frequently is seen in patients with end-stage kidney disease; however, it also has been less commonly reported in patients with normal kidney function, known as nonuremic calciphylaxis. It is characterized by calcification of arteries, arterioles, and soft tissues, which can lead to thrombosis and eventually ischemia and necrosis of the skin.¹⁴ Calciphylaxis initially causes tender, indurated, erythematous to purpuric plaques that quickly progress to retiform and stellate ulcers with overlying necrotic eschars.¹⁵ Disease typically occurs on the legs and areas that are rich in adipose tissue, such as the abdomen and thighs.¹⁶ Skin biopsy is needed for diagnosis of calciphylaxis. Characteristic histopathologic findings include calcification, microvascular thrombosis, and fibrointimal hyperplasia of small dermal and subcutaneous arteries and arterioles.¹⁶

We present a rare case of RV in a patient with well-controlled RA. While the incidence of RV is decreasing in the United States and United Kingdom due to the initiation of earlier and more aggressive RA therapies, mortality remains high.¹ Thus, it is important to include RV in the differential diagnosis when there are skin changes concerning vasculitis in patients with seropositive, longstanding RA, even if the RA is well controlled.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Rheumatoid Vasculitis

A diagnosis of rheumatoid vasculitis (RV) was made based on the clinical features, histopathology, and laboratory results in the setting of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The distal gangrene was surgically managed with bilateral transmetatarsal amputation followed by ankle collagen graft placement. The patient was started on a prednisone taper for 1 month (40 mg/d for 3 days, then 30 mg/d for 3 days, then 20 mg/d for 24 days) before transitioning to rituximab (375 mg/m² once weekly for 4 weeks), which improved the size and depth of the ulcers.

Rheumatoid vasculitis is an inflammatory disease that affects small- to medium-sized blood vessels in patients with RA. The pathogenesis involves immune complex deposition and complement system activation, leading to vessel wall destruction.¹ Rheumatoid vasculitis is an extra-articular complication of RA that primarily is observed in seropositive patients with long-standing severe disease.^1,2 The mean duration between RA diagnosis and RV onset is 10 to 14 years.² Rheumatoid vasculitis manifests heterogeneously and can affect many organs; however, it most frequently affects the skin. Cutaneous manifestations vary in severity. Palpable purpura, pyoderma gangrenosum, and distal ulcers can be seen in addition to extensive digital ischemia with necrosis, as was present in our patient.¹

When RA patients present with skin changes that are concerning for vasculitis, RV should be suspected. Currently, there are no validated diagnostic criteria for RV. Diagnosis is made based on clinical presentation and tissue biopsy. Histopathology shows small- and medium-sized vessel wall destruction with neutrophilic, granulomatous, or lymphocytic infiltration, which may be observed only in the lower dermis sparing superficial vessels.³ Direct immunofluorescence shows IgM, IgA, and C3 deposition within and around vessels.^3,4 Laboratory findings including elevated inflammatory markers, positive rheumatoid factor, positive anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide, and hypocomplementemia support a diagnosis of RV.^1,2

Mortality rates for RV remain high, necessitating aggressive treatment. High-dose corticosteroids typically are combined with immunosuppressant or biologic agents, frequently cyclophosphamide or rituximab.¹ Consistent with other reported cases, our patient’s ulcers improved with rituximab and oral steroids.

The differential diagnosis for our patient included type I cryoglobulinemia, cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa (CPAN), peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and nonuremic calciphylaxis. Type I cryoglobulinemia manifests due to direct occlusion of vessels by precipitation of monoclonal immunoglobulin.⁵ It commonly is associated with lymphoproliferative diseases such as Waldenström macroglobulinemia and multiple myeloma. While our patient’s history of RA was a risk factor for mixed cryoglobulinemia as opposed to type I cryoglobulinemia, the clinical presentation aligned more closely with type I cryoglobulinemia. The clinical manifestations of type I cryoglobulinemia are related to intravascular obstruction, including Raynaud phenomenon, retiform purpura, ischemic ulcers, distal gangrene, and cold-induced urticaria.^6-8 Type I cryoglobulinemia also frequently has neurologic and renal manifestations. Histopathology, along with the detection of serum cryoglobulins, is the gold standard for diagnosing cryoglobulinemia.⁶ On histopathology, type I cryoglobulinemia typically shows a thrombotic vasculopathy with amorphous eosinophilic periodic acid–Schiff–positive thrombi.⁷ False-negative results are particularly common with serum cryoglobulins, so repeat testing often is needed. While many clinical features overlap, RV is the most likely diagnosis in a patient with long-standing RA who is negative for cryoglobulins and has no history of lymphoproliferative disorders.

Cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa is a necrotizing vasculitis that similarly affects small- and medium-sized vessels. The exact etiology is unknown, but the high prevalence of anti–phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex antibodies among patients with CPAN suggests that prothrombin bound to apoptotic endothelial cells may initiate the immune response.⁹ Underlying infection and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases (including group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus, hepatitis B, inflammatory bowel disease, myasthenia gravis, and RA) also may trigger CPAN.^9,10,11 The most common clinical manifestations of CPAN are tender subcutaneous nodules, livedo reticularis, leg ulcers, and cutaneous necrosis. Extracutaneous symptoms such as myalgias and arthralgias also can be associated with CPAN. There is no specific serologic test to diagnose CPAN; the diagnosis is made based on clinicopathologic correlation, with characteristic histopathology showing leukocytoclastic vasculitis in the small- and medium-sized arteries of the deep dermis or hypodermis.⁹

Peripheral vascular disease is a manifestation of atherosclerosis that affects the legs. Risk factors for atherosclerosis, especially smoking and diabetes mellitus, similarly increase the risk for PVD.¹² The most common clinical manifestation of PVD is intermittent claudication, but rarely PVD can progress to critical limb ischemia, which is characterized by pain at rest, nonhealing ulcers, or gangrene of the legs.¹² Common findings on physical examination include diminished or absent pedal pulses, abnormal skin color, and skin that is cool to the touch.¹² The standard diagnostic test for PVD affecting the legs is evaluation via the ankle-brachial index, with a score of 0.90 or lower being diagnostic of PVD, a score of 0.91 to 1.00 being borderline, and a score of 1.01 to 1.40 being normal.¹³

Calciphylaxis most frequently is seen in patients with end-stage kidney disease; however, it also has been less commonly reported in patients with normal kidney function, known as nonuremic calciphylaxis. It is characterized by calcification of arteries, arterioles, and soft tissues, which can lead to thrombosis and eventually ischemia and necrosis of the skin.¹⁴ Calciphylaxis initially causes tender, indurated, erythematous to purpuric plaques that quickly progress to retiform and stellate ulcers with overlying necrotic eschars.¹⁵ Disease typically occurs on the legs and areas that are rich in adipose tissue, such as the abdomen and thighs.¹⁶ Skin biopsy is needed for diagnosis of calciphylaxis. Characteristic histopathologic findings include calcification, microvascular thrombosis, and fibrointimal hyperplasia of small dermal and subcutaneous arteries and arterioles.¹⁶

We present a rare case of RV in a patient with well-controlled RA. While the incidence of RV is decreasing in the United States and United Kingdom due to the initiation of earlier and more aggressive RA therapies, mortality remains high.¹ Thus, it is important to include RV in the differential diagnosis when there are skin changes concerning vasculitis in patients with seropositive, longstanding RA, even if the RA is well controlled.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Rheumatoid Vasculitis

A diagnosis of rheumatoid vasculitis (RV) was made based on the clinical features, histopathology, and laboratory results in the setting of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The distal gangrene was surgically managed with bilateral transmetatarsal amputation followed by ankle collagen graft placement. The patient was started on a prednisone taper for 1 month (40 mg/d for 3 days, then 30 mg/d for 3 days, then 20 mg/d for 24 days) before transitioning to rituximab (375 mg/m² once weekly for 4 weeks), which improved the size and depth of the ulcers.

Rheumatoid vasculitis is an inflammatory disease that affects small- to medium-sized blood vessels in patients with RA. The pathogenesis involves immune complex deposition and complement system activation, leading to vessel wall destruction.¹ Rheumatoid vasculitis is an extra-articular complication of RA that primarily is observed in seropositive patients with long-standing severe disease.^1,2 The mean duration between RA diagnosis and RV onset is 10 to 14 years.² Rheumatoid vasculitis manifests heterogeneously and can affect many organs; however, it most frequently affects the skin. Cutaneous manifestations vary in severity. Palpable purpura, pyoderma gangrenosum, and distal ulcers can be seen in addition to extensive digital ischemia with necrosis, as was present in our patient.¹

When RA patients present with skin changes that are concerning for vasculitis, RV should be suspected. Currently, there are no validated diagnostic criteria for RV. Diagnosis is made based on clinical presentation and tissue biopsy. Histopathology shows small- and medium-sized vessel wall destruction with neutrophilic, granulomatous, or lymphocytic infiltration, which may be observed only in the lower dermis sparing superficial vessels.³ Direct immunofluorescence shows IgM, IgA, and C3 deposition within and around vessels.^3,4 Laboratory findings including elevated inflammatory markers, positive rheumatoid factor, positive anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide, and hypocomplementemia support a diagnosis of RV.^1,2

Mortality rates for RV remain high, necessitating aggressive treatment. High-dose corticosteroids typically are combined with immunosuppressant or biologic agents, frequently cyclophosphamide or rituximab.¹ Consistent with other reported cases, our patient’s ulcers improved with rituximab and oral steroids.

The differential diagnosis for our patient included type I cryoglobulinemia, cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa (CPAN), peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and nonuremic calciphylaxis. Type I cryoglobulinemia manifests due to direct occlusion of vessels by precipitation of monoclonal immunoglobulin.⁵ It commonly is associated with lymphoproliferative diseases such as Waldenström macroglobulinemia and multiple myeloma. While our patient’s history of RA was a risk factor for mixed cryoglobulinemia as opposed to type I cryoglobulinemia, the clinical presentation aligned more closely with type I cryoglobulinemia. The clinical manifestations of type I cryoglobulinemia are related to intravascular obstruction, including Raynaud phenomenon, retiform purpura, ischemic ulcers, distal gangrene, and cold-induced urticaria.^6-8 Type I cryoglobulinemia also frequently has neurologic and renal manifestations. Histopathology, along with the detection of serum cryoglobulins, is the gold standard for diagnosing cryoglobulinemia.⁶ On histopathology, type I cryoglobulinemia typically shows a thrombotic vasculopathy with amorphous eosinophilic periodic acid–Schiff–positive thrombi.⁷ False-negative results are particularly common with serum cryoglobulins, so repeat testing often is needed. While many clinical features overlap, RV is the most likely diagnosis in a patient with long-standing RA who is negative for cryoglobulins and has no history of lymphoproliferative disorders.

Cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa is a necrotizing vasculitis that similarly affects small- and medium-sized vessels. The exact etiology is unknown, but the high prevalence of anti–phosphatidylserine/prothrombin complex antibodies among patients with CPAN suggests that prothrombin bound to apoptotic endothelial cells may initiate the immune response.⁹ Underlying infection and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases (including group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus, hepatitis B, inflammatory bowel disease, myasthenia gravis, and RA) also may trigger CPAN.^9,10,11 The most common clinical manifestations of CPAN are tender subcutaneous nodules, livedo reticularis, leg ulcers, and cutaneous necrosis. Extracutaneous symptoms such as myalgias and arthralgias also can be associated with CPAN. There is no specific serologic test to diagnose CPAN; the diagnosis is made based on clinicopathologic correlation, with characteristic histopathology showing leukocytoclastic vasculitis in the small- and medium-sized arteries of the deep dermis or hypodermis.⁹

Peripheral vascular disease is a manifestation of atherosclerosis that affects the legs. Risk factors for atherosclerosis, especially smoking and diabetes mellitus, similarly increase the risk for PVD.¹² The most common clinical manifestation of PVD is intermittent claudication, but rarely PVD can progress to critical limb ischemia, which is characterized by pain at rest, nonhealing ulcers, or gangrene of the legs.¹² Common findings on physical examination include diminished or absent pedal pulses, abnormal skin color, and skin that is cool to the touch.¹² The standard diagnostic test for PVD affecting the legs is evaluation via the ankle-brachial index, with a score of 0.90 or lower being diagnostic of PVD, a score of 0.91 to 1.00 being borderline, and a score of 1.01 to 1.40 being normal.¹³

Calciphylaxis most frequently is seen in patients with end-stage kidney disease; however, it also has been less commonly reported in patients with normal kidney function, known as nonuremic calciphylaxis. It is characterized by calcification of arteries, arterioles, and soft tissues, which can lead to thrombosis and eventually ischemia and necrosis of the skin.¹⁴ Calciphylaxis initially causes tender, indurated, erythematous to purpuric plaques that quickly progress to retiform and stellate ulcers with overlying necrotic eschars.¹⁵ Disease typically occurs on the legs and areas that are rich in adipose tissue, such as the abdomen and thighs.¹⁶ Skin biopsy is needed for diagnosis of calciphylaxis. Characteristic histopathologic findings include calcification, microvascular thrombosis, and fibrointimal hyperplasia of small dermal and subcutaneous arteries and arterioles.¹⁶

We present a rare case of RV in a patient with well-controlled RA. While the incidence of RV is decreasing in the United States and United Kingdom due to the initiation of earlier and more aggressive RA therapies, mortality remains high.¹ Thus, it is important to include RV in the differential diagnosis when there are skin changes concerning vasculitis in patients with seropositive, longstanding RA, even if the RA is well controlled.

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications are expanding rapidly in healthcare. AI powered tools are increasingly used in everyday medical practice, assisting clinicians with tasks such as diagnosis, treatment planning, data analysis, and patient monitoring, effectively integrating AI into routine clinical decision making. Despite its potential to fundamentally transform the practice of medicine and healthcare delivery, AI in healthcare remains largely unregulated, with a lack of common standards to guide responsible design, development, and adoption of AI-based tools to guide clinical care.

But this is changing. In mid-January, the US Department of Health & Human Services released its Strategic Plan for the Use of AI in Health, Human Services, and Public Health (available at www.healthit.gov), presenting an approach to catalyze innovation, promote trustworthy AI development, democratize technologies and resources, and cultivate AI-empowered workforces and organizational cultures. While there is no immediate regulatory impact, the plan does provide important insights into how the federal government thinks about AI, which will be a part of driving regulations in the future. As crucial stakeholders in the health AI universe and advocates for its responsible use in clinical practice, it is critical that we as clinicians keep abreast of developments in this rapidly evolving space. 

 

In this month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News, we summarize a recent systematic review and meta-analysis highlighting worsening health disparities for Hispanic adults with MASLD. We also report the results of an industry-sponsored study comparing the real-world clinical effectiveness of GI Genius (an AI-driven tool) with that of standard colonoscopy.

In February’s Member Spotlight, we introduce you to international AGA member Dr. Tossapol Kerdsirichairat (clinical associate professor of gastroenterology at Bumrungrad International Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand), who shares his insights regarding the challenges and rewards of practicing gastroenterology at one of the largest private hospitals in Southeast Asia. ‘Tos’ is one of roughly 25% of AGA members who live and work outside the United States.

Finally, this month’s In Focus column from The New Gastroenterologist focuses on management of chronic constipation, a highly prevalent condition that significantly impacts the quality of life of many of our patients. We hope you enjoy this and all the exciting content in our February issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications are expanding rapidly in healthcare. AI powered tools are increasingly used in everyday medical practice, assisting clinicians with tasks such as diagnosis, treatment planning, data analysis, and patient monitoring, effectively integrating AI into routine clinical decision making. Despite its potential to fundamentally transform the practice of medicine and healthcare delivery, AI in healthcare remains largely unregulated, with a lack of common standards to guide responsible design, development, and adoption of AI-based tools to guide clinical care.

But this is changing. In mid-January, the US Department of Health & Human Services released its Strategic Plan for the Use of AI in Health, Human Services, and Public Health (available at www.healthit.gov), presenting an approach to catalyze innovation, promote trustworthy AI development, democratize technologies and resources, and cultivate AI-empowered workforces and organizational cultures. While there is no immediate regulatory impact, the plan does provide important insights into how the federal government thinks about AI, which will be a part of driving regulations in the future. As crucial stakeholders in the health AI universe and advocates for its responsible use in clinical practice, it is critical that we as clinicians keep abreast of developments in this rapidly evolving space. 

 

In this month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News, we summarize a recent systematic review and meta-analysis highlighting worsening health disparities for Hispanic adults with MASLD. We also report the results of an industry-sponsored study comparing the real-world clinical effectiveness of GI Genius (an AI-driven tool) with that of standard colonoscopy.

In February’s Member Spotlight, we introduce you to international AGA member Dr. Tossapol Kerdsirichairat (clinical associate professor of gastroenterology at Bumrungrad International Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand), who shares his insights regarding the challenges and rewards of practicing gastroenterology at one of the largest private hospitals in Southeast Asia. ‘Tos’ is one of roughly 25% of AGA members who live and work outside the United States.

Finally, this month’s In Focus column from The New Gastroenterologist focuses on management of chronic constipation, a highly prevalent condition that significantly impacts the quality of life of many of our patients. We hope you enjoy this and all the exciting content in our February issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications are expanding rapidly in healthcare. AI powered tools are increasingly used in everyday medical practice, assisting clinicians with tasks such as diagnosis, treatment planning, data analysis, and patient monitoring, effectively integrating AI into routine clinical decision making. Despite its potential to fundamentally transform the practice of medicine and healthcare delivery, AI in healthcare remains largely unregulated, with a lack of common standards to guide responsible design, development, and adoption of AI-based tools to guide clinical care.

But this is changing. In mid-January, the US Department of Health & Human Services released its Strategic Plan for the Use of AI in Health, Human Services, and Public Health (available at www.healthit.gov), presenting an approach to catalyze innovation, promote trustworthy AI development, democratize technologies and resources, and cultivate AI-empowered workforces and organizational cultures. While there is no immediate regulatory impact, the plan does provide important insights into how the federal government thinks about AI, which will be a part of driving regulations in the future. As crucial stakeholders in the health AI universe and advocates for its responsible use in clinical practice, it is critical that we as clinicians keep abreast of developments in this rapidly evolving space. 

 

In this month’s issue of GI & Hepatology News, we summarize a recent systematic review and meta-analysis highlighting worsening health disparities for Hispanic adults with MASLD. We also report the results of an industry-sponsored study comparing the real-world clinical effectiveness of GI Genius (an AI-driven tool) with that of standard colonoscopy.

In February’s Member Spotlight, we introduce you to international AGA member Dr. Tossapol Kerdsirichairat (clinical associate professor of gastroenterology at Bumrungrad International Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand), who shares his insights regarding the challenges and rewards of practicing gastroenterology at one of the largest private hospitals in Southeast Asia. ‘Tos’ is one of roughly 25% of AGA members who live and work outside the United States.

Finally, this month’s In Focus column from The New Gastroenterologist focuses on management of chronic constipation, a highly prevalent condition that significantly impacts the quality of life of many of our patients. We hope you enjoy this and all the exciting content in our February issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

TOPLINE:

The use of valaciclovir as prophylaxis prevents herpes zoster (HZ) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving anifrolumab treatment, with no cases of zoster reported during the follow-up period in patients receiving valaciclovir.

METHODOLOGY:

• Anifrolumab, a human monoclonal antibody binding to type I interferon receptor subunit 1, increases the risk for HZ in patients with SLE; however, specific recommendations to prevent HZ are currently nonexistent for patients with SLE receiving anifrolumab.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study in France from November 2021 to July 2024 to evaluate the prophylactic benefits of valaciclovir in 132 patients with SLE (mean age, 42 years; 92% women) treated with anifrolumab for ≥ 3 months.
• Among these patients, 87 received either 500 mg/d valaciclovir (n = 69) or 1000 mg/d valaciclovir (n = 18) as prophylaxis, whereas 45 did not receive valaciclovir.
• The patients were followed up for a median duration of 234 days under anifrolumab treatment, with monitoring for the development of herpes zoster.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for HZ was significantly lower in patients who received valaciclovir than in those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.08; P = .01).
• None of the patients treated with valaciclovir developed HZ during the survey period.
• The frequency of HZ in patients who did not receive valaciclovir increased progressively from 2.2% at 3 months to 6.2% at 6 months, reaching 23% at 12 months.
• None of the reported cases of HZ required hospitalization or led to anifrolumab discontinuation, although one patient developed neuralgia.

IN PRACTICE:

“Prophylactic treatment with valaciclovir is effective for preventing HZ [herpes zoster] infection in SLE patients treated with anifrolumab,” the authors wrote. “This finding is particularly relevant for SLE patients who cannot receive the recombinant HZ vaccine or for whom it is unavailable,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ludovic Trefond, MD, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand in France. It was published online on January 4, 2025, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design of the study and the low number of herpes zoster events during the follow-up period may have affected the robustness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not receive any specific grants. Some authors reported having financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of valaciclovir as prophylaxis prevents herpes zoster (HZ) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving anifrolumab treatment, with no cases of zoster reported during the follow-up period in patients receiving valaciclovir.

METHODOLOGY:

• Anifrolumab, a human monoclonal antibody binding to type I interferon receptor subunit 1, increases the risk for HZ in patients with SLE; however, specific recommendations to prevent HZ are currently nonexistent for patients with SLE receiving anifrolumab.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study in France from November 2021 to July 2024 to evaluate the prophylactic benefits of valaciclovir in 132 patients with SLE (mean age, 42 years; 92% women) treated with anifrolumab for ≥ 3 months.
• Among these patients, 87 received either 500 mg/d valaciclovir (n = 69) or 1000 mg/d valaciclovir (n = 18) as prophylaxis, whereas 45 did not receive valaciclovir.
• The patients were followed up for a median duration of 234 days under anifrolumab treatment, with monitoring for the development of herpes zoster.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for HZ was significantly lower in patients who received valaciclovir than in those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.08; P = .01).
• None of the patients treated with valaciclovir developed HZ during the survey period.
• The frequency of HZ in patients who did not receive valaciclovir increased progressively from 2.2% at 3 months to 6.2% at 6 months, reaching 23% at 12 months.
• None of the reported cases of HZ required hospitalization or led to anifrolumab discontinuation, although one patient developed neuralgia.

IN PRACTICE:

“Prophylactic treatment with valaciclovir is effective for preventing HZ [herpes zoster] infection in SLE patients treated with anifrolumab,” the authors wrote. “This finding is particularly relevant for SLE patients who cannot receive the recombinant HZ vaccine or for whom it is unavailable,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ludovic Trefond, MD, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand in France. It was published online on January 4, 2025, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design of the study and the low number of herpes zoster events during the follow-up period may have affected the robustness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not receive any specific grants. Some authors reported having financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of valaciclovir as prophylaxis prevents herpes zoster (HZ) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving anifrolumab treatment, with no cases of zoster reported during the follow-up period in patients receiving valaciclovir.

METHODOLOGY:

• Anifrolumab, a human monoclonal antibody binding to type I interferon receptor subunit 1, increases the risk for HZ in patients with SLE; however, specific recommendations to prevent HZ are currently nonexistent for patients with SLE receiving anifrolumab.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study in France from November 2021 to July 2024 to evaluate the prophylactic benefits of valaciclovir in 132 patients with SLE (mean age, 42 years; 92% women) treated with anifrolumab for ≥ 3 months.
• Among these patients, 87 received either 500 mg/d valaciclovir (n = 69) or 1000 mg/d valaciclovir (n = 18) as prophylaxis, whereas 45 did not receive valaciclovir.
• The patients were followed up for a median duration of 234 days under anifrolumab treatment, with monitoring for the development of herpes zoster.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for HZ was significantly lower in patients who received valaciclovir than in those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.08; P = .01).
• None of the patients treated with valaciclovir developed HZ during the survey period.
• The frequency of HZ in patients who did not receive valaciclovir increased progressively from 2.2% at 3 months to 6.2% at 6 months, reaching 23% at 12 months.
• None of the reported cases of HZ required hospitalization or led to anifrolumab discontinuation, although one patient developed neuralgia.

IN PRACTICE:

“Prophylactic treatment with valaciclovir is effective for preventing HZ [herpes zoster] infection in SLE patients treated with anifrolumab,” the authors wrote. “This finding is particularly relevant for SLE patients who cannot receive the recombinant HZ vaccine or for whom it is unavailable,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ludovic Trefond, MD, PhD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand in France. It was published online on January 4, 2025, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design of the study and the low number of herpes zoster events during the follow-up period may have affected the robustness of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not receive any specific grants. Some authors reported having financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

According to a secondary analysis of the 24-month Myopia Outcome Study of Atropine in Children (MOSAIC) trial, 0.05% atropine eye drops were more effective in controlling myopia progression and axial elongation than placebo eye drops in children despite causing blurred vision and photophobia in some participants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of the 3-year results of the MOSAIC trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of different atropine regimens in treatment-naive children aged 6-16 years with a spherical equivalent ≤ −0.50 diopters (D).
• They analyzed data of 199 children in Europe with myopia (mean age, 13.9 years; 60.8% girls) who were randomly assigned to either group 1 (nightly placebo for 2 years followed by 0.05% atropine eye drops for 1 year; n = 66) or group 2 (nightly 0.01% atropine eye drops for 2 years followed by another random assignment to nightly placebo, tapering placebo, or tapering of 0.01% atropine eye drops for 1 year; n = 133).
• The nightly and tapered placebo groups were combined as a single treatment group for the sake of analysis.
• The primary outcome measures included observed changes in the progression of myopia, assessed using cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction and axial length from month 24 to month 36.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children in the 0.01% atropine then placebo groups showed greater spherical equivalent progression (adjusted difference, –0.13 D; P = .01) and axial elongation (adjusted difference, 0.06 mm; P = .008) than those in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group.
• Children in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group also experienced less axial elongation (P = .04) than those in the 0.01% atropine then tapering 0.01% atropine group.
• Among participants using 0.05% atropine, 15% reported blurred near vision and 8% reported photophobia, whereas 3% reported blurred near vision and 0% reported photophobia in the 0.01% atropine then tapering 0.01% atropine group.
• Despite experiencing adverse events, no participants in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group discontinued treatment, with 92% completing the 36-month visit and 81% adhering to the treatment regimen.

IN PRACTICE:

“Recognizing a 2-year delay in treatment initiation in the group of children originally assigned to placebo, 0.05% atropine eyedrops slowed both myopia progression and axial eye growth over the course of a 1-year period,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by James Loughman, PhD, of the Centre for Eye Research Ireland, Dublin. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included smaller sample sizes across treatment groups in year 3 and potential carry-over effects for participants transitioning from 0.01% atropine to placebo or tapered dosing. Because the study lacked an untreated control group, rebound myopia progression could be measured based only on the expected third-year results from the 0.01% atropine then placebo groups. The age of participants during the third year may have affected the ability to detect rebound progression.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported partly by a grant from the Health Research Board; Fighting Blindness, Ireland; and Vyluma. Some authors reported receiving grants, nonfinancial support, or consultant fees or having several other ties with Vyluma and other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

According to a secondary analysis of the 24-month Myopia Outcome Study of Atropine in Children (MOSAIC) trial, 0.05% atropine eye drops were more effective in controlling myopia progression and axial elongation than placebo eye drops in children despite causing blurred vision and photophobia in some participants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of the 3-year results of the MOSAIC trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of different atropine regimens in treatment-naive children aged 6-16 years with a spherical equivalent ≤ −0.50 diopters (D).
• They analyzed data of 199 children in Europe with myopia (mean age, 13.9 years; 60.8% girls) who were randomly assigned to either group 1 (nightly placebo for 2 years followed by 0.05% atropine eye drops for 1 year; n = 66) or group 2 (nightly 0.01% atropine eye drops for 2 years followed by another random assignment to nightly placebo, tapering placebo, or tapering of 0.01% atropine eye drops for 1 year; n = 133).
• The nightly and tapered placebo groups were combined as a single treatment group for the sake of analysis.
• The primary outcome measures included observed changes in the progression of myopia, assessed using cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction and axial length from month 24 to month 36.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children in the 0.01% atropine then placebo groups showed greater spherical equivalent progression (adjusted difference, –0.13 D; P = .01) and axial elongation (adjusted difference, 0.06 mm; P = .008) than those in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group.
• Children in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group also experienced less axial elongation (P = .04) than those in the 0.01% atropine then tapering 0.01% atropine group.
• Among participants using 0.05% atropine, 15% reported blurred near vision and 8% reported photophobia, whereas 3% reported blurred near vision and 0% reported photophobia in the 0.01% atropine then tapering 0.01% atropine group.
• Despite experiencing adverse events, no participants in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group discontinued treatment, with 92% completing the 36-month visit and 81% adhering to the treatment regimen.

IN PRACTICE:

“Recognizing a 2-year delay in treatment initiation in the group of children originally assigned to placebo, 0.05% atropine eyedrops slowed both myopia progression and axial eye growth over the course of a 1-year period,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by James Loughman, PhD, of the Centre for Eye Research Ireland, Dublin. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included smaller sample sizes across treatment groups in year 3 and potential carry-over effects for participants transitioning from 0.01% atropine to placebo or tapered dosing. Because the study lacked an untreated control group, rebound myopia progression could be measured based only on the expected third-year results from the 0.01% atropine then placebo groups. The age of participants during the third year may have affected the ability to detect rebound progression.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported partly by a grant from the Health Research Board; Fighting Blindness, Ireland; and Vyluma. Some authors reported receiving grants, nonfinancial support, or consultant fees or having several other ties with Vyluma and other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

According to a secondary analysis of the 24-month Myopia Outcome Study of Atropine in Children (MOSAIC) trial, 0.05% atropine eye drops were more effective in controlling myopia progression and axial elongation than placebo eye drops in children despite causing blurred vision and photophobia in some participants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of the 3-year results of the MOSAIC trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of different atropine regimens in treatment-naive children aged 6-16 years with a spherical equivalent ≤ −0.50 diopters (D).
• They analyzed data of 199 children in Europe with myopia (mean age, 13.9 years; 60.8% girls) who were randomly assigned to either group 1 (nightly placebo for 2 years followed by 0.05% atropine eye drops for 1 year; n = 66) or group 2 (nightly 0.01% atropine eye drops for 2 years followed by another random assignment to nightly placebo, tapering placebo, or tapering of 0.01% atropine eye drops for 1 year; n = 133).
• The nightly and tapered placebo groups were combined as a single treatment group for the sake of analysis.
• The primary outcome measures included observed changes in the progression of myopia, assessed using cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction and axial length from month 24 to month 36.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children in the 0.01% atropine then placebo groups showed greater spherical equivalent progression (adjusted difference, –0.13 D; P = .01) and axial elongation (adjusted difference, 0.06 mm; P = .008) than those in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group.
• Children in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group also experienced less axial elongation (P = .04) than those in the 0.01% atropine then tapering 0.01% atropine group.
• Among participants using 0.05% atropine, 15% reported blurred near vision and 8% reported photophobia, whereas 3% reported blurred near vision and 0% reported photophobia in the 0.01% atropine then tapering 0.01% atropine group.
• Despite experiencing adverse events, no participants in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group discontinued treatment, with 92% completing the 36-month visit and 81% adhering to the treatment regimen.

IN PRACTICE:

“Recognizing a 2-year delay in treatment initiation in the group of children originally assigned to placebo, 0.05% atropine eyedrops slowed both myopia progression and axial eye growth over the course of a 1-year period,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by James Loughman, PhD, of the Centre for Eye Research Ireland, Dublin. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included smaller sample sizes across treatment groups in year 3 and potential carry-over effects for participants transitioning from 0.01% atropine to placebo or tapered dosing. Because the study lacked an untreated control group, rebound myopia progression could be measured based only on the expected third-year results from the 0.01% atropine then placebo groups. The age of participants during the third year may have affected the ability to detect rebound progression.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported partly by a grant from the Health Research Board; Fighting Blindness, Ireland; and Vyluma. Some authors reported receiving grants, nonfinancial support, or consultant fees or having several other ties with Vyluma and other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.

But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.

MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.

Why are certain lesions invisible with MRI? And is it dangerous for patients if these lesions are not detected? 

Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.

If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”

Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.

But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.

Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.

MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.

In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.

Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.

When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.

“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.

The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.

But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”

The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.

According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.

In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.

“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.

 

Next Steps After Negative MRI Result

What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?

The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.

Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.

The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.

Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.

These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.

Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.” 

According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.

Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.

But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.

MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.

Why are certain lesions invisible with MRI? And is it dangerous for patients if these lesions are not detected? 

Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.

If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”

Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.

But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.

Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.

MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.

In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.

Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.

When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.

“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.

The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.

But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”

The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.

According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.

In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.

“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.

 

Next Steps After Negative MRI Result

What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?

The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.

Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.

The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.

Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.

These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.

Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.” 

According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.

Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.

But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.

MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.

Why are certain lesions invisible with MRI? And is it dangerous for patients if these lesions are not detected? 

Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.

If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”

Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.

But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.

Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.

MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.

In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.

Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.

When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.

“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.

The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.

But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”

The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.

According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.

In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.

“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.

 

Next Steps After Negative MRI Result

What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?

The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.

Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.

The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.

Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.

These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.

Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.” 

According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.

Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Glucarpidase treatment in patients with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury is linked to 2.7 times higher odds of kidney recovery and faster recovery time. The enzyme also reduces the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia and transaminitis by half vs no glucarpidase treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a multicenter cohort study involving 708 adults with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury from 28 cancer centers across the United States.
• Analysis utilized a sequential target trial emulation framework to compare outcomes between 209 patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days of methotrexate initiation and 499 patients who did not.
• The primary endpoint was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival with serum creatinine < 1.5-fold baseline without dialysis dependence.
• Secondary endpoints included time-to-kidney recovery, neutropenia and transaminitis on day 7, and time-to-death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucarpidase administration was associated with adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of 2.70 (95% CI, 1.69-4.31) and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] of 1.88 (95% CI, 1.18-3.33) for time-to-kidney recovery.
• Treatment with glucarpidase reduced the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91) and grade ≥ 2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) on day 7.
• Female patients showed greater benefit from glucarpidase treatment than male patients (P = .02 for interaction).
• No significant difference was observed in time-to-death between glucarpidase-treated and glucarpidase-untreated patients (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI [methotrexate-acute kidney injury],” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. It was published online in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, residual confounding cannot be excluded despite adjustment for multiple variables. While glucarpidase-treated patients had similar distributions of most baseline characteristics, they showed greater severity of illness, including more comorbidities, concomitant nephrotoxic medications, higher 24-hour methotrexate levels, and more severe acute kidney injury. This study was limited to patients treated at large, US-based academic centers, potentially affecting generalizability to smaller hospitals or countries where glucarpidase is unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by BTG International. Gupta disclosed ties with BTG International, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s Wong Foundation, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK125672). Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Glucarpidase treatment in patients with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury is linked to 2.7 times higher odds of kidney recovery and faster recovery time. The enzyme also reduces the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia and transaminitis by half vs no glucarpidase treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a multicenter cohort study involving 708 adults with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury from 28 cancer centers across the United States.
• Analysis utilized a sequential target trial emulation framework to compare outcomes between 209 patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days of methotrexate initiation and 499 patients who did not.
• The primary endpoint was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival with serum creatinine < 1.5-fold baseline without dialysis dependence.
• Secondary endpoints included time-to-kidney recovery, neutropenia and transaminitis on day 7, and time-to-death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucarpidase administration was associated with adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of 2.70 (95% CI, 1.69-4.31) and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] of 1.88 (95% CI, 1.18-3.33) for time-to-kidney recovery.
• Treatment with glucarpidase reduced the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91) and grade ≥ 2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) on day 7.
• Female patients showed greater benefit from glucarpidase treatment than male patients (P = .02 for interaction).
• No significant difference was observed in time-to-death between glucarpidase-treated and glucarpidase-untreated patients (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI [methotrexate-acute kidney injury],” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. It was published online in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, residual confounding cannot be excluded despite adjustment for multiple variables. While glucarpidase-treated patients had similar distributions of most baseline characteristics, they showed greater severity of illness, including more comorbidities, concomitant nephrotoxic medications, higher 24-hour methotrexate levels, and more severe acute kidney injury. This study was limited to patients treated at large, US-based academic centers, potentially affecting generalizability to smaller hospitals or countries where glucarpidase is unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by BTG International. Gupta disclosed ties with BTG International, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s Wong Foundation, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK125672). Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Glucarpidase treatment in patients with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury is linked to 2.7 times higher odds of kidney recovery and faster recovery time. The enzyme also reduces the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia and transaminitis by half vs no glucarpidase treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a multicenter cohort study involving 708 adults with methotrexate-associated acute kidney injury from 28 cancer centers across the United States.
• Analysis utilized a sequential target trial emulation framework to compare outcomes between 209 patients who received glucarpidase within 4 days of methotrexate initiation and 499 patients who did not.
• The primary endpoint was kidney recovery at hospital discharge, defined as survival with serum creatinine < 1.5-fold baseline without dialysis dependence.
• Secondary endpoints included time-to-kidney recovery, neutropenia and transaminitis on day 7, and time-to-death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucarpidase administration was associated with adjusted odds ratio [aOR] of 2.70 (95% CI, 1.69-4.31) and adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] of 1.88 (95% CI, 1.18-3.33) for time-to-kidney recovery.
• Treatment with glucarpidase reduced the risk for grade ≥ 2 neutropenia (aOR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.91) and grade ≥ 2 transaminitis (aOR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) on day 7.
• Female patients showed greater benefit from glucarpidase treatment than male patients (P = .02 for interaction).
• No significant difference was observed in time-to-death between glucarpidase-treated and glucarpidase-untreated patients (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest glucarpidase may improve both renal and extrarenal outcomes in patients with MTX-AKI [methotrexate-acute kidney injury],” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, and David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. It was published online in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, residual confounding cannot be excluded despite adjustment for multiple variables. While glucarpidase-treated patients had similar distributions of most baseline characteristics, they showed greater severity of illness, including more comorbidities, concomitant nephrotoxic medications, higher 24-hour methotrexate levels, and more severe acute kidney injury. This study was limited to patients treated at large, US-based academic centers, potentially affecting generalizability to smaller hospitals or countries where glucarpidase is unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by BTG International. Gupta disclosed ties with BTG International, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s Wong Foundation, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK125672). Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.