Cutis

The Diagnosis: Lymphomatoid Papulosis

At the time of the initial visit, a punch biopsy was performed on the posterior shoulder girdle. Histopathology revealed mild epidermal spongiosis and acanthosis with associated parakeratosis and a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate with extravasated erythrocytes consistent with pityriasis rosea (Figure 1). Two weeks after the biopsy, the patient returned for suture removal and to discuss the biopsy results. The patient reported more evolving lesions despite completing the prescribed course of dicloxacillin. At this time, physical examination revealed the persistence of several reddishbrown papules along with new nodular lesions on the arms and thighs, some with central ulceration and crusting (Figure 2). A second biopsy of a nodular lesion on the right distal forearm was performed at this visit along with a superficial tissue culture, which was negative for bacterial or fungal elements. The biopsy revealed an atypical CD30⁺ lymphoid proliferation (Figure 3). These cells were strongly PD-L1 positive and also positive for CD3, CD4, and granzyme-B. Ki67 showed a high proliferation rate, and T-cell gene rearrangement studies were positive. Given these histologic findings and the clinical context of rapidly evolving skin lesions from small papules to nodular skin tumors, a diagnosis of lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) was established.

Because of the notable pathologic discordance between the 2 biopsy specimens, re-evaluation of the initial specimen was requested. The initial biopsy was subsequently found to be CD30⁺ with an identical peak on gene rearrangement studies as the second biopsy, further validating the diagnosis of LyP (Figure 4). Our patient was offered low-dose methotrexate therapy but declined the treatment plan, as the skin lesions had begun to resolve.

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a chronic CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder with a characteristic recurrent and self-remitting disease course.^1,2 Although it typically has a benign clinical course, it is histologically malignant and considered a low-grade variant of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. ^2,3 The classic clinical presentation of LyP involves the presence of reddish-brown papules and nodules typically measuring less than 2.0 cm, which may show evidence of central ulceration, hemorrhage, necrosis, and/or crust formation.^1-5 It is characteristic that a patient may present with these skin lesions in different stages of evolution and that biopsies of these lesions may reflect different histologic features depending on the age of the lesion, making a definitive diagnosis more difficult to obtain if not clinically correlated.^1,2 Any part of the body may be involved; however, there appears to be a predilection for the trunk and extremities in most cases.^1-3,5 The skin eruptions usually are asymptomatic, but pruritus is a commonly associated concern.^1,2,4,5

Lymphomatoid papulosis can have a localized, clustered, or generalized distribution pattern and typically will spontaneously regress without treatment within 3 to 12 weeks of symptom onset.^2,3 Lymphomatoid papulosis has a slight male predominance with a male to female ratio of 1.5:1. It occurs most commonly between 35 and 45 years of age, though it can present at any age. The overall duration of the disease can range from months to decades.^2,3 Lymphomatoid papulosis makes up approximately 15% of all cutaneous T-cell lymphomas.^2,3 Although the overall prognosis is excellent, patients with LyP are at an increased risk of developing cutaneous or systemic lymphoma, most commonly mycosis fungoides, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.^1-3 This increased lifelong risk is the reason that patients with LyP must be followed long-term every 6 to 12 months for surveillance of emerging malignancy.^1,2,6

The pathogenesis of LyP remains unknown. Some have hypothesized a possible viral trigger; however, there is insufficient data to support this theory.^2,6 A diagnostic hallmark of LyP is its CD30 positivity, which is a known marker for T-cell activation.6 The spontaneous regression of skin lesions that is characteristic of LyP is believed to involve the interactions between CD30 and its ligand (CD30L), which may contribute to apoptosis of neoplastic T cells.^2,3,6 With regards to the possible mechanisms contributing to tumor progression in LyP, a mutation in the transforming growth factor β receptor gene on CD30+ tumor cells within LyP lesions may allow for these cells to evade growth regulation and progress to lymphoma.^2,6 A large percentage of LyP biopsy specimens show evidence of T-cell receptor gene monoclonal rearrangement, which can aid in establishing a diagnosis.^1,2

The histologic features of LyP can vary greatly depending on the age of the lesion sampled.^1,2 Histologic subtypes of LyP have been established, with type A being the most common (approximately 75% of cases), displaying a wedge-shaped infiltrate of scattered or clustered, large, atypical CD30+ T cells.^1,2 Types B through E vary in histologic features, with the exception that all subtypes contain a CD30+ lymphocytic infiltrate.^2,3

Treatment of LyP depends on the symptom/disease burden that the patient is experiencing. For patients with a limited number of nonscarring skin lesions in areas that are not cosmetically sensitive, observation is recommended. ^1-3 For symptomatic patients with an extensive number of lesions, particularly those that may be scarring and/or in cosmetically sensitive areas, low-dose oral methotrexate therapy is considered first-line treatment.^1-4 A methotrexate dose of 5 to 20 mg weekly can be effective in reducing the number and severity of lesions, with duration of treatment depending on clinical response.^1,2 For patients who have contraindications to or who cannot tolerate oral methotrexate, phototherapy using psoralen plus UVA twice weekly for 6 to 8 weeks is another treatment option.^1,2 Topical corticosteroids also can be used in children or for patients experiencing substantial pruritus.^1,2,4 Oral or topical retinoids, topical carmustine or mechlorethamine, and brentuximab (an anti-CD30 monoclonal antibody) are all alternative therapies that have shown some beneficial effects.^1,2 In the event that any of the skin lesions do not spontaneously regress within a 3- to 12-week time frame, surgical excision or radiotherapy can be performed on those lesions.²

Primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (C-ALCL) is another CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder with overlapping clinical and histopathological features of LyP. Recurrent crops of multiple lesions favor a diagnosis of LyP, whereas solitary lesions favor C-ALCL; however, multifocal C-ALCL cases may occur.² Mycosis fungoides is the most common type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma that characteristically presents in a patch, plaque, tumor progression. Although mycosis fungoides eventually may transform into a CD30⁺ lymphoma, our patient did not display the characteristic clinical progression to suggest this diagnosis. Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta and pityriasis lichenoides chronica also fall into the spectrum of clonal T-cell cutaneous disorders that more commonly affect the pediatric population. Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta has a marked CD8⁺ lymphocyte infiltrate, whereas pityriasis lichenoides chronica has more CD4⁺ lymphocytes. These disorders typically do not stain positive for CD30.²

All patients with a diagnosis of LyP should maintain lifelong, regular, 6- to 12-month follow-up visits to monitor disease status and screen for any evidence of developing malignancy.^1,2,6 A thorough review of clinical history, complete skin examination, and physical examination with a particular focus on detection of lymphadenopathy and hepatosplenomegaly should be included at every followup visit.1 Systemic symptoms such as fever, night sweats, or weight loss are not typical features of LyP; therefore, patients who begin to develop these symptoms should be promptly evaluated for systemic lymphoma.¹

The Diagnosis: Lymphomatoid Papulosis

At the time of the initial visit, a punch biopsy was performed on the posterior shoulder girdle. Histopathology revealed mild epidermal spongiosis and acanthosis with associated parakeratosis and a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate with extravasated erythrocytes consistent with pityriasis rosea (Figure 1). Two weeks after the biopsy, the patient returned for suture removal and to discuss the biopsy results. The patient reported more evolving lesions despite completing the prescribed course of dicloxacillin. At this time, physical examination revealed the persistence of several reddishbrown papules along with new nodular lesions on the arms and thighs, some with central ulceration and crusting (Figure 2). A second biopsy of a nodular lesion on the right distal forearm was performed at this visit along with a superficial tissue culture, which was negative for bacterial or fungal elements. The biopsy revealed an atypical CD30⁺ lymphoid proliferation (Figure 3). These cells were strongly PD-L1 positive and also positive for CD3, CD4, and granzyme-B. Ki67 showed a high proliferation rate, and T-cell gene rearrangement studies were positive. Given these histologic findings and the clinical context of rapidly evolving skin lesions from small papules to nodular skin tumors, a diagnosis of lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) was established.

Because of the notable pathologic discordance between the 2 biopsy specimens, re-evaluation of the initial specimen was requested. The initial biopsy was subsequently found to be CD30⁺ with an identical peak on gene rearrangement studies as the second biopsy, further validating the diagnosis of LyP (Figure 4). Our patient was offered low-dose methotrexate therapy but declined the treatment plan, as the skin lesions had begun to resolve.

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a chronic CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder with a characteristic recurrent and self-remitting disease course.^1,2 Although it typically has a benign clinical course, it is histologically malignant and considered a low-grade variant of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. ^2,3 The classic clinical presentation of LyP involves the presence of reddish-brown papules and nodules typically measuring less than 2.0 cm, which may show evidence of central ulceration, hemorrhage, necrosis, and/or crust formation.^1-5 It is characteristic that a patient may present with these skin lesions in different stages of evolution and that biopsies of these lesions may reflect different histologic features depending on the age of the lesion, making a definitive diagnosis more difficult to obtain if not clinically correlated.^1,2 Any part of the body may be involved; however, there appears to be a predilection for the trunk and extremities in most cases.^1-3,5 The skin eruptions usually are asymptomatic, but pruritus is a commonly associated concern.^1,2,4,5

Lymphomatoid papulosis can have a localized, clustered, or generalized distribution pattern and typically will spontaneously regress without treatment within 3 to 12 weeks of symptom onset.^2,3 Lymphomatoid papulosis has a slight male predominance with a male to female ratio of 1.5:1. It occurs most commonly between 35 and 45 years of age, though it can present at any age. The overall duration of the disease can range from months to decades.^2,3 Lymphomatoid papulosis makes up approximately 15% of all cutaneous T-cell lymphomas.^2,3 Although the overall prognosis is excellent, patients with LyP are at an increased risk of developing cutaneous or systemic lymphoma, most commonly mycosis fungoides, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.^1-3 This increased lifelong risk is the reason that patients with LyP must be followed long-term every 6 to 12 months for surveillance of emerging malignancy.^1,2,6

The pathogenesis of LyP remains unknown. Some have hypothesized a possible viral trigger; however, there is insufficient data to support this theory.^2,6 A diagnostic hallmark of LyP is its CD30 positivity, which is a known marker for T-cell activation.6 The spontaneous regression of skin lesions that is characteristic of LyP is believed to involve the interactions between CD30 and its ligand (CD30L), which may contribute to apoptosis of neoplastic T cells.^2,3,6 With regards to the possible mechanisms contributing to tumor progression in LyP, a mutation in the transforming growth factor β receptor gene on CD30+ tumor cells within LyP lesions may allow for these cells to evade growth regulation and progress to lymphoma.^2,6 A large percentage of LyP biopsy specimens show evidence of T-cell receptor gene monoclonal rearrangement, which can aid in establishing a diagnosis.^1,2

The histologic features of LyP can vary greatly depending on the age of the lesion sampled.^1,2 Histologic subtypes of LyP have been established, with type A being the most common (approximately 75% of cases), displaying a wedge-shaped infiltrate of scattered or clustered, large, atypical CD30+ T cells.^1,2 Types B through E vary in histologic features, with the exception that all subtypes contain a CD30+ lymphocytic infiltrate.^2,3

Treatment of LyP depends on the symptom/disease burden that the patient is experiencing. For patients with a limited number of nonscarring skin lesions in areas that are not cosmetically sensitive, observation is recommended. ^1-3 For symptomatic patients with an extensive number of lesions, particularly those that may be scarring and/or in cosmetically sensitive areas, low-dose oral methotrexate therapy is considered first-line treatment.^1-4 A methotrexate dose of 5 to 20 mg weekly can be effective in reducing the number and severity of lesions, with duration of treatment depending on clinical response.^1,2 For patients who have contraindications to or who cannot tolerate oral methotrexate, phototherapy using psoralen plus UVA twice weekly for 6 to 8 weeks is another treatment option.^1,2 Topical corticosteroids also can be used in children or for patients experiencing substantial pruritus.^1,2,4 Oral or topical retinoids, topical carmustine or mechlorethamine, and brentuximab (an anti-CD30 monoclonal antibody) are all alternative therapies that have shown some beneficial effects.^1,2 In the event that any of the skin lesions do not spontaneously regress within a 3- to 12-week time frame, surgical excision or radiotherapy can be performed on those lesions.²

Primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (C-ALCL) is another CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder with overlapping clinical and histopathological features of LyP. Recurrent crops of multiple lesions favor a diagnosis of LyP, whereas solitary lesions favor C-ALCL; however, multifocal C-ALCL cases may occur.² Mycosis fungoides is the most common type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma that characteristically presents in a patch, plaque, tumor progression. Although mycosis fungoides eventually may transform into a CD30⁺ lymphoma, our patient did not display the characteristic clinical progression to suggest this diagnosis. Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta and pityriasis lichenoides chronica also fall into the spectrum of clonal T-cell cutaneous disorders that more commonly affect the pediatric population. Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta has a marked CD8⁺ lymphocyte infiltrate, whereas pityriasis lichenoides chronica has more CD4⁺ lymphocytes. These disorders typically do not stain positive for CD30.²

All patients with a diagnosis of LyP should maintain lifelong, regular, 6- to 12-month follow-up visits to monitor disease status and screen for any evidence of developing malignancy.^1,2,6 A thorough review of clinical history, complete skin examination, and physical examination with a particular focus on detection of lymphadenopathy and hepatosplenomegaly should be included at every followup visit.1 Systemic symptoms such as fever, night sweats, or weight loss are not typical features of LyP; therefore, patients who begin to develop these symptoms should be promptly evaluated for systemic lymphoma.¹

The Diagnosis: Lymphomatoid Papulosis

At the time of the initial visit, a punch biopsy was performed on the posterior shoulder girdle. Histopathology revealed mild epidermal spongiosis and acanthosis with associated parakeratosis and a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate with extravasated erythrocytes consistent with pityriasis rosea (Figure 1). Two weeks after the biopsy, the patient returned for suture removal and to discuss the biopsy results. The patient reported more evolving lesions despite completing the prescribed course of dicloxacillin. At this time, physical examination revealed the persistence of several reddishbrown papules along with new nodular lesions on the arms and thighs, some with central ulceration and crusting (Figure 2). A second biopsy of a nodular lesion on the right distal forearm was performed at this visit along with a superficial tissue culture, which was negative for bacterial or fungal elements. The biopsy revealed an atypical CD30⁺ lymphoid proliferation (Figure 3). These cells were strongly PD-L1 positive and also positive for CD3, CD4, and granzyme-B. Ki67 showed a high proliferation rate, and T-cell gene rearrangement studies were positive. Given these histologic findings and the clinical context of rapidly evolving skin lesions from small papules to nodular skin tumors, a diagnosis of lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) was established.

Because of the notable pathologic discordance between the 2 biopsy specimens, re-evaluation of the initial specimen was requested. The initial biopsy was subsequently found to be CD30⁺ with an identical peak on gene rearrangement studies as the second biopsy, further validating the diagnosis of LyP (Figure 4). Our patient was offered low-dose methotrexate therapy but declined the treatment plan, as the skin lesions had begun to resolve.

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a chronic CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder with a characteristic recurrent and self-remitting disease course.^1,2 Although it typically has a benign clinical course, it is histologically malignant and considered a low-grade variant of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. ^2,3 The classic clinical presentation of LyP involves the presence of reddish-brown papules and nodules typically measuring less than 2.0 cm, which may show evidence of central ulceration, hemorrhage, necrosis, and/or crust formation.^1-5 It is characteristic that a patient may present with these skin lesions in different stages of evolution and that biopsies of these lesions may reflect different histologic features depending on the age of the lesion, making a definitive diagnosis more difficult to obtain if not clinically correlated.^1,2 Any part of the body may be involved; however, there appears to be a predilection for the trunk and extremities in most cases.^1-3,5 The skin eruptions usually are asymptomatic, but pruritus is a commonly associated concern.^1,2,4,5

Lymphomatoid papulosis can have a localized, clustered, or generalized distribution pattern and typically will spontaneously regress without treatment within 3 to 12 weeks of symptom onset.^2,3 Lymphomatoid papulosis has a slight male predominance with a male to female ratio of 1.5:1. It occurs most commonly between 35 and 45 years of age, though it can present at any age. The overall duration of the disease can range from months to decades.^2,3 Lymphomatoid papulosis makes up approximately 15% of all cutaneous T-cell lymphomas.^2,3 Although the overall prognosis is excellent, patients with LyP are at an increased risk of developing cutaneous or systemic lymphoma, most commonly mycosis fungoides, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.^1-3 This increased lifelong risk is the reason that patients with LyP must be followed long-term every 6 to 12 months for surveillance of emerging malignancy.^1,2,6

The pathogenesis of LyP remains unknown. Some have hypothesized a possible viral trigger; however, there is insufficient data to support this theory.^2,6 A diagnostic hallmark of LyP is its CD30 positivity, which is a known marker for T-cell activation.6 The spontaneous regression of skin lesions that is characteristic of LyP is believed to involve the interactions between CD30 and its ligand (CD30L), which may contribute to apoptosis of neoplastic T cells.^2,3,6 With regards to the possible mechanisms contributing to tumor progression in LyP, a mutation in the transforming growth factor β receptor gene on CD30+ tumor cells within LyP lesions may allow for these cells to evade growth regulation and progress to lymphoma.^2,6 A large percentage of LyP biopsy specimens show evidence of T-cell receptor gene monoclonal rearrangement, which can aid in establishing a diagnosis.^1,2

The histologic features of LyP can vary greatly depending on the age of the lesion sampled.^1,2 Histologic subtypes of LyP have been established, with type A being the most common (approximately 75% of cases), displaying a wedge-shaped infiltrate of scattered or clustered, large, atypical CD30+ T cells.^1,2 Types B through E vary in histologic features, with the exception that all subtypes contain a CD30+ lymphocytic infiltrate.^2,3

Treatment of LyP depends on the symptom/disease burden that the patient is experiencing. For patients with a limited number of nonscarring skin lesions in areas that are not cosmetically sensitive, observation is recommended. ^1-3 For symptomatic patients with an extensive number of lesions, particularly those that may be scarring and/or in cosmetically sensitive areas, low-dose oral methotrexate therapy is considered first-line treatment.^1-4 A methotrexate dose of 5 to 20 mg weekly can be effective in reducing the number and severity of lesions, with duration of treatment depending on clinical response.^1,2 For patients who have contraindications to or who cannot tolerate oral methotrexate, phototherapy using psoralen plus UVA twice weekly for 6 to 8 weeks is another treatment option.^1,2 Topical corticosteroids also can be used in children or for patients experiencing substantial pruritus.^1,2,4 Oral or topical retinoids, topical carmustine or mechlorethamine, and brentuximab (an anti-CD30 monoclonal antibody) are all alternative therapies that have shown some beneficial effects.^1,2 In the event that any of the skin lesions do not spontaneously regress within a 3- to 12-week time frame, surgical excision or radiotherapy can be performed on those lesions.²

Primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (C-ALCL) is another CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder with overlapping clinical and histopathological features of LyP. Recurrent crops of multiple lesions favor a diagnosis of LyP, whereas solitary lesions favor C-ALCL; however, multifocal C-ALCL cases may occur.² Mycosis fungoides is the most common type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma that characteristically presents in a patch, plaque, tumor progression. Although mycosis fungoides eventually may transform into a CD30⁺ lymphoma, our patient did not display the characteristic clinical progression to suggest this diagnosis. Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta and pityriasis lichenoides chronica also fall into the spectrum of clonal T-cell cutaneous disorders that more commonly affect the pediatric population. Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta has a marked CD8⁺ lymphocyte infiltrate, whereas pityriasis lichenoides chronica has more CD4⁺ lymphocytes. These disorders typically do not stain positive for CD30.²

All patients with a diagnosis of LyP should maintain lifelong, regular, 6- to 12-month follow-up visits to monitor disease status and screen for any evidence of developing malignancy.^1,2,6 A thorough review of clinical history, complete skin examination, and physical examination with a particular focus on detection of lymphadenopathy and hepatosplenomegaly should be included at every followup visit.1 Systemic symptoms such as fever, night sweats, or weight loss are not typical features of LyP; therefore, patients who begin to develop these symptoms should be promptly evaluated for systemic lymphoma.¹

To the Editor:

Intravascular large cell lymphoma (ILCL) is a rare B-cell lymphoma that is defined by the presence of large neoplastic B cells in the lumen of blood vessels.¹ At least 3 variants of ILCL have been described based on case reports and a small case series: classic, cutaneous, and hemophagocytic. The classic variant presents in elderly patients as nonspecific constitutional symptoms (fever or pain, or less frequently weight loss) or as signs of multiorgan failure (most commonly of the central nervous system). Skin involvement, which is present in nearly half of these patients, can take on multiple morphologies, including retiform purpura, ulcerated nodules, or pseudocellulitis. The cutaneous variant typically presents in middle-aged women with normal hematologic studies. Systemic involvement is less common in this variant of disease than the classic variant, which may partly explain why overall survival is superior in this variant. The hemophagocytic variant manifests as intravascular lymphoma accompanied by hemophagocytic syndrome (fever, hepatosplenomegaly, thrombocytopenia, and bone marrow involvement). Of the 3 variants, the hemophagocytic variant presents with the most rapid, aggressive decline, primarily in patients in Asian countries.¹ We describe a fatal case of classic ILCL, highlighting the importance of maintaining a high index of suspicion with false-negative biopsies.

A 69-year-old man presented to the emergency department for failure to thrive and nonhealing wounds of 1 year’s duration. His medical history was notable for poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, progressive multifocal ischemic and hemorrhagic cerebral infarcts, and bilateral deep venous thromboses. Physical examination revealed large purpuric to brown plaques in a retiform configuration with central necrotic eschars on the thighs and abdomen (Figure 1). There was no palpable lymphadenopathy. Laboratory tests revealed normocytic anemia with a hemoglobin level of 10.5 g/dL (reference range, 12–18 g/dL), elevated lactate dehydrogenase level of 525 U/L (reference range, 118–242 U/L), elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 73 mm/h (reference range, <20 mm/h), antinuclear antibody (ANA) titer of 1:2560 (reference range, <1:80), and polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia. The patient’s white blood cell and platelet counts, creatinine level, and liver function tests were within reference range. Cryoglobulins, coagulation studies, and cardiolipin antibodies were negative. Chest and abdominal imaging also were negative. An incisional skin biopsy and skin punch biopsy showed thrombotic coagulopathy and dilated vessels. A bone marrow biopsy revealed a hypercellular marrow but no plasma cell neoplasm. A repeat incisional skin biopsy demonstrated large CD20⁺ and CD45⁺ atypical lymphocytes within the small capillaries of the deep dermis and subcutaneous fat (Figure 2), which confirmed ILCL. Too deconditioned to tolerate chemotherapy, the patient opted for palliative care and died 18 months after initial presentation.

The diagnosis of ILCL often is delayed for several reasons.² Patients can present with a variety of signs and symptoms related to small vessel occlusion that can be misattributed to other conditions.^3,4 In our case, the patient’s recurrent infarcts were thought to be due to his poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, which was diagnosed a few weeks prior, and a positive ANA, even though the workup for antiphospholipid syndrome was negative. Interestingly, a positive ANA (without signs or symptoms of lupus or other autoimmune conditions) has been reported in patients with lymphoma.³ A positive antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody level (without symptoms or other signs of vasculitis) has been reported in patients with ILCL.^4,5 Therefore, distractors are common.

Multiple incisional skin biopsies in the absence of clinical findings (ie, random skin biopsy) are moderately sensitive (77.8%) for the diagnosis of ILCL.² In a study by Matsue et al,² 111 suspected cases of ILCL underwent 3 incisional biopsies of fat-containing areas of the skin, such as the thigh, abdomen, and upper arm. Intravascular large cell lymphoma was confirmed in 26 cases. Seven additional cases were diagnosed as ILCL, 2 by additional skin biopsies (1 by a second round and 1 by a third round) and 5 by internal organ biopsy (4 bone marrow and 1 adrenal gland). The remaining cases ultimately were found to be a diagnostic mimicker of ILCL, including non-ILCL.² Although random skin biopsies are reasonably sensitive for ILCL, multiple biopsies are needed, and in some cases, sampling of an internal organ may be required to establish the diagnosis of ILCL.

The prognosis of ILCL is poor; the 3-year overall survival rate for classic and cutaneous variants is 22% and 56%, respectively.⁶ Anthracycline-based chemotherapy, such as CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), is considered first-line treatment, and the addition of rituximab to the CHOP regimen may improve remission rates and survival.⁷

To the Editor:

Intravascular large cell lymphoma (ILCL) is a rare B-cell lymphoma that is defined by the presence of large neoplastic B cells in the lumen of blood vessels.¹ At least 3 variants of ILCL have been described based on case reports and a small case series: classic, cutaneous, and hemophagocytic. The classic variant presents in elderly patients as nonspecific constitutional symptoms (fever or pain, or less frequently weight loss) or as signs of multiorgan failure (most commonly of the central nervous system). Skin involvement, which is present in nearly half of these patients, can take on multiple morphologies, including retiform purpura, ulcerated nodules, or pseudocellulitis. The cutaneous variant typically presents in middle-aged women with normal hematologic studies. Systemic involvement is less common in this variant of disease than the classic variant, which may partly explain why overall survival is superior in this variant. The hemophagocytic variant manifests as intravascular lymphoma accompanied by hemophagocytic syndrome (fever, hepatosplenomegaly, thrombocytopenia, and bone marrow involvement). Of the 3 variants, the hemophagocytic variant presents with the most rapid, aggressive decline, primarily in patients in Asian countries.¹ We describe a fatal case of classic ILCL, highlighting the importance of maintaining a high index of suspicion with false-negative biopsies.

A 69-year-old man presented to the emergency department for failure to thrive and nonhealing wounds of 1 year’s duration. His medical history was notable for poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, progressive multifocal ischemic and hemorrhagic cerebral infarcts, and bilateral deep venous thromboses. Physical examination revealed large purpuric to brown plaques in a retiform configuration with central necrotic eschars on the thighs and abdomen (Figure 1). There was no palpable lymphadenopathy. Laboratory tests revealed normocytic anemia with a hemoglobin level of 10.5 g/dL (reference range, 12–18 g/dL), elevated lactate dehydrogenase level of 525 U/L (reference range, 118–242 U/L), elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 73 mm/h (reference range, <20 mm/h), antinuclear antibody (ANA) titer of 1:2560 (reference range, <1:80), and polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia. The patient’s white blood cell and platelet counts, creatinine level, and liver function tests were within reference range. Cryoglobulins, coagulation studies, and cardiolipin antibodies were negative. Chest and abdominal imaging also were negative. An incisional skin biopsy and skin punch biopsy showed thrombotic coagulopathy and dilated vessels. A bone marrow biopsy revealed a hypercellular marrow but no plasma cell neoplasm. A repeat incisional skin biopsy demonstrated large CD20⁺ and CD45⁺ atypical lymphocytes within the small capillaries of the deep dermis and subcutaneous fat (Figure 2), which confirmed ILCL. Too deconditioned to tolerate chemotherapy, the patient opted for palliative care and died 18 months after initial presentation.

The diagnosis of ILCL often is delayed for several reasons.² Patients can present with a variety of signs and symptoms related to small vessel occlusion that can be misattributed to other conditions.^3,4 In our case, the patient’s recurrent infarcts were thought to be due to his poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, which was diagnosed a few weeks prior, and a positive ANA, even though the workup for antiphospholipid syndrome was negative. Interestingly, a positive ANA (without signs or symptoms of lupus or other autoimmune conditions) has been reported in patients with lymphoma.³ A positive antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody level (without symptoms or other signs of vasculitis) has been reported in patients with ILCL.^4,5 Therefore, distractors are common.

Multiple incisional skin biopsies in the absence of clinical findings (ie, random skin biopsy) are moderately sensitive (77.8%) for the diagnosis of ILCL.² In a study by Matsue et al,² 111 suspected cases of ILCL underwent 3 incisional biopsies of fat-containing areas of the skin, such as the thigh, abdomen, and upper arm. Intravascular large cell lymphoma was confirmed in 26 cases. Seven additional cases were diagnosed as ILCL, 2 by additional skin biopsies (1 by a second round and 1 by a third round) and 5 by internal organ biopsy (4 bone marrow and 1 adrenal gland). The remaining cases ultimately were found to be a diagnostic mimicker of ILCL, including non-ILCL.² Although random skin biopsies are reasonably sensitive for ILCL, multiple biopsies are needed, and in some cases, sampling of an internal organ may be required to establish the diagnosis of ILCL.

The prognosis of ILCL is poor; the 3-year overall survival rate for classic and cutaneous variants is 22% and 56%, respectively.⁶ Anthracycline-based chemotherapy, such as CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), is considered first-line treatment, and the addition of rituximab to the CHOP regimen may improve remission rates and survival.⁷

To the Editor:

Intravascular large cell lymphoma (ILCL) is a rare B-cell lymphoma that is defined by the presence of large neoplastic B cells in the lumen of blood vessels.¹ At least 3 variants of ILCL have been described based on case reports and a small case series: classic, cutaneous, and hemophagocytic. The classic variant presents in elderly patients as nonspecific constitutional symptoms (fever or pain, or less frequently weight loss) or as signs of multiorgan failure (most commonly of the central nervous system). Skin involvement, which is present in nearly half of these patients, can take on multiple morphologies, including retiform purpura, ulcerated nodules, or pseudocellulitis. The cutaneous variant typically presents in middle-aged women with normal hematologic studies. Systemic involvement is less common in this variant of disease than the classic variant, which may partly explain why overall survival is superior in this variant. The hemophagocytic variant manifests as intravascular lymphoma accompanied by hemophagocytic syndrome (fever, hepatosplenomegaly, thrombocytopenia, and bone marrow involvement). Of the 3 variants, the hemophagocytic variant presents with the most rapid, aggressive decline, primarily in patients in Asian countries.¹ We describe a fatal case of classic ILCL, highlighting the importance of maintaining a high index of suspicion with false-negative biopsies.

A 69-year-old man presented to the emergency department for failure to thrive and nonhealing wounds of 1 year’s duration. His medical history was notable for poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, progressive multifocal ischemic and hemorrhagic cerebral infarcts, and bilateral deep venous thromboses. Physical examination revealed large purpuric to brown plaques in a retiform configuration with central necrotic eschars on the thighs and abdomen (Figure 1). There was no palpable lymphadenopathy. Laboratory tests revealed normocytic anemia with a hemoglobin level of 10.5 g/dL (reference range, 12–18 g/dL), elevated lactate dehydrogenase level of 525 U/L (reference range, 118–242 U/L), elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 73 mm/h (reference range, <20 mm/h), antinuclear antibody (ANA) titer of 1:2560 (reference range, <1:80), and polyclonal hypergammaglobulinemia. The patient’s white blood cell and platelet counts, creatinine level, and liver function tests were within reference range. Cryoglobulins, coagulation studies, and cardiolipin antibodies were negative. Chest and abdominal imaging also were negative. An incisional skin biopsy and skin punch biopsy showed thrombotic coagulopathy and dilated vessels. A bone marrow biopsy revealed a hypercellular marrow but no plasma cell neoplasm. A repeat incisional skin biopsy demonstrated large CD20⁺ and CD45⁺ atypical lymphocytes within the small capillaries of the deep dermis and subcutaneous fat (Figure 2), which confirmed ILCL. Too deconditioned to tolerate chemotherapy, the patient opted for palliative care and died 18 months after initial presentation.

The diagnosis of ILCL often is delayed for several reasons.² Patients can present with a variety of signs and symptoms related to small vessel occlusion that can be misattributed to other conditions.^3,4 In our case, the patient’s recurrent infarcts were thought to be due to his poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, which was diagnosed a few weeks prior, and a positive ANA, even though the workup for antiphospholipid syndrome was negative. Interestingly, a positive ANA (without signs or symptoms of lupus or other autoimmune conditions) has been reported in patients with lymphoma.³ A positive antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody level (without symptoms or other signs of vasculitis) has been reported in patients with ILCL.^4,5 Therefore, distractors are common.

Multiple incisional skin biopsies in the absence of clinical findings (ie, random skin biopsy) are moderately sensitive (77.8%) for the diagnosis of ILCL.² In a study by Matsue et al,² 111 suspected cases of ILCL underwent 3 incisional biopsies of fat-containing areas of the skin, such as the thigh, abdomen, and upper arm. Intravascular large cell lymphoma was confirmed in 26 cases. Seven additional cases were diagnosed as ILCL, 2 by additional skin biopsies (1 by a second round and 1 by a third round) and 5 by internal organ biopsy (4 bone marrow and 1 adrenal gland). The remaining cases ultimately were found to be a diagnostic mimicker of ILCL, including non-ILCL.² Although random skin biopsies are reasonably sensitive for ILCL, multiple biopsies are needed, and in some cases, sampling of an internal organ may be required to establish the diagnosis of ILCL.

The prognosis of ILCL is poor; the 3-year overall survival rate for classic and cutaneous variants is 22% and 56%, respectively.⁶ Anthracycline-based chemotherapy, such as CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), is considered first-line treatment, and the addition of rituximab to the CHOP regimen may improve remission rates and survival.⁷

To the Editor:

Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitor–induced lupuslike syndrome (TAILS) is a newly described entity that refers to the onset of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) during drug therapy with TNF-α antagonists. The condition is unique because it is thought to occur via a separate pathophysiologic mechanism than all other agents implicated in the development of drug-induced lupus erythematosus (DILE). Infliximab and etanercept are the 2 most common TNF-α antagonists associated with TAILS. Although rare, adalimumab, golimumab, and certolizumab pegol have been reported to induce this state of autoimmunity. We report an uncommon presentation of TAILS in a patient taking certolizumab pegol with a brief discussion of the pathogenesis underlying TAILS.

A 71-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic with a rash located on the arms, face, and trunk that she reported as having been present for months. She had a medical history of rheumatoid arthritis and currently was receiving certolizumab pegol injections. Physical examination revealed erythematous patches and plaques with overlying scaling and evidence of atrophic scarring on sun-exposed areas of the body. The lesions predominantly were in a symmetrical distribution across the extensor surfaces of both outer arms as well as the posterior superior thoracic region extending anteriorly along the bilateral supraclavicular area (Figures 1 and 2). A 4-mm punch biopsy was obtained and sent for histologic analysis, along with a sample of the patient’s serum for antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing.

Hematoxylin and eosin–stained tissue sections of the right superior thoracic lesions revealed epidermal atrophy, hyperkeratosis, and vacuolar alteration of the basal layer with apoptosis, consistent with a lichenoid tissue reaction. In addition, both superficial and deep perivascular and periadnexal lymphocytic infiltrates were observed as well as increased dermal mucin. Serologic testing was performed with a comprehensive ANA panel of the patient’s serum (Table). Of note, there was a speckled ANA pattern (1:1280), with elevated anti–double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) and anti–Sjögren syndrome–related antigen A (anti-SSA)(also called anti-Ro antibodies) levels. The patient’s rheumatologist was consulted; certolizumab pegol was removed from the current drug regimen and switched to a daily regimen of hydroxychloroquine and prednisone. Seven weeks after discontinuation of certolizumab pegol, the patient was symptom free and without any cutaneous involvement. Based on the histologic analysis, presence of anti-SSA (Ro) autoantibodies, and the resolution of symptoms following withdrawal of anti–TNF-α therapy, a diagnosis of TAILS was made.

Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus, the most common subset of DILE, typically presents with annular polycyclic or papulosquamous skin eruptions on the legs; patients often test positive for anti-SSA/Ro and/or anti–Sjögren syndrome–related antigen B (also called anti-La) antibodies. Pharmaceutical agents linked to the development of SCLE are calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, thiazide diuretics, terbinafine, the chemotherapeutic agent gemcitabine, and TNF-α antagonists.^1,2 Tumor necrosis factor α antagonists are biologic agents that commonly are used in the management of systemic inflammatory diseases such as ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, seronegative spondyloarthropathies, and rheumatoid arthritis. Among this family of therapeutics includes adalimumab (humanized monoclonal antibody), infliximab (chimeric monoclonal TNF-α antagonist), etanercept (soluble receptor fusion protein), certolizumab pegol (Fab fraction of a human IgG monoclonal antibody), and golimumab (humanized monoclonal antibody).

Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor–induced lupuslike syndrome most commonly occurs in women in the fifth decade of life, and it is seen more often in those using infliximab or entanercept.³ Although reports do exist, TAILS rarely complicates treatment with adalimumab, golimumab, or certolizumab.^4,5 Due to the lack of reports, there are no diagnostic criteria nor an acceptable theory regarding the pathogenesis. In one study in France, the estimated incidence was thought to be 0.19% for infliximab and 0.18% for etanercept.⁶ Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor–induced lupuslike syndrome is unique in that it is thought to occur by a different mechanism than that of other known offending agents in the development of DILE. Molecular mimicry, direct cytotoxicity, altered T-cell gene expression, and disruption of central immune tolerance have all been hypothesized to cause drug-induced systemic lupus erythematosus, SCLE, and chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, are postulated to cause the induction of SCLE via an independent route separate from not only other drugs that cause SCLE but also all forms of DILE as a whole, making it a distinctive player within the realm of agents known to cause a lupuslike syndrome. The following hypotheses may explain this occurrence:

1. Increased humoral autoimmunity: Under normal circumstances, TNF-α activation leads to upregulation in the production of cytotoxic CD8⁺ T lymphocytes. The upregulation of CD8⁺ T lymphocytes concurrently leads to a simultaneous suppression of B lymphocytes. Inhibiting the effects of TNF-α on the other hand promotes cytotoxic T-lymphocyte suppression, leading to an increased synthesis of B cells and subsequently a state of increased humoral autoimmunity.⁷

2. Infection: The immunosuppressive effects of TNF-α inhibitors are well known, and the propensity to develop microbial infections, such as tuberculosis, is markedly increased on the use of these agents. Infections brought on by TNF-α inhibitor usage are hypothesized to induce a widespread activation of polyclonal B lymphocytes, eventually leading to the formation of antibodies against these polyclonal B lymphocytes and subsequently SCLE.⁸

3. Helper T cell (TH2) response: The inhibition of T_H1 CD4⁺ lymphocytes by TNF-α inversely leads to an increased production of T_H2 CD4⁺ lymphocytes. This increase in the levels of circulating T_H2 CD4⁺ lymphocytes brought on by the action of anti–TNF-α agents is thought to promote the development of SCLE.^9,10

4. Apoptosis theory: Molecules of TNF-α inhibitors are capable of binding to TNF-α receptors on the cell surface. In doing so, cellular apoptosis is triggered, resulting in the release of nucleosomal autoantigens from the apoptotic cells. In susceptible individuals, autoantibodies then begin to form against the nucleosomal autoantigens, leading to an autoimmune reaction that is characterized by SCLE.^11,12

Major histone compatibility (MHC) antigen testing performed by Sontheimer et al¹² established the presence of the HLA class I, HLA-B8, and/or HLA-DR3 haplotypes in patients with SCLE.^13,14 Furthermore, there is a well-known association between the antinuclear profile of known SCLE patients and the presence of anti-SSA (Ro) antibodies.¹³ Therefore, we propose that in susceptible individuals, such as those with the HLA class I, HLA-B8, or HLA-DR3 haplotypes, the initiation of a TNF-α inhibitor causes cellular apoptosis with the subsequent release of nucleosomal and cytoplasmic components (namely that of the Ro autoantigens), inducing a state of autoimmunity. An ensuing immunogenic response is then initiated in predisposed individuals for which anti-SSA (Ro) autoantibodies are produced against these previously mentioned autoantigens.

Drug-induced SCLE is most common in females (71%), with a median age of 58 years. The most common site of cutaneous manifestations is the legs.¹⁵ Although our patient was in the eighth decade of life with predominant cutaneous involvement of the upper extremity, the erythematous plaques with a symmetric, annular, polycyclic appearance in photosensitive regions raised a heightened suspicion for lupus erythematosus. Histology classically involves an interface dermatitis with vacuolar or hydropic change and lymphocytic infiltrates,¹⁶ consistent with the analysis of tissue sections from our patient. Moreover, the speckled ANA profile with positive anti-dsDNA and anti-SSA (Ro) antibodies in the absence of a negative rheumatoid factor and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies strongly favored the diagnosis of SCLE over alternative diagnoses.²

The supraclavicular rash in our patient raises clinical suspicion for the shawl sign of dermatomyositis, which also is associated with musculoskeletal pain and photosensitivity. In addition, skin biopsy revealed vacuolar alteration of the basement membrane zoneand dermal mucin in both lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis; therefore, skin biopsy is of little use in distinguishing the 2 conditions, and antibody testing must be performed. Although anti-SSA (Ro) antibodies commonly are associated with SCLE, there are reports involving positivity for the extractable nuclear antigen in cases of dermatomyositis.¹⁷ Based on our patient’s current drug regimen, including that of a known offending agent for SCLE, a presumptive diagnosis of TAILS was made. Following withdrawal of certolizumab pegol injections and subsequent resolution of the skin lesions, our patient was given a definitive diagnosis of TAILS based on clinical and pathological assessments.

The clinical diagnosis of TAILS should be made according to the triad of at least 1 serologic and 1 nonserologic American College of Rheumatology criteria, such as anti-SSA (Ro) antibodies and a photosensitive rash, respectively, as well as a relationship between the onset of symptoms and TNF-α inhibitor therapy.¹⁸ Both the definitive diagnosis and the treatment of TAILS can be made via withdrawal of the TNF-α inhibitor, which was true in our case whereby chronologically the onset of use with a TNF-α inhibitor was associated with disease onset. Furthermore, withdrawal led to complete improvement of all signs and symptoms, collectively supporting a diagnosis of TAILS. Notably, switching to a different TNF-α inhibitor has been shown to be safe and effective.¹⁹

To the Editor:

Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitor–induced lupuslike syndrome (TAILS) is a newly described entity that refers to the onset of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) during drug therapy with TNF-α antagonists. The condition is unique because it is thought to occur via a separate pathophysiologic mechanism than all other agents implicated in the development of drug-induced lupus erythematosus (DILE). Infliximab and etanercept are the 2 most common TNF-α antagonists associated with TAILS. Although rare, adalimumab, golimumab, and certolizumab pegol have been reported to induce this state of autoimmunity. We report an uncommon presentation of TAILS in a patient taking certolizumab pegol with a brief discussion of the pathogenesis underlying TAILS.

A 71-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic with a rash located on the arms, face, and trunk that she reported as having been present for months. She had a medical history of rheumatoid arthritis and currently was receiving certolizumab pegol injections. Physical examination revealed erythematous patches and plaques with overlying scaling and evidence of atrophic scarring on sun-exposed areas of the body. The lesions predominantly were in a symmetrical distribution across the extensor surfaces of both outer arms as well as the posterior superior thoracic region extending anteriorly along the bilateral supraclavicular area (Figures 1 and 2). A 4-mm punch biopsy was obtained and sent for histologic analysis, along with a sample of the patient’s serum for antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing.

Hematoxylin and eosin–stained tissue sections of the right superior thoracic lesions revealed epidermal atrophy, hyperkeratosis, and vacuolar alteration of the basal layer with apoptosis, consistent with a lichenoid tissue reaction. In addition, both superficial and deep perivascular and periadnexal lymphocytic infiltrates were observed as well as increased dermal mucin. Serologic testing was performed with a comprehensive ANA panel of the patient’s serum (Table). Of note, there was a speckled ANA pattern (1:1280), with elevated anti–double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) and anti–Sjögren syndrome–related antigen A (anti-SSA)(also called anti-Ro antibodies) levels. The patient’s rheumatologist was consulted; certolizumab pegol was removed from the current drug regimen and switched to a daily regimen of hydroxychloroquine and prednisone. Seven weeks after discontinuation of certolizumab pegol, the patient was symptom free and without any cutaneous involvement. Based on the histologic analysis, presence of anti-SSA (Ro) autoantibodies, and the resolution of symptoms following withdrawal of anti–TNF-α therapy, a diagnosis of TAILS was made.

Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus, the most common subset of DILE, typically presents with annular polycyclic or papulosquamous skin eruptions on the legs; patients often test positive for anti-SSA/Ro and/or anti–Sjögren syndrome–related antigen B (also called anti-La) antibodies. Pharmaceutical agents linked to the development of SCLE are calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, thiazide diuretics, terbinafine, the chemotherapeutic agent gemcitabine, and TNF-α antagonists.^1,2 Tumor necrosis factor α antagonists are biologic agents that commonly are used in the management of systemic inflammatory diseases such as ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, seronegative spondyloarthropathies, and rheumatoid arthritis. Among this family of therapeutics includes adalimumab (humanized monoclonal antibody), infliximab (chimeric monoclonal TNF-α antagonist), etanercept (soluble receptor fusion protein), certolizumab pegol (Fab fraction of a human IgG monoclonal antibody), and golimumab (humanized monoclonal antibody).

Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor–induced lupuslike syndrome most commonly occurs in women in the fifth decade of life, and it is seen more often in those using infliximab or entanercept.³ Although reports do exist, TAILS rarely complicates treatment with adalimumab, golimumab, or certolizumab.^4,5 Due to the lack of reports, there are no diagnostic criteria nor an acceptable theory regarding the pathogenesis. In one study in France, the estimated incidence was thought to be 0.19% for infliximab and 0.18% for etanercept.⁶ Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor–induced lupuslike syndrome is unique in that it is thought to occur by a different mechanism than that of other known offending agents in the development of DILE. Molecular mimicry, direct cytotoxicity, altered T-cell gene expression, and disruption of central immune tolerance have all been hypothesized to cause drug-induced systemic lupus erythematosus, SCLE, and chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, are postulated to cause the induction of SCLE via an independent route separate from not only other drugs that cause SCLE but also all forms of DILE as a whole, making it a distinctive player within the realm of agents known to cause a lupuslike syndrome. The following hypotheses may explain this occurrence:

1. Increased humoral autoimmunity: Under normal circumstances, TNF-α activation leads to upregulation in the production of cytotoxic CD8⁺ T lymphocytes. The upregulation of CD8⁺ T lymphocytes concurrently leads to a simultaneous suppression of B lymphocytes. Inhibiting the effects of TNF-α on the other hand promotes cytotoxic T-lymphocyte suppression, leading to an increased synthesis of B cells and subsequently a state of increased humoral autoimmunity.⁷

2. Infection: The immunosuppressive effects of TNF-α inhibitors are well known, and the propensity to develop microbial infections, such as tuberculosis, is markedly increased on the use of these agents. Infections brought on by TNF-α inhibitor usage are hypothesized to induce a widespread activation of polyclonal B lymphocytes, eventually leading to the formation of antibodies against these polyclonal B lymphocytes and subsequently SCLE.⁸

3. Helper T cell (TH2) response: The inhibition of T_H1 CD4⁺ lymphocytes by TNF-α inversely leads to an increased production of T_H2 CD4⁺ lymphocytes. This increase in the levels of circulating T_H2 CD4⁺ lymphocytes brought on by the action of anti–TNF-α agents is thought to promote the development of SCLE.^9,10

4. Apoptosis theory: Molecules of TNF-α inhibitors are capable of binding to TNF-α receptors on the cell surface. In doing so, cellular apoptosis is triggered, resulting in the release of nucleosomal autoantigens from the apoptotic cells. In susceptible individuals, autoantibodies then begin to form against the nucleosomal autoantigens, leading to an autoimmune reaction that is characterized by SCLE.^11,12

Major histone compatibility (MHC) antigen testing performed by Sontheimer et al¹² established the presence of the HLA class I, HLA-B8, and/or HLA-DR3 haplotypes in patients with SCLE.^13,14 Furthermore, there is a well-known association between the antinuclear profile of known SCLE patients and the presence of anti-SSA (Ro) antibodies.¹³ Therefore, we propose that in susceptible individuals, such as those with the HLA class I, HLA-B8, or HLA-DR3 haplotypes, the initiation of a TNF-α inhibitor causes cellular apoptosis with the subsequent release of nucleosomal and cytoplasmic components (namely that of the Ro autoantigens), inducing a state of autoimmunity. An ensuing immunogenic response is then initiated in predisposed individuals for which anti-SSA (Ro) autoantibodies are produced against these previously mentioned autoantigens.

Drug-induced SCLE is most common in females (71%), with a median age of 58 years. The most common site of cutaneous manifestations is the legs.¹⁵ Although our patient was in the eighth decade of life with predominant cutaneous involvement of the upper extremity, the erythematous plaques with a symmetric, annular, polycyclic appearance in photosensitive regions raised a heightened suspicion for lupus erythematosus. Histology classically involves an interface dermatitis with vacuolar or hydropic change and lymphocytic infiltrates,¹⁶ consistent with the analysis of tissue sections from our patient. Moreover, the speckled ANA profile with positive anti-dsDNA and anti-SSA (Ro) antibodies in the absence of a negative rheumatoid factor and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies strongly favored the diagnosis of SCLE over alternative diagnoses.²

The supraclavicular rash in our patient raises clinical suspicion for the shawl sign of dermatomyositis, which also is associated with musculoskeletal pain and photosensitivity. In addition, skin biopsy revealed vacuolar alteration of the basement membrane zoneand dermal mucin in both lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis; therefore, skin biopsy is of little use in distinguishing the 2 conditions, and antibody testing must be performed. Although anti-SSA (Ro) antibodies commonly are associated with SCLE, there are reports involving positivity for the extractable nuclear antigen in cases of dermatomyositis.¹⁷ Based on our patient’s current drug regimen, including that of a known offending agent for SCLE, a presumptive diagnosis of TAILS was made. Following withdrawal of certolizumab pegol injections and subsequent resolution of the skin lesions, our patient was given a definitive diagnosis of TAILS based on clinical and pathological assessments.

The clinical diagnosis of TAILS should be made according to the triad of at least 1 serologic and 1 nonserologic American College of Rheumatology criteria, such as anti-SSA (Ro) antibodies and a photosensitive rash, respectively, as well as a relationship between the onset of symptoms and TNF-α inhibitor therapy.¹⁸ Both the definitive diagnosis and the treatment of TAILS can be made via withdrawal of the TNF-α inhibitor, which was true in our case whereby chronologically the onset of use with a TNF-α inhibitor was associated with disease onset. Furthermore, withdrawal led to complete improvement of all signs and symptoms, collectively supporting a diagnosis of TAILS. Notably, switching to a different TNF-α inhibitor has been shown to be safe and effective.¹⁹

To the Editor:

Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitor–induced lupuslike syndrome (TAILS) is a newly described entity that refers to the onset of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) during drug therapy with TNF-α antagonists. The condition is unique because it is thought to occur via a separate pathophysiologic mechanism than all other agents implicated in the development of drug-induced lupus erythematosus (DILE). Infliximab and etanercept are the 2 most common TNF-α antagonists associated with TAILS. Although rare, adalimumab, golimumab, and certolizumab pegol have been reported to induce this state of autoimmunity. We report an uncommon presentation of TAILS in a patient taking certolizumab pegol with a brief discussion of the pathogenesis underlying TAILS.

A 71-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic with a rash located on the arms, face, and trunk that she reported as having been present for months. She had a medical history of rheumatoid arthritis and currently was receiving certolizumab pegol injections. Physical examination revealed erythematous patches and plaques with overlying scaling and evidence of atrophic scarring on sun-exposed areas of the body. The lesions predominantly were in a symmetrical distribution across the extensor surfaces of both outer arms as well as the posterior superior thoracic region extending anteriorly along the bilateral supraclavicular area (Figures 1 and 2). A 4-mm punch biopsy was obtained and sent for histologic analysis, along with a sample of the patient’s serum for antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing.

Hematoxylin and eosin–stained tissue sections of the right superior thoracic lesions revealed epidermal atrophy, hyperkeratosis, and vacuolar alteration of the basal layer with apoptosis, consistent with a lichenoid tissue reaction. In addition, both superficial and deep perivascular and periadnexal lymphocytic infiltrates were observed as well as increased dermal mucin. Serologic testing was performed with a comprehensive ANA panel of the patient’s serum (Table). Of note, there was a speckled ANA pattern (1:1280), with elevated anti–double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) and anti–Sjögren syndrome–related antigen A (anti-SSA)(also called anti-Ro antibodies) levels. The patient’s rheumatologist was consulted; certolizumab pegol was removed from the current drug regimen and switched to a daily regimen of hydroxychloroquine and prednisone. Seven weeks after discontinuation of certolizumab pegol, the patient was symptom free and without any cutaneous involvement. Based on the histologic analysis, presence of anti-SSA (Ro) autoantibodies, and the resolution of symptoms following withdrawal of anti–TNF-α therapy, a diagnosis of TAILS was made.

Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus, the most common subset of DILE, typically presents with annular polycyclic or papulosquamous skin eruptions on the legs; patients often test positive for anti-SSA/Ro and/or anti–Sjögren syndrome–related antigen B (also called anti-La) antibodies. Pharmaceutical agents linked to the development of SCLE are calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, thiazide diuretics, terbinafine, the chemotherapeutic agent gemcitabine, and TNF-α antagonists.^1,2 Tumor necrosis factor α antagonists are biologic agents that commonly are used in the management of systemic inflammatory diseases such as ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, seronegative spondyloarthropathies, and rheumatoid arthritis. Among this family of therapeutics includes adalimumab (humanized monoclonal antibody), infliximab (chimeric monoclonal TNF-α antagonist), etanercept (soluble receptor fusion protein), certolizumab pegol (Fab fraction of a human IgG monoclonal antibody), and golimumab (humanized monoclonal antibody).

Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor–induced lupuslike syndrome most commonly occurs in women in the fifth decade of life, and it is seen more often in those using infliximab or entanercept.³ Although reports do exist, TAILS rarely complicates treatment with adalimumab, golimumab, or certolizumab.^4,5 Due to the lack of reports, there are no diagnostic criteria nor an acceptable theory regarding the pathogenesis. In one study in France, the estimated incidence was thought to be 0.19% for infliximab and 0.18% for etanercept.⁶ Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor–induced lupuslike syndrome is unique in that it is thought to occur by a different mechanism than that of other known offending agents in the development of DILE. Molecular mimicry, direct cytotoxicity, altered T-cell gene expression, and disruption of central immune tolerance have all been hypothesized to cause drug-induced systemic lupus erythematosus, SCLE, and chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, are postulated to cause the induction of SCLE via an independent route separate from not only other drugs that cause SCLE but also all forms of DILE as a whole, making it a distinctive player within the realm of agents known to cause a lupuslike syndrome. The following hypotheses may explain this occurrence:

1. Increased humoral autoimmunity: Under normal circumstances, TNF-α activation leads to upregulation in the production of cytotoxic CD8⁺ T lymphocytes. The upregulation of CD8⁺ T lymphocytes concurrently leads to a simultaneous suppression of B lymphocytes. Inhibiting the effects of TNF-α on the other hand promotes cytotoxic T-lymphocyte suppression, leading to an increased synthesis of B cells and subsequently a state of increased humoral autoimmunity.⁷

2. Infection: The immunosuppressive effects of TNF-α inhibitors are well known, and the propensity to develop microbial infections, such as tuberculosis, is markedly increased on the use of these agents. Infections brought on by TNF-α inhibitor usage are hypothesized to induce a widespread activation of polyclonal B lymphocytes, eventually leading to the formation of antibodies against these polyclonal B lymphocytes and subsequently SCLE.⁸

3. Helper T cell (TH2) response: The inhibition of T_H1 CD4⁺ lymphocytes by TNF-α inversely leads to an increased production of T_H2 CD4⁺ lymphocytes. This increase in the levels of circulating T_H2 CD4⁺ lymphocytes brought on by the action of anti–TNF-α agents is thought to promote the development of SCLE.^9,10

4. Apoptosis theory: Molecules of TNF-α inhibitors are capable of binding to TNF-α receptors on the cell surface. In doing so, cellular apoptosis is triggered, resulting in the release of nucleosomal autoantigens from the apoptotic cells. In susceptible individuals, autoantibodies then begin to form against the nucleosomal autoantigens, leading to an autoimmune reaction that is characterized by SCLE.^11,12

Major histone compatibility (MHC) antigen testing performed by Sontheimer et al¹² established the presence of the HLA class I, HLA-B8, and/or HLA-DR3 haplotypes in patients with SCLE.^13,14 Furthermore, there is a well-known association between the antinuclear profile of known SCLE patients and the presence of anti-SSA (Ro) antibodies.¹³ Therefore, we propose that in susceptible individuals, such as those with the HLA class I, HLA-B8, or HLA-DR3 haplotypes, the initiation of a TNF-α inhibitor causes cellular apoptosis with the subsequent release of nucleosomal and cytoplasmic components (namely that of the Ro autoantigens), inducing a state of autoimmunity. An ensuing immunogenic response is then initiated in predisposed individuals for which anti-SSA (Ro) autoantibodies are produced against these previously mentioned autoantigens.

Drug-induced SCLE is most common in females (71%), with a median age of 58 years. The most common site of cutaneous manifestations is the legs.¹⁵ Although our patient was in the eighth decade of life with predominant cutaneous involvement of the upper extremity, the erythematous plaques with a symmetric, annular, polycyclic appearance in photosensitive regions raised a heightened suspicion for lupus erythematosus. Histology classically involves an interface dermatitis with vacuolar or hydropic change and lymphocytic infiltrates,¹⁶ consistent with the analysis of tissue sections from our patient. Moreover, the speckled ANA profile with positive anti-dsDNA and anti-SSA (Ro) antibodies in the absence of a negative rheumatoid factor and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies strongly favored the diagnosis of SCLE over alternative diagnoses.²

The supraclavicular rash in our patient raises clinical suspicion for the shawl sign of dermatomyositis, which also is associated with musculoskeletal pain and photosensitivity. In addition, skin biopsy revealed vacuolar alteration of the basement membrane zoneand dermal mucin in both lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis; therefore, skin biopsy is of little use in distinguishing the 2 conditions, and antibody testing must be performed. Although anti-SSA (Ro) antibodies commonly are associated with SCLE, there are reports involving positivity for the extractable nuclear antigen in cases of dermatomyositis.¹⁷ Based on our patient’s current drug regimen, including that of a known offending agent for SCLE, a presumptive diagnosis of TAILS was made. Following withdrawal of certolizumab pegol injections and subsequent resolution of the skin lesions, our patient was given a definitive diagnosis of TAILS based on clinical and pathological assessments.

The clinical diagnosis of TAILS should be made according to the triad of at least 1 serologic and 1 nonserologic American College of Rheumatology criteria, such as anti-SSA (Ro) antibodies and a photosensitive rash, respectively, as well as a relationship between the onset of symptoms and TNF-α inhibitor therapy.¹⁸ Both the definitive diagnosis and the treatment of TAILS can be made via withdrawal of the TNF-α inhibitor, which was true in our case whereby chronologically the onset of use with a TNF-α inhibitor was associated with disease onset. Furthermore, withdrawal led to complete improvement of all signs and symptoms, collectively supporting a diagnosis of TAILS. Notably, switching to a different TNF-α inhibitor has been shown to be safe and effective.¹⁹

Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) is a synthetic biologic polymer that is suspended in solution and can be injected for soft-tissue augmentation. The stimulatory molecule functions to increase collagen synthesis as a by-product of its degradation.¹ Poly-L-lactic acid measures 40 to 63 μm and is irregularly shaped, which inhibits product mobility and allows for precise tissue augmentation.² Clinical trials of injectable PLLA have proven its safety with no reported cases of infection, allergies, or serious adverse reactions.^3-5 The most common patient concerns generally are transient in nature, such as swelling, tenderness, pain, bruising, and bleeding. Persistent adverse events of PLLA primarily are papule and nodule formation.⁶ Clinical trials showed a variable incidence of papule/nodule formation between 6% and 44%.² Nodule formation remains a major challenge to achieving optimal results from injectable PLLA. We present a case in which a hyperdiluted formulation of PLLA produced a relatively acute (3-week) onset of multiple nodule formations dispersed on the anterior neck. The nodules were resistant to less-invasive treatment modalities and were further requested to be surgically excised.

Case Report

A 38-year-old woman presented for soft-tissue augmentation of the anterior neck using PLLA to achieve correction of skin laxity and static rhytides. She had a history of successful PLLA injections in the temples, knees, chest, and buttocks over a 5-year period. Forty-eight hours prior to injection, 1 PLLA vial was hydrated with 7 cc bacteriostatic water by using a continuous rotation suspension method over the 48 hours. On the day of injection, the PLLA was further hyperdiluted with 2 cc of 2% lidocaine and an additional 7 cc of bacteriostatic water, for a total of 16 cc diluent. The product was injected using a cannula in the anterior and lateral neck. According to the patient, 3 weeks after the procedure she noticed that some nodules began to form at the cannula insertion sites, while others formed distant from those sites; a total of 10 nodules had formed on the anterior neck (Figure 1).

The bacteriostatic water, lidocaine, and PLLA vial were all confirmed not to be expired. The manufacturer was contacted, and no other adverse reactions have been reported with this particular lot number of PLLA. The nodules initially were treated with injections of large boluses of bacteriostatic saline, which was ineffective. Treatment was then attempted using injections of a solution containing 1.0 mL of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 50 mg/mL, 0.4 mL of dexamethasone 4 mg/mL, 0.1 mL of triamcinolone 10 mg/mL, and 0.3 mL hyaluronidase. A series of 4 injections was performed in 2- to 4-week intervals. Two of the nodules resolved completely with this treatment. The remaining 8 nodules subjectively improved in size and softened to palpation but did not resolve completely. At 2 of the injection sites, treatment was complicated with steroid atrophy of the overlying skin. At the patient’s request, the remaining nodules were surgically excised (Figure 2). Histopathology revealed exogenous foreign material consistent with dermal filler (Figure 3).

Comment

Causes of Nodule Formation—Two factors that could contribute to nodule formation are inadequate dispersion of molecules and an insufficient volume of dilution. One study demonstrated that hydration for at least 24 hours is required for adequate PLLA dispersion. Furthermore, sonification for 5 minutes after a 2-hour hydration disperses molecules similarly to the 48-hour hydration.⁷ The PLLA in the current case was hydrated for 48 hours using a continuous rotation suspension method. Therefore, this likely did not play a role in our patient’s nodule formation. The volume of dilution has been shown to impact the incidence of nodule formation.⁸ At present, most injectors (60.4%) reconstitute each vial of PLLA with 9 to 10 mL of diluent.⁹ The PLLA in our patient was reconstituted with 16 mL; therefore, we believe that the anatomic location was the main contributor of nodule formation.

Fillers should be injected in the subcutaneous or deep dermal plane of tissue.¹⁰ The platysma is a superficial muscle that is intimately involved with the overlying skin of the anterior neck, and injections in this area could inadvertently be intramuscular. Intramuscular injections have a higher incidence of nodule formation.¹ Our patient had prior PLLA injections without adverse reactions in numerous other sites, supporting the claim that the anterior neck is prone to nodule formation from PLLA injections.

Management of Noninflammatory Nodules—Initial treatment of nodules with injections of saline was ineffective. This treatment can be used in an attempt to disperse the product. Treatment was then attempted with injections of a solution containing 5-FU, dexamethasone, triamcinolone, and hyaluronidase. Combination steroid therapy may be superior to monotherapy.¹¹ Dexamethasone may exhibit a cytoprotective effect on cells such as fibroblasts when used in combination with triamcinolone; monotherapy steroid use with triamcinolone alone induced fibroblast apoptosis at a much higher level.¹² Hyaluronidase works by breaking cross-links in hyaluronic acid, a glycosaminoglycan polysaccharide prevalent in the skin and connective tissue, which increases tissue permeability and aids in delivery of the other injected fluids.¹³ 5-Fluorouracil is an antimetabolite that may aid in treating nodules by discouraging additional fibroblast activity and fibrosis.¹⁴

The combination of 5-FU, dexamethasone, and triamcinolone has been shown to be successful in treating noninflammatory nodules in as few as 1 treatment.¹⁴ In our patient, hyaluronidase also was used in an attempt to aid delivery of the other injected fluids. If nodules do not resolve with 1 injection, it is recommended to wait at least 8 weeks before repeating the injection to prevent steroid atrophy of the overlying skin. In our patient, the intramuscular placement of the filler contributed to the nodules being resistant to this treatment. During excision, the nodules were tightly embedded in the underlying tissue, which may have prevented the solution from being delivered to the nodule (Figure 2).

Conclusion

Injectable PLLA is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for soft-tissue augmentation of deep nasolabial folds and facial wrinkles. Off-label use of this product may cause higher incidence of nodule formation. Injectors should be cautious of injecting into the anterior neck. If nodules do form, treatment can be attempted with injections of saline. If that treatment fails, another treatment option is injection(s) of a mixture of 5-FU, dexamethasone, triamcinolone, and hyaluronidase separated by 8-week intervals. Finally, surgical excision is a viable treatment option, as presented in our case.

Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) is a synthetic biologic polymer that is suspended in solution and can be injected for soft-tissue augmentation. The stimulatory molecule functions to increase collagen synthesis as a by-product of its degradation.¹ Poly-L-lactic acid measures 40 to 63 μm and is irregularly shaped, which inhibits product mobility and allows for precise tissue augmentation.² Clinical trials of injectable PLLA have proven its safety with no reported cases of infection, allergies, or serious adverse reactions.^3-5 The most common patient concerns generally are transient in nature, such as swelling, tenderness, pain, bruising, and bleeding. Persistent adverse events of PLLA primarily are papule and nodule formation.⁶ Clinical trials showed a variable incidence of papule/nodule formation between 6% and 44%.² Nodule formation remains a major challenge to achieving optimal results from injectable PLLA. We present a case in which a hyperdiluted formulation of PLLA produced a relatively acute (3-week) onset of multiple nodule formations dispersed on the anterior neck. The nodules were resistant to less-invasive treatment modalities and were further requested to be surgically excised.

Case Report

A 38-year-old woman presented for soft-tissue augmentation of the anterior neck using PLLA to achieve correction of skin laxity and static rhytides. She had a history of successful PLLA injections in the temples, knees, chest, and buttocks over a 5-year period. Forty-eight hours prior to injection, 1 PLLA vial was hydrated with 7 cc bacteriostatic water by using a continuous rotation suspension method over the 48 hours. On the day of injection, the PLLA was further hyperdiluted with 2 cc of 2% lidocaine and an additional 7 cc of bacteriostatic water, for a total of 16 cc diluent. The product was injected using a cannula in the anterior and lateral neck. According to the patient, 3 weeks after the procedure she noticed that some nodules began to form at the cannula insertion sites, while others formed distant from those sites; a total of 10 nodules had formed on the anterior neck (Figure 1).

The bacteriostatic water, lidocaine, and PLLA vial were all confirmed not to be expired. The manufacturer was contacted, and no other adverse reactions have been reported with this particular lot number of PLLA. The nodules initially were treated with injections of large boluses of bacteriostatic saline, which was ineffective. Treatment was then attempted using injections of a solution containing 1.0 mL of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 50 mg/mL, 0.4 mL of dexamethasone 4 mg/mL, 0.1 mL of triamcinolone 10 mg/mL, and 0.3 mL hyaluronidase. A series of 4 injections was performed in 2- to 4-week intervals. Two of the nodules resolved completely with this treatment. The remaining 8 nodules subjectively improved in size and softened to palpation but did not resolve completely. At 2 of the injection sites, treatment was complicated with steroid atrophy of the overlying skin. At the patient’s request, the remaining nodules were surgically excised (Figure 2). Histopathology revealed exogenous foreign material consistent with dermal filler (Figure 3).

Comment

Causes of Nodule Formation—Two factors that could contribute to nodule formation are inadequate dispersion of molecules and an insufficient volume of dilution. One study demonstrated that hydration for at least 24 hours is required for adequate PLLA dispersion. Furthermore, sonification for 5 minutes after a 2-hour hydration disperses molecules similarly to the 48-hour hydration.⁷ The PLLA in the current case was hydrated for 48 hours using a continuous rotation suspension method. Therefore, this likely did not play a role in our patient’s nodule formation. The volume of dilution has been shown to impact the incidence of nodule formation.⁸ At present, most injectors (60.4%) reconstitute each vial of PLLA with 9 to 10 mL of diluent.⁹ The PLLA in our patient was reconstituted with 16 mL; therefore, we believe that the anatomic location was the main contributor of nodule formation.

Fillers should be injected in the subcutaneous or deep dermal plane of tissue.¹⁰ The platysma is a superficial muscle that is intimately involved with the overlying skin of the anterior neck, and injections in this area could inadvertently be intramuscular. Intramuscular injections have a higher incidence of nodule formation.¹ Our patient had prior PLLA injections without adverse reactions in numerous other sites, supporting the claim that the anterior neck is prone to nodule formation from PLLA injections.

Management of Noninflammatory Nodules—Initial treatment of nodules with injections of saline was ineffective. This treatment can be used in an attempt to disperse the product. Treatment was then attempted with injections of a solution containing 5-FU, dexamethasone, triamcinolone, and hyaluronidase. Combination steroid therapy may be superior to monotherapy.¹¹ Dexamethasone may exhibit a cytoprotective effect on cells such as fibroblasts when used in combination with triamcinolone; monotherapy steroid use with triamcinolone alone induced fibroblast apoptosis at a much higher level.¹² Hyaluronidase works by breaking cross-links in hyaluronic acid, a glycosaminoglycan polysaccharide prevalent in the skin and connective tissue, which increases tissue permeability and aids in delivery of the other injected fluids.¹³ 5-Fluorouracil is an antimetabolite that may aid in treating nodules by discouraging additional fibroblast activity and fibrosis.¹⁴

The combination of 5-FU, dexamethasone, and triamcinolone has been shown to be successful in treating noninflammatory nodules in as few as 1 treatment.¹⁴ In our patient, hyaluronidase also was used in an attempt to aid delivery of the other injected fluids. If nodules do not resolve with 1 injection, it is recommended to wait at least 8 weeks before repeating the injection to prevent steroid atrophy of the overlying skin. In our patient, the intramuscular placement of the filler contributed to the nodules being resistant to this treatment. During excision, the nodules were tightly embedded in the underlying tissue, which may have prevented the solution from being delivered to the nodule (Figure 2).

Conclusion

Injectable PLLA is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for soft-tissue augmentation of deep nasolabial folds and facial wrinkles. Off-label use of this product may cause higher incidence of nodule formation. Injectors should be cautious of injecting into the anterior neck. If nodules do form, treatment can be attempted with injections of saline. If that treatment fails, another treatment option is injection(s) of a mixture of 5-FU, dexamethasone, triamcinolone, and hyaluronidase separated by 8-week intervals. Finally, surgical excision is a viable treatment option, as presented in our case.

Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) is a synthetic biologic polymer that is suspended in solution and can be injected for soft-tissue augmentation. The stimulatory molecule functions to increase collagen synthesis as a by-product of its degradation.¹ Poly-L-lactic acid measures 40 to 63 μm and is irregularly shaped, which inhibits product mobility and allows for precise tissue augmentation.² Clinical trials of injectable PLLA have proven its safety with no reported cases of infection, allergies, or serious adverse reactions.^3-5 The most common patient concerns generally are transient in nature, such as swelling, tenderness, pain, bruising, and bleeding. Persistent adverse events of PLLA primarily are papule and nodule formation.⁶ Clinical trials showed a variable incidence of papule/nodule formation between 6% and 44%.² Nodule formation remains a major challenge to achieving optimal results from injectable PLLA. We present a case in which a hyperdiluted formulation of PLLA produced a relatively acute (3-week) onset of multiple nodule formations dispersed on the anterior neck. The nodules were resistant to less-invasive treatment modalities and were further requested to be surgically excised.

Case Report

A 38-year-old woman presented for soft-tissue augmentation of the anterior neck using PLLA to achieve correction of skin laxity and static rhytides. She had a history of successful PLLA injections in the temples, knees, chest, and buttocks over a 5-year period. Forty-eight hours prior to injection, 1 PLLA vial was hydrated with 7 cc bacteriostatic water by using a continuous rotation suspension method over the 48 hours. On the day of injection, the PLLA was further hyperdiluted with 2 cc of 2% lidocaine and an additional 7 cc of bacteriostatic water, for a total of 16 cc diluent. The product was injected using a cannula in the anterior and lateral neck. According to the patient, 3 weeks after the procedure she noticed that some nodules began to form at the cannula insertion sites, while others formed distant from those sites; a total of 10 nodules had formed on the anterior neck (Figure 1).

The bacteriostatic water, lidocaine, and PLLA vial were all confirmed not to be expired. The manufacturer was contacted, and no other adverse reactions have been reported with this particular lot number of PLLA. The nodules initially were treated with injections of large boluses of bacteriostatic saline, which was ineffective. Treatment was then attempted using injections of a solution containing 1.0 mL of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 50 mg/mL, 0.4 mL of dexamethasone 4 mg/mL, 0.1 mL of triamcinolone 10 mg/mL, and 0.3 mL hyaluronidase. A series of 4 injections was performed in 2- to 4-week intervals. Two of the nodules resolved completely with this treatment. The remaining 8 nodules subjectively improved in size and softened to palpation but did not resolve completely. At 2 of the injection sites, treatment was complicated with steroid atrophy of the overlying skin. At the patient’s request, the remaining nodules were surgically excised (Figure 2). Histopathology revealed exogenous foreign material consistent with dermal filler (Figure 3).

Comment

Causes of Nodule Formation—Two factors that could contribute to nodule formation are inadequate dispersion of molecules and an insufficient volume of dilution. One study demonstrated that hydration for at least 24 hours is required for adequate PLLA dispersion. Furthermore, sonification for 5 minutes after a 2-hour hydration disperses molecules similarly to the 48-hour hydration.⁷ The PLLA in the current case was hydrated for 48 hours using a continuous rotation suspension method. Therefore, this likely did not play a role in our patient’s nodule formation. The volume of dilution has been shown to impact the incidence of nodule formation.⁸ At present, most injectors (60.4%) reconstitute each vial of PLLA with 9 to 10 mL of diluent.⁹ The PLLA in our patient was reconstituted with 16 mL; therefore, we believe that the anatomic location was the main contributor of nodule formation.

Fillers should be injected in the subcutaneous or deep dermal plane of tissue.¹⁰ The platysma is a superficial muscle that is intimately involved with the overlying skin of the anterior neck, and injections in this area could inadvertently be intramuscular. Intramuscular injections have a higher incidence of nodule formation.¹ Our patient had prior PLLA injections without adverse reactions in numerous other sites, supporting the claim that the anterior neck is prone to nodule formation from PLLA injections.

Management of Noninflammatory Nodules—Initial treatment of nodules with injections of saline was ineffective. This treatment can be used in an attempt to disperse the product. Treatment was then attempted with injections of a solution containing 5-FU, dexamethasone, triamcinolone, and hyaluronidase. Combination steroid therapy may be superior to monotherapy.¹¹ Dexamethasone may exhibit a cytoprotective effect on cells such as fibroblasts when used in combination with triamcinolone; monotherapy steroid use with triamcinolone alone induced fibroblast apoptosis at a much higher level.¹² Hyaluronidase works by breaking cross-links in hyaluronic acid, a glycosaminoglycan polysaccharide prevalent in the skin and connective tissue, which increases tissue permeability and aids in delivery of the other injected fluids.¹³ 5-Fluorouracil is an antimetabolite that may aid in treating nodules by discouraging additional fibroblast activity and fibrosis.¹⁴

The combination of 5-FU, dexamethasone, and triamcinolone has been shown to be successful in treating noninflammatory nodules in as few as 1 treatment.¹⁴ In our patient, hyaluronidase also was used in an attempt to aid delivery of the other injected fluids. If nodules do not resolve with 1 injection, it is recommended to wait at least 8 weeks before repeating the injection to prevent steroid atrophy of the overlying skin. In our patient, the intramuscular placement of the filler contributed to the nodules being resistant to this treatment. During excision, the nodules were tightly embedded in the underlying tissue, which may have prevented the solution from being delivered to the nodule (Figure 2).

Conclusion

Injectable PLLA is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for soft-tissue augmentation of deep nasolabial folds and facial wrinkles. Off-label use of this product may cause higher incidence of nodule formation. Injectors should be cautious of injecting into the anterior neck. If nodules do form, treatment can be attempted with injections of saline. If that treatment fails, another treatment option is injection(s) of a mixture of 5-FU, dexamethasone, triamcinolone, and hyaluronidase separated by 8-week intervals. Finally, surgical excision is a viable treatment option, as presented in our case.

The Diagnosis: Granuloma Annulare

A biopsy of a lesion on the right flank demonstrated granulomatous inflammation and interstitial mucin (Figure), characteristic of granuloma annulare (GA).^1,2 Granuloma annulare is a relatively common skin disorder with an unknown etiology. It typically presents as smooth, annular, erythematous plaques.¹ The most common variants of GA are localized, generalized, and subcutaneous. Our case demonstrated Wolf isotopic response, an unrelated skin disease that forms at the same location as a previously healed skin lesion.² It is important to be aware of this phenomenon so that it is not confused with a recurrence of herpes zoster virus (HZV).

Although relatively infrequent, GA is the most common isotopic response following HZV infections.^3-5 Other postherpetic isotopic eruptions include cutaneous malignancies, lichen planus, sarcoidosis, morphea, reactive perforating collagenosis, psoriasis, and infections, among others.^3,5,6 The time between HZV infection and GA can be variable, ranging from a few weeks to many years apart.³

Oftentimes GA will spontaneously resolve within 2 years; however, recurrence is common.^7-9 There currently are no standard treatment guidelines. The most promising treatment options include intralesional or topical glucocorticoids for localized GA as well as phototherapy or hydroxychloroquine for widespread disease.^8,10  

Annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma (also called actinic granuloma) is a rare idiopathic inflammatory skin disease. It is characterized by erythematous annular papules or plaques mainly found on sun-exposed skin, such as the backs of the hands, forearms, or face.^11,12 Therefore, based on the distribution of our patient’s lesions, annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma was an unlikely diagnosis. Furthermore, it is not a known postherpetic isotopic reaction. Annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma can appear histologically similar to GA. Differentiating histologic features include a nonpalisading granuloma as well as the absence of mucin and necrobiosis.¹²

Annular lichen planus is a long-recognized but uncommon clinical variant of lichen planus that typically presents as pruritic, purple, annular plaques on the penis, scrotum, or intertriginous areas.¹³ The violaceous coloring is more characteristic of lichen planus. Histology is helpful in differentiating from GA.

Nummular eczema presents as scattered, welldefined, pruritic, erythematous, coin-shaped, coin-sized plaques in patients with diffusely dry skin.¹⁴ The scaling and serous crusting as well as more prominent pruritus help distinguish it from GA. The appearance of nummular eczema is quite characteristic; therefore, a biopsy typically is unnecessary for diagnosis. However, a potassium hydroxide wet mount examination of a skin scraping should be performed if tinea corporis also is suspected.

Superficial erythema annulare centrifugum classically presents as an annular or arciform pruritic lesion with an advancing outer erythematous edge with an inner rim of scale that most commonly occurs on the lower extremities. ¹⁵ The presence of pruritus and trailing scale helps distinguish this lesion from GA. Histologically, there are epidermal changes of hyperplasia, spongiosis, and parakeratosis, as well as lymphohistiocytic infiltrate surrounding the superficial dermal vessels^.16

We report this case to highlight GA as the most common postherpetic isotopic response. It should be on the differential diagnosis when a patient presents with erythematous, smooth, annular plaques occurring in the distribution of a resolved case of HZV.

The Diagnosis: Granuloma Annulare

A biopsy of a lesion on the right flank demonstrated granulomatous inflammation and interstitial mucin (Figure), characteristic of granuloma annulare (GA).^1,2 Granuloma annulare is a relatively common skin disorder with an unknown etiology. It typically presents as smooth, annular, erythematous plaques.¹ The most common variants of GA are localized, generalized, and subcutaneous. Our case demonstrated Wolf isotopic response, an unrelated skin disease that forms at the same location as a previously healed skin lesion.² It is important to be aware of this phenomenon so that it is not confused with a recurrence of herpes zoster virus (HZV).

Although relatively infrequent, GA is the most common isotopic response following HZV infections.^3-5 Other postherpetic isotopic eruptions include cutaneous malignancies, lichen planus, sarcoidosis, morphea, reactive perforating collagenosis, psoriasis, and infections, among others.^3,5,6 The time between HZV infection and GA can be variable, ranging from a few weeks to many years apart.³

Oftentimes GA will spontaneously resolve within 2 years; however, recurrence is common.^7-9 There currently are no standard treatment guidelines. The most promising treatment options include intralesional or topical glucocorticoids for localized GA as well as phototherapy or hydroxychloroquine for widespread disease.^8,10  

Annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma (also called actinic granuloma) is a rare idiopathic inflammatory skin disease. It is characterized by erythematous annular papules or plaques mainly found on sun-exposed skin, such as the backs of the hands, forearms, or face.^11,12 Therefore, based on the distribution of our patient’s lesions, annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma was an unlikely diagnosis. Furthermore, it is not a known postherpetic isotopic reaction. Annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma can appear histologically similar to GA. Differentiating histologic features include a nonpalisading granuloma as well as the absence of mucin and necrobiosis.¹²

Annular lichen planus is a long-recognized but uncommon clinical variant of lichen planus that typically presents as pruritic, purple, annular plaques on the penis, scrotum, or intertriginous areas.¹³ The violaceous coloring is more characteristic of lichen planus. Histology is helpful in differentiating from GA.

Nummular eczema presents as scattered, welldefined, pruritic, erythematous, coin-shaped, coin-sized plaques in patients with diffusely dry skin.¹⁴ The scaling and serous crusting as well as more prominent pruritus help distinguish it from GA. The appearance of nummular eczema is quite characteristic; therefore, a biopsy typically is unnecessary for diagnosis. However, a potassium hydroxide wet mount examination of a skin scraping should be performed if tinea corporis also is suspected.

Superficial erythema annulare centrifugum classically presents as an annular or arciform pruritic lesion with an advancing outer erythematous edge with an inner rim of scale that most commonly occurs on the lower extremities. ¹⁵ The presence of pruritus and trailing scale helps distinguish this lesion from GA. Histologically, there are epidermal changes of hyperplasia, spongiosis, and parakeratosis, as well as lymphohistiocytic infiltrate surrounding the superficial dermal vessels^.16

We report this case to highlight GA as the most common postherpetic isotopic response. It should be on the differential diagnosis when a patient presents with erythematous, smooth, annular plaques occurring in the distribution of a resolved case of HZV.

The Diagnosis: Granuloma Annulare

A biopsy of a lesion on the right flank demonstrated granulomatous inflammation and interstitial mucin (Figure), characteristic of granuloma annulare (GA).^1,2 Granuloma annulare is a relatively common skin disorder with an unknown etiology. It typically presents as smooth, annular, erythematous plaques.¹ The most common variants of GA are localized, generalized, and subcutaneous. Our case demonstrated Wolf isotopic response, an unrelated skin disease that forms at the same location as a previously healed skin lesion.² It is important to be aware of this phenomenon so that it is not confused with a recurrence of herpes zoster virus (HZV).

Although relatively infrequent, GA is the most common isotopic response following HZV infections.^3-5 Other postherpetic isotopic eruptions include cutaneous malignancies, lichen planus, sarcoidosis, morphea, reactive perforating collagenosis, psoriasis, and infections, among others.^3,5,6 The time between HZV infection and GA can be variable, ranging from a few weeks to many years apart.³

Oftentimes GA will spontaneously resolve within 2 years; however, recurrence is common.^7-9 There currently are no standard treatment guidelines. The most promising treatment options include intralesional or topical glucocorticoids for localized GA as well as phototherapy or hydroxychloroquine for widespread disease.^8,10  

Annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma (also called actinic granuloma) is a rare idiopathic inflammatory skin disease. It is characterized by erythematous annular papules or plaques mainly found on sun-exposed skin, such as the backs of the hands, forearms, or face.^11,12 Therefore, based on the distribution of our patient’s lesions, annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma was an unlikely diagnosis. Furthermore, it is not a known postherpetic isotopic reaction. Annular elastolytic giant cell granuloma can appear histologically similar to GA. Differentiating histologic features include a nonpalisading granuloma as well as the absence of mucin and necrobiosis.¹²

Annular lichen planus is a long-recognized but uncommon clinical variant of lichen planus that typically presents as pruritic, purple, annular plaques on the penis, scrotum, or intertriginous areas.¹³ The violaceous coloring is more characteristic of lichen planus. Histology is helpful in differentiating from GA.

Nummular eczema presents as scattered, welldefined, pruritic, erythematous, coin-shaped, coin-sized plaques in patients with diffusely dry skin.¹⁴ The scaling and serous crusting as well as more prominent pruritus help distinguish it from GA. The appearance of nummular eczema is quite characteristic; therefore, a biopsy typically is unnecessary for diagnosis. However, a potassium hydroxide wet mount examination of a skin scraping should be performed if tinea corporis also is suspected.

Superficial erythema annulare centrifugum classically presents as an annular or arciform pruritic lesion with an advancing outer erythematous edge with an inner rim of scale that most commonly occurs on the lower extremities. ¹⁵ The presence of pruritus and trailing scale helps distinguish this lesion from GA. Histologically, there are epidermal changes of hyperplasia, spongiosis, and parakeratosis, as well as lymphohistiocytic infiltrate surrounding the superficial dermal vessels^.16

We report this case to highlight GA as the most common postherpetic isotopic response. It should be on the differential diagnosis when a patient presents with erythematous, smooth, annular plaques occurring in the distribution of a resolved case of HZV.

The Diagnosis: Chromoblastomycosis

This case highlights the importance of routine skin biopsy and tissue culture when clinical suspicion for mycotic infection is high. Despite nonspecific biopsy results (Figure), a diagnosis of chromoblastomycosis (CBM) was reached based on tissue culture. Surgical excision was not possible in our patient due to the size and location of the lesion. The patient was referred to infectious disease, with the plan to start long-term itraconazole for at least 6 to 12 months.

Cases of CBM were first documented in 1914 and distinguished by the appearance of spherical, brown, muriform cells on skin biopsy—features that now serve as the hallmark of CBM diagnoses.^1,2 The implantation mycosis commonly is caused by agents such as Fonsecaea pedrosoi and Fonsecaea monophora of the bantiana-clade, as classified according to molecular phylogeny²; these agents have been isolated from soil, plants, and wood sources in tropical and subtropical regions and are strongly associated with agricultural activities.³

Chromoblastomycosis lesions tend to be asymptomatic with a variable amount of time between inoculation and lesion presentation, delaying medical care by months to years.³ The fungus causes a granulomatous reaction after skin damage, with noticeable pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia of the epidermis and granulomas formed by epithelioid and Langerhans cells in the dermis.⁴ Typically, CBM initially presents as an erythematous macular skin lesion, which then progresses to become more pink, papular, and sometimes pruritic.² Muriform (sclerotic) bodies, which reflect fungal components, extrude transepidermally and appear as black dots on the lesion’s surface.⁴ Chromoblastomycosis is limited to the subcutaneous tissue and has been classified into 5 types of lesions: nodular, tumoral, verrucous, scarring, and plaque.² Diagnosis is established using fungal tests such as potassium hydroxide direct microscopy, which exposes muriform bodies often in combination with dematiaceous hyphae, while fungal culture of F pedrosoi in Sabouraud agar produces velvety dark colonies.³ Although an immune response to CBM infection remains unclear, it has been demonstrated that the response differs based on the severity of the infection. The severe form of CBM produces high levels of IL-10, low levels of IFN-γ, and inefficient T-cell proliferation, while milder forms of CBM display low levels of IL-10, high levels of IFN-γ, and efficient T-cell proliferation.⁵ Complications of CBM include chronic lymphedema, ankylosis, and secondary bacterial infections, which largely are observed in advanced cases; malignant transformation to squamous cell carcinoma, though rare, also has been observed.⁶

Several therapeutic methods have been implemented in the treatment of CBM, but lesions often remain refractory, especially in advanced cases.⁶ Approaches to treatment can be divided into antifungal and physical methods. Commonly employed antifungal agents include itraconazole and terbinafine, which must be taken daily for a period ranging from 6 months to 1 year or longer; flucytosine with or without amphotericin also has been employed.⁴ Among the physical methods, surgical excision is not suggested due to possible dissemination of disease; other options include cryotherapy, thermotherapy, and laser vaporization.⁶ The prognosis has improved since the use of extended-spectrum triazoles, but high rates of refractory disease remain unchanged.²

The differential diagnosis includes other infections. Nocardiosis is a bacterial infection in which cutaneous disease can result in actinomycetoma, which presents with grains that are small, round, and stain blue on hematoxylin and eosin with eosinophilic rays at the periphery.⁷ Although the clinical features and pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia seen in CBM can mimic squamous cell carcinoma, the latter would show variable degrees of differentiation, keratinization, nuclear atypia, and architectural atypia with a negative tissue culture.⁸ Eumycetoma is a fungal infection that typically is not caused by F pedrosoi but rather most commonly Madurella mycetomatis.⁹ Leishmaniasis is a parasitic infection in which a biopsy of cutaneous lesions often displays parasite-filled histiocytes.¹⁰

The Diagnosis: Chromoblastomycosis

This case highlights the importance of routine skin biopsy and tissue culture when clinical suspicion for mycotic infection is high. Despite nonspecific biopsy results (Figure), a diagnosis of chromoblastomycosis (CBM) was reached based on tissue culture. Surgical excision was not possible in our patient due to the size and location of the lesion. The patient was referred to infectious disease, with the plan to start long-term itraconazole for at least 6 to 12 months.

Cases of CBM were first documented in 1914 and distinguished by the appearance of spherical, brown, muriform cells on skin biopsy—features that now serve as the hallmark of CBM diagnoses.^1,2 The implantation mycosis commonly is caused by agents such as Fonsecaea pedrosoi and Fonsecaea monophora of the bantiana-clade, as classified according to molecular phylogeny²; these agents have been isolated from soil, plants, and wood sources in tropical and subtropical regions and are strongly associated with agricultural activities.³

Chromoblastomycosis lesions tend to be asymptomatic with a variable amount of time between inoculation and lesion presentation, delaying medical care by months to years.³ The fungus causes a granulomatous reaction after skin damage, with noticeable pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia of the epidermis and granulomas formed by epithelioid and Langerhans cells in the dermis.⁴ Typically, CBM initially presents as an erythematous macular skin lesion, which then progresses to become more pink, papular, and sometimes pruritic.² Muriform (sclerotic) bodies, which reflect fungal components, extrude transepidermally and appear as black dots on the lesion’s surface.⁴ Chromoblastomycosis is limited to the subcutaneous tissue and has been classified into 5 types of lesions: nodular, tumoral, verrucous, scarring, and plaque.² Diagnosis is established using fungal tests such as potassium hydroxide direct microscopy, which exposes muriform bodies often in combination with dematiaceous hyphae, while fungal culture of F pedrosoi in Sabouraud agar produces velvety dark colonies.³ Although an immune response to CBM infection remains unclear, it has been demonstrated that the response differs based on the severity of the infection. The severe form of CBM produces high levels of IL-10, low levels of IFN-γ, and inefficient T-cell proliferation, while milder forms of CBM display low levels of IL-10, high levels of IFN-γ, and efficient T-cell proliferation.⁵ Complications of CBM include chronic lymphedema, ankylosis, and secondary bacterial infections, which largely are observed in advanced cases; malignant transformation to squamous cell carcinoma, though rare, also has been observed.⁶

Several therapeutic methods have been implemented in the treatment of CBM, but lesions often remain refractory, especially in advanced cases.⁶ Approaches to treatment can be divided into antifungal and physical methods. Commonly employed antifungal agents include itraconazole and terbinafine, which must be taken daily for a period ranging from 6 months to 1 year or longer; flucytosine with or without amphotericin also has been employed.⁴ Among the physical methods, surgical excision is not suggested due to possible dissemination of disease; other options include cryotherapy, thermotherapy, and laser vaporization.⁶ The prognosis has improved since the use of extended-spectrum triazoles, but high rates of refractory disease remain unchanged.²

The differential diagnosis includes other infections. Nocardiosis is a bacterial infection in which cutaneous disease can result in actinomycetoma, which presents with grains that are small, round, and stain blue on hematoxylin and eosin with eosinophilic rays at the periphery.⁷ Although the clinical features and pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia seen in CBM can mimic squamous cell carcinoma, the latter would show variable degrees of differentiation, keratinization, nuclear atypia, and architectural atypia with a negative tissue culture.⁸ Eumycetoma is a fungal infection that typically is not caused by F pedrosoi but rather most commonly Madurella mycetomatis.⁹ Leishmaniasis is a parasitic infection in which a biopsy of cutaneous lesions often displays parasite-filled histiocytes.¹⁰

The Diagnosis: Chromoblastomycosis

This case highlights the importance of routine skin biopsy and tissue culture when clinical suspicion for mycotic infection is high. Despite nonspecific biopsy results (Figure), a diagnosis of chromoblastomycosis (CBM) was reached based on tissue culture. Surgical excision was not possible in our patient due to the size and location of the lesion. The patient was referred to infectious disease, with the plan to start long-term itraconazole for at least 6 to 12 months.

Cases of CBM were first documented in 1914 and distinguished by the appearance of spherical, brown, muriform cells on skin biopsy—features that now serve as the hallmark of CBM diagnoses.^1,2 The implantation mycosis commonly is caused by agents such as Fonsecaea pedrosoi and Fonsecaea monophora of the bantiana-clade, as classified according to molecular phylogeny²; these agents have been isolated from soil, plants, and wood sources in tropical and subtropical regions and are strongly associated with agricultural activities.³

Chromoblastomycosis lesions tend to be asymptomatic with a variable amount of time between inoculation and lesion presentation, delaying medical care by months to years.³ The fungus causes a granulomatous reaction after skin damage, with noticeable pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia of the epidermis and granulomas formed by epithelioid and Langerhans cells in the dermis.⁴ Typically, CBM initially presents as an erythematous macular skin lesion, which then progresses to become more pink, papular, and sometimes pruritic.² Muriform (sclerotic) bodies, which reflect fungal components, extrude transepidermally and appear as black dots on the lesion’s surface.⁴ Chromoblastomycosis is limited to the subcutaneous tissue and has been classified into 5 types of lesions: nodular, tumoral, verrucous, scarring, and plaque.² Diagnosis is established using fungal tests such as potassium hydroxide direct microscopy, which exposes muriform bodies often in combination with dematiaceous hyphae, while fungal culture of F pedrosoi in Sabouraud agar produces velvety dark colonies.³ Although an immune response to CBM infection remains unclear, it has been demonstrated that the response differs based on the severity of the infection. The severe form of CBM produces high levels of IL-10, low levels of IFN-γ, and inefficient T-cell proliferation, while milder forms of CBM display low levels of IL-10, high levels of IFN-γ, and efficient T-cell proliferation.⁵ Complications of CBM include chronic lymphedema, ankylosis, and secondary bacterial infections, which largely are observed in advanced cases; malignant transformation to squamous cell carcinoma, though rare, also has been observed.⁶

Several therapeutic methods have been implemented in the treatment of CBM, but lesions often remain refractory, especially in advanced cases.⁶ Approaches to treatment can be divided into antifungal and physical methods. Commonly employed antifungal agents include itraconazole and terbinafine, which must be taken daily for a period ranging from 6 months to 1 year or longer; flucytosine with or without amphotericin also has been employed.⁴ Among the physical methods, surgical excision is not suggested due to possible dissemination of disease; other options include cryotherapy, thermotherapy, and laser vaporization.⁶ The prognosis has improved since the use of extended-spectrum triazoles, but high rates of refractory disease remain unchanged.²

The differential diagnosis includes other infections. Nocardiosis is a bacterial infection in which cutaneous disease can result in actinomycetoma, which presents with grains that are small, round, and stain blue on hematoxylin and eosin with eosinophilic rays at the periphery.⁷ Although the clinical features and pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia seen in CBM can mimic squamous cell carcinoma, the latter would show variable degrees of differentiation, keratinization, nuclear atypia, and architectural atypia with a negative tissue culture.⁸ Eumycetoma is a fungal infection that typically is not caused by F pedrosoi but rather most commonly Madurella mycetomatis.⁹ Leishmaniasis is a parasitic infection in which a biopsy of cutaneous lesions often displays parasite-filled histiocytes.¹⁰

Payer Advocacy in Dermatology

Frustrations with payers is a common source of annoyance among dermatologists. Payment rules can seem arbitrary, ever-changing, and not uniform among the various payers. Keeping track of payer requirements can be nearly impossible.

To assist members in handling these concerns, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) created the Patient Access and Payer Relations (PAPR) committee, which seeks to promote patient access to dermatologic care by addressing issues that may arise with private payers. The committee utilizes a multipronged approach to develop strategies to educate payers on the value of dermatology, addressing systematic payment issues as they arise over time, and building relationships with insurers and employers to promote coverage and payment policies allowing for the highest quality of dermatologic care. The committee is comprised of practicing dermatologists who meet regularly to help guide and implement the AADA’s payer advocacy initiatives.

Identifying payer contacts and forging working relationships is a cornerstone of payer advocacy. In addition to patient access to quality dermatologic services, fair reimbursement is always a primary concern.

Hot Topics in Payer Advocacy

How to Use Modifier −25 Appropriately—The AADA has been advocating for appropriate coverage and reimbursement for services billed by dermatologists; recent examples include assuring appropriate payment for services reported with modifier −25, which is used when a procedure such as a biopsy is performed on the same day as a separate and unrelated evaluation and management (E/M) service, such as psoriasis management. Some payers claim the concurrent nature of the services results in an overlap of office expenses such that these claims should be paid at a lesser amount; however, when procedure codes are frequently billed in association with an office visit, that overlap has already been accounted for as part of the code valuation process, negating the need for additional reduction.

The AADA PAPR committee has created numerous resources for our members to ensure they are using modifier −25 appropriately, particularly now that the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has announced a work plan to audit dermatologists claims reporting modifier −25.¹ The AADA immediately formed a work group, including PAPR committee members, to develop and employ a strategy to educate key decision-makers on the correct use of modifier −25 and highlight appropriate resources to guide members. An introductory call was held with the OIG audit team to discuss the appropriate use of modifier −25 in dermatology as the OIG prepares to develop the parameters of its audit sometime in the future (AADA, unpublished data, 2021).

Working With Dermatology Societies on Payer Issues—The American Academy of Dermatology Association PAPR committee works collaboratively with members of the American Academy of Dermatology, state and local dermatology societies, and private payers to alleviate administrative burdens for dermatologists, maintain appropriate reimbursement for furnished services, and ensure patients can access covered quality care. Collaboration with state dermatology societies is essential to address payer issues that impact their members and provide guidance on effective engagement with their state payers. Recent examples include working with dermatology societies in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Florida on strategies to advocate against modifier −25 payment reductions by insurance carriers (AADA, unpublished data, 2021). Additionally, the AADA PAPR committee has been able to provide guidance and technical support as needed to state dermatology societies, such as to the Rhode Island Dermatology Society and the Pennsylvania Academy of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery to address payer quality metrics and access to laboratory services, respectively (AADA, unpublished data, 2021).

Patient Access to Affordable Treatments—American Academy of Dermatology Association payer advocacy is anchored to published position statements and clinical guidelines. To strengthen AADA advocacy on payer-mandated drug substitutions for nonmedical reasons and to preserve patient access to medications, the PAPR committee collaborated with the American Academy of Dermatology’s Drug Pricing and Transparency Task Force to update the AADA Position Statement on Patient Access to Affordable Treatments² to address this issue. Essentially, patients who are stable on a medication should be allowed to keep using the same medication without payers changing their coverage for nonmedical reasons or by offering financial incentives to switch.

E/M Coding Issues

Another issue under consideration by several national insurers is E/M-level reassignment. Payers are reviewing claims from providers who are identified as coding at a higher E/M level as compared to their specialty peers. Some insurance carriers are using proprietary algorithms that attempt to link specific diagnoses to certain levels of E/M, triggering claim edits within their claim processing systems (AADA, unpublished data, 2021). The carrier will then either deny the claim or adjust reimbursement to a lower-level E/M service. In discussions with a national carrier on its E/M Leveling Program, the AADA has offered to work with them on appropriate E/M documentation and reporting (AADA, unpublished data, 2021). The AADA also has extensive member resources for guidance on E/M reporting as well as preparing for audits and appealing payer downcoding developed by the coding staff in conjunction with the Coding and Reimbursement Committee.

Recent Efforts From the AADA

Within the AADA, the PAPR committee works closely with the coding, practice management, and regulatory teams to address payer issues and develop resources for members. Recent examples include resources for dermatology practices on the No Surprises Act and what practices need to do to comply (AADA, unpublished data, 2021). The PAPR committee also works collaboratively with other AADA committees and task forces on payer issues as needed; for example, the PAPR committee has been working with the Dermatopathology Rapid Response committee to address member concerns regarding access to the pathology laboratory of their choice. Many payers are seeking to consolidate and save money by requiring the use of preferred laboratories, which impacts patient access to physician office laboratories and physician-recommended reference laboratories. The AADA, along with other medical specialties, has advocated for payers to not create a restrictive network of pathology laboratories within their provider networks and to support dermatologists’ laboratories of choice (AADA, unpublished data, 2021).

Within the payer space, the role of employers in impacting payment and coverage policies continues to rise. In 2021, the AADA leadership approved the employer outreach strategy to engage employers. The overall objectives are to advocate to employers on the value of dermatologic care and access to care provided by board-certified dermatologists. This is a long-term project that is just getting underway (AADA, unpublished data, 2021).

Payer Resource Center for AADA Members

To ensure that AADA members have the resources they need to advocate with payers as well as to keep the PAPR committee aware of emerging payer issues, the AADA created a new private payer resource center for members (https://www.aad.org/member/advocacy/priorities/payer-advocacy), which assists AADA members with common dermatologic concerns with insurers as well as contracting issues. The website also includes an email address for members to report payer issues (privatepayer@aad.org). This information helps the PAPR committee identify and prioritize issues of concern.

Final Thoughts

Given the control that private insurance companies exert over the health care that dermatology patients can access, the AADA in general and the PAPR committee specifically play a valuable role in advocating access to care for dermatology patients.

Payer Advocacy in Dermatology

Frustrations with payers is a common source of annoyance among dermatologists. Payment rules can seem arbitrary, ever-changing, and not uniform among the various payers. Keeping track of payer requirements can be nearly impossible.

To assist members in handling these concerns, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) created the Patient Access and Payer Relations (PAPR) committee, which seeks to promote patient access to dermatologic care by addressing issues that may arise with private payers. The committee utilizes a multipronged approach to develop strategies to educate payers on the value of dermatology, addressing systematic payment issues as they arise over time, and building relationships with insurers and employers to promote coverage and payment policies allowing for the highest quality of dermatologic care. The committee is comprised of practicing dermatologists who meet regularly to help guide and implement the AADA’s payer advocacy initiatives.

Identifying payer contacts and forging working relationships is a cornerstone of payer advocacy. In addition to patient access to quality dermatologic services, fair reimbursement is always a primary concern.

Hot Topics in Payer Advocacy

How to Use Modifier −25 Appropriately—The AADA has been advocating for appropriate coverage and reimbursement for services billed by dermatologists; recent examples include assuring appropriate payment for services reported with modifier −25, which is used when a procedure such as a biopsy is performed on the same day as a separate and unrelated evaluation and management (E/M) service, such as psoriasis management. Some payers claim the concurrent nature of the services results in an overlap of office expenses such that these claims should be paid at a lesser amount; however, when procedure codes are frequently billed in association with an office visit, that overlap has already been accounted for as part of the code valuation process, negating the need for additional reduction.

The AADA PAPR committee has created numerous resources for our members to ensure they are using modifier −25 appropriately, particularly now that the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has announced a work plan to audit dermatologists claims reporting modifier −25.¹ The AADA immediately formed a work group, including PAPR committee members, to develop and employ a strategy to educate key decision-makers on the correct use of modifier −25 and highlight appropriate resources to guide members. An introductory call was held with the OIG audit team to discuss the appropriate use of modifier −25 in dermatology as the OIG prepares to develop the parameters of its audit sometime in the future (AADA, unpublished data, 2021).

Working With Dermatology Societies on Payer Issues—The American Academy of Dermatology Association PAPR committee works collaboratively with members of the American Academy of Dermatology, state and local dermatology societies, and private payers to alleviate administrative burdens for dermatologists, maintain appropriate reimbursement for furnished services, and ensure patients can access covered quality care. Collaboration with state dermatology societies is essential to address payer issues that impact their members and provide guidance on effective engagement with their state payers. Recent examples include working with dermatology societies in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Florida on strategies to advocate against modifier −25 payment reductions by insurance carriers (AADA, unpublished data, 2021). Additionally, the AADA PAPR committee has been able to provide guidance and technical support as needed to state dermatology societies, such as to the Rhode Island Dermatology Society and the Pennsylvania Academy of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery to address payer quality metrics and access to laboratory services, respectively (AADA, unpublished data, 2021).

Patient Access to Affordable Treatments—American Academy of Dermatology Association payer advocacy is anchored to published position statements and clinical guidelines. To strengthen AADA advocacy on payer-mandated drug substitutions for nonmedical reasons and to preserve patient access to medications, the PAPR committee collaborated with the American Academy of Dermatology’s Drug Pricing and Transparency Task Force to update the AADA Position Statement on Patient Access to Affordable Treatments² to address this issue. Essentially, patients who are stable on a medication should be allowed to keep using the same medication without payers changing their coverage for nonmedical reasons or by offering financial incentives to switch.

E/M Coding Issues

Another issue under consideration by several national insurers is E/M-level reassignment. Payers are reviewing claims from providers who are identified as coding at a higher E/M level as compared to their specialty peers. Some insurance carriers are using proprietary algorithms that attempt to link specific diagnoses to certain levels of E/M, triggering claim edits within their claim processing systems (AADA, unpublished data, 2021). The carrier will then either deny the claim or adjust reimbursement to a lower-level E/M service. In discussions with a national carrier on its E/M Leveling Program, the AADA has offered to work with them on appropriate E/M documentation and reporting (AADA, unpublished data, 2021). The AADA also has extensive member resources for guidance on E/M reporting as well as preparing for audits and appealing payer downcoding developed by the coding staff in conjunction with the Coding and Reimbursement Committee.

Recent Efforts From the AADA

Within the AADA, the PAPR committee works closely with the coding, practice management, and regulatory teams to address payer issues and develop resources for members. Recent examples include resources for dermatology practices on the No Surprises Act and what practices need to do to comply (AADA, unpublished data, 2021). The PAPR committee also works collaboratively with other AADA committees and task forces on payer issues as needed; for example, the PAPR committee has been working with the Dermatopathology Rapid Response committee to address member concerns regarding access to the pathology laboratory of their choice. Many payers are seeking to consolidate and save money by requiring the use of preferred laboratories, which impacts patient access to physician office laboratories and physician-recommended reference laboratories. The AADA, along with other medical specialties, has advocated for payers to not create a restrictive network of pathology laboratories within their provider networks and to support dermatologists’ laboratories of choice (AADA, unpublished data, 2021).

Within the payer space, the role of employers in impacting payment and coverage policies continues to rise. In 2021, the AADA leadership approved the employer outreach strategy to engage employers. The overall objectives are to advocate to employers on the value of dermatologic care and access to care provided by board-certified dermatologists. This is a long-term project that is just getting underway (AADA, unpublished data, 2021).

Payer Resource Center for AADA Members

To ensure that AADA members have the resources they need to advocate with payers as well as to keep the PAPR committee aware of emerging payer issues, the AADA created a new private payer resource center for members (https://www.aad.org/member/advocacy/priorities/payer-advocacy), which assists AADA members with common dermatologic concerns with insurers as well as contracting issues. The website also includes an email address for members to report payer issues (privatepayer@aad.org). This information helps the PAPR committee identify and prioritize issues of concern.

Final Thoughts

Given the control that private insurance companies exert over the health care that dermatology patients can access, the AADA in general and the PAPR committee specifically play a valuable role in advocating access to care for dermatology patients.

Payer Advocacy in Dermatology

Frustrations with payers is a common source of annoyance among dermatologists. Payment rules can seem arbitrary, ever-changing, and not uniform among the various payers. Keeping track of payer requirements can be nearly impossible.

To assist members in handling these concerns, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) created the Patient Access and Payer Relations (PAPR) committee, which seeks to promote patient access to dermatologic care by addressing issues that may arise with private payers. The committee utilizes a multipronged approach to develop strategies to educate payers on the value of dermatology, addressing systematic payment issues as they arise over time, and building relationships with insurers and employers to promote coverage and payment policies allowing for the highest quality of dermatologic care. The committee is comprised of practicing dermatologists who meet regularly to help guide and implement the AADA’s payer advocacy initiatives.

Identifying payer contacts and forging working relationships is a cornerstone of payer advocacy. In addition to patient access to quality dermatologic services, fair reimbursement is always a primary concern.

Hot Topics in Payer Advocacy

How to Use Modifier −25 Appropriately—The AADA has been advocating for appropriate coverage and reimbursement for services billed by dermatologists; recent examples include assuring appropriate payment for services reported with modifier −25, which is used when a procedure such as a biopsy is performed on the same day as a separate and unrelated evaluation and management (E/M) service, such as psoriasis management. Some payers claim the concurrent nature of the services results in an overlap of office expenses such that these claims should be paid at a lesser amount; however, when procedure codes are frequently billed in association with an office visit, that overlap has already been accounted for as part of the code valuation process, negating the need for additional reduction.

The AADA PAPR committee has created numerous resources for our members to ensure they are using modifier −25 appropriately, particularly now that the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has announced a work plan to audit dermatologists claims reporting modifier −25.¹ The AADA immediately formed a work group, including PAPR committee members, to develop and employ a strategy to educate key decision-makers on the correct use of modifier −25 and highlight appropriate resources to guide members. An introductory call was held with the OIG audit team to discuss the appropriate use of modifier −25 in dermatology as the OIG prepares to develop the parameters of its audit sometime in the future (AADA, unpublished data, 2021).

Working With Dermatology Societies on Payer Issues—The American Academy of Dermatology Association PAPR committee works collaboratively with members of the American Academy of Dermatology, state and local dermatology societies, and private payers to alleviate administrative burdens for dermatologists, maintain appropriate reimbursement for furnished services, and ensure patients can access covered quality care. Collaboration with state dermatology societies is essential to address payer issues that impact their members and provide guidance on effective engagement with their state payers. Recent examples include working with dermatology societies in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Florida on strategies to advocate against modifier −25 payment reductions by insurance carriers (AADA, unpublished data, 2021). Additionally, the AADA PAPR committee has been able to provide guidance and technical support as needed to state dermatology societies, such as to the Rhode Island Dermatology Society and the Pennsylvania Academy of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery to address payer quality metrics and access to laboratory services, respectively (AADA, unpublished data, 2021).

Patient Access to Affordable Treatments—American Academy of Dermatology Association payer advocacy is anchored to published position statements and clinical guidelines. To strengthen AADA advocacy on payer-mandated drug substitutions for nonmedical reasons and to preserve patient access to medications, the PAPR committee collaborated with the American Academy of Dermatology’s Drug Pricing and Transparency Task Force to update the AADA Position Statement on Patient Access to Affordable Treatments² to address this issue. Essentially, patients who are stable on a medication should be allowed to keep using the same medication without payers changing their coverage for nonmedical reasons or by offering financial incentives to switch.

E/M Coding Issues

Another issue under consideration by several national insurers is E/M-level reassignment. Payers are reviewing claims from providers who are identified as coding at a higher E/M level as compared to their specialty peers. Some insurance carriers are using proprietary algorithms that attempt to link specific diagnoses to certain levels of E/M, triggering claim edits within their claim processing systems (AADA, unpublished data, 2021). The carrier will then either deny the claim or adjust reimbursement to a lower-level E/M service. In discussions with a national carrier on its E/M Leveling Program, the AADA has offered to work with them on appropriate E/M documentation and reporting (AADA, unpublished data, 2021). The AADA also has extensive member resources for guidance on E/M reporting as well as preparing for audits and appealing payer downcoding developed by the coding staff in conjunction with the Coding and Reimbursement Committee.

Recent Efforts From the AADA

Within the AADA, the PAPR committee works closely with the coding, practice management, and regulatory teams to address payer issues and develop resources for members. Recent examples include resources for dermatology practices on the No Surprises Act and what practices need to do to comply (AADA, unpublished data, 2021). The PAPR committee also works collaboratively with other AADA committees and task forces on payer issues as needed; for example, the PAPR committee has been working with the Dermatopathology Rapid Response committee to address member concerns regarding access to the pathology laboratory of their choice. Many payers are seeking to consolidate and save money by requiring the use of preferred laboratories, which impacts patient access to physician office laboratories and physician-recommended reference laboratories. The AADA, along with other medical specialties, has advocated for payers to not create a restrictive network of pathology laboratories within their provider networks and to support dermatologists’ laboratories of choice (AADA, unpublished data, 2021).

Within the payer space, the role of employers in impacting payment and coverage policies continues to rise. In 2021, the AADA leadership approved the employer outreach strategy to engage employers. The overall objectives are to advocate to employers on the value of dermatologic care and access to care provided by board-certified dermatologists. This is a long-term project that is just getting underway (AADA, unpublished data, 2021).

Payer Resource Center for AADA Members

To ensure that AADA members have the resources they need to advocate with payers as well as to keep the PAPR committee aware of emerging payer issues, the AADA created a new private payer resource center for members (https://www.aad.org/member/advocacy/priorities/payer-advocacy), which assists AADA members with common dermatologic concerns with insurers as well as contracting issues. The website also includes an email address for members to report payer issues (privatepayer@aad.org). This information helps the PAPR committee identify and prioritize issues of concern.

Final Thoughts

Given the control that private insurance companies exert over the health care that dermatology patients can access, the AADA in general and the PAPR committee specifically play a valuable role in advocating access to care for dermatology patients.

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD (Figure A), and Tizita Yosef Kidane, MD (Figure B).

THE COMPARISON

A Nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC) with a pearly rolled border, central pigmentation, and telangiectasia on the forehead of an 80-year-old Hispanic woman (light skin tone).

B Nodular BCC on the cheek of a 64-year-old Black man. The dark nonhealing ulcer had a subtle, pearly, rolled border and no visible telangiectasia.

Basal cell carcinoma is most prevalent in individuals with lighter skin tones and rarely affects those with darker skin tones. Unfortunately, the lower incidence and lack of surveillance frequently result in a delayed diagnosis and increased morbidity for the skin of color population.¹

Epidemiology

Basal cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer in White, Asian, and Hispanic individuals and the second most common in Black individuals. Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer in Black individuals.²

Although BCCs are rare in individuals with darker skin tones, they most often develop in sun-exposed areas of the head and neck region.¹ In one study in an academic urban medical center, BCCs were more likely to occur in lightly pigmented vs darkly pigmented Black individuals.³

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

The classic BCC manifestation of a pearly papule with rolled borders and telangiectasia may not be seen in the skin of color population, especially among those with darker skin tones.⁴ In patient A, a Hispanic woman, these features are present along with hyperpigmentation. More than 50% of BCCs are pigmented in patients with skin of color vs only 5% in White individuals.^5-7 The incidence of a pigmented BCC is twice as frequent in Hispanic individuals (Figure, A) as in non-Hispanic White individuals.⁷ Any skin cancer can present with ulcerations, so while this is not specific to BCC, it is a reason to consider biopsy.

Worth noting

Pigmented BCC can mimic melanoma clinically and even when viewed with a dermatoscope, but such a suspicious lesion should prompt the clinician to perform a biopsy regardless of the type of suspected cancer. With experience and training, however, physicians can use dermoscopy to help make this distinction.

Note that skin of color is found in a heterogeneous population with a spectrum of skin tones and genetic/ ethnic variability. In my practice in San Antonio (R.P.U.), BCC is uncommon in Black patients and relatively common in Hispanic patients with lighter skin tones (Figure, A). There is speculation that a lower incidence of BCC in the skin of color population leads to a low index of suspicion, which contributes to delayed diagnoses with poorer outcomes. ¹ There are no firm data to support this because the rare occurrence of BCC in darker skin tones makes this a challenge to study.

Health disparity highlight

In general, barriers to health care include poverty, lack of education, lack of health insurance, and systemic racism. One study on keratinocyte skin cancers including BCC and SCC found that these cancers were more costly to treat and required more health care resources, such as ambulatory visits and medication costs, in non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic White patients compared to non- Hispanic White patients.⁸

Final thoughts

Efforts are needed to achieve health equity through education of patients and health care providers about the appearance of BCC in skin of color with the goal of earlier diagnosis. Any nonhealing ulcer on the skin (Figure, B) should prompt consideration of skin cancer regardless of skin color.

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD (Figure A), and Tizita Yosef Kidane, MD (Figure B).

THE COMPARISON

A Nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC) with a pearly rolled border, central pigmentation, and telangiectasia on the forehead of an 80-year-old Hispanic woman (light skin tone).

B Nodular BCC on the cheek of a 64-year-old Black man. The dark nonhealing ulcer had a subtle, pearly, rolled border and no visible telangiectasia.

Basal cell carcinoma is most prevalent in individuals with lighter skin tones and rarely affects those with darker skin tones. Unfortunately, the lower incidence and lack of surveillance frequently result in a delayed diagnosis and increased morbidity for the skin of color population.¹

Epidemiology

Basal cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer in White, Asian, and Hispanic individuals and the second most common in Black individuals. Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer in Black individuals.²

Although BCCs are rare in individuals with darker skin tones, they most often develop in sun-exposed areas of the head and neck region.¹ In one study in an academic urban medical center, BCCs were more likely to occur in lightly pigmented vs darkly pigmented Black individuals.³

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

The classic BCC manifestation of a pearly papule with rolled borders and telangiectasia may not be seen in the skin of color population, especially among those with darker skin tones.⁴ In patient A, a Hispanic woman, these features are present along with hyperpigmentation. More than 50% of BCCs are pigmented in patients with skin of color vs only 5% in White individuals.^5-7 The incidence of a pigmented BCC is twice as frequent in Hispanic individuals (Figure, A) as in non-Hispanic White individuals.⁷ Any skin cancer can present with ulcerations, so while this is not specific to BCC, it is a reason to consider biopsy.

Worth noting

Pigmented BCC can mimic melanoma clinically and even when viewed with a dermatoscope, but such a suspicious lesion should prompt the clinician to perform a biopsy regardless of the type of suspected cancer. With experience and training, however, physicians can use dermoscopy to help make this distinction.

Note that skin of color is found in a heterogeneous population with a spectrum of skin tones and genetic/ ethnic variability. In my practice in San Antonio (R.P.U.), BCC is uncommon in Black patients and relatively common in Hispanic patients with lighter skin tones (Figure, A). There is speculation that a lower incidence of BCC in the skin of color population leads to a low index of suspicion, which contributes to delayed diagnoses with poorer outcomes. ¹ There are no firm data to support this because the rare occurrence of BCC in darker skin tones makes this a challenge to study.

Health disparity highlight

In general, barriers to health care include poverty, lack of education, lack of health insurance, and systemic racism. One study on keratinocyte skin cancers including BCC and SCC found that these cancers were more costly to treat and required more health care resources, such as ambulatory visits and medication costs, in non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic White patients compared to non- Hispanic White patients.⁸

Final thoughts

Efforts are needed to achieve health equity through education of patients and health care providers about the appearance of BCC in skin of color with the goal of earlier diagnosis. Any nonhealing ulcer on the skin (Figure, B) should prompt consideration of skin cancer regardless of skin color.

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD (Figure A), and Tizita Yosef Kidane, MD (Figure B).

THE COMPARISON

A Nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC) with a pearly rolled border, central pigmentation, and telangiectasia on the forehead of an 80-year-old Hispanic woman (light skin tone).

B Nodular BCC on the cheek of a 64-year-old Black man. The dark nonhealing ulcer had a subtle, pearly, rolled border and no visible telangiectasia.

Basal cell carcinoma is most prevalent in individuals with lighter skin tones and rarely affects those with darker skin tones. Unfortunately, the lower incidence and lack of surveillance frequently result in a delayed diagnosis and increased morbidity for the skin of color population.¹

Epidemiology

Basal cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer in White, Asian, and Hispanic individuals and the second most common in Black individuals. Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer in Black individuals.²

Although BCCs are rare in individuals with darker skin tones, they most often develop in sun-exposed areas of the head and neck region.¹ In one study in an academic urban medical center, BCCs were more likely to occur in lightly pigmented vs darkly pigmented Black individuals.³

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

The classic BCC manifestation of a pearly papule with rolled borders and telangiectasia may not be seen in the skin of color population, especially among those with darker skin tones.⁴ In patient A, a Hispanic woman, these features are present along with hyperpigmentation. More than 50% of BCCs are pigmented in patients with skin of color vs only 5% in White individuals.^5-7 The incidence of a pigmented BCC is twice as frequent in Hispanic individuals (Figure, A) as in non-Hispanic White individuals.⁷ Any skin cancer can present with ulcerations, so while this is not specific to BCC, it is a reason to consider biopsy.

Worth noting

Pigmented BCC can mimic melanoma clinically and even when viewed with a dermatoscope, but such a suspicious lesion should prompt the clinician to perform a biopsy regardless of the type of suspected cancer. With experience and training, however, physicians can use dermoscopy to help make this distinction.

Note that skin of color is found in a heterogeneous population with a spectrum of skin tones and genetic/ ethnic variability. In my practice in San Antonio (R.P.U.), BCC is uncommon in Black patients and relatively common in Hispanic patients with lighter skin tones (Figure, A). There is speculation that a lower incidence of BCC in the skin of color population leads to a low index of suspicion, which contributes to delayed diagnoses with poorer outcomes. ¹ There are no firm data to support this because the rare occurrence of BCC in darker skin tones makes this a challenge to study.

Health disparity highlight

In general, barriers to health care include poverty, lack of education, lack of health insurance, and systemic racism. One study on keratinocyte skin cancers including BCC and SCC found that these cancers were more costly to treat and required more health care resources, such as ambulatory visits and medication costs, in non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic White patients compared to non- Hispanic White patients.⁸

Final thoughts

Efforts are needed to achieve health equity through education of patients and health care providers about the appearance of BCC in skin of color with the goal of earlier diagnosis. Any nonhealing ulcer on the skin (Figure, B) should prompt consideration of skin cancer regardless of skin color.

The Diagnosis: Proximal-Type Epithelioid Sarcoma

Proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma (PES) is a rare high-grade sarcoma of uncertain histogenesis that may present with a benign clinical appearance. Proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma peaks at 20 to 40 years of age and has a slight male predominance. This tumor exhibits aggressive behavior with both local recurrence and metastasis.¹ The average overall survival is poor; however, tumor size less than 5 cm and complete excision with tumor-free margin status improves the prognosis.² Proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma should not be confused with distal-type epithelioid sarcoma, which has a better prognosis and occurs in younger patients.¹ Treatment of PES is wide excision, and chemotherapy trials with tazemetostat are ongoing.³

The deceptively banal clinical appearance of PES may delay appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma often grows in sheets (quiz image [top] inset) and loose nests1 but also may take on a more corded appearance mimicking myoepithelial carcinoma. The cells themselves are plump dyscohesive epithelioid cells (quiz image [top]) with large nucleoli and eosinophilic cytoplasm or hyaline globules1 (quiz image [bottom]), but cells also may be focally spindled. Myxoid stroma, hemorrhage, and necrosis often are prominent features. Epithelioid sarcomas characteristically demonstrate positive immunostaining for both epithelial and mesenchymal markers (pan-cytokeratin and vimentin),¹ with the majority having loss of expression of integrase interactor 1 (INI-1).² Histology in this case was positive for cytokeratin monoclonal antibodies CAM5.2 and OSCAR, epithelial membrane antigen, and vimentin; it showed loss of INI-1 staining (quiz image [bottom]). Negative stains included S-100, p63, cytokeratins 7 and 20, CD34, CD31, ERG, glial fibrillary acidic protein, transducin-like enhancer of split 1, CD117, myogenin, synaptophysin, chromogranin, CD10, inhibin, CD99, and estrogen receptor.

The differential diagnosis of PES includes poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (Figure 1 [inset]), melanoma, myoepithelial carcinoma, and epithelioid angiosarcoma. Primary squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva presents as an endophytic or exophytic mass with raised borders. Vulvar cancer is uncommon among gynecologic malignancies, with squamous cell carcinoma being the most commonly encountered.⁴ Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is increasing in incidence, while the occurrence of invasive squamous cell carcinoma remains stable.⁵ Human papillomavirus–related VIN (usual-type VIN) is less likely to progress to squamous cell carcinoma than differentiated VIN (d-VIN), a dysplasia that is unrelated to human papillomavirus that frequently harbors p53 mutations.⁴ The presence of histologic epidermal involvement can help distinguish squamous cell carcinoma from PES (Figure 1). As opposed to PES, metastatic squamous cell carcinoma is characterized by intercellular bridges and often at least focal keratinization (Figure 1). Squamous cell carcinoma demonstrates positivity with p63 and p40 immunohistochemical stains, while PES rarely stains for either.⁶

Melanoma is the second most common vulvar malignancy. Vulvar melanoma tends to occur in women of advanced age but has been reported in girls as young as 10 years old.⁷ There is some evidence that patients with lichen sclerosus may be at an increased risk for the development of vulvar melanoma.⁸ Compared to PES, primary vulvar melanoma usually demonstrates epidermal involvement as well as clinical findings of a pigmented lesion (Figure 2). A notable minority of vulvar melanomas are amelanotic.⁹ Melanoma may be distinguished from PES with a panel of melanocytic markers—human melanoma black 45, Melan-A, SRY-box transcription factor 10, S-100, and microphthalmia transcription factor—that rarely are expressed in the latter. Both PES and rhabdoid melanoma have eosinophilic and tinctorial cytoplasmic inclusions.¹⁰ Melanin pigment and more cohesive nests are helpful clues that may point to melanoma when present.

Myoepithelial carcinoma of the vulva is rare.¹¹ Myoepithelial carcinoma of soft tissue is more aggressive than its benign counterpart, with up to a 50% metastasis rate.¹² The presence of prominent corded or trabecular growth in a myxoid or hyaline background may point to the diagnosis (Figure 3). Similar to PES, myoepithelial carcinoma may lose expression of nuclear INI-1, while myoepithelial carcinoma is more likely to express S-100 and glial fibrillary acidic protein.¹³ Rearrangements of EWS RNA binding protein 1, EWSR1, have been found in half of myoepithelial neoplasms.¹²

Angiosarcomas represent 5% of cutaneous sarcomas and rarely have been reported in the vulva, primarily occurring in the setting of long-standing lymphedema and radiation.¹⁴ Angiosarcoma more often occurs on the head and neck, breasts, or extremities. Additional risk factors for the development of angiosarcoma include toxin exposure (eg, polyvinyl chloride, thorium dioxide, arsenic), anabolic steroids, and filariasis, as well as genetic disorders (eg, neurofibromatosis type 1, BRCA gene mutations, Maffucci syndrome).¹⁵ Epithelioid angiosarcoma is an infiltrative tumor composed of irregular anastomosing vascular channels with extravasated erythrocytes (Figure 4). Solid growth and necrosis may be present in more aggressive tumors. The cells themselves are pleomorphic endothelial cells with vesicular chromatin and prominent nucleoli. Epithelioid angiosarcoma may resemble carcinoma and have focal keratin expression. However, the characteristic eosinophilic cytoplasm seen in PES should not be identified in epithelioid angiosarcoma. Unlike PES, epithelioid angiosarcoma is positive for CD31 and has retained expression for INI-1. Both angiosarcoma and proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma may express vascular markers CD34 and FLI-1¹⁶; thus an expanded panel of immunohistochemical studies may be of utility.

The Diagnosis: Proximal-Type Epithelioid Sarcoma

Proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma (PES) is a rare high-grade sarcoma of uncertain histogenesis that may present with a benign clinical appearance. Proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma peaks at 20 to 40 years of age and has a slight male predominance. This tumor exhibits aggressive behavior with both local recurrence and metastasis.¹ The average overall survival is poor; however, tumor size less than 5 cm and complete excision with tumor-free margin status improves the prognosis.² Proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma should not be confused with distal-type epithelioid sarcoma, which has a better prognosis and occurs in younger patients.¹ Treatment of PES is wide excision, and chemotherapy trials with tazemetostat are ongoing.³

The deceptively banal clinical appearance of PES may delay appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma often grows in sheets (quiz image [top] inset) and loose nests1 but also may take on a more corded appearance mimicking myoepithelial carcinoma. The cells themselves are plump dyscohesive epithelioid cells (quiz image [top]) with large nucleoli and eosinophilic cytoplasm or hyaline globules1 (quiz image [bottom]), but cells also may be focally spindled. Myxoid stroma, hemorrhage, and necrosis often are prominent features. Epithelioid sarcomas characteristically demonstrate positive immunostaining for both epithelial and mesenchymal markers (pan-cytokeratin and vimentin),¹ with the majority having loss of expression of integrase interactor 1 (INI-1).² Histology in this case was positive for cytokeratin monoclonal antibodies CAM5.2 and OSCAR, epithelial membrane antigen, and vimentin; it showed loss of INI-1 staining (quiz image [bottom]). Negative stains included S-100, p63, cytokeratins 7 and 20, CD34, CD31, ERG, glial fibrillary acidic protein, transducin-like enhancer of split 1, CD117, myogenin, synaptophysin, chromogranin, CD10, inhibin, CD99, and estrogen receptor.

The differential diagnosis of PES includes poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (Figure 1 [inset]), melanoma, myoepithelial carcinoma, and epithelioid angiosarcoma. Primary squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva presents as an endophytic or exophytic mass with raised borders. Vulvar cancer is uncommon among gynecologic malignancies, with squamous cell carcinoma being the most commonly encountered.⁴ Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is increasing in incidence, while the occurrence of invasive squamous cell carcinoma remains stable.⁵ Human papillomavirus–related VIN (usual-type VIN) is less likely to progress to squamous cell carcinoma than differentiated VIN (d-VIN), a dysplasia that is unrelated to human papillomavirus that frequently harbors p53 mutations.⁴ The presence of histologic epidermal involvement can help distinguish squamous cell carcinoma from PES (Figure 1). As opposed to PES, metastatic squamous cell carcinoma is characterized by intercellular bridges and often at least focal keratinization (Figure 1). Squamous cell carcinoma demonstrates positivity with p63 and p40 immunohistochemical stains, while PES rarely stains for either.⁶

Melanoma is the second most common vulvar malignancy. Vulvar melanoma tends to occur in women of advanced age but has been reported in girls as young as 10 years old.⁷ There is some evidence that patients with lichen sclerosus may be at an increased risk for the development of vulvar melanoma.⁸ Compared to PES, primary vulvar melanoma usually demonstrates epidermal involvement as well as clinical findings of a pigmented lesion (Figure 2). A notable minority of vulvar melanomas are amelanotic.⁹ Melanoma may be distinguished from PES with a panel of melanocytic markers—human melanoma black 45, Melan-A, SRY-box transcription factor 10, S-100, and microphthalmia transcription factor—that rarely are expressed in the latter. Both PES and rhabdoid melanoma have eosinophilic and tinctorial cytoplasmic inclusions.¹⁰ Melanin pigment and more cohesive nests are helpful clues that may point to melanoma when present.

Myoepithelial carcinoma of the vulva is rare.¹¹ Myoepithelial carcinoma of soft tissue is more aggressive than its benign counterpart, with up to a 50% metastasis rate.¹² The presence of prominent corded or trabecular growth in a myxoid or hyaline background may point to the diagnosis (Figure 3). Similar to PES, myoepithelial carcinoma may lose expression of nuclear INI-1, while myoepithelial carcinoma is more likely to express S-100 and glial fibrillary acidic protein.¹³ Rearrangements of EWS RNA binding protein 1, EWSR1, have been found in half of myoepithelial neoplasms.¹²

Angiosarcomas represent 5% of cutaneous sarcomas and rarely have been reported in the vulva, primarily occurring in the setting of long-standing lymphedema and radiation.¹⁴ Angiosarcoma more often occurs on the head and neck, breasts, or extremities. Additional risk factors for the development of angiosarcoma include toxin exposure (eg, polyvinyl chloride, thorium dioxide, arsenic), anabolic steroids, and filariasis, as well as genetic disorders (eg, neurofibromatosis type 1, BRCA gene mutations, Maffucci syndrome).¹⁵ Epithelioid angiosarcoma is an infiltrative tumor composed of irregular anastomosing vascular channels with extravasated erythrocytes (Figure 4). Solid growth and necrosis may be present in more aggressive tumors. The cells themselves are pleomorphic endothelial cells with vesicular chromatin and prominent nucleoli. Epithelioid angiosarcoma may resemble carcinoma and have focal keratin expression. However, the characteristic eosinophilic cytoplasm seen in PES should not be identified in epithelioid angiosarcoma. Unlike PES, epithelioid angiosarcoma is positive for CD31 and has retained expression for INI-1. Both angiosarcoma and proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma may express vascular markers CD34 and FLI-1¹⁶; thus an expanded panel of immunohistochemical studies may be of utility.

The Diagnosis: Proximal-Type Epithelioid Sarcoma

Proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma (PES) is a rare high-grade sarcoma of uncertain histogenesis that may present with a benign clinical appearance. Proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma peaks at 20 to 40 years of age and has a slight male predominance. This tumor exhibits aggressive behavior with both local recurrence and metastasis.¹ The average overall survival is poor; however, tumor size less than 5 cm and complete excision with tumor-free margin status improves the prognosis.² Proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma should not be confused with distal-type epithelioid sarcoma, which has a better prognosis and occurs in younger patients.¹ Treatment of PES is wide excision, and chemotherapy trials with tazemetostat are ongoing.³

The deceptively banal clinical appearance of PES may delay appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma often grows in sheets (quiz image [top] inset) and loose nests1 but also may take on a more corded appearance mimicking myoepithelial carcinoma. The cells themselves are plump dyscohesive epithelioid cells (quiz image [top]) with large nucleoli and eosinophilic cytoplasm or hyaline globules1 (quiz image [bottom]), but cells also may be focally spindled. Myxoid stroma, hemorrhage, and necrosis often are prominent features. Epithelioid sarcomas characteristically demonstrate positive immunostaining for both epithelial and mesenchymal markers (pan-cytokeratin and vimentin),¹ with the majority having loss of expression of integrase interactor 1 (INI-1).² Histology in this case was positive for cytokeratin monoclonal antibodies CAM5.2 and OSCAR, epithelial membrane antigen, and vimentin; it showed loss of INI-1 staining (quiz image [bottom]). Negative stains included S-100, p63, cytokeratins 7 and 20, CD34, CD31, ERG, glial fibrillary acidic protein, transducin-like enhancer of split 1, CD117, myogenin, synaptophysin, chromogranin, CD10, inhibin, CD99, and estrogen receptor.

The differential diagnosis of PES includes poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (Figure 1 [inset]), melanoma, myoepithelial carcinoma, and epithelioid angiosarcoma. Primary squamous cell carcinoma of the vulva presents as an endophytic or exophytic mass with raised borders. Vulvar cancer is uncommon among gynecologic malignancies, with squamous cell carcinoma being the most commonly encountered.⁴ Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) is increasing in incidence, while the occurrence of invasive squamous cell carcinoma remains stable.⁵ Human papillomavirus–related VIN (usual-type VIN) is less likely to progress to squamous cell carcinoma than differentiated VIN (d-VIN), a dysplasia that is unrelated to human papillomavirus that frequently harbors p53 mutations.⁴ The presence of histologic epidermal involvement can help distinguish squamous cell carcinoma from PES (Figure 1). As opposed to PES, metastatic squamous cell carcinoma is characterized by intercellular bridges and often at least focal keratinization (Figure 1). Squamous cell carcinoma demonstrates positivity with p63 and p40 immunohistochemical stains, while PES rarely stains for either.⁶

Melanoma is the second most common vulvar malignancy. Vulvar melanoma tends to occur in women of advanced age but has been reported in girls as young as 10 years old.⁷ There is some evidence that patients with lichen sclerosus may be at an increased risk for the development of vulvar melanoma.⁸ Compared to PES, primary vulvar melanoma usually demonstrates epidermal involvement as well as clinical findings of a pigmented lesion (Figure 2). A notable minority of vulvar melanomas are amelanotic.⁹ Melanoma may be distinguished from PES with a panel of melanocytic markers—human melanoma black 45, Melan-A, SRY-box transcription factor 10, S-100, and microphthalmia transcription factor—that rarely are expressed in the latter. Both PES and rhabdoid melanoma have eosinophilic and tinctorial cytoplasmic inclusions.¹⁰ Melanin pigment and more cohesive nests are helpful clues that may point to melanoma when present.

Myoepithelial carcinoma of the vulva is rare.¹¹ Myoepithelial carcinoma of soft tissue is more aggressive than its benign counterpart, with up to a 50% metastasis rate.¹² The presence of prominent corded or trabecular growth in a myxoid or hyaline background may point to the diagnosis (Figure 3). Similar to PES, myoepithelial carcinoma may lose expression of nuclear INI-1, while myoepithelial carcinoma is more likely to express S-100 and glial fibrillary acidic protein.¹³ Rearrangements of EWS RNA binding protein 1, EWSR1, have been found in half of myoepithelial neoplasms.¹²

Angiosarcomas represent 5% of cutaneous sarcomas and rarely have been reported in the vulva, primarily occurring in the setting of long-standing lymphedema and radiation.¹⁴ Angiosarcoma more often occurs on the head and neck, breasts, or extremities. Additional risk factors for the development of angiosarcoma include toxin exposure (eg, polyvinyl chloride, thorium dioxide, arsenic), anabolic steroids, and filariasis, as well as genetic disorders (eg, neurofibromatosis type 1, BRCA gene mutations, Maffucci syndrome).¹⁵ Epithelioid angiosarcoma is an infiltrative tumor composed of irregular anastomosing vascular channels with extravasated erythrocytes (Figure 4). Solid growth and necrosis may be present in more aggressive tumors. The cells themselves are pleomorphic endothelial cells with vesicular chromatin and prominent nucleoli. Epithelioid angiosarcoma may resemble carcinoma and have focal keratin expression. However, the characteristic eosinophilic cytoplasm seen in PES should not be identified in epithelioid angiosarcoma. Unlike PES, epithelioid angiosarcoma is positive for CD31 and has retained expression for INI-1. Both angiosarcoma and proximal-type epithelioid sarcoma may express vascular markers CD34 and FLI-1¹⁶; thus an expanded panel of immunohistochemical studies may be of utility.

To the Editor:

The internet is a popular resource for patients seeking information about dermatologic treatments. Hydroquinone (HQ) cream 4% is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for skin hyperpigmentation.¹ The agency enforced the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act and OTC (over-the-counter) Monograph Reform on September 25, 2020, to restrict distribution of OTC HQ.² Exogenous ochronosis is listed as a potential adverse effect in the prescribing information for HQ.¹

We sought to assess online resources on HQ for accuracy of information, including the recent OTC ban, as well as readability. The word hydroquinone was searched on 3 internet search engines—Google, Yahoo, and Bing—on December 12, 2020, each for the first 20 URLs (ie, websites)(total of 60 URLs). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)(Figure) reporting guidelines were used to assess a list of relevant websites to include in the final analysis. Website data were reviewed by both authors. Eighteen duplicates and 27 irrelevant and non–English-language URLs were excluded. The remaining 15 websites were analyzed. Based on a previously published and validated tool, a pro forma was designed to evaluate information on HQ for each website based on accountability, quality, readability, display, support, and transparency (Table).^1,3

Scores for all 15 websites are listed in eTable 1. The mean overall (total) score was 25.3 points (of a maximum possible score of 44 points; range, 18–34). The average accountability score was 6.3 (of a possible 10; range, 3–10); average quality score, 10.9 (of a possible 17; range, 5–16); and average readability score, 2.1 (of a possible 5; range, 0–5).

The mean display score was 0.3 (of a possible 4; range, 0–2); 66.7% of websites (10/15) had advertisements or irrelevant material. Only 6.7% and 13.3% of websites included relevant videos or images, respectively, on applying HQ (eTable 2). We identified only 3 photographs—across all 15 websites—that depicted skin, all of which were Fitzpatrick skin types II or III. Therefore, none of the websites included a diversity of images to indicate broad ethnic relatability.

The average support score was 2.5 (of a possible 4; range, 1–3); 20% (3/15) of URLs included chat sites, message boards, or forums, and approximately half (8/15 [53.3%]) included references. Only 7 URLs (46.7%) had been updated in the last 12 months. Only 4 (26.7%) were written by a board-certified dermatologist (eTable 2). Most (60%) websites contained advertising, though none were sponsored by a pharmaceutical company that manufactures HQ.

Only 46.7% (7/15) of websites recommended limiting a course of HQ treatment to 3 months; only 40% (6/15) mentioned shelf life or photochemical degradation when exposed to air. Although 93.3% (14/15) of URLs mentioned ochronosis, a clinical description of the condition was provided in only 33.3% (5/15)—none with images.

Only 2 sites (13.3%; Everyday Health and WebMD) met the accepted 7th-grade reading level for online patient education material; those sites scored lower on quality (9 of 17 and 6 of 17, respectively) than sites with higher overall scores.

None of the 15 websites studied, therefore, demonstrated optimal features on combined measures of accountability, quality, readability, display, support, and transparency regarding HQ. Notably, the American Academy of Dermatology website (www.aad.org) was not among the 15 websites studied; the AAD website mentions HQ in a section on melasma, but only minimal detail is provided.

Limitations of this study include the small number of websites analyzed and possible selection bias because only 3 internet search engines were used to identify websites for study and analysis.

Previously, we analyzed content about HQ on the video-sharing and social media platform YouTube.⁴ The most viewed YouTube videos on HQ had poor-quality information (ie, only 20% mentioned ochronosis and only 28.6% recommended sunscreen [N=70]). However, average reading level of these videos was 7th grade.^4,5 Therefore, YouTube HQ content, though comprehensible, generally is of poor quality.

By conducting a search for website content about HQ, we found that the most popular URLs had either accurate information with poor readability or lower-quality educational material that was more comprehensible. We conclude that there is a need to develop online patient education materials on HQ that are characterized by high-quality, up-to-date medical information; have been written by board-certified dermatologists; are comprehensible (ie, no more than approximately 1200 words and written at a 7th-grade reading level); and contain relevant clinical images and references. We encourage dermatologists to recognize the limitations of online patient education resources on HQ and educate patients on the proper use of the drug as well as its potential adverse effects

To the Editor:

The internet is a popular resource for patients seeking information about dermatologic treatments. Hydroquinone (HQ) cream 4% is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for skin hyperpigmentation.¹ The agency enforced the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act and OTC (over-the-counter) Monograph Reform on September 25, 2020, to restrict distribution of OTC HQ.² Exogenous ochronosis is listed as a potential adverse effect in the prescribing information for HQ.¹

We sought to assess online resources on HQ for accuracy of information, including the recent OTC ban, as well as readability. The word hydroquinone was searched on 3 internet search engines—Google, Yahoo, and Bing—on December 12, 2020, each for the first 20 URLs (ie, websites)(total of 60 URLs). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)(Figure) reporting guidelines were used to assess a list of relevant websites to include in the final analysis. Website data were reviewed by both authors. Eighteen duplicates and 27 irrelevant and non–English-language URLs were excluded. The remaining 15 websites were analyzed. Based on a previously published and validated tool, a pro forma was designed to evaluate information on HQ for each website based on accountability, quality, readability, display, support, and transparency (Table).^1,3

Scores for all 15 websites are listed in eTable 1. The mean overall (total) score was 25.3 points (of a maximum possible score of 44 points; range, 18–34). The average accountability score was 6.3 (of a possible 10; range, 3–10); average quality score, 10.9 (of a possible 17; range, 5–16); and average readability score, 2.1 (of a possible 5; range, 0–5).

The mean display score was 0.3 (of a possible 4; range, 0–2); 66.7% of websites (10/15) had advertisements or irrelevant material. Only 6.7% and 13.3% of websites included relevant videos or images, respectively, on applying HQ (eTable 2). We identified only 3 photographs—across all 15 websites—that depicted skin, all of which were Fitzpatrick skin types II or III. Therefore, none of the websites included a diversity of images to indicate broad ethnic relatability.

The average support score was 2.5 (of a possible 4; range, 1–3); 20% (3/15) of URLs included chat sites, message boards, or forums, and approximately half (8/15 [53.3%]) included references. Only 7 URLs (46.7%) had been updated in the last 12 months. Only 4 (26.7%) were written by a board-certified dermatologist (eTable 2). Most (60%) websites contained advertising, though none were sponsored by a pharmaceutical company that manufactures HQ.

Only 46.7% (7/15) of websites recommended limiting a course of HQ treatment to 3 months; only 40% (6/15) mentioned shelf life or photochemical degradation when exposed to air. Although 93.3% (14/15) of URLs mentioned ochronosis, a clinical description of the condition was provided in only 33.3% (5/15)—none with images.

Only 2 sites (13.3%; Everyday Health and WebMD) met the accepted 7th-grade reading level for online patient education material; those sites scored lower on quality (9 of 17 and 6 of 17, respectively) than sites with higher overall scores.

None of the 15 websites studied, therefore, demonstrated optimal features on combined measures of accountability, quality, readability, display, support, and transparency regarding HQ. Notably, the American Academy of Dermatology website (www.aad.org) was not among the 15 websites studied; the AAD website mentions HQ in a section on melasma, but only minimal detail is provided.

Limitations of this study include the small number of websites analyzed and possible selection bias because only 3 internet search engines were used to identify websites for study and analysis.

Previously, we analyzed content about HQ on the video-sharing and social media platform YouTube.⁴ The most viewed YouTube videos on HQ had poor-quality information (ie, only 20% mentioned ochronosis and only 28.6% recommended sunscreen [N=70]). However, average reading level of these videos was 7th grade.^4,5 Therefore, YouTube HQ content, though comprehensible, generally is of poor quality.

By conducting a search for website content about HQ, we found that the most popular URLs had either accurate information with poor readability or lower-quality educational material that was more comprehensible. We conclude that there is a need to develop online patient education materials on HQ that are characterized by high-quality, up-to-date medical information; have been written by board-certified dermatologists; are comprehensible (ie, no more than approximately 1200 words and written at a 7th-grade reading level); and contain relevant clinical images and references. We encourage dermatologists to recognize the limitations of online patient education resources on HQ and educate patients on the proper use of the drug as well as its potential adverse effects

To the Editor:

The internet is a popular resource for patients seeking information about dermatologic treatments. Hydroquinone (HQ) cream 4% is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for skin hyperpigmentation.¹ The agency enforced the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act and OTC (over-the-counter) Monograph Reform on September 25, 2020, to restrict distribution of OTC HQ.² Exogenous ochronosis is listed as a potential adverse effect in the prescribing information for HQ.¹

We sought to assess online resources on HQ for accuracy of information, including the recent OTC ban, as well as readability. The word hydroquinone was searched on 3 internet search engines—Google, Yahoo, and Bing—on December 12, 2020, each for the first 20 URLs (ie, websites)(total of 60 URLs). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)(Figure) reporting guidelines were used to assess a list of relevant websites to include in the final analysis. Website data were reviewed by both authors. Eighteen duplicates and 27 irrelevant and non–English-language URLs were excluded. The remaining 15 websites were analyzed. Based on a previously published and validated tool, a pro forma was designed to evaluate information on HQ for each website based on accountability, quality, readability, display, support, and transparency (Table).^1,3

Scores for all 15 websites are listed in eTable 1. The mean overall (total) score was 25.3 points (of a maximum possible score of 44 points; range, 18–34). The average accountability score was 6.3 (of a possible 10; range, 3–10); average quality score, 10.9 (of a possible 17; range, 5–16); and average readability score, 2.1 (of a possible 5; range, 0–5).

The mean display score was 0.3 (of a possible 4; range, 0–2); 66.7% of websites (10/15) had advertisements or irrelevant material. Only 6.7% and 13.3% of websites included relevant videos or images, respectively, on applying HQ (eTable 2). We identified only 3 photographs—across all 15 websites—that depicted skin, all of which were Fitzpatrick skin types II or III. Therefore, none of the websites included a diversity of images to indicate broad ethnic relatability.

The average support score was 2.5 (of a possible 4; range, 1–3); 20% (3/15) of URLs included chat sites, message boards, or forums, and approximately half (8/15 [53.3%]) included references. Only 7 URLs (46.7%) had been updated in the last 12 months. Only 4 (26.7%) were written by a board-certified dermatologist (eTable 2). Most (60%) websites contained advertising, though none were sponsored by a pharmaceutical company that manufactures HQ.

Only 46.7% (7/15) of websites recommended limiting a course of HQ treatment to 3 months; only 40% (6/15) mentioned shelf life or photochemical degradation when exposed to air. Although 93.3% (14/15) of URLs mentioned ochronosis, a clinical description of the condition was provided in only 33.3% (5/15)—none with images.

Only 2 sites (13.3%; Everyday Health and WebMD) met the accepted 7th-grade reading level for online patient education material; those sites scored lower on quality (9 of 17 and 6 of 17, respectively) than sites with higher overall scores.

None of the 15 websites studied, therefore, demonstrated optimal features on combined measures of accountability, quality, readability, display, support, and transparency regarding HQ. Notably, the American Academy of Dermatology website (www.aad.org) was not among the 15 websites studied; the AAD website mentions HQ in a section on melasma, but only minimal detail is provided.

Limitations of this study include the small number of websites analyzed and possible selection bias because only 3 internet search engines were used to identify websites for study and analysis.

Previously, we analyzed content about HQ on the video-sharing and social media platform YouTube.⁴ The most viewed YouTube videos on HQ had poor-quality information (ie, only 20% mentioned ochronosis and only 28.6% recommended sunscreen [N=70]). However, average reading level of these videos was 7th grade.^4,5 Therefore, YouTube HQ content, though comprehensible, generally is of poor quality.

By conducting a search for website content about HQ, we found that the most popular URLs had either accurate information with poor readability or lower-quality educational material that was more comprehensible. We conclude that there is a need to develop online patient education materials on HQ that are characterized by high-quality, up-to-date medical information; have been written by board-certified dermatologists; are comprehensible (ie, no more than approximately 1200 words and written at a 7th-grade reading level); and contain relevant clinical images and references. We encourage dermatologists to recognize the limitations of online patient education resources on HQ and educate patients on the proper use of the drug as well as its potential adverse effects