Cutis

The pediatric population has a unique product exposure profile due to the many care products specifically marketed for use in children. In fact, the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in children may be as high as 24.5% in the United States.¹ In patch tested children, relevant positive reaction rates of 56.7% and 48% have been reported by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group and the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry, respectively.^2,3 In this article, we provide an overview of current trends in pediatric patch testing as well as specific considerations in this patient population.

Patch Test Reactions in Children

Several publications have documented pediatric patch test reactions. The North American Contact Dermatitis Group reported patch test results in 883 children from the United States and Canada (2005-2012).² The most common reactions were nickel (28.1%), cobalt (12.3%), neomycin (7.1%), balsam of Peru (5.7%), lanolin (5.5%), and fragrance mix I (5.2%). When compared to adults, children were more likely to have relevant positive patch tests to nickel, cobalt, and compositae mix.² In comparison, data from the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry showed that the most common reactions in 1142 children in the United States (2015-2016) were nickel (22%), fragrance mix I (11%), cobalt (9.1%), balsam of Peru (8.4%), neomycin (7.2%), and propylene glycol (6.8%).³

Allergen sensitivities may vary based on geographic region. In Spain, children showed the highest sensitivities to thiomersal (10.2%), cobalt (9.1%), colophony (9.1%), paraphenylenediamine (8.3%), mercury (7.9%), potassium dichromate (7.9%), and nickel (6.4%).⁴

Pediatric Patch Testing Pearls

History of Product Use
From diapers to drama club, pediatric exposures and sources of ACD are not the same as those seen in adults. Because obtaining a medical history from a toddler can be exasperating, the patient’s caregivers should be asked about potential exposures, ranging from personal care products and diapers to school activities, hobbies, and sports.^5,6 It is important to keep in mind that the patient’s primary caregiver may not be the only individual who applies products to the child.⁷

Application of Allergens
Children are not merely small adults, but they usually do have smaller backs than adult patients. This reduced surface area means that the patch tester must carefully select the allergens to be patch tested. For reference, the back of a typical 6-year-old child can fit 40 to 60 allergens during patch testing.⁸

Patch Test Chambers
In children, the use of plastic patch test chambers may be preferred over aluminum chambers. Children with persistent pruritic subcutaneous nodules induced by aluminum-based vaccines also may have delayed-type sensitivity reactions to aluminum.⁹ These patients could react to the aluminum present in some patch test chambers, making interpretation of the results difficult. The authors (A.R.A. and M.R.) typically use plastic chambers in the pediatric population.

Managing Expectations
As with other procedures in the pediatric population, patch testing can elicit emotions of fear, anxiety, and distrust. Video distraction and/or role-playing games may help capture the attention of children and can be particularly helpful during patch application. Children may be apprehensive about the term allergy testing if they are familiar with the term needle testing from previous allergies.⁵

Securing Patches
Young children can be quite active, posing another challenge for keeping patches in place. We recommend using extra tape to secure the patches in place on a child’s back. In addition, a large transparent film dressing (ie, 12×8 in) can be used if quick application is needed. For extra precaution, the use of a tight T-shirt or favorite onesie during the patch test process may be helpful, making it more difficult for little fingers to remove tape edges.

Duration of Patch Testing
Some authors have proposed application of patch tests for 24 hours in pediatric patients, as compared to 48 hours in adults.¹⁰ This recommendation is based on a theory that the reduced application period will decrease the risk for irritant reactions in pediatric patients.

Pediatric Patch Test Screening Series

A summary of the published screening series for patch testing in the pediatric population is provided (Table).

The T.R.U.E. Test (SmartPractice) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients 6 years and older¹¹; however, it may not adequately represent allergen exposures in the pediatric population. Brankov and Jacob¹⁴ found that 10 (40%) of their proposed top 25 pediatric allergens were not detected using the T.R.U.E. Test.

In 2014, the North American Pediatric Patch Test Series was proposed as a basic screening panel for children aged 6 to 12 years.¹² This series of 20 allergens was developed based on a literature review of pediatric patch test results and case reports as well as a database review. The authors proposed additional allergens to be considered based on patient history.¹²

More recently, a 2017 American Contact Dermatitis Society physician work group proposed the Pediatric Baseline Patch Test Series. This series of 38 allergens for children aged 6 to 18 years was developed based on expert consensus.⁸ Studies to determine the efficacy of this series have yet to be conducted, but it may have high sensitivity in detecting relevant allergens in children as demonstrated by a theoretical detection rate of 84%.¹⁴

There are 2 recommended patch test series for allergic diaper dermatitis.¹⁵ The first series focuses on 23 potential allergens found in wet wipes and topical diaper preparations. The second series contains 10 potential allergens found in diapers. These series contain common topical medications for children including corticosteroids, antimicrobials, and sensitizers specific to diapers such as rubbers and adhesives.¹⁵

Similar to adults, it may be difficult to designate one screening panel that can identify all relevant allergens in children; thus, it is always important to obtain a thorough exposure history and customize testing to suspected allergens and/or patient products based on history and clinical relevance.

Unique Pediatric Allergens

Hobbies
Sports gear such as shin guards and splints often contain allergens such as formaldehyde resin, thiuram mix, and dialkyl thioureas.¹⁶ Perioral dermatitis may be caused by musical instrument mouthpieces containing nickel.⁶

Preservatives
Commonly reported causes of ACD in children include methylisothiazolinone (MI) and methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) found in wet wipes. A 2016 analysis of diaper wipes showed a low prevalence of MI (6.3%) and MCI (1.6%) in these products, which may reflect the industry’s awareness of these potential allergens and a subsequent change in the preservatives they utilize.¹⁷ However, the prevalence of MCI/MI contact allergy may be on the rise due to the popularity of homemade slime, which is made from common household products such as laundry detergent, dishwashing soap, and liquid glue. The Pediatric Baseline Patch Test Series captures most of the potential allergens in these homemade slime recipes and is recommended for use in pediatric patients suspected of having dermatitis secondary to playing with slime.^8,18

Toilet Seat Dermatitis
Toilet seat dermatitis presents as a pruritic dermatitis on the posterior upper thighs and buttocks. Although most cases of toilet seat dermatitis are irritant rather than allergic, potential allergens include plastics, fragrances, and components of cleaning products. Thus, physicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for ACD to toilet seats.¹⁹

Fragrance and Natural Ingredients
A 2018 study evaluating personal care products marketed specifically for infants and children found that 55% of products (294/533) contained at least 1 common allergen, with fragrance being the most common (48% [255/533]). Other common allergens include betaines (18%), propylene glycol (9%), lanolin (6%), and MCI/MI (3%).²⁰ Caregivers should be advised against the myth that natural products are safer and less allergenic and should be provided with resources such as the Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP) database (https://www.contactderm.org/resources/acds-camp) for safe alternative personal care products.

Metal Allergens
Nickel, the American Contact Dermatitis Society 2008 Allergen of the Year, is another common allergen that affects children. Nickel allergy, commonly thought to affect the ears due to jewelry and ear piercing, may actually be found in a wide range of daily items such as braces, eyeglasses, keys, zippers, school chairs, electronics, toys, and even food.^3,6,21,22 With increased use of electronics in children of all ages, nickel found in mobile phones and other devices may be of particular concern. Caregivers can use a case or cover for metallic-appearing electronics.

Final Interpretation

Pediatric ACD is common. With limited surface area for patch testing in children, we recommend customized panels based on patient history and exposure. It is important for clinicians to recognize the unique causes of ACD in children and develop age-appropriate management plans.

The pediatric population has a unique product exposure profile due to the many care products specifically marketed for use in children. In fact, the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in children may be as high as 24.5% in the United States.¹ In patch tested children, relevant positive reaction rates of 56.7% and 48% have been reported by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group and the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry, respectively.^2,3 In this article, we provide an overview of current trends in pediatric patch testing as well as specific considerations in this patient population.

Patch Test Reactions in Children

Several publications have documented pediatric patch test reactions. The North American Contact Dermatitis Group reported patch test results in 883 children from the United States and Canada (2005-2012).² The most common reactions were nickel (28.1%), cobalt (12.3%), neomycin (7.1%), balsam of Peru (5.7%), lanolin (5.5%), and fragrance mix I (5.2%). When compared to adults, children were more likely to have relevant positive patch tests to nickel, cobalt, and compositae mix.² In comparison, data from the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry showed that the most common reactions in 1142 children in the United States (2015-2016) were nickel (22%), fragrance mix I (11%), cobalt (9.1%), balsam of Peru (8.4%), neomycin (7.2%), and propylene glycol (6.8%).³

Allergen sensitivities may vary based on geographic region. In Spain, children showed the highest sensitivities to thiomersal (10.2%), cobalt (9.1%), colophony (9.1%), paraphenylenediamine (8.3%), mercury (7.9%), potassium dichromate (7.9%), and nickel (6.4%).⁴

Pediatric Patch Testing Pearls

History of Product Use
From diapers to drama club, pediatric exposures and sources of ACD are not the same as those seen in adults. Because obtaining a medical history from a toddler can be exasperating, the patient’s caregivers should be asked about potential exposures, ranging from personal care products and diapers to school activities, hobbies, and sports.^5,6 It is important to keep in mind that the patient’s primary caregiver may not be the only individual who applies products to the child.⁷

Application of Allergens
Children are not merely small adults, but they usually do have smaller backs than adult patients. This reduced surface area means that the patch tester must carefully select the allergens to be patch tested. For reference, the back of a typical 6-year-old child can fit 40 to 60 allergens during patch testing.⁸

Patch Test Chambers
In children, the use of plastic patch test chambers may be preferred over aluminum chambers. Children with persistent pruritic subcutaneous nodules induced by aluminum-based vaccines also may have delayed-type sensitivity reactions to aluminum.⁹ These patients could react to the aluminum present in some patch test chambers, making interpretation of the results difficult. The authors (A.R.A. and M.R.) typically use plastic chambers in the pediatric population.

Managing Expectations
As with other procedures in the pediatric population, patch testing can elicit emotions of fear, anxiety, and distrust. Video distraction and/or role-playing games may help capture the attention of children and can be particularly helpful during patch application. Children may be apprehensive about the term allergy testing if they are familiar with the term needle testing from previous allergies.⁵

Securing Patches
Young children can be quite active, posing another challenge for keeping patches in place. We recommend using extra tape to secure the patches in place on a child’s back. In addition, a large transparent film dressing (ie, 12×8 in) can be used if quick application is needed. For extra precaution, the use of a tight T-shirt or favorite onesie during the patch test process may be helpful, making it more difficult for little fingers to remove tape edges.

Duration of Patch Testing
Some authors have proposed application of patch tests for 24 hours in pediatric patients, as compared to 48 hours in adults.¹⁰ This recommendation is based on a theory that the reduced application period will decrease the risk for irritant reactions in pediatric patients.

Pediatric Patch Test Screening Series

A summary of the published screening series for patch testing in the pediatric population is provided (Table).

The T.R.U.E. Test (SmartPractice) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients 6 years and older¹¹; however, it may not adequately represent allergen exposures in the pediatric population. Brankov and Jacob¹⁴ found that 10 (40%) of their proposed top 25 pediatric allergens were not detected using the T.R.U.E. Test.

In 2014, the North American Pediatric Patch Test Series was proposed as a basic screening panel for children aged 6 to 12 years.¹² This series of 20 allergens was developed based on a literature review of pediatric patch test results and case reports as well as a database review. The authors proposed additional allergens to be considered based on patient history.¹²

More recently, a 2017 American Contact Dermatitis Society physician work group proposed the Pediatric Baseline Patch Test Series. This series of 38 allergens for children aged 6 to 18 years was developed based on expert consensus.⁸ Studies to determine the efficacy of this series have yet to be conducted, but it may have high sensitivity in detecting relevant allergens in children as demonstrated by a theoretical detection rate of 84%.¹⁴

There are 2 recommended patch test series for allergic diaper dermatitis.¹⁵ The first series focuses on 23 potential allergens found in wet wipes and topical diaper preparations. The second series contains 10 potential allergens found in diapers. These series contain common topical medications for children including corticosteroids, antimicrobials, and sensitizers specific to diapers such as rubbers and adhesives.¹⁵

Similar to adults, it may be difficult to designate one screening panel that can identify all relevant allergens in children; thus, it is always important to obtain a thorough exposure history and customize testing to suspected allergens and/or patient products based on history and clinical relevance.

Unique Pediatric Allergens

Hobbies
Sports gear such as shin guards and splints often contain allergens such as formaldehyde resin, thiuram mix, and dialkyl thioureas.¹⁶ Perioral dermatitis may be caused by musical instrument mouthpieces containing nickel.⁶

Preservatives
Commonly reported causes of ACD in children include methylisothiazolinone (MI) and methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) found in wet wipes. A 2016 analysis of diaper wipes showed a low prevalence of MI (6.3%) and MCI (1.6%) in these products, which may reflect the industry’s awareness of these potential allergens and a subsequent change in the preservatives they utilize.¹⁷ However, the prevalence of MCI/MI contact allergy may be on the rise due to the popularity of homemade slime, which is made from common household products such as laundry detergent, dishwashing soap, and liquid glue. The Pediatric Baseline Patch Test Series captures most of the potential allergens in these homemade slime recipes and is recommended for use in pediatric patients suspected of having dermatitis secondary to playing with slime.^8,18

Toilet Seat Dermatitis
Toilet seat dermatitis presents as a pruritic dermatitis on the posterior upper thighs and buttocks. Although most cases of toilet seat dermatitis are irritant rather than allergic, potential allergens include plastics, fragrances, and components of cleaning products. Thus, physicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for ACD to toilet seats.¹⁹

Fragrance and Natural Ingredients
A 2018 study evaluating personal care products marketed specifically for infants and children found that 55% of products (294/533) contained at least 1 common allergen, with fragrance being the most common (48% [255/533]). Other common allergens include betaines (18%), propylene glycol (9%), lanolin (6%), and MCI/MI (3%).²⁰ Caregivers should be advised against the myth that natural products are safer and less allergenic and should be provided with resources such as the Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP) database (https://www.contactderm.org/resources/acds-camp) for safe alternative personal care products.

Metal Allergens
Nickel, the American Contact Dermatitis Society 2008 Allergen of the Year, is another common allergen that affects children. Nickel allergy, commonly thought to affect the ears due to jewelry and ear piercing, may actually be found in a wide range of daily items such as braces, eyeglasses, keys, zippers, school chairs, electronics, toys, and even food.^3,6,21,22 With increased use of electronics in children of all ages, nickel found in mobile phones and other devices may be of particular concern. Caregivers can use a case or cover for metallic-appearing electronics.

Final Interpretation

Pediatric ACD is common. With limited surface area for patch testing in children, we recommend customized panels based on patient history and exposure. It is important for clinicians to recognize the unique causes of ACD in children and develop age-appropriate management plans.

The pediatric population has a unique product exposure profile due to the many care products specifically marketed for use in children. In fact, the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in children may be as high as 24.5% in the United States.¹ In patch tested children, relevant positive reaction rates of 56.7% and 48% have been reported by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group and the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry, respectively.^2,3 In this article, we provide an overview of current trends in pediatric patch testing as well as specific considerations in this patient population.

Patch Test Reactions in Children

Several publications have documented pediatric patch test reactions. The North American Contact Dermatitis Group reported patch test results in 883 children from the United States and Canada (2005-2012).² The most common reactions were nickel (28.1%), cobalt (12.3%), neomycin (7.1%), balsam of Peru (5.7%), lanolin (5.5%), and fragrance mix I (5.2%). When compared to adults, children were more likely to have relevant positive patch tests to nickel, cobalt, and compositae mix.² In comparison, data from the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry showed that the most common reactions in 1142 children in the United States (2015-2016) were nickel (22%), fragrance mix I (11%), cobalt (9.1%), balsam of Peru (8.4%), neomycin (7.2%), and propylene glycol (6.8%).³

Allergen sensitivities may vary based on geographic region. In Spain, children showed the highest sensitivities to thiomersal (10.2%), cobalt (9.1%), colophony (9.1%), paraphenylenediamine (8.3%), mercury (7.9%), potassium dichromate (7.9%), and nickel (6.4%).⁴

Pediatric Patch Testing Pearls

History of Product Use
From diapers to drama club, pediatric exposures and sources of ACD are not the same as those seen in adults. Because obtaining a medical history from a toddler can be exasperating, the patient’s caregivers should be asked about potential exposures, ranging from personal care products and diapers to school activities, hobbies, and sports.^5,6 It is important to keep in mind that the patient’s primary caregiver may not be the only individual who applies products to the child.⁷

Application of Allergens
Children are not merely small adults, but they usually do have smaller backs than adult patients. This reduced surface area means that the patch tester must carefully select the allergens to be patch tested. For reference, the back of a typical 6-year-old child can fit 40 to 60 allergens during patch testing.⁸

Patch Test Chambers
In children, the use of plastic patch test chambers may be preferred over aluminum chambers. Children with persistent pruritic subcutaneous nodules induced by aluminum-based vaccines also may have delayed-type sensitivity reactions to aluminum.⁹ These patients could react to the aluminum present in some patch test chambers, making interpretation of the results difficult. The authors (A.R.A. and M.R.) typically use plastic chambers in the pediatric population.

Managing Expectations
As with other procedures in the pediatric population, patch testing can elicit emotions of fear, anxiety, and distrust. Video distraction and/or role-playing games may help capture the attention of children and can be particularly helpful during patch application. Children may be apprehensive about the term allergy testing if they are familiar with the term needle testing from previous allergies.⁵

Securing Patches
Young children can be quite active, posing another challenge for keeping patches in place. We recommend using extra tape to secure the patches in place on a child’s back. In addition, a large transparent film dressing (ie, 12×8 in) can be used if quick application is needed. For extra precaution, the use of a tight T-shirt or favorite onesie during the patch test process may be helpful, making it more difficult for little fingers to remove tape edges.

Duration of Patch Testing
Some authors have proposed application of patch tests for 24 hours in pediatric patients, as compared to 48 hours in adults.¹⁰ This recommendation is based on a theory that the reduced application period will decrease the risk for irritant reactions in pediatric patients.

Pediatric Patch Test Screening Series

A summary of the published screening series for patch testing in the pediatric population is provided (Table).

The T.R.U.E. Test (SmartPractice) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in patients 6 years and older¹¹; however, it may not adequately represent allergen exposures in the pediatric population. Brankov and Jacob¹⁴ found that 10 (40%) of their proposed top 25 pediatric allergens were not detected using the T.R.U.E. Test.

In 2014, the North American Pediatric Patch Test Series was proposed as a basic screening panel for children aged 6 to 12 years.¹² This series of 20 allergens was developed based on a literature review of pediatric patch test results and case reports as well as a database review. The authors proposed additional allergens to be considered based on patient history.¹²

More recently, a 2017 American Contact Dermatitis Society physician work group proposed the Pediatric Baseline Patch Test Series. This series of 38 allergens for children aged 6 to 18 years was developed based on expert consensus.⁸ Studies to determine the efficacy of this series have yet to be conducted, but it may have high sensitivity in detecting relevant allergens in children as demonstrated by a theoretical detection rate of 84%.¹⁴

There are 2 recommended patch test series for allergic diaper dermatitis.¹⁵ The first series focuses on 23 potential allergens found in wet wipes and topical diaper preparations. The second series contains 10 potential allergens found in diapers. These series contain common topical medications for children including corticosteroids, antimicrobials, and sensitizers specific to diapers such as rubbers and adhesives.¹⁵

Similar to adults, it may be difficult to designate one screening panel that can identify all relevant allergens in children; thus, it is always important to obtain a thorough exposure history and customize testing to suspected allergens and/or patient products based on history and clinical relevance.

Unique Pediatric Allergens

Hobbies
Sports gear such as shin guards and splints often contain allergens such as formaldehyde resin, thiuram mix, and dialkyl thioureas.¹⁶ Perioral dermatitis may be caused by musical instrument mouthpieces containing nickel.⁶

Preservatives
Commonly reported causes of ACD in children include methylisothiazolinone (MI) and methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) found in wet wipes. A 2016 analysis of diaper wipes showed a low prevalence of MI (6.3%) and MCI (1.6%) in these products, which may reflect the industry’s awareness of these potential allergens and a subsequent change in the preservatives they utilize.¹⁷ However, the prevalence of MCI/MI contact allergy may be on the rise due to the popularity of homemade slime, which is made from common household products such as laundry detergent, dishwashing soap, and liquid glue. The Pediatric Baseline Patch Test Series captures most of the potential allergens in these homemade slime recipes and is recommended for use in pediatric patients suspected of having dermatitis secondary to playing with slime.^8,18

Toilet Seat Dermatitis
Toilet seat dermatitis presents as a pruritic dermatitis on the posterior upper thighs and buttocks. Although most cases of toilet seat dermatitis are irritant rather than allergic, potential allergens include plastics, fragrances, and components of cleaning products. Thus, physicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for ACD to toilet seats.¹⁹

Fragrance and Natural Ingredients
A 2018 study evaluating personal care products marketed specifically for infants and children found that 55% of products (294/533) contained at least 1 common allergen, with fragrance being the most common (48% [255/533]). Other common allergens include betaines (18%), propylene glycol (9%), lanolin (6%), and MCI/MI (3%).²⁰ Caregivers should be advised against the myth that natural products are safer and less allergenic and should be provided with resources such as the Contact Allergen Management Program (CAMP) database (https://www.contactderm.org/resources/acds-camp) for safe alternative personal care products.

Metal Allergens
Nickel, the American Contact Dermatitis Society 2008 Allergen of the Year, is another common allergen that affects children. Nickel allergy, commonly thought to affect the ears due to jewelry and ear piercing, may actually be found in a wide range of daily items such as braces, eyeglasses, keys, zippers, school chairs, electronics, toys, and even food.^3,6,21,22 With increased use of electronics in children of all ages, nickel found in mobile phones and other devices may be of particular concern. Caregivers can use a case or cover for metallic-appearing electronics.

Final Interpretation

Pediatric ACD is common. With limited surface area for patch testing in children, we recommend customized panels based on patient history and exposure. It is important for clinicians to recognize the unique causes of ACD in children and develop age-appropriate management plans.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has been met with controversy since its inception in the 1930s. Current debate centers on the types of tumors treated with MMS, increasing utilization, third-party payer reimbursement, the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC), and subspecialty certification.

Controversies in Applications

Controversy surrounding treatment with MMS for certain tumor types is abundant, in large part due to a lack of well-designed studies. Perhaps most notably, the surgical management of melanoma has been hotly contested for decades.¹ An increasing number of Mohs surgeons advocate the use of MMS for treatment of melanoma. Advocates reason that tumor margins may be ill-defined, necessitating histologic examination of the margin for tumor clearance. In a study by Zitelli et al,² 5-year survival and metastatic rates for 535 patients with melanomas treated by MMS with frozen sections were the same or better when compared to historical controls treated with conventional wide local excision. Melanoma-associated antigen recognized by T cells (MART-1) immunostaining may offer improved diagnostic accuracy.³ Others believe that staged excision with permanent sections processed vertically, en face, or horizontally (“slow Mohs”) is more accurate and efficacious for the treatment of melanoma.¹ Advocates of this approach maintain that when compared to MMS with frozen sections, staged excision with permanent sections enables more accurate interpretation of residual melanoma and atypical junctional melanocytic hyperplasia as well as circumvents difficulty in interpreting freeze artifact.⁴

Although Merkel cell carcinoma has traditionally been treated with wide local excision, MMS with or without adjuvant radiotherapy has gained traction as a treatment option. Advocates for treatment by MMS hold that Merkel cell carcinoma is a contiguous tumor with a high rate of residual tumor persistence, making histologic margin control an ideal characteristic of treatment. However, in the absence of large randomized controlled studies comparing MMS to wide local excision, controversy surrounds the most appropriate surgical approach.¹ In a retrospective study of 86 patients by O’Connor et al,⁵ MMS was demonstrated to compare favorably to standard surgical excision. Standard surgical excision was associated with a 31.7% (13/41) local persistence rate and 48.8% (20/41) regional metastasis rate compared to 8.3% (1/12) and 33.3% (4/12) for MMS, respectively.⁵

Controversies in Increasing Utilization

The incidence of skin cancers has increased in recent years. As a result, it is reasonable to expect the rates of MMS to increase. Nonetheless, there is escalating concern among groups of third-party payers, the public, and physicians that MMS is being overused.⁶ Growth of the body of evidence supporting the appropriateness of MMS remains essential. Such studies continue to support reasons for increased MMS usage, demonstrating the stability of the percentage of skin cancers treated with MMS in the setting of increasing skin cancer incidence, the procedure’s superior efficacy for appropriately chosen cases, its expanding application to melanoma and other tumors, and an emphasis of MMS in residency training programs.^6-9

A current hot topic of controversy focuses on the wide variation among Mohs surgeons in the mean number of stages used to resect a tumor. Overuse among outliers has been proposed to stem from lack of technical expertise or from abuse of the current fee-for-service payment model, which bases compensation on the number of stages performed. A study by Krishnan et al¹⁰ determined that the mean number of stages per tumor in the studied population (all physicians [N=2305] receiving Medicare payments for MMS from January 2012 to December 2014) was 1.74, with a range of 1.09 to 4.11. Persistently high outliers were more likely to perform MMS in a solo practice, with an odds ratio of 2.35.¹⁰ In response to the wide variation in mean stages used to resect a skin cancer and its implications on increased financial burden and surgery to individual patients, intervention has been proposed. Notably, it has been demonstrated that mailing out individual reports of practice patterns to high-outlier physicians resulted in a reduction in mean stages per tumor as well as an associated cost savings when compared to outlier physicians who did not receive these reports.¹¹

Controversies in Reimbursement

Mohs micrographic surgery also has been in the spotlight for debate regarding reimbursement. The procedure has been targeted partly in response to its substantial contribution to total Medicare reimbursements paid out. In 2013, primary MMS billing codes constituted nearly 19% of total reimbursements to dermatologists and approximately 0.5% of total reimbursements to all physicians participating in Medicare.¹² Mohs micrographic surgery codes have correspondingly received frequent review by the Relative Value Scale Update Committee and remained on a list of potentially misvalued services according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for years.¹³ Due to continued scrutiny and review, especially by the Relative Value Scale Update Committee and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, reimbursement to perform MMS and reconstructive surgery has gone down by more than 20% in the last 15 years.¹⁴ Public perception mirrors third-party payer concerns for overcompensation. An article title in the New York Times theatrically postures “Patients’ Costs Skyrocket, Specialists’ Incomes Soar.” The article recounts an MMS patient’s “outrage at charges” associated with treatment of her “minor medical problem” and the simultaneous “sharp climb” in dermatologist income over the last 2 decades.¹⁵

However, studies continue to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of MMS. A study by Ravitskiy et al¹⁶ demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of MMS, regardless of place of service or type of tumor. Of 406 tumors studied, MMS was the least expensive surgical procedure evaluated ($805 per tumor) when compared to standard surgical excision with permanent margins ($1026 per tumor), standard surgical excision with frozen margins ($1200 per tumor), and ambulatory surgery center standard surgical excision ($2507 per tumor). Furthermore, adjusted for inflation, the cost of MMS was lower in 2009 vs 1998.¹⁶ Similar results have been consistently demonstrated.¹⁷

Controversies in the AUC

To provide clinicians, policy makers, and insurers guidance for utilization of MMS in the setting of concerns for overutilization, overcompensation, and inappropriate application, the MMS AUC were established in 2012. The guidelines were developed by a process integrating evidence-based medicine, clinical experience, and expert opinion and is applicable to 270 clinical scenarios.¹⁸

A unique set of debate accompanies the guidelines. Namely, controversy has surrounded the classification of most primary superficial basal cell carcinomas as appropriate for treatment by MMS. These tumors have comparable cure rates when treated by MMS or curettage and cryosurgery, are often multifocal and require more Mohs stages than other basal cell carcinoma subtypes, and largely lack data on recurrence and invasion.¹⁹ The guidelines also have been scrutinized for including only studies from the United States.²⁰ Furthermore, the report is largely based on expert opinion rather than evidence.

Some Mohs surgeons have concerns that the guidelines will minimize clinical judgment. Nonetheless, deviations from the AUC practiced by Mohs surgeons have been reported where clinical judgment supplants guideline criteria. The most commonly cited reasons for performing MMS on tumors classified as uncertain or inappropriate, according to one study by Ruiz et al,²¹ included performing multiple MMSs on the same day, tumor location on the lower legs, and incorporation into an adjacent wound. Reported discrepancies in the AUC further emphasize the importance of clinical judgment and call into question the need for future revision of the criteria.²² For example, a primary squamous cell carcinoma in situ greater than or equal to 2 cm located on the trunk and extremities (excluding pretibial surfaces, hands, feet, nail units, and ankles) in a healthy patient is categorized as appropriate, while a recurrent but otherwise identical squamous cell carcinoma in situ is categorized as uncertain. These counterintuitive criteria are unsupported by existing studies.

Controversies in Subspecialty Certification

Recently, debate also has surfaced regarding subspecialty certification. Over the last decade, proponents of subspecialty certification have argued that board certification would bring consistency and decrease divisiveness among dermatologists; help to prevent exclusion of Mohs surgeons from insurance networks and teaching opportunities at the Veterans Administration; and demonstrate competence to patients, the media, and payers. Those in opposition contest that practices may be restricted by insurers using lack of certification to eliminate dermatologists from their networks, economic credentialing may be applied to dermatologists such that those without the subspecialty certification may not be deemed qualified to manage skin cancer, major limitations may be set determining which dermatologists can sit for the certification examination, and subspecialty certification could create disenfranchisement of many dermatologists. A 2017 American Academy of Dermatology member survey demonstrated ambivalence regarding subcertification, with 51% of respondents pro-subcertification and 48% anti-subcertification.²³

Nonetheless, after years of debate the American Board of Dermatology proposed subspecialty certification in Micrographic Dermatologic Surgery, which was approved by the American Board of Medical Specialties on October 26, 2018. The first certification examination will likely take place in 2 years, and a maintenance of certification examination will be required every 10 years.²⁴

Final Thoughts

Further investigation is needed to elucidate and optimize solutions to many of the current controversies associated with MMS.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has been met with controversy since its inception in the 1930s. Current debate centers on the types of tumors treated with MMS, increasing utilization, third-party payer reimbursement, the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC), and subspecialty certification.

Controversies in Applications

Controversy surrounding treatment with MMS for certain tumor types is abundant, in large part due to a lack of well-designed studies. Perhaps most notably, the surgical management of melanoma has been hotly contested for decades.¹ An increasing number of Mohs surgeons advocate the use of MMS for treatment of melanoma. Advocates reason that tumor margins may be ill-defined, necessitating histologic examination of the margin for tumor clearance. In a study by Zitelli et al,² 5-year survival and metastatic rates for 535 patients with melanomas treated by MMS with frozen sections were the same or better when compared to historical controls treated with conventional wide local excision. Melanoma-associated antigen recognized by T cells (MART-1) immunostaining may offer improved diagnostic accuracy.³ Others believe that staged excision with permanent sections processed vertically, en face, or horizontally (“slow Mohs”) is more accurate and efficacious for the treatment of melanoma.¹ Advocates of this approach maintain that when compared to MMS with frozen sections, staged excision with permanent sections enables more accurate interpretation of residual melanoma and atypical junctional melanocytic hyperplasia as well as circumvents difficulty in interpreting freeze artifact.⁴

Although Merkel cell carcinoma has traditionally been treated with wide local excision, MMS with or without adjuvant radiotherapy has gained traction as a treatment option. Advocates for treatment by MMS hold that Merkel cell carcinoma is a contiguous tumor with a high rate of residual tumor persistence, making histologic margin control an ideal characteristic of treatment. However, in the absence of large randomized controlled studies comparing MMS to wide local excision, controversy surrounds the most appropriate surgical approach.¹ In a retrospective study of 86 patients by O’Connor et al,⁵ MMS was demonstrated to compare favorably to standard surgical excision. Standard surgical excision was associated with a 31.7% (13/41) local persistence rate and 48.8% (20/41) regional metastasis rate compared to 8.3% (1/12) and 33.3% (4/12) for MMS, respectively.⁵

Controversies in Increasing Utilization

The incidence of skin cancers has increased in recent years. As a result, it is reasonable to expect the rates of MMS to increase. Nonetheless, there is escalating concern among groups of third-party payers, the public, and physicians that MMS is being overused.⁶ Growth of the body of evidence supporting the appropriateness of MMS remains essential. Such studies continue to support reasons for increased MMS usage, demonstrating the stability of the percentage of skin cancers treated with MMS in the setting of increasing skin cancer incidence, the procedure’s superior efficacy for appropriately chosen cases, its expanding application to melanoma and other tumors, and an emphasis of MMS in residency training programs.^6-9

A current hot topic of controversy focuses on the wide variation among Mohs surgeons in the mean number of stages used to resect a tumor. Overuse among outliers has been proposed to stem from lack of technical expertise or from abuse of the current fee-for-service payment model, which bases compensation on the number of stages performed. A study by Krishnan et al¹⁰ determined that the mean number of stages per tumor in the studied population (all physicians [N=2305] receiving Medicare payments for MMS from January 2012 to December 2014) was 1.74, with a range of 1.09 to 4.11. Persistently high outliers were more likely to perform MMS in a solo practice, with an odds ratio of 2.35.¹⁰ In response to the wide variation in mean stages used to resect a skin cancer and its implications on increased financial burden and surgery to individual patients, intervention has been proposed. Notably, it has been demonstrated that mailing out individual reports of practice patterns to high-outlier physicians resulted in a reduction in mean stages per tumor as well as an associated cost savings when compared to outlier physicians who did not receive these reports.¹¹

Controversies in Reimbursement

Mohs micrographic surgery also has been in the spotlight for debate regarding reimbursement. The procedure has been targeted partly in response to its substantial contribution to total Medicare reimbursements paid out. In 2013, primary MMS billing codes constituted nearly 19% of total reimbursements to dermatologists and approximately 0.5% of total reimbursements to all physicians participating in Medicare.¹² Mohs micrographic surgery codes have correspondingly received frequent review by the Relative Value Scale Update Committee and remained on a list of potentially misvalued services according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for years.¹³ Due to continued scrutiny and review, especially by the Relative Value Scale Update Committee and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, reimbursement to perform MMS and reconstructive surgery has gone down by more than 20% in the last 15 years.¹⁴ Public perception mirrors third-party payer concerns for overcompensation. An article title in the New York Times theatrically postures “Patients’ Costs Skyrocket, Specialists’ Incomes Soar.” The article recounts an MMS patient’s “outrage at charges” associated with treatment of her “minor medical problem” and the simultaneous “sharp climb” in dermatologist income over the last 2 decades.¹⁵

However, studies continue to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of MMS. A study by Ravitskiy et al¹⁶ demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of MMS, regardless of place of service or type of tumor. Of 406 tumors studied, MMS was the least expensive surgical procedure evaluated ($805 per tumor) when compared to standard surgical excision with permanent margins ($1026 per tumor), standard surgical excision with frozen margins ($1200 per tumor), and ambulatory surgery center standard surgical excision ($2507 per tumor). Furthermore, adjusted for inflation, the cost of MMS was lower in 2009 vs 1998.¹⁶ Similar results have been consistently demonstrated.¹⁷

Controversies in the AUC

To provide clinicians, policy makers, and insurers guidance for utilization of MMS in the setting of concerns for overutilization, overcompensation, and inappropriate application, the MMS AUC were established in 2012. The guidelines were developed by a process integrating evidence-based medicine, clinical experience, and expert opinion and is applicable to 270 clinical scenarios.¹⁸

A unique set of debate accompanies the guidelines. Namely, controversy has surrounded the classification of most primary superficial basal cell carcinomas as appropriate for treatment by MMS. These tumors have comparable cure rates when treated by MMS or curettage and cryosurgery, are often multifocal and require more Mohs stages than other basal cell carcinoma subtypes, and largely lack data on recurrence and invasion.¹⁹ The guidelines also have been scrutinized for including only studies from the United States.²⁰ Furthermore, the report is largely based on expert opinion rather than evidence.

Some Mohs surgeons have concerns that the guidelines will minimize clinical judgment. Nonetheless, deviations from the AUC practiced by Mohs surgeons have been reported where clinical judgment supplants guideline criteria. The most commonly cited reasons for performing MMS on tumors classified as uncertain or inappropriate, according to one study by Ruiz et al,²¹ included performing multiple MMSs on the same day, tumor location on the lower legs, and incorporation into an adjacent wound. Reported discrepancies in the AUC further emphasize the importance of clinical judgment and call into question the need for future revision of the criteria.²² For example, a primary squamous cell carcinoma in situ greater than or equal to 2 cm located on the trunk and extremities (excluding pretibial surfaces, hands, feet, nail units, and ankles) in a healthy patient is categorized as appropriate, while a recurrent but otherwise identical squamous cell carcinoma in situ is categorized as uncertain. These counterintuitive criteria are unsupported by existing studies.

Controversies in Subspecialty Certification

Recently, debate also has surfaced regarding subspecialty certification. Over the last decade, proponents of subspecialty certification have argued that board certification would bring consistency and decrease divisiveness among dermatologists; help to prevent exclusion of Mohs surgeons from insurance networks and teaching opportunities at the Veterans Administration; and demonstrate competence to patients, the media, and payers. Those in opposition contest that practices may be restricted by insurers using lack of certification to eliminate dermatologists from their networks, economic credentialing may be applied to dermatologists such that those without the subspecialty certification may not be deemed qualified to manage skin cancer, major limitations may be set determining which dermatologists can sit for the certification examination, and subspecialty certification could create disenfranchisement of many dermatologists. A 2017 American Academy of Dermatology member survey demonstrated ambivalence regarding subcertification, with 51% of respondents pro-subcertification and 48% anti-subcertification.²³

Nonetheless, after years of debate the American Board of Dermatology proposed subspecialty certification in Micrographic Dermatologic Surgery, which was approved by the American Board of Medical Specialties on October 26, 2018. The first certification examination will likely take place in 2 years, and a maintenance of certification examination will be required every 10 years.²⁴

Final Thoughts

Further investigation is needed to elucidate and optimize solutions to many of the current controversies associated with MMS.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has been met with controversy since its inception in the 1930s. Current debate centers on the types of tumors treated with MMS, increasing utilization, third-party payer reimbursement, the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC), and subspecialty certification.

Controversies in Applications

Controversy surrounding treatment with MMS for certain tumor types is abundant, in large part due to a lack of well-designed studies. Perhaps most notably, the surgical management of melanoma has been hotly contested for decades.¹ An increasing number of Mohs surgeons advocate the use of MMS for treatment of melanoma. Advocates reason that tumor margins may be ill-defined, necessitating histologic examination of the margin for tumor clearance. In a study by Zitelli et al,² 5-year survival and metastatic rates for 535 patients with melanomas treated by MMS with frozen sections were the same or better when compared to historical controls treated with conventional wide local excision. Melanoma-associated antigen recognized by T cells (MART-1) immunostaining may offer improved diagnostic accuracy.³ Others believe that staged excision with permanent sections processed vertically, en face, or horizontally (“slow Mohs”) is more accurate and efficacious for the treatment of melanoma.¹ Advocates of this approach maintain that when compared to MMS with frozen sections, staged excision with permanent sections enables more accurate interpretation of residual melanoma and atypical junctional melanocytic hyperplasia as well as circumvents difficulty in interpreting freeze artifact.⁴

Although Merkel cell carcinoma has traditionally been treated with wide local excision, MMS with or without adjuvant radiotherapy has gained traction as a treatment option. Advocates for treatment by MMS hold that Merkel cell carcinoma is a contiguous tumor with a high rate of residual tumor persistence, making histologic margin control an ideal characteristic of treatment. However, in the absence of large randomized controlled studies comparing MMS to wide local excision, controversy surrounds the most appropriate surgical approach.¹ In a retrospective study of 86 patients by O’Connor et al,⁵ MMS was demonstrated to compare favorably to standard surgical excision. Standard surgical excision was associated with a 31.7% (13/41) local persistence rate and 48.8% (20/41) regional metastasis rate compared to 8.3% (1/12) and 33.3% (4/12) for MMS, respectively.⁵

Controversies in Increasing Utilization

The incidence of skin cancers has increased in recent years. As a result, it is reasonable to expect the rates of MMS to increase. Nonetheless, there is escalating concern among groups of third-party payers, the public, and physicians that MMS is being overused.⁶ Growth of the body of evidence supporting the appropriateness of MMS remains essential. Such studies continue to support reasons for increased MMS usage, demonstrating the stability of the percentage of skin cancers treated with MMS in the setting of increasing skin cancer incidence, the procedure’s superior efficacy for appropriately chosen cases, its expanding application to melanoma and other tumors, and an emphasis of MMS in residency training programs.^6-9

A current hot topic of controversy focuses on the wide variation among Mohs surgeons in the mean number of stages used to resect a tumor. Overuse among outliers has been proposed to stem from lack of technical expertise or from abuse of the current fee-for-service payment model, which bases compensation on the number of stages performed. A study by Krishnan et al¹⁰ determined that the mean number of stages per tumor in the studied population (all physicians [N=2305] receiving Medicare payments for MMS from January 2012 to December 2014) was 1.74, with a range of 1.09 to 4.11. Persistently high outliers were more likely to perform MMS in a solo practice, with an odds ratio of 2.35.¹⁰ In response to the wide variation in mean stages used to resect a skin cancer and its implications on increased financial burden and surgery to individual patients, intervention has been proposed. Notably, it has been demonstrated that mailing out individual reports of practice patterns to high-outlier physicians resulted in a reduction in mean stages per tumor as well as an associated cost savings when compared to outlier physicians who did not receive these reports.¹¹

Controversies in Reimbursement

Mohs micrographic surgery also has been in the spotlight for debate regarding reimbursement. The procedure has been targeted partly in response to its substantial contribution to total Medicare reimbursements paid out. In 2013, primary MMS billing codes constituted nearly 19% of total reimbursements to dermatologists and approximately 0.5% of total reimbursements to all physicians participating in Medicare.¹² Mohs micrographic surgery codes have correspondingly received frequent review by the Relative Value Scale Update Committee and remained on a list of potentially misvalued services according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for years.¹³ Due to continued scrutiny and review, especially by the Relative Value Scale Update Committee and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, reimbursement to perform MMS and reconstructive surgery has gone down by more than 20% in the last 15 years.¹⁴ Public perception mirrors third-party payer concerns for overcompensation. An article title in the New York Times theatrically postures “Patients’ Costs Skyrocket, Specialists’ Incomes Soar.” The article recounts an MMS patient’s “outrage at charges” associated with treatment of her “minor medical problem” and the simultaneous “sharp climb” in dermatologist income over the last 2 decades.¹⁵

However, studies continue to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of MMS. A study by Ravitskiy et al¹⁶ demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of MMS, regardless of place of service or type of tumor. Of 406 tumors studied, MMS was the least expensive surgical procedure evaluated ($805 per tumor) when compared to standard surgical excision with permanent margins ($1026 per tumor), standard surgical excision with frozen margins ($1200 per tumor), and ambulatory surgery center standard surgical excision ($2507 per tumor). Furthermore, adjusted for inflation, the cost of MMS was lower in 2009 vs 1998.¹⁶ Similar results have been consistently demonstrated.¹⁷

Controversies in the AUC

To provide clinicians, policy makers, and insurers guidance for utilization of MMS in the setting of concerns for overutilization, overcompensation, and inappropriate application, the MMS AUC were established in 2012. The guidelines were developed by a process integrating evidence-based medicine, clinical experience, and expert opinion and is applicable to 270 clinical scenarios.¹⁸

A unique set of debate accompanies the guidelines. Namely, controversy has surrounded the classification of most primary superficial basal cell carcinomas as appropriate for treatment by MMS. These tumors have comparable cure rates when treated by MMS or curettage and cryosurgery, are often multifocal and require more Mohs stages than other basal cell carcinoma subtypes, and largely lack data on recurrence and invasion.¹⁹ The guidelines also have been scrutinized for including only studies from the United States.²⁰ Furthermore, the report is largely based on expert opinion rather than evidence.

Some Mohs surgeons have concerns that the guidelines will minimize clinical judgment. Nonetheless, deviations from the AUC practiced by Mohs surgeons have been reported where clinical judgment supplants guideline criteria. The most commonly cited reasons for performing MMS on tumors classified as uncertain or inappropriate, according to one study by Ruiz et al,²¹ included performing multiple MMSs on the same day, tumor location on the lower legs, and incorporation into an adjacent wound. Reported discrepancies in the AUC further emphasize the importance of clinical judgment and call into question the need for future revision of the criteria.²² For example, a primary squamous cell carcinoma in situ greater than or equal to 2 cm located on the trunk and extremities (excluding pretibial surfaces, hands, feet, nail units, and ankles) in a healthy patient is categorized as appropriate, while a recurrent but otherwise identical squamous cell carcinoma in situ is categorized as uncertain. These counterintuitive criteria are unsupported by existing studies.

Controversies in Subspecialty Certification

Recently, debate also has surfaced regarding subspecialty certification. Over the last decade, proponents of subspecialty certification have argued that board certification would bring consistency and decrease divisiveness among dermatologists; help to prevent exclusion of Mohs surgeons from insurance networks and teaching opportunities at the Veterans Administration; and demonstrate competence to patients, the media, and payers. Those in opposition contest that practices may be restricted by insurers using lack of certification to eliminate dermatologists from their networks, economic credentialing may be applied to dermatologists such that those without the subspecialty certification may not be deemed qualified to manage skin cancer, major limitations may be set determining which dermatologists can sit for the certification examination, and subspecialty certification could create disenfranchisement of many dermatologists. A 2017 American Academy of Dermatology member survey demonstrated ambivalence regarding subcertification, with 51% of respondents pro-subcertification and 48% anti-subcertification.²³

Nonetheless, after years of debate the American Board of Dermatology proposed subspecialty certification in Micrographic Dermatologic Surgery, which was approved by the American Board of Medical Specialties on October 26, 2018. The first certification examination will likely take place in 2 years, and a maintenance of certification examination will be required every 10 years.²⁴

Final Thoughts

Further investigation is needed to elucidate and optimize solutions to many of the current controversies associated with MMS.

Although most neonatal vascular lumps, bumps, and tumors are benign, proper diagnosis is important for prognosis and management. Therefore, knowledge of both common and rare conditions is important when evaluating a neonatal nodule. Differential diagnosis of neonatal vascular nodules must focus on important diagnostic clues that should prompt consideration and evaluation for less common and/or potentially threatening conditions. Infantile hemangioma (IH), congenital hemangioma (CH), venous malformation (VM), lymphatic malformation (LM), kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE) and tufted angioma, and malignant tumors are reviewed here.

Infantile Hemangioma

Infantile hemangioma, a benign proliferation of capillaries, is the most common tumor of infancy with reported incidence of up to 5% in neonates.¹ As such, suspicion for less common lesions is often predicated on identifying features that would be atypical for an IH. A superficial IH presents as a bright red papule, nodule, or plaque, while a deep IH presents as a flesh-colored to bluish nodule. Mixed IHs combine features of both superficial and deep lesions. The distribution may be focal or segmental, with segmental lesions encompassing a larger territory–like distribution and frequently displaying a thin, coarsely telangiectatic appearance.

Knowledge of the natural history of IH generally is crucial in differentiating it from other neonatal lesions. Infantile hemangiomas display a natural history that is distinct and predictable. They typically manifest within the first few weeks of life, though up to 30% present at birth with a premonitory mark, which may be a light red, pink, bluish, or vasoconstricted patch. Thus, mere presence of a lesion at birth is not the feature that distinguishes other congenital lesions from an IH. After initial appearance, IHs undergo a period of proliferation that occurs over 4 to 6 months in most patients. In some cases, areas of proliferation may be subtle, but nonetheless the presence of some areas of increased redness and/or volumetric growth generally is required to firmly establish the diagnosis of IH. Thereafter, IH will involute, a process that begins before 1 year of age in most cases and continues over years. Although IHs undergo involution, complete clearance may not occur, as nearly 70% will leave permanent residua such as fibrofatty masses or anetodermic skin.² Nevertheless, the presence of a proliferative phase followed by a slower period of involution is a hallmark feature of the IH.

Biopsy and imaging rarely are required for establishing diagnosis of an IH. Histopathology showing a proliferation of capillaries with positive glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) staining is characteristic. Imaging with ultrasound reveals a fast-flow lesion. Apart from exceptionally rare cases, a cutaneous IH typically does not cross muscle fascia, and thus alternative diagnoses should be considered for a cutaneous lesion that demonstrates infiltration into nerve, bone, joint, or other deeper tissues. Most IHs do not require treatment; however, a small subset may be associated with complications and thus require intervention. Complications of IH may include impairment of function (eg, vision, feeding, respiratory), ulceration, and risk for permanent disfigurement. When treatment is indicated, the most commonly employed options during the proliferative phase are the topical beta-blocker timolol and the oral beta-blocker propranolol. In addition, certain IHs may be associated with either syndromic presentations and/or visceral involvement, thus requiring further workup (Table).

Congenital Hemangioma

A CH is an uncommon benign neonatal tumor that is distinct from an IH in behavior, biology, and treatment. Congenital hemangiomas may have a rapidly involuting course, referred to as RICH (rapidly involuting congenital hemangioma), or a noninvoluting course, referred to as NICH (noninvoluting congenital hemangioma). Partially involuting types also have been described.³ A RICH typically presents as a highly vascular, red-violaceous or bluish plaque, nodule, or large mass at birth. An NICH presents as a red-violaceous or bluish, coarsely telangiectatic patch, plaque, or nodule. A characteristic feature of the CH is the rim of vasoconstriction around the lesion, which is an important diagnostic clue (Figure 1). In contrast to IH, multifocal lesions are highly unlikely in CH, though it rarely has been reported.⁴

Regardless of subtype, CHs are fully developed at birth. Infantile hemangiomas, on the other hand, are either minimally present or not present at birth and thereafter proliferate. After birth, a RICH rapidly involutes over the first 9 to 12 months of life. This process generally is evident even in the first few weeks of life, which would not be expected of an IH and is therefore a major distinguishing factor. A NICH, on the other hand, is expected to be persistent, for the most part neither showing signs of proliferation nor involution.

Complications of CHs may include ulceration, functional impairment, or risk for permanent disfigurement depending on location. In addition, due to their fast-flow state and potential large size, some CHs may be complicated by high-output heart failure in the neonate. Distinguishing an IH from a CH is important not only for prognosis but also treatment. Beta-blocker therapy generally is not useful for CHs, and management usually is supportive in the neonatal period.

In the majority of cases, diagnosis can be achieved solely on clinical features. Biopsy with immunohistochemistry shows negative GLUT-1 staining, which will distinguish this lesion from an IH. At times, the highly vascular nature and/or striking size of a CH may lead some to consider the potential diagnosis of an arteriovenous malformation. However, soft-tissue arteriovenous malformations involving the skin are almost never fully developed in the neonatal period and generally take years to evolve from a quiescent state to a destructive lesion.

Venous Malformation

Venous malformations are congenital malformations of veins that may be apparent at birth or later. They appear as bluish to flesh-colored, compressible nodules or plaques. They tend to increase in size when the affected body part is in a dependent position, and this maneuver can be a helpful distinguishing clue. Although the majority of patients have a single lesion, multifocal involvement may occur uncommonly (Table). The diagnosis of VM usually is clinical, though at times, a VM may be difficult to distinguish from a purely deep IH. However, a VM will persist over time, growing in proportion to the patient. In addition, a VM displays low flow on ultrasound, a distinguishing feature from the fast-flow IH. Magnetic resonance imaging with and without contrast is the imaging study of choice. At times, cutaneous VMs will demonstrate infiltration into other tissue planes such as muscle and joint. Pain may occur secondary to thrombus formation within the malformation. In extensive lesions, intravascular coagulation may be notable, as reflected in elevated D-dimer and decreased fibrinogen levels. Treatment with sclerotherapy or surgery may be considered in select cases during infancy; however, in general, an asymptomatic VM may be observed early on in life.

Lymphatic Malformation

A lymphatic malformation (LM) is a congenital malformation of lymphatic vessels and may be further differentiated into microcystic, macrocystic, or mixed types depending on the size of the channels. An LM may present at birth or later and persists over time. Superficial microcystic LMs, synonymous with the term lymphangioma circumscriptum, characteristically appear as a group of clear and violaceous hemorrhagic vesicles on the skin. Deeper LMs appear as a tense or spongy, flesh-colored nodule or mass. Involvement of the head and neck is common. Complications frequently occur in LMs. Cutaneous LMs may ooze or bleed. Infection and hemorrhage into cysts may occur, which will cause acute pain, redness, swelling, and induration. Cervicofacial lesions may result in respiratory distress. Thus, the majority of LMs require treatment, though asymptomatic lesions may be observed in the neonate. An ultrasound will demonstrate a low-flow lesion, and magnetic resonance imaging is the diagnostic modality of choice for diagnosis and definition of extent.

KHE and Tufted Angioma

Kaposiform hemangioendothelioma is a rare, locally aggressive, vascular tumor that is frequently associated with a potentially life-threatening coagulopathy, Kasabach-Merritt phenomenon. Tufted angiomas are now understood to belong on a spectrum with KHEs, which usually present in the neonatal period or infancy as firm, red-violaceous plaques, nodules, or large tumors. Infiltration into nerve, muscle, and bone may occur. The firm/hard nature and deep violaceous appearance generally are initial clues that it is not an IH. Kasabach-Merritt phenomenon manifests as thrombocytopenia as well as low fibrinogen and elevated D-dimer levels. Thrombocytopenia is generally profound in Kasabach-Merritt phenomenon and results from platelet trapping within the vascular tumor. Given these potential complications, KHEs generally require immediate medical attention, and various treatment protocols including prednisone, vincristine, and sirolimus are utilized for complicated cases.⁵ The diagnosis may require biopsy to distinguish it from malignant tumors, particularly sarcomas.

Malignant Tumors

Various malignancies, including congenital leukemia, neuroblastoma, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, infantile fibrosarcoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma, rarely may present as cutaneous nodules or masses in a neonate mimicking hemangiomas or other vascular lesions (Figure 2). Neonates may present with multiple bluish papules and nodules resembling a blueberry muffin baby; multiple violaceous-red nodules; or a single red-violaceous, highly vascular–appearing mass mimicking hemangiomas. Malignant tumors may display vascularity on imaging, and thus the presence of vascular flow on ultrasound should not dissuade one from the possibility of a malignancy if other clinical features are atypical or unusual for a hemangioma. When a neonatal malignancy is suspected, a large punch biopsy or incisional biopsy is required for workup.

Final Thoughts

Although IHs are the most common vascular nodules in neonates and young infants, other conditions such as VMs, LMs, CHs, KHEs, and malignancy may occur less commonly. Identifying features that would be considered atypical for IH is crucial to recognize these less common possibilities.

Although most neonatal vascular lumps, bumps, and tumors are benign, proper diagnosis is important for prognosis and management. Therefore, knowledge of both common and rare conditions is important when evaluating a neonatal nodule. Differential diagnosis of neonatal vascular nodules must focus on important diagnostic clues that should prompt consideration and evaluation for less common and/or potentially threatening conditions. Infantile hemangioma (IH), congenital hemangioma (CH), venous malformation (VM), lymphatic malformation (LM), kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE) and tufted angioma, and malignant tumors are reviewed here.

Infantile Hemangioma

Infantile hemangioma, a benign proliferation of capillaries, is the most common tumor of infancy with reported incidence of up to 5% in neonates.¹ As such, suspicion for less common lesions is often predicated on identifying features that would be atypical for an IH. A superficial IH presents as a bright red papule, nodule, or plaque, while a deep IH presents as a flesh-colored to bluish nodule. Mixed IHs combine features of both superficial and deep lesions. The distribution may be focal or segmental, with segmental lesions encompassing a larger territory–like distribution and frequently displaying a thin, coarsely telangiectatic appearance.

Knowledge of the natural history of IH generally is crucial in differentiating it from other neonatal lesions. Infantile hemangiomas display a natural history that is distinct and predictable. They typically manifest within the first few weeks of life, though up to 30% present at birth with a premonitory mark, which may be a light red, pink, bluish, or vasoconstricted patch. Thus, mere presence of a lesion at birth is not the feature that distinguishes other congenital lesions from an IH. After initial appearance, IHs undergo a period of proliferation that occurs over 4 to 6 months in most patients. In some cases, areas of proliferation may be subtle, but nonetheless the presence of some areas of increased redness and/or volumetric growth generally is required to firmly establish the diagnosis of IH. Thereafter, IH will involute, a process that begins before 1 year of age in most cases and continues over years. Although IHs undergo involution, complete clearance may not occur, as nearly 70% will leave permanent residua such as fibrofatty masses or anetodermic skin.² Nevertheless, the presence of a proliferative phase followed by a slower period of involution is a hallmark feature of the IH.

Biopsy and imaging rarely are required for establishing diagnosis of an IH. Histopathology showing a proliferation of capillaries with positive glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) staining is characteristic. Imaging with ultrasound reveals a fast-flow lesion. Apart from exceptionally rare cases, a cutaneous IH typically does not cross muscle fascia, and thus alternative diagnoses should be considered for a cutaneous lesion that demonstrates infiltration into nerve, bone, joint, or other deeper tissues. Most IHs do not require treatment; however, a small subset may be associated with complications and thus require intervention. Complications of IH may include impairment of function (eg, vision, feeding, respiratory), ulceration, and risk for permanent disfigurement. When treatment is indicated, the most commonly employed options during the proliferative phase are the topical beta-blocker timolol and the oral beta-blocker propranolol. In addition, certain IHs may be associated with either syndromic presentations and/or visceral involvement, thus requiring further workup (Table).

Congenital Hemangioma

A CH is an uncommon benign neonatal tumor that is distinct from an IH in behavior, biology, and treatment. Congenital hemangiomas may have a rapidly involuting course, referred to as RICH (rapidly involuting congenital hemangioma), or a noninvoluting course, referred to as NICH (noninvoluting congenital hemangioma). Partially involuting types also have been described.³ A RICH typically presents as a highly vascular, red-violaceous or bluish plaque, nodule, or large mass at birth. An NICH presents as a red-violaceous or bluish, coarsely telangiectatic patch, plaque, or nodule. A characteristic feature of the CH is the rim of vasoconstriction around the lesion, which is an important diagnostic clue (Figure 1). In contrast to IH, multifocal lesions are highly unlikely in CH, though it rarely has been reported.⁴

Regardless of subtype, CHs are fully developed at birth. Infantile hemangiomas, on the other hand, are either minimally present or not present at birth and thereafter proliferate. After birth, a RICH rapidly involutes over the first 9 to 12 months of life. This process generally is evident even in the first few weeks of life, which would not be expected of an IH and is therefore a major distinguishing factor. A NICH, on the other hand, is expected to be persistent, for the most part neither showing signs of proliferation nor involution.

Complications of CHs may include ulceration, functional impairment, or risk for permanent disfigurement depending on location. In addition, due to their fast-flow state and potential large size, some CHs may be complicated by high-output heart failure in the neonate. Distinguishing an IH from a CH is important not only for prognosis but also treatment. Beta-blocker therapy generally is not useful for CHs, and management usually is supportive in the neonatal period.

In the majority of cases, diagnosis can be achieved solely on clinical features. Biopsy with immunohistochemistry shows negative GLUT-1 staining, which will distinguish this lesion from an IH. At times, the highly vascular nature and/or striking size of a CH may lead some to consider the potential diagnosis of an arteriovenous malformation. However, soft-tissue arteriovenous malformations involving the skin are almost never fully developed in the neonatal period and generally take years to evolve from a quiescent state to a destructive lesion.

Venous Malformation

Venous malformations are congenital malformations of veins that may be apparent at birth or later. They appear as bluish to flesh-colored, compressible nodules or plaques. They tend to increase in size when the affected body part is in a dependent position, and this maneuver can be a helpful distinguishing clue. Although the majority of patients have a single lesion, multifocal involvement may occur uncommonly (Table). The diagnosis of VM usually is clinical, though at times, a VM may be difficult to distinguish from a purely deep IH. However, a VM will persist over time, growing in proportion to the patient. In addition, a VM displays low flow on ultrasound, a distinguishing feature from the fast-flow IH. Magnetic resonance imaging with and without contrast is the imaging study of choice. At times, cutaneous VMs will demonstrate infiltration into other tissue planes such as muscle and joint. Pain may occur secondary to thrombus formation within the malformation. In extensive lesions, intravascular coagulation may be notable, as reflected in elevated D-dimer and decreased fibrinogen levels. Treatment with sclerotherapy or surgery may be considered in select cases during infancy; however, in general, an asymptomatic VM may be observed early on in life.

Lymphatic Malformation

A lymphatic malformation (LM) is a congenital malformation of lymphatic vessels and may be further differentiated into microcystic, macrocystic, or mixed types depending on the size of the channels. An LM may present at birth or later and persists over time. Superficial microcystic LMs, synonymous with the term lymphangioma circumscriptum, characteristically appear as a group of clear and violaceous hemorrhagic vesicles on the skin. Deeper LMs appear as a tense or spongy, flesh-colored nodule or mass. Involvement of the head and neck is common. Complications frequently occur in LMs. Cutaneous LMs may ooze or bleed. Infection and hemorrhage into cysts may occur, which will cause acute pain, redness, swelling, and induration. Cervicofacial lesions may result in respiratory distress. Thus, the majority of LMs require treatment, though asymptomatic lesions may be observed in the neonate. An ultrasound will demonstrate a low-flow lesion, and magnetic resonance imaging is the diagnostic modality of choice for diagnosis and definition of extent.

KHE and Tufted Angioma

Kaposiform hemangioendothelioma is a rare, locally aggressive, vascular tumor that is frequently associated with a potentially life-threatening coagulopathy, Kasabach-Merritt phenomenon. Tufted angiomas are now understood to belong on a spectrum with KHEs, which usually present in the neonatal period or infancy as firm, red-violaceous plaques, nodules, or large tumors. Infiltration into nerve, muscle, and bone may occur. The firm/hard nature and deep violaceous appearance generally are initial clues that it is not an IH. Kasabach-Merritt phenomenon manifests as thrombocytopenia as well as low fibrinogen and elevated D-dimer levels. Thrombocytopenia is generally profound in Kasabach-Merritt phenomenon and results from platelet trapping within the vascular tumor. Given these potential complications, KHEs generally require immediate medical attention, and various treatment protocols including prednisone, vincristine, and sirolimus are utilized for complicated cases.⁵ The diagnosis may require biopsy to distinguish it from malignant tumors, particularly sarcomas.

Malignant Tumors

Various malignancies, including congenital leukemia, neuroblastoma, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, infantile fibrosarcoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma, rarely may present as cutaneous nodules or masses in a neonate mimicking hemangiomas or other vascular lesions (Figure 2). Neonates may present with multiple bluish papules and nodules resembling a blueberry muffin baby; multiple violaceous-red nodules; or a single red-violaceous, highly vascular–appearing mass mimicking hemangiomas. Malignant tumors may display vascularity on imaging, and thus the presence of vascular flow on ultrasound should not dissuade one from the possibility of a malignancy if other clinical features are atypical or unusual for a hemangioma. When a neonatal malignancy is suspected, a large punch biopsy or incisional biopsy is required for workup.

Final Thoughts

Although IHs are the most common vascular nodules in neonates and young infants, other conditions such as VMs, LMs, CHs, KHEs, and malignancy may occur less commonly. Identifying features that would be considered atypical for IH is crucial to recognize these less common possibilities.

Although most neonatal vascular lumps, bumps, and tumors are benign, proper diagnosis is important for prognosis and management. Therefore, knowledge of both common and rare conditions is important when evaluating a neonatal nodule. Differential diagnosis of neonatal vascular nodules must focus on important diagnostic clues that should prompt consideration and evaluation for less common and/or potentially threatening conditions. Infantile hemangioma (IH), congenital hemangioma (CH), venous malformation (VM), lymphatic malformation (LM), kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE) and tufted angioma, and malignant tumors are reviewed here.

Infantile Hemangioma

Infantile hemangioma, a benign proliferation of capillaries, is the most common tumor of infancy with reported incidence of up to 5% in neonates.¹ As such, suspicion for less common lesions is often predicated on identifying features that would be atypical for an IH. A superficial IH presents as a bright red papule, nodule, or plaque, while a deep IH presents as a flesh-colored to bluish nodule. Mixed IHs combine features of both superficial and deep lesions. The distribution may be focal or segmental, with segmental lesions encompassing a larger territory–like distribution and frequently displaying a thin, coarsely telangiectatic appearance.

Knowledge of the natural history of IH generally is crucial in differentiating it from other neonatal lesions. Infantile hemangiomas display a natural history that is distinct and predictable. They typically manifest within the first few weeks of life, though up to 30% present at birth with a premonitory mark, which may be a light red, pink, bluish, or vasoconstricted patch. Thus, mere presence of a lesion at birth is not the feature that distinguishes other congenital lesions from an IH. After initial appearance, IHs undergo a period of proliferation that occurs over 4 to 6 months in most patients. In some cases, areas of proliferation may be subtle, but nonetheless the presence of some areas of increased redness and/or volumetric growth generally is required to firmly establish the diagnosis of IH. Thereafter, IH will involute, a process that begins before 1 year of age in most cases and continues over years. Although IHs undergo involution, complete clearance may not occur, as nearly 70% will leave permanent residua such as fibrofatty masses or anetodermic skin.² Nevertheless, the presence of a proliferative phase followed by a slower period of involution is a hallmark feature of the IH.

Biopsy and imaging rarely are required for establishing diagnosis of an IH. Histopathology showing a proliferation of capillaries with positive glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) staining is characteristic. Imaging with ultrasound reveals a fast-flow lesion. Apart from exceptionally rare cases, a cutaneous IH typically does not cross muscle fascia, and thus alternative diagnoses should be considered for a cutaneous lesion that demonstrates infiltration into nerve, bone, joint, or other deeper tissues. Most IHs do not require treatment; however, a small subset may be associated with complications and thus require intervention. Complications of IH may include impairment of function (eg, vision, feeding, respiratory), ulceration, and risk for permanent disfigurement. When treatment is indicated, the most commonly employed options during the proliferative phase are the topical beta-blocker timolol and the oral beta-blocker propranolol. In addition, certain IHs may be associated with either syndromic presentations and/or visceral involvement, thus requiring further workup (Table).

Congenital Hemangioma

A CH is an uncommon benign neonatal tumor that is distinct from an IH in behavior, biology, and treatment. Congenital hemangiomas may have a rapidly involuting course, referred to as RICH (rapidly involuting congenital hemangioma), or a noninvoluting course, referred to as NICH (noninvoluting congenital hemangioma). Partially involuting types also have been described.³ A RICH typically presents as a highly vascular, red-violaceous or bluish plaque, nodule, or large mass at birth. An NICH presents as a red-violaceous or bluish, coarsely telangiectatic patch, plaque, or nodule. A characteristic feature of the CH is the rim of vasoconstriction around the lesion, which is an important diagnostic clue (Figure 1). In contrast to IH, multifocal lesions are highly unlikely in CH, though it rarely has been reported.⁴

Regardless of subtype, CHs are fully developed at birth. Infantile hemangiomas, on the other hand, are either minimally present or not present at birth and thereafter proliferate. After birth, a RICH rapidly involutes over the first 9 to 12 months of life. This process generally is evident even in the first few weeks of life, which would not be expected of an IH and is therefore a major distinguishing factor. A NICH, on the other hand, is expected to be persistent, for the most part neither showing signs of proliferation nor involution.

Complications of CHs may include ulceration, functional impairment, or risk for permanent disfigurement depending on location. In addition, due to their fast-flow state and potential large size, some CHs may be complicated by high-output heart failure in the neonate. Distinguishing an IH from a CH is important not only for prognosis but also treatment. Beta-blocker therapy generally is not useful for CHs, and management usually is supportive in the neonatal period.

In the majority of cases, diagnosis can be achieved solely on clinical features. Biopsy with immunohistochemistry shows negative GLUT-1 staining, which will distinguish this lesion from an IH. At times, the highly vascular nature and/or striking size of a CH may lead some to consider the potential diagnosis of an arteriovenous malformation. However, soft-tissue arteriovenous malformations involving the skin are almost never fully developed in the neonatal period and generally take years to evolve from a quiescent state to a destructive lesion.

Venous Malformation

Venous malformations are congenital malformations of veins that may be apparent at birth or later. They appear as bluish to flesh-colored, compressible nodules or plaques. They tend to increase in size when the affected body part is in a dependent position, and this maneuver can be a helpful distinguishing clue. Although the majority of patients have a single lesion, multifocal involvement may occur uncommonly (Table). The diagnosis of VM usually is clinical, though at times, a VM may be difficult to distinguish from a purely deep IH. However, a VM will persist over time, growing in proportion to the patient. In addition, a VM displays low flow on ultrasound, a distinguishing feature from the fast-flow IH. Magnetic resonance imaging with and without contrast is the imaging study of choice. At times, cutaneous VMs will demonstrate infiltration into other tissue planes such as muscle and joint. Pain may occur secondary to thrombus formation within the malformation. In extensive lesions, intravascular coagulation may be notable, as reflected in elevated D-dimer and decreased fibrinogen levels. Treatment with sclerotherapy or surgery may be considered in select cases during infancy; however, in general, an asymptomatic VM may be observed early on in life.

Lymphatic Malformation

A lymphatic malformation (LM) is a congenital malformation of lymphatic vessels and may be further differentiated into microcystic, macrocystic, or mixed types depending on the size of the channels. An LM may present at birth or later and persists over time. Superficial microcystic LMs, synonymous with the term lymphangioma circumscriptum, characteristically appear as a group of clear and violaceous hemorrhagic vesicles on the skin. Deeper LMs appear as a tense or spongy, flesh-colored nodule or mass. Involvement of the head and neck is common. Complications frequently occur in LMs. Cutaneous LMs may ooze or bleed. Infection and hemorrhage into cysts may occur, which will cause acute pain, redness, swelling, and induration. Cervicofacial lesions may result in respiratory distress. Thus, the majority of LMs require treatment, though asymptomatic lesions may be observed in the neonate. An ultrasound will demonstrate a low-flow lesion, and magnetic resonance imaging is the diagnostic modality of choice for diagnosis and definition of extent.

KHE and Tufted Angioma

Kaposiform hemangioendothelioma is a rare, locally aggressive, vascular tumor that is frequently associated with a potentially life-threatening coagulopathy, Kasabach-Merritt phenomenon. Tufted angiomas are now understood to belong on a spectrum with KHEs, which usually present in the neonatal period or infancy as firm, red-violaceous plaques, nodules, or large tumors. Infiltration into nerve, muscle, and bone may occur. The firm/hard nature and deep violaceous appearance generally are initial clues that it is not an IH. Kasabach-Merritt phenomenon manifests as thrombocytopenia as well as low fibrinogen and elevated D-dimer levels. Thrombocytopenia is generally profound in Kasabach-Merritt phenomenon and results from platelet trapping within the vascular tumor. Given these potential complications, KHEs generally require immediate medical attention, and various treatment protocols including prednisone, vincristine, and sirolimus are utilized for complicated cases.⁵ The diagnosis may require biopsy to distinguish it from malignant tumors, particularly sarcomas.

Malignant Tumors

Various malignancies, including congenital leukemia, neuroblastoma, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, infantile fibrosarcoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma, rarely may present as cutaneous nodules or masses in a neonate mimicking hemangiomas or other vascular lesions (Figure 2). Neonates may present with multiple bluish papules and nodules resembling a blueberry muffin baby; multiple violaceous-red nodules; or a single red-violaceous, highly vascular–appearing mass mimicking hemangiomas. Malignant tumors may display vascularity on imaging, and thus the presence of vascular flow on ultrasound should not dissuade one from the possibility of a malignancy if other clinical features are atypical or unusual for a hemangioma. When a neonatal malignancy is suspected, a large punch biopsy or incisional biopsy is required for workup.

Final Thoughts

Although IHs are the most common vascular nodules in neonates and young infants, other conditions such as VMs, LMs, CHs, KHEs, and malignancy may occur less commonly. Identifying features that would be considered atypical for IH is crucial to recognize these less common possibilities.

The Diagnosis: Herpes Simplex Virus 

A skin biopsy was sent for tissue culture and was negative for mycobacterial, bacterial, and fungal growth. Histopathologic examination showed ballooning degeneration of keratinocytes with herpetic cytopathic effect consistent with herpetic ulceration (Figure). A swab of the lesion on the buttock was sent for human herpesvirus (HHV) and varicella-zoster virus nucleic acid testing, which was positive for HHV-2. She was started on oral valacyclovir 1000 mg twice daily for 10 days and then was continued on chronic suppression with 500 mg once daily. The patient's ulcerations healed slowly over the following few weeks.  

Human herpesvirus 2 is the most common cause of genital ulcer disease and may present as chronic and recurrent ulcers in immunocompromised patients.¹ It usually is spread by sexual contact. Primary infection typically occurs in the cells of the dermis and epidermis. Two weeks after the primary infection, extragenital lesions can occur in the lumbosacral area on the buttocks, fingers, groin, or thighs, as seen in our patient,² which is a direct result of viral shedding and spread. Reactivation of HHV from the ganglia can occur with or without symptoms. Common locations for viral shedding in women are the cervix, vulva, and perianal areas.³ Patients should be counseled to avoid sexual contact during recurrences. 

Cancer patients have a particularly increased risk for developing HHV-2 due to their limited cell-mediated immunity and exposure to immunosuppressive drugs.⁴ Moreover, approximately 5% of immunocompromised patients develop resistance to antiviral therapy.⁵ Although this phenomenon was not observed in our patient, identification of novel strategies to treat these new groups of patients will be essential.  

The differential diagnosis includes perianal candidiasis, which is classified by erythematous plaques with satellite vesicles and pustules. Contact dermatitis is common in the buttock area and usually secondary to ingredients in cleansing wipes and topical treatments. It is defined by a well-demarcated, symmetric rash, which is more eczematous in nature. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma was high in our differential given the patient's history of the disease. There are many variants, and tumor-stage disease may result in ulceration of the skin. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma is differentiated by histology with immunophenotyping in conjunction with the clinical picture. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) may cause genital ulcerations, which can be diagnosed with a positive EBV serology and detection of EBV by a polymerase chain reaction swab of the ulceration. 

The Diagnosis: Herpes Simplex Virus 

A skin biopsy was sent for tissue culture and was negative for mycobacterial, bacterial, and fungal growth. Histopathologic examination showed ballooning degeneration of keratinocytes with herpetic cytopathic effect consistent with herpetic ulceration (Figure). A swab of the lesion on the buttock was sent for human herpesvirus (HHV) and varicella-zoster virus nucleic acid testing, which was positive for HHV-2. She was started on oral valacyclovir 1000 mg twice daily for 10 days and then was continued on chronic suppression with 500 mg once daily. The patient's ulcerations healed slowly over the following few weeks.  

Human herpesvirus 2 is the most common cause of genital ulcer disease and may present as chronic and recurrent ulcers in immunocompromised patients.¹ It usually is spread by sexual contact. Primary infection typically occurs in the cells of the dermis and epidermis. Two weeks after the primary infection, extragenital lesions can occur in the lumbosacral area on the buttocks, fingers, groin, or thighs, as seen in our patient,² which is a direct result of viral shedding and spread. Reactivation of HHV from the ganglia can occur with or without symptoms. Common locations for viral shedding in women are the cervix, vulva, and perianal areas.³ Patients should be counseled to avoid sexual contact during recurrences. 

Cancer patients have a particularly increased risk for developing HHV-2 due to their limited cell-mediated immunity and exposure to immunosuppressive drugs.⁴ Moreover, approximately 5% of immunocompromised patients develop resistance to antiviral therapy.⁵ Although this phenomenon was not observed in our patient, identification of novel strategies to treat these new groups of patients will be essential.  

The differential diagnosis includes perianal candidiasis, which is classified by erythematous plaques with satellite vesicles and pustules. Contact dermatitis is common in the buttock area and usually secondary to ingredients in cleansing wipes and topical treatments. It is defined by a well-demarcated, symmetric rash, which is more eczematous in nature. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma was high in our differential given the patient's history of the disease. There are many variants, and tumor-stage disease may result in ulceration of the skin. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma is differentiated by histology with immunophenotyping in conjunction with the clinical picture. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) may cause genital ulcerations, which can be diagnosed with a positive EBV serology and detection of EBV by a polymerase chain reaction swab of the ulceration. 

The Diagnosis: Herpes Simplex Virus 

A skin biopsy was sent for tissue culture and was negative for mycobacterial, bacterial, and fungal growth. Histopathologic examination showed ballooning degeneration of keratinocytes with herpetic cytopathic effect consistent with herpetic ulceration (Figure). A swab of the lesion on the buttock was sent for human herpesvirus (HHV) and varicella-zoster virus nucleic acid testing, which was positive for HHV-2. She was started on oral valacyclovir 1000 mg twice daily for 10 days and then was continued on chronic suppression with 500 mg once daily. The patient's ulcerations healed slowly over the following few weeks.  

Human herpesvirus 2 is the most common cause of genital ulcer disease and may present as chronic and recurrent ulcers in immunocompromised patients.¹ It usually is spread by sexual contact. Primary infection typically occurs in the cells of the dermis and epidermis. Two weeks after the primary infection, extragenital lesions can occur in the lumbosacral area on the buttocks, fingers, groin, or thighs, as seen in our patient,² which is a direct result of viral shedding and spread. Reactivation of HHV from the ganglia can occur with or without symptoms. Common locations for viral shedding in women are the cervix, vulva, and perianal areas.³ Patients should be counseled to avoid sexual contact during recurrences. 

Cancer patients have a particularly increased risk for developing HHV-2 due to their limited cell-mediated immunity and exposure to immunosuppressive drugs.⁴ Moreover, approximately 5% of immunocompromised patients develop resistance to antiviral therapy.⁵ Although this phenomenon was not observed in our patient, identification of novel strategies to treat these new groups of patients will be essential.  

The differential diagnosis includes perianal candidiasis, which is classified by erythematous plaques with satellite vesicles and pustules. Contact dermatitis is common in the buttock area and usually secondary to ingredients in cleansing wipes and topical treatments. It is defined by a well-demarcated, symmetric rash, which is more eczematous in nature. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma was high in our differential given the patient's history of the disease. There are many variants, and tumor-stage disease may result in ulceration of the skin. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma is differentiated by histology with immunophenotyping in conjunction with the clinical picture. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) may cause genital ulcerations, which can be diagnosed with a positive EBV serology and detection of EBV by a polymerase chain reaction swab of the ulceration. 

To the Editor:

A 46-year-old man with a history of AIDS (viral load, 28,186 copies/mL; CD4 count, 22 cells/μL) presented with a 40-lb weight loss over the last 6 months as well as dysphagia and a new-onset pruritic facial eruption of 1 week’s duration. The facial lesions quickly spread to involve the beard area and the upper neck. His medical history was notable for nicotine dependence, seborrheic dermatitis, molluscum contagiosum (MC), treated neurosyphilis and latent tuberculosis, hypertension, a liver mass suspected to be a hemangioma, and erythrocytosis. He was diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus infection 19 years prior to presentation and was not compliant with the prescribed highly active antiretroviral therapy.

Skin examination revealed multiple discrete and coalescing, 2- to 12-mm, nonumbilicated, hyperkeratotic papules and nodules localized to the left and right beard areas (Figure 1A). A few discrete, 2- to 5-mm, umbilicated papules were noted in the right beard area (Figure 1B), as well as on the right side of the neck (Figure 1C), buttocks, and legs. Mild erythema with yellow-white scale was present in the alar creases. Examination of the oropharyngeal mucosa revealed multiple thick white plaques that were easily scraped off with a tongue depressor. Examination of the palms, soles, and anogenital areas was normal.

The cutaneous pathology findings and serologic findings confirmed the diagnoses of cutaneous secondary syphilis (SS) in the beard area and MC on the right side of the neck. Clinical diagnoses of seborrheic dermatitis of the alar creases and esophageal candidiasis also were made. The patient was treated with intramuscular penicillin G 2.4 million U once weekly for 3 weeks. The lesions confined to the beard area rapidly resolved within 7 days after the first dose of antibiotics, which further supported the diagnosis of localized cutaneous SS. Fluconazole 100 mg once daily was prescribed for the esophageal candidiasis, and he also was started on a regimen of rifampin 600 mg once daily, isoniazid 300 mg once daily, ethambutol 1200 mg once daily, and pyrazinamide 1500 mg once daily.

Syphilis is well known as the great masquerader due to its many possible manifestations. Many patients present with typical palmar and plantar dermatoses.¹ Other documented SS presentations include eruptions ranging from a few to diffusely disseminated maculopapular lesions with or without scale on the trunk and upper extremities; pustular and nodular lesions of the face; alopecia; grayish white patches on the oral mucosa; and ulcerative, psoriasiform, follicular, and lichenoid lesions.² Cutaneous SS has not been commonly reported in a localized distribution to the beard area with a clinical appearance mimicking hyperkeratotic MC lesions.³ Secondary syphilis is not known to spread through autoinoculation, presumably from shaving (as in our case), as might occur with other cutaneous infectious processes such as MC, verruca vulgaris, S aureus, and dermatophytosis in the beard area.

The differential diagnosis for hyperkeratotic papules and nodules localized to the beard area in human immunodeficiency virus–infected males includes MC, verruca vulgaris, chronic verrucous varicella-zoster virus, crusted scabies, tuberculosis verrucosa cutis, hypertrophic lichen planus, and disseminated deep fungal infections including cryptococcosis and coccidioidomycosis. In the setting of immunosuppression, the diagnosis of hyperkeratotic MC was favored in our patient given the co-location of classic umbilicated MC lesions with the hyperkeratotic papules and nodules. It is common to see MC autoinoculated in the beard area in men from shaving, as well as for MC to present in an atypical manner, particularly as hyperkeratotic lesions, in patients with AIDS.⁴ The predominant localized beard distribution and lack of other mucocutaneous manifestations of SS at presentation supported a clinical diagnosis of hyperkeratotic MC in our patient.

Unique presentations of SS have been documented, including nodular lesions of the face, but they typically have been accompanied by other stigmata of SS such as the classic palmoplantar or truncal maculopapular rash.³ One notable difference in our case was the localized beard distribution of the syphilitic cutaneous lesions in a man with AIDS. Our case reinforces the importance of cutaneous biopsies in immunocompromised patients. It is known that SS spreads hematogenously; however, in our case it was suspected that the new lesions may have spread locally through autoinoculation via beard hair removal, as the hyperkeratotic lesions were limited to the beard area. Koebnerization secondary to trauma induced by beard hair removal was considered in this case; however, koebnerization is known to occur in noninfectious dermatologic conditions, such as psoriasis, lichen planus, lichen nitidus, and vitiligo, but not in infections such as syphilis. Our case is pivotal in raising the question of whether SS can be autoinoculated in the beard area.

To the Editor:

A 46-year-old man with a history of AIDS (viral load, 28,186 copies/mL; CD4 count, 22 cells/μL) presented with a 40-lb weight loss over the last 6 months as well as dysphagia and a new-onset pruritic facial eruption of 1 week’s duration. The facial lesions quickly spread to involve the beard area and the upper neck. His medical history was notable for nicotine dependence, seborrheic dermatitis, molluscum contagiosum (MC), treated neurosyphilis and latent tuberculosis, hypertension, a liver mass suspected to be a hemangioma, and erythrocytosis. He was diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus infection 19 years prior to presentation and was not compliant with the prescribed highly active antiretroviral therapy.

Skin examination revealed multiple discrete and coalescing, 2- to 12-mm, nonumbilicated, hyperkeratotic papules and nodules localized to the left and right beard areas (Figure 1A). A few discrete, 2- to 5-mm, umbilicated papules were noted in the right beard area (Figure 1B), as well as on the right side of the neck (Figure 1C), buttocks, and legs. Mild erythema with yellow-white scale was present in the alar creases. Examination of the oropharyngeal mucosa revealed multiple thick white plaques that were easily scraped off with a tongue depressor. Examination of the palms, soles, and anogenital areas was normal.

The cutaneous pathology findings and serologic findings confirmed the diagnoses of cutaneous secondary syphilis (SS) in the beard area and MC on the right side of the neck. Clinical diagnoses of seborrheic dermatitis of the alar creases and esophageal candidiasis also were made. The patient was treated with intramuscular penicillin G 2.4 million U once weekly for 3 weeks. The lesions confined to the beard area rapidly resolved within 7 days after the first dose of antibiotics, which further supported the diagnosis of localized cutaneous SS. Fluconazole 100 mg once daily was prescribed for the esophageal candidiasis, and he also was started on a regimen of rifampin 600 mg once daily, isoniazid 300 mg once daily, ethambutol 1200 mg once daily, and pyrazinamide 1500 mg once daily.

Syphilis is well known as the great masquerader due to its many possible manifestations. Many patients present with typical palmar and plantar dermatoses.¹ Other documented SS presentations include eruptions ranging from a few to diffusely disseminated maculopapular lesions with or without scale on the trunk and upper extremities; pustular and nodular lesions of the face; alopecia; grayish white patches on the oral mucosa; and ulcerative, psoriasiform, follicular, and lichenoid lesions.² Cutaneous SS has not been commonly reported in a localized distribution to the beard area with a clinical appearance mimicking hyperkeratotic MC lesions.³ Secondary syphilis is not known to spread through autoinoculation, presumably from shaving (as in our case), as might occur with other cutaneous infectious processes such as MC, verruca vulgaris, S aureus, and dermatophytosis in the beard area.

The differential diagnosis for hyperkeratotic papules and nodules localized to the beard area in human immunodeficiency virus–infected males includes MC, verruca vulgaris, chronic verrucous varicella-zoster virus, crusted scabies, tuberculosis verrucosa cutis, hypertrophic lichen planus, and disseminated deep fungal infections including cryptococcosis and coccidioidomycosis. In the setting of immunosuppression, the diagnosis of hyperkeratotic MC was favored in our patient given the co-location of classic umbilicated MC lesions with the hyperkeratotic papules and nodules. It is common to see MC autoinoculated in the beard area in men from shaving, as well as for MC to present in an atypical manner, particularly as hyperkeratotic lesions, in patients with AIDS.⁴ The predominant localized beard distribution and lack of other mucocutaneous manifestations of SS at presentation supported a clinical diagnosis of hyperkeratotic MC in our patient.

Unique presentations of SS have been documented, including nodular lesions of the face, but they typically have been accompanied by other stigmata of SS such as the classic palmoplantar or truncal maculopapular rash.³ One notable difference in our case was the localized beard distribution of the syphilitic cutaneous lesions in a man with AIDS. Our case reinforces the importance of cutaneous biopsies in immunocompromised patients. It is known that SS spreads hematogenously; however, in our case it was suspected that the new lesions may have spread locally through autoinoculation via beard hair removal, as the hyperkeratotic lesions were limited to the beard area. Koebnerization secondary to trauma induced by beard hair removal was considered in this case; however, koebnerization is known to occur in noninfectious dermatologic conditions, such as psoriasis, lichen planus, lichen nitidus, and vitiligo, but not in infections such as syphilis. Our case is pivotal in raising the question of whether SS can be autoinoculated in the beard area.

To the Editor:

A 46-year-old man with a history of AIDS (viral load, 28,186 copies/mL; CD4 count, 22 cells/μL) presented with a 40-lb weight loss over the last 6 months as well as dysphagia and a new-onset pruritic facial eruption of 1 week’s duration. The facial lesions quickly spread to involve the beard area and the upper neck. His medical history was notable for nicotine dependence, seborrheic dermatitis, molluscum contagiosum (MC), treated neurosyphilis and latent tuberculosis, hypertension, a liver mass suspected to be a hemangioma, and erythrocytosis. He was diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus infection 19 years prior to presentation and was not compliant with the prescribed highly active antiretroviral therapy.

Skin examination revealed multiple discrete and coalescing, 2- to 12-mm, nonumbilicated, hyperkeratotic papules and nodules localized to the left and right beard areas (Figure 1A). A few discrete, 2- to 5-mm, umbilicated papules were noted in the right beard area (Figure 1B), as well as on the right side of the neck (Figure 1C), buttocks, and legs. Mild erythema with yellow-white scale was present in the alar creases. Examination of the oropharyngeal mucosa revealed multiple thick white plaques that were easily scraped off with a tongue depressor. Examination of the palms, soles, and anogenital areas was normal.

The cutaneous pathology findings and serologic findings confirmed the diagnoses of cutaneous secondary syphilis (SS) in the beard area and MC on the right side of the neck. Clinical diagnoses of seborrheic dermatitis of the alar creases and esophageal candidiasis also were made. The patient was treated with intramuscular penicillin G 2.4 million U once weekly for 3 weeks. The lesions confined to the beard area rapidly resolved within 7 days after the first dose of antibiotics, which further supported the diagnosis of localized cutaneous SS. Fluconazole 100 mg once daily was prescribed for the esophageal candidiasis, and he also was started on a regimen of rifampin 600 mg once daily, isoniazid 300 mg once daily, ethambutol 1200 mg once daily, and pyrazinamide 1500 mg once daily.

Syphilis is well known as the great masquerader due to its many possible manifestations. Many patients present with typical palmar and plantar dermatoses.¹ Other documented SS presentations include eruptions ranging from a few to diffusely disseminated maculopapular lesions with or without scale on the trunk and upper extremities; pustular and nodular lesions of the face; alopecia; grayish white patches on the oral mucosa; and ulcerative, psoriasiform, follicular, and lichenoid lesions.² Cutaneous SS has not been commonly reported in a localized distribution to the beard area with a clinical appearance mimicking hyperkeratotic MC lesions.³ Secondary syphilis is not known to spread through autoinoculation, presumably from shaving (as in our case), as might occur with other cutaneous infectious processes such as MC, verruca vulgaris, S aureus, and dermatophytosis in the beard area.

The differential diagnosis for hyperkeratotic papules and nodules localized to the beard area in human immunodeficiency virus–infected males includes MC, verruca vulgaris, chronic verrucous varicella-zoster virus, crusted scabies, tuberculosis verrucosa cutis, hypertrophic lichen planus, and disseminated deep fungal infections including cryptococcosis and coccidioidomycosis. In the setting of immunosuppression, the diagnosis of hyperkeratotic MC was favored in our patient given the co-location of classic umbilicated MC lesions with the hyperkeratotic papules and nodules. It is common to see MC autoinoculated in the beard area in men from shaving, as well as for MC to present in an atypical manner, particularly as hyperkeratotic lesions, in patients with AIDS.⁴ The predominant localized beard distribution and lack of other mucocutaneous manifestations of SS at presentation supported a clinical diagnosis of hyperkeratotic MC in our patient.

Unique presentations of SS have been documented, including nodular lesions of the face, but they typically have been accompanied by other stigmata of SS such as the classic palmoplantar or truncal maculopapular rash.³ One notable difference in our case was the localized beard distribution of the syphilitic cutaneous lesions in a man with AIDS. Our case reinforces the importance of cutaneous biopsies in immunocompromised patients. It is known that SS spreads hematogenously; however, in our case it was suspected that the new lesions may have spread locally through autoinoculation via beard hair removal, as the hyperkeratotic lesions were limited to the beard area. Koebnerization secondary to trauma induced by beard hair removal was considered in this case; however, koebnerization is known to occur in noninfectious dermatologic conditions, such as psoriasis, lichen planus, lichen nitidus, and vitiligo, but not in infections such as syphilis. Our case is pivotal in raising the question of whether SS can be autoinoculated in the beard area.

The Diagnosis: Inflammatory Urothelial Carcinoma 

Microscopic examination revealed metastatic carcinoma with extensive dermal lymphatic invasion (Figure). Immunohistochemical stains were positive for p63 and GATA3, markers for urothelial carcinomas, and negative for S-100 and Melan-A, markers for melanoma. Thus, the biopsy was compatible with a diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma. Gram and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains were negative for bacterial or fungal organisms. An additional 4-mm punch biopsy was performed of the left thigh at the distal-most aspect of the eruption to determine the extent of cutaneous metastasis. Pathology again showed metastatic urothelial carcinoma with extensive dermal lymphatic involvement and overlying epidermal spongiosis.

The patient had a history of bladder cancer diagnosed 1.5 years prior to presentation. It was a high-grade (World Health Organization) urothelial carcinoma that penetrated the bladder muscular wall, focally infiltrating into pericystic fat with multifocal seeding of pericystic lymphatics. It was unresponsive to bacillus Calmette-Guérin therapy. He underwent a cystoprostatectomy and bilateral staging lymph node dissection with clear surgical margins without adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation. He also reported a history of 2 prior cutaneous melanomas that were excised without sentinel lymph node biopsy. 

Four months prior to presentation, he developed a mildly pruritic cutaneous eruption on the abdomen that was treated with topical miconazole for presumed tinea cruris without improvement. He also was previously diagnosed with candidiasis of his urostomy and was taking oral fluconazole. The patient was admitted for the abdominal pain and distension, and computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis revealed peritoneal carcinomatosis resulting in mechanical small bowel obstruction as well as enlarged pelvic and retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Confirmation of metastatic disease via skin biopsy avoided an invasive peritoneal biopsy. He was treated with triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% with moderate relief of pruritus, and a palliative percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube was placed for bowel decompression. The patient's hospital course was complicated by Proteus mirabilis bacteremia requiring cefepime. He was transitioned to home hospice and died 1 month after presentation. 

Inflammatory carcinoma, also called carcinoma erysipeloides, is a type of cutaneous metastasis most commonly seen in breast adenocarcinoma. Reported cases secondary to urothelial carcinoma are rare and most often involve the abdomen, groin, and lower extremities.^1-5 Clinically, inflammatory carcinoma presents as erythematous indurated patches or plaques with well-defined borders, often with edema, warmth, and tenderness. Its morphologic appearance is due to the obstruction of lymphatic vessels by tumor cells and the release of inflammatory cytokines. Its presentation can mimic other dermatoses such as cellulitis, erysipelas, fungal infection, radiation dermatitis, Majocchi granuloma, or contact dermatitis.⁶ Cutaneous metastases may be the first clinical manifestations of metastatic disease, and they may occur due to hematogenous and lymphatic spread, direct contiguous tissue invasion, or iatrogenic implantation following surgical excision of the primary tumor. Histologically, nuclear markers GATA3 and p63 stain positively in urothelial carcinomas and are negative in prostatic adenocarcinomas.^7,8 Other markers may be used such as cytokeratins 7 and 20, which are cytoplasmic epithelial markers that both stain positive in urothelial neoplasms.⁹  

Inflammatory carcinoma may be treated with radiation or systemic chemotherapy depending on the extent of systemic involvement in the patient; however, its presence portends a poor prognosis. Less than 1% of genitourinary malignancies have cutaneous involvement, and median disease-specific survival is less than 6 months from presentation of the cutaneous metastasis.¹⁰ Clinicians faced with a recalcitrant inflammatory cutaneous eruption should maintain a high index of suspicion for cutaneous metastases, particularly in patients with a history of cancer. Early dermatology referral may help establish the diagnosis and guide disease-targeted therapy or goals of care discussions. 

The Diagnosis: Inflammatory Urothelial Carcinoma 

Microscopic examination revealed metastatic carcinoma with extensive dermal lymphatic invasion (Figure). Immunohistochemical stains were positive for p63 and GATA3, markers for urothelial carcinomas, and negative for S-100 and Melan-A, markers for melanoma. Thus, the biopsy was compatible with a diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma. Gram and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains were negative for bacterial or fungal organisms. An additional 4-mm punch biopsy was performed of the left thigh at the distal-most aspect of the eruption to determine the extent of cutaneous metastasis. Pathology again showed metastatic urothelial carcinoma with extensive dermal lymphatic involvement and overlying epidermal spongiosis.

The patient had a history of bladder cancer diagnosed 1.5 years prior to presentation. It was a high-grade (World Health Organization) urothelial carcinoma that penetrated the bladder muscular wall, focally infiltrating into pericystic fat with multifocal seeding of pericystic lymphatics. It was unresponsive to bacillus Calmette-Guérin therapy. He underwent a cystoprostatectomy and bilateral staging lymph node dissection with clear surgical margins without adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation. He also reported a history of 2 prior cutaneous melanomas that were excised without sentinel lymph node biopsy. 

Four months prior to presentation, he developed a mildly pruritic cutaneous eruption on the abdomen that was treated with topical miconazole for presumed tinea cruris without improvement. He also was previously diagnosed with candidiasis of his urostomy and was taking oral fluconazole. The patient was admitted for the abdominal pain and distension, and computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis revealed peritoneal carcinomatosis resulting in mechanical small bowel obstruction as well as enlarged pelvic and retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Confirmation of metastatic disease via skin biopsy avoided an invasive peritoneal biopsy. He was treated with triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% with moderate relief of pruritus, and a palliative percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube was placed for bowel decompression. The patient's hospital course was complicated by Proteus mirabilis bacteremia requiring cefepime. He was transitioned to home hospice and died 1 month after presentation. 

Inflammatory carcinoma, also called carcinoma erysipeloides, is a type of cutaneous metastasis most commonly seen in breast adenocarcinoma. Reported cases secondary to urothelial carcinoma are rare and most often involve the abdomen, groin, and lower extremities.^1-5 Clinically, inflammatory carcinoma presents as erythematous indurated patches or plaques with well-defined borders, often with edema, warmth, and tenderness. Its morphologic appearance is due to the obstruction of lymphatic vessels by tumor cells and the release of inflammatory cytokines. Its presentation can mimic other dermatoses such as cellulitis, erysipelas, fungal infection, radiation dermatitis, Majocchi granuloma, or contact dermatitis.⁶ Cutaneous metastases may be the first clinical manifestations of metastatic disease, and they may occur due to hematogenous and lymphatic spread, direct contiguous tissue invasion, or iatrogenic implantation following surgical excision of the primary tumor. Histologically, nuclear markers GATA3 and p63 stain positively in urothelial carcinomas and are negative in prostatic adenocarcinomas.^7,8 Other markers may be used such as cytokeratins 7 and 20, which are cytoplasmic epithelial markers that both stain positive in urothelial neoplasms.⁹  

Inflammatory carcinoma may be treated with radiation or systemic chemotherapy depending on the extent of systemic involvement in the patient; however, its presence portends a poor prognosis. Less than 1% of genitourinary malignancies have cutaneous involvement, and median disease-specific survival is less than 6 months from presentation of the cutaneous metastasis.¹⁰ Clinicians faced with a recalcitrant inflammatory cutaneous eruption should maintain a high index of suspicion for cutaneous metastases, particularly in patients with a history of cancer. Early dermatology referral may help establish the diagnosis and guide disease-targeted therapy or goals of care discussions. 

The Diagnosis: Inflammatory Urothelial Carcinoma 

Microscopic examination revealed metastatic carcinoma with extensive dermal lymphatic invasion (Figure). Immunohistochemical stains were positive for p63 and GATA3, markers for urothelial carcinomas, and negative for S-100 and Melan-A, markers for melanoma. Thus, the biopsy was compatible with a diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma. Gram and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stains were negative for bacterial or fungal organisms. An additional 4-mm punch biopsy was performed of the left thigh at the distal-most aspect of the eruption to determine the extent of cutaneous metastasis. Pathology again showed metastatic urothelial carcinoma with extensive dermal lymphatic involvement and overlying epidermal spongiosis.

The patient had a history of bladder cancer diagnosed 1.5 years prior to presentation. It was a high-grade (World Health Organization) urothelial carcinoma that penetrated the bladder muscular wall, focally infiltrating into pericystic fat with multifocal seeding of pericystic lymphatics. It was unresponsive to bacillus Calmette-Guérin therapy. He underwent a cystoprostatectomy and bilateral staging lymph node dissection with clear surgical margins without adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation. He also reported a history of 2 prior cutaneous melanomas that were excised without sentinel lymph node biopsy. 

Four months prior to presentation, he developed a mildly pruritic cutaneous eruption on the abdomen that was treated with topical miconazole for presumed tinea cruris without improvement. He also was previously diagnosed with candidiasis of his urostomy and was taking oral fluconazole. The patient was admitted for the abdominal pain and distension, and computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis revealed peritoneal carcinomatosis resulting in mechanical small bowel obstruction as well as enlarged pelvic and retroperitoneal lymph nodes. Confirmation of metastatic disease via skin biopsy avoided an invasive peritoneal biopsy. He was treated with triamcinolone acetonide ointment 0.1% with moderate relief of pruritus, and a palliative percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube was placed for bowel decompression. The patient's hospital course was complicated by Proteus mirabilis bacteremia requiring cefepime. He was transitioned to home hospice and died 1 month after presentation. 

Inflammatory carcinoma, also called carcinoma erysipeloides, is a type of cutaneous metastasis most commonly seen in breast adenocarcinoma. Reported cases secondary to urothelial carcinoma are rare and most often involve the abdomen, groin, and lower extremities.^1-5 Clinically, inflammatory carcinoma presents as erythematous indurated patches or plaques with well-defined borders, often with edema, warmth, and tenderness. Its morphologic appearance is due to the obstruction of lymphatic vessels by tumor cells and the release of inflammatory cytokines. Its presentation can mimic other dermatoses such as cellulitis, erysipelas, fungal infection, radiation dermatitis, Majocchi granuloma, or contact dermatitis.⁶ Cutaneous metastases may be the first clinical manifestations of metastatic disease, and they may occur due to hematogenous and lymphatic spread, direct contiguous tissue invasion, or iatrogenic implantation following surgical excision of the primary tumor. Histologically, nuclear markers GATA3 and p63 stain positively in urothelial carcinomas and are negative in prostatic adenocarcinomas.^7,8 Other markers may be used such as cytokeratins 7 and 20, which are cytoplasmic epithelial markers that both stain positive in urothelial neoplasms.⁹  

Inflammatory carcinoma may be treated with radiation or systemic chemotherapy depending on the extent of systemic involvement in the patient; however, its presence portends a poor prognosis. Less than 1% of genitourinary malignancies have cutaneous involvement, and median disease-specific survival is less than 6 months from presentation of the cutaneous metastasis.¹⁰ Clinicians faced with a recalcitrant inflammatory cutaneous eruption should maintain a high index of suspicion for cutaneous metastases, particularly in patients with a history of cancer. Early dermatology referral may help establish the diagnosis and guide disease-targeted therapy or goals of care discussions. 

To the Editor:

Nevus sebaceous of Jadassohn (or nevus sebaceous [NS]) is a congenital hamartomatous disorder initially described by Jadassohn¹ in 1895. Nevus sebaceous occurs in 0.3% of newborns² and is most commonly identified on the face and scalp.^3,4 Mehregan and Pinkus⁵ characterized NS as an organoid tumor containing multiple skin components with 3 life stages. The first stage—occurring during infancy—consists of immature hair follicles and sebaceous glands. The second stage—beginning at puberty—shows development of sebaceous glands, epidermal hyperplasia, and maturation of apocrine glands. The final stage involves formation of secondary benign and malignant neoplasms.

Historically, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) was thought to be the most common neoplasm arising in NS.^5-8 In 1993, Ackerman et al⁹ introduced a new definition of trichoblastoma (TB), expanding the definition to encompass previously excluded benign follicular neoplasms. Large studies conducted after this new definition was proposed suggested that syringocystadenoma papilliferum and TB develop more frequently than does BCC.^3,4,10-15 Furthermore, Cribier et al⁴ and Merrot et al¹⁵ reviewed prior cases of NS using the new definition and asserted that the majority of previously diagnosed cases of BCC were considered to be TB under the new criteria. With the advent of modern diagnostic testing, the rate of secondary benign neoplasm growth is now thought to be between 7% and 19%, with syringocystadenoma papilliferum arising in 2% to 13% of cases and TB in 1.5% to 7%.^3,4,10-14 Malignant neoplasms are observed much less frequently, with BCC arising in 0% to 1% of NS cases.

Nevus sebaceous lesions typically enlarge during puberty, while malignant neoplasms occur almost exclusively in adulthood,^4,10-12 suggesting that hormones contribute to NS stage progression. We present the case of a woman who developed BCC in a previously asymptomatic NS during pregnancy.

A 32-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented to our dermatology clinic with a pink-yellow verrucous plaque on the right temporal hairline extending to the preauricular area of the face. The patient had no personal or family history of skin cancer and no history of tanning bed use. She reported that the lesion had been present since birth. A diagnosis of NS was made.

Two years later, she presented with a new bleeding growth atop the previously diagnosed NS that had been present for approximately 4 months (Figure). At this visit she was pregnant (30 weeks’ gestation). Physical examination revealed a 4-mm, brown, pearly papule at the inferior margin of the previously noted pink verrucous plaque on the right temporal hairline. A biopsy was performed and histopathology displayed aggregates of basaloid cells with a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio, peripheral palisading, and abundant melanin, consistent with pigmented BCC. The patient was referred for Mohs micrographic surgery; the lesion was removed with clear margins. The patient had no recurrence of BCC at 36-month follow-up.

Similarly, cases of rapid growth of NS lesions during pregnancy, a state of increased testosterone production,²⁷ have been reported.²⁸ We present a case of a BCC arising in a previously asymptomatic NS during pregnancy. To our knowledge, no large studies have assessed the effect of hormone level changes during pregnancy on NS growth and secondary malignant transformation. Prior to the 1990s, prophylactic excision of NS during childhood was recommended to prevent malignant neoplasm formation.^29,30 More recently, a more conservative approach has been advocated because of a lower rate of malignant transformation than previously thought; some dermatologists recommend close monitoring as an alternative to early removal.^{4,13,14,29,31} This case report proposes that pregnancy may be a time of increased risk for malignant transformation and that NS lesions might require close monitoring during pregnancy.

To the Editor:

Nevus sebaceous of Jadassohn (or nevus sebaceous [NS]) is a congenital hamartomatous disorder initially described by Jadassohn¹ in 1895. Nevus sebaceous occurs in 0.3% of newborns² and is most commonly identified on the face and scalp.^3,4 Mehregan and Pinkus⁵ characterized NS as an organoid tumor containing multiple skin components with 3 life stages. The first stage—occurring during infancy—consists of immature hair follicles and sebaceous glands. The second stage—beginning at puberty—shows development of sebaceous glands, epidermal hyperplasia, and maturation of apocrine glands. The final stage involves formation of secondary benign and malignant neoplasms.

Historically, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) was thought to be the most common neoplasm arising in NS.^5-8 In 1993, Ackerman et al⁹ introduced a new definition of trichoblastoma (TB), expanding the definition to encompass previously excluded benign follicular neoplasms. Large studies conducted after this new definition was proposed suggested that syringocystadenoma papilliferum and TB develop more frequently than does BCC.^3,4,10-15 Furthermore, Cribier et al⁴ and Merrot et al¹⁵ reviewed prior cases of NS using the new definition and asserted that the majority of previously diagnosed cases of BCC were considered to be TB under the new criteria. With the advent of modern diagnostic testing, the rate of secondary benign neoplasm growth is now thought to be between 7% and 19%, with syringocystadenoma papilliferum arising in 2% to 13% of cases and TB in 1.5% to 7%.^3,4,10-14 Malignant neoplasms are observed much less frequently, with BCC arising in 0% to 1% of NS cases.

Nevus sebaceous lesions typically enlarge during puberty, while malignant neoplasms occur almost exclusively in adulthood,^4,10-12 suggesting that hormones contribute to NS stage progression. We present the case of a woman who developed BCC in a previously asymptomatic NS during pregnancy.

A 32-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented to our dermatology clinic with a pink-yellow verrucous plaque on the right temporal hairline extending to the preauricular area of the face. The patient had no personal or family history of skin cancer and no history of tanning bed use. She reported that the lesion had been present since birth. A diagnosis of NS was made.

Two years later, she presented with a new bleeding growth atop the previously diagnosed NS that had been present for approximately 4 months (Figure). At this visit she was pregnant (30 weeks’ gestation). Physical examination revealed a 4-mm, brown, pearly papule at the inferior margin of the previously noted pink verrucous plaque on the right temporal hairline. A biopsy was performed and histopathology displayed aggregates of basaloid cells with a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio, peripheral palisading, and abundant melanin, consistent with pigmented BCC. The patient was referred for Mohs micrographic surgery; the lesion was removed with clear margins. The patient had no recurrence of BCC at 36-month follow-up.

Similarly, cases of rapid growth of NS lesions during pregnancy, a state of increased testosterone production,²⁷ have been reported.²⁸ We present a case of a BCC arising in a previously asymptomatic NS during pregnancy. To our knowledge, no large studies have assessed the effect of hormone level changes during pregnancy on NS growth and secondary malignant transformation. Prior to the 1990s, prophylactic excision of NS during childhood was recommended to prevent malignant neoplasm formation.^29,30 More recently, a more conservative approach has been advocated because of a lower rate of malignant transformation than previously thought; some dermatologists recommend close monitoring as an alternative to early removal.^{4,13,14,29,31} This case report proposes that pregnancy may be a time of increased risk for malignant transformation and that NS lesions might require close monitoring during pregnancy.

To the Editor:

Nevus sebaceous of Jadassohn (or nevus sebaceous [NS]) is a congenital hamartomatous disorder initially described by Jadassohn¹ in 1895. Nevus sebaceous occurs in 0.3% of newborns² and is most commonly identified on the face and scalp.^3,4 Mehregan and Pinkus⁵ characterized NS as an organoid tumor containing multiple skin components with 3 life stages. The first stage—occurring during infancy—consists of immature hair follicles and sebaceous glands. The second stage—beginning at puberty—shows development of sebaceous glands, epidermal hyperplasia, and maturation of apocrine glands. The final stage involves formation of secondary benign and malignant neoplasms.

Historically, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) was thought to be the most common neoplasm arising in NS.^5-8 In 1993, Ackerman et al⁹ introduced a new definition of trichoblastoma (TB), expanding the definition to encompass previously excluded benign follicular neoplasms. Large studies conducted after this new definition was proposed suggested that syringocystadenoma papilliferum and TB develop more frequently than does BCC.^3,4,10-15 Furthermore, Cribier et al⁴ and Merrot et al¹⁵ reviewed prior cases of NS using the new definition and asserted that the majority of previously diagnosed cases of BCC were considered to be TB under the new criteria. With the advent of modern diagnostic testing, the rate of secondary benign neoplasm growth is now thought to be between 7% and 19%, with syringocystadenoma papilliferum arising in 2% to 13% of cases and TB in 1.5% to 7%.^3,4,10-14 Malignant neoplasms are observed much less frequently, with BCC arising in 0% to 1% of NS cases.

Nevus sebaceous lesions typically enlarge during puberty, while malignant neoplasms occur almost exclusively in adulthood,^4,10-12 suggesting that hormones contribute to NS stage progression. We present the case of a woman who developed BCC in a previously asymptomatic NS during pregnancy.

A 32-year-old woman who was otherwise healthy presented to our dermatology clinic with a pink-yellow verrucous plaque on the right temporal hairline extending to the preauricular area of the face. The patient had no personal or family history of skin cancer and no history of tanning bed use. She reported that the lesion had been present since birth. A diagnosis of NS was made.

Two years later, she presented with a new bleeding growth atop the previously diagnosed NS that had been present for approximately 4 months (Figure). At this visit she was pregnant (30 weeks’ gestation). Physical examination revealed a 4-mm, brown, pearly papule at the inferior margin of the previously noted pink verrucous plaque on the right temporal hairline. A biopsy was performed and histopathology displayed aggregates of basaloid cells with a high nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio, peripheral palisading, and abundant melanin, consistent with pigmented BCC. The patient was referred for Mohs micrographic surgery; the lesion was removed with clear margins. The patient had no recurrence of BCC at 36-month follow-up.

Similarly, cases of rapid growth of NS lesions during pregnancy, a state of increased testosterone production,²⁷ have been reported.²⁸ We present a case of a BCC arising in a previously asymptomatic NS during pregnancy. To our knowledge, no large studies have assessed the effect of hormone level changes during pregnancy on NS growth and secondary malignant transformation. Prior to the 1990s, prophylactic excision of NS during childhood was recommended to prevent malignant neoplasm formation.^29,30 More recently, a more conservative approach has been advocated because of a lower rate of malignant transformation than previously thought; some dermatologists recommend close monitoring as an alternative to early removal.^{4,13,14,29,31} This case report proposes that pregnancy may be a time of increased risk for malignant transformation and that NS lesions might require close monitoring during pregnancy.

To the Editor:

Keratoacanthoma (KA)–type squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) are rapidly evolving neoplasms of the epithelium that often spontaneously regress but rarely metastasize.^1,2 Keratoacanthomas are thought to ascend from the hair follicle,¹ and they clinically present as an enlarging solitary crateriform nodule with a keratin-filled center. Multiple KAs are rare²; histologically, KAs can be difficult to distinguish from conventional SCCs and are frequently treated by standard surgical excision.¹ Reactive KAs are a subtype of KA that are induced by trauma including UV exposure, electromagnetic radiation, surgical procedures, chemical peels, laser treatments, and rarely tattoos.^3-5

A 56-year-old man presented to the clinic with 3 asymptomatic enlarging papulonodules within a multicolored tattoo along the right forearm and elbow of 5 months’ duration (Figure 1). The lesions developed 1 month after the tattoo was placed and were localized to the areas of red pigment. The patient had several other tattoos. Histologic examination of the lesions revealed a well-differentiated squamous neoplasm with a crateriform invagination consistent with the superficial portion of a KA (Figures 2A–C). The specimen also revealed exogenous red pigment that was consistent with the background tattoo (Figure 2D). The patient underwent excisions of all 3 KAs, and free surgical margins were obtained.

Cipollaro¹⁰ reported the first case of a KA in a tattoo in 1973. Although there have been reports of melanoma and basal cell carcinoma occurring within tattoos, KAs and conventional SCCs are the most common cutaneous neoplasms arising in tattoos.

The pathogenesis underlying the development of malignancies in tattoos is unclear. It has been hypothesized that trauma from tattooing may play a role given the temporal relationship between tattoo placement and malignancy development.¹¹ Another theory is that tattoo pigment causes a chronic inflammatory foreign body reaction that triggers carcinogenesis.¹² Lastly, it has been postulated that tattoo pigment may alter UV light absorption in the skin that could potentially impact mutagenesis.¹¹

The most common treatment of KAs is standard surgical excision.⁴ Mohs micrographic surgery is an option if the KA is located in a cosmetically sensitive area. Although there are no reports of recurrence after excision of tattoo-related KAs, new KAs forming adjacent to a previously excised KA have been reported.¹³

Currently, tattoos are not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration before going to market. Although many states regulate the practice of tattooing, few regulate the contents of tattoo ink, and ink is only investigated when safety issues arise.¹⁴ This case provides further evidence of an association between KAs, tattooing, and potentially carcinogenic pigments, especially in red dye, supporting the need for further research on the safety of pigment components and more regulation of tattoo ink.

To the Editor:

Keratoacanthoma (KA)–type squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) are rapidly evolving neoplasms of the epithelium that often spontaneously regress but rarely metastasize.^1,2 Keratoacanthomas are thought to ascend from the hair follicle,¹ and they clinically present as an enlarging solitary crateriform nodule with a keratin-filled center. Multiple KAs are rare²; histologically, KAs can be difficult to distinguish from conventional SCCs and are frequently treated by standard surgical excision.¹ Reactive KAs are a subtype of KA that are induced by trauma including UV exposure, electromagnetic radiation, surgical procedures, chemical peels, laser treatments, and rarely tattoos.^3-5

A 56-year-old man presented to the clinic with 3 asymptomatic enlarging papulonodules within a multicolored tattoo along the right forearm and elbow of 5 months’ duration (Figure 1). The lesions developed 1 month after the tattoo was placed and were localized to the areas of red pigment. The patient had several other tattoos. Histologic examination of the lesions revealed a well-differentiated squamous neoplasm with a crateriform invagination consistent with the superficial portion of a KA (Figures 2A–C). The specimen also revealed exogenous red pigment that was consistent with the background tattoo (Figure 2D). The patient underwent excisions of all 3 KAs, and free surgical margins were obtained.

Cipollaro¹⁰ reported the first case of a KA in a tattoo in 1973. Although there have been reports of melanoma and basal cell carcinoma occurring within tattoos, KAs and conventional SCCs are the most common cutaneous neoplasms arising in tattoos.

The pathogenesis underlying the development of malignancies in tattoos is unclear. It has been hypothesized that trauma from tattooing may play a role given the temporal relationship between tattoo placement and malignancy development.¹¹ Another theory is that tattoo pigment causes a chronic inflammatory foreign body reaction that triggers carcinogenesis.¹² Lastly, it has been postulated that tattoo pigment may alter UV light absorption in the skin that could potentially impact mutagenesis.¹¹

The most common treatment of KAs is standard surgical excision.⁴ Mohs micrographic surgery is an option if the KA is located in a cosmetically sensitive area. Although there are no reports of recurrence after excision of tattoo-related KAs, new KAs forming adjacent to a previously excised KA have been reported.¹³

Currently, tattoos are not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration before going to market. Although many states regulate the practice of tattooing, few regulate the contents of tattoo ink, and ink is only investigated when safety issues arise.¹⁴ This case provides further evidence of an association between KAs, tattooing, and potentially carcinogenic pigments, especially in red dye, supporting the need for further research on the safety of pigment components and more regulation of tattoo ink.

To the Editor:

Keratoacanthoma (KA)–type squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) are rapidly evolving neoplasms of the epithelium that often spontaneously regress but rarely metastasize.^1,2 Keratoacanthomas are thought to ascend from the hair follicle,¹ and they clinically present as an enlarging solitary crateriform nodule with a keratin-filled center. Multiple KAs are rare²; histologically, KAs can be difficult to distinguish from conventional SCCs and are frequently treated by standard surgical excision.¹ Reactive KAs are a subtype of KA that are induced by trauma including UV exposure, electromagnetic radiation, surgical procedures, chemical peels, laser treatments, and rarely tattoos.^3-5

A 56-year-old man presented to the clinic with 3 asymptomatic enlarging papulonodules within a multicolored tattoo along the right forearm and elbow of 5 months’ duration (Figure 1). The lesions developed 1 month after the tattoo was placed and were localized to the areas of red pigment. The patient had several other tattoos. Histologic examination of the lesions revealed a well-differentiated squamous neoplasm with a crateriform invagination consistent with the superficial portion of a KA (Figures 2A–C). The specimen also revealed exogenous red pigment that was consistent with the background tattoo (Figure 2D). The patient underwent excisions of all 3 KAs, and free surgical margins were obtained.

Cipollaro¹⁰ reported the first case of a KA in a tattoo in 1973. Although there have been reports of melanoma and basal cell carcinoma occurring within tattoos, KAs and conventional SCCs are the most common cutaneous neoplasms arising in tattoos.

The pathogenesis underlying the development of malignancies in tattoos is unclear. It has been hypothesized that trauma from tattooing may play a role given the temporal relationship between tattoo placement and malignancy development.¹¹ Another theory is that tattoo pigment causes a chronic inflammatory foreign body reaction that triggers carcinogenesis.¹² Lastly, it has been postulated that tattoo pigment may alter UV light absorption in the skin that could potentially impact mutagenesis.¹¹

The most common treatment of KAs is standard surgical excision.⁴ Mohs micrographic surgery is an option if the KA is located in a cosmetically sensitive area. Although there are no reports of recurrence after excision of tattoo-related KAs, new KAs forming adjacent to a previously excised KA have been reported.¹³

Currently, tattoos are not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration before going to market. Although many states regulate the practice of tattooing, few regulate the contents of tattoo ink, and ink is only investigated when safety issues arise.¹⁴ This case provides further evidence of an association between KAs, tattooing, and potentially carcinogenic pigments, especially in red dye, supporting the need for further research on the safety of pigment components and more regulation of tattoo ink.