User login
Artificial sweeteners in processed foods tied to increased depression risk
new data from the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) suggest.
Nurses who consumed more than eight servings daily had about a 50% higher risk of developing depression than nurses who consumed four or fewer servings daily.
However, in a secondary analysis, in which the researchers tried to tease out specific foods that may be associated with increased risk, only artificial sweeteners and artificially sweetened beverages were associated with an increased risk of depression.
“Animal studies have shown that artificial sweeteners may trigger the transmission of particular signaling molecules in the brain that are important for mood,” study investigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of the clinical and translational epidemiology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“Given this potential association between ultraprocessed food and multiple adverse health conditions, wherever possible individuals may wish to limit their intake of such foods. This may be a lifestyle change that could have important benefits, particularly for those who struggle with mental health,” Dr. Chan said.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Multiple potential mechanisms
The findings are based on 31,712 mostly non-Hispanic White women who were free of depression at baseline. The mean age of the patients at baseline was 52 years. As part of the NHS II, the women provided information on diet every 4 years using validated food frequency questionnaires.
Compared with women with low UPF intake, those with high UPF intake had greater body mass index (BMI). In addition, they were apt to smoke and have diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, and they were less apt to exercise regularly.
During the study period, there were 2,122 incident cases of depression, as determined using a strict definition that required self-reported clinician-diagnosed depression and regular antidepressant use. There were 4,840 incident cases, as determined using a broad definition that required clinical diagnosis and/or antidepressant use.
Compared with women in the lowest quintile of UPF consumption (fewer than four daily servings), those in the highest quintile (more than 8.8 daily servings) had an increased risk of depression.
This was noted for both the strict depression definition (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.76; P < .001) and the broad one (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.20-1.50; P < .001).
“Models were not materially altered after inclusion of potential confounders. We did not observe differential associations in subgroups defined by age, BMI, physical activity, or smoking,” the researchers reported.
In secondary analyses, they classified UPF into their components, including ultraprocessed grain foods, sweet snacks, ready-to-eat meals, fats, sauces, ultraprocessed dairy products, savory snacks, processed meat, beverages, and artificial sweeteners.
Comparing the highest with the lowest quintiles, only high intake of artificially sweetened beverages (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.19-1.57; P < .001) and artificial sweeteners (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43; P < .001) was associated with greater risk of depression and after multivariable regression.
In an exploratory analysis, women who reduced their UPF intake by at least three servings per day were at lower risk of depression (strict definition: HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99), compared with those with relatively stable intake in each 4-year period.
“Ultraprocessed foods have been associated with several different health outcomes which may reflect an effect on common pathways that underlie chronic conditions,” said Dr. Chan.
For example, UPF intake has been associated with chronic inflammation, which in turns leads to multiple potential adverse health effects, including depression, he explained.
There is also a link between UPF and disruption of the gut microbiome.
“This is an important potential mechanism linking ultraprocessed food to depression since there is emerging evidence that microbes in the gut have been linked with mood through their role in metabolizing and producing proteins that have activity in the brain,” Dr. Chan said.
Association, not causation
Several experts weighed in on the study results in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Centre.
Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading (England), cautioned that the study only offers information on association – not causation.
“It is very possible that people with depression change their diet and might decide to consume foods that are easier to prepare – which would often be foods considered to be ultraprocessed,” Dr. Kuhnle said.
What’s most interesting is that the association between UPF intake and depression was driven by a single factor – artificial sweeteners.
“This supports one of the main criticisms of the UPF concept, that it combines a wide range of different foods and thereby makes it difficult to identify underlying causes,” Dr. Kuhnle added.
“There are currently no data that link artificial sweetener use to mental health, despite most of them having been available for some time. It is also important to note that there are a wide range of different artificial sweeteners that are metabolized very differently and that there might be reverse causality,” Dr. Kuhnle commented.
Paul Keedwell, MBChB, PhD, consultant psychiatrist and fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said this is an “interesting and important finding, but one that raises more questions. At this stage, we cannot say how big an effect diet has on depression risk compared to other risk factors, like family history of depression, stress levels, and having a supportive social network.”
Dr. Keedwell noted that the investigators carefully excluded the possibility that the effect is mediated by obesity or lack of exercise.
“However, an important consideration is that a diet based on ready meals and artificially sweetened drinks might indicate a hectic lifestyle or one with shift work. In other words, a fast-food diet could be an indirect marker of chronic stress. Prolonged stress probably remains the main risk factor for depression,” Dr. Keedwell said.
Keith Frayn, PhD, professor emeritus of human metabolism, University of Oxford (England), noted that the relationship between artificial sweeteners and depression “stands out clearly” even after adjusting for multiple confounding factors, including BMI, smoking, and exercise.
“This adds to growing concerns about artificial sweeteners and cardiometabolic health. The link with depression needs confirmation and further research to suggest how it might be brought about,” Dr. Frayn cautioned.
The NHS II was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Chan reported receiving grants from Bayer and Zoe and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Freenome outside this work. Dr. Keedwell and Dr. Kuhnle disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Frayn is an author of books on nutrition and metabolism.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new data from the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) suggest.
Nurses who consumed more than eight servings daily had about a 50% higher risk of developing depression than nurses who consumed four or fewer servings daily.
However, in a secondary analysis, in which the researchers tried to tease out specific foods that may be associated with increased risk, only artificial sweeteners and artificially sweetened beverages were associated with an increased risk of depression.
“Animal studies have shown that artificial sweeteners may trigger the transmission of particular signaling molecules in the brain that are important for mood,” study investigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of the clinical and translational epidemiology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“Given this potential association between ultraprocessed food and multiple adverse health conditions, wherever possible individuals may wish to limit their intake of such foods. This may be a lifestyle change that could have important benefits, particularly for those who struggle with mental health,” Dr. Chan said.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Multiple potential mechanisms
The findings are based on 31,712 mostly non-Hispanic White women who were free of depression at baseline. The mean age of the patients at baseline was 52 years. As part of the NHS II, the women provided information on diet every 4 years using validated food frequency questionnaires.
Compared with women with low UPF intake, those with high UPF intake had greater body mass index (BMI). In addition, they were apt to smoke and have diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, and they were less apt to exercise regularly.
During the study period, there were 2,122 incident cases of depression, as determined using a strict definition that required self-reported clinician-diagnosed depression and regular antidepressant use. There were 4,840 incident cases, as determined using a broad definition that required clinical diagnosis and/or antidepressant use.
Compared with women in the lowest quintile of UPF consumption (fewer than four daily servings), those in the highest quintile (more than 8.8 daily servings) had an increased risk of depression.
This was noted for both the strict depression definition (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.76; P < .001) and the broad one (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.20-1.50; P < .001).
“Models were not materially altered after inclusion of potential confounders. We did not observe differential associations in subgroups defined by age, BMI, physical activity, or smoking,” the researchers reported.
In secondary analyses, they classified UPF into their components, including ultraprocessed grain foods, sweet snacks, ready-to-eat meals, fats, sauces, ultraprocessed dairy products, savory snacks, processed meat, beverages, and artificial sweeteners.
Comparing the highest with the lowest quintiles, only high intake of artificially sweetened beverages (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.19-1.57; P < .001) and artificial sweeteners (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43; P < .001) was associated with greater risk of depression and after multivariable regression.
In an exploratory analysis, women who reduced their UPF intake by at least three servings per day were at lower risk of depression (strict definition: HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99), compared with those with relatively stable intake in each 4-year period.
“Ultraprocessed foods have been associated with several different health outcomes which may reflect an effect on common pathways that underlie chronic conditions,” said Dr. Chan.
For example, UPF intake has been associated with chronic inflammation, which in turns leads to multiple potential adverse health effects, including depression, he explained.
There is also a link between UPF and disruption of the gut microbiome.
“This is an important potential mechanism linking ultraprocessed food to depression since there is emerging evidence that microbes in the gut have been linked with mood through their role in metabolizing and producing proteins that have activity in the brain,” Dr. Chan said.
Association, not causation
Several experts weighed in on the study results in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Centre.
Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading (England), cautioned that the study only offers information on association – not causation.
“It is very possible that people with depression change their diet and might decide to consume foods that are easier to prepare – which would often be foods considered to be ultraprocessed,” Dr. Kuhnle said.
What’s most interesting is that the association between UPF intake and depression was driven by a single factor – artificial sweeteners.
“This supports one of the main criticisms of the UPF concept, that it combines a wide range of different foods and thereby makes it difficult to identify underlying causes,” Dr. Kuhnle added.
“There are currently no data that link artificial sweetener use to mental health, despite most of them having been available for some time. It is also important to note that there are a wide range of different artificial sweeteners that are metabolized very differently and that there might be reverse causality,” Dr. Kuhnle commented.
Paul Keedwell, MBChB, PhD, consultant psychiatrist and fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said this is an “interesting and important finding, but one that raises more questions. At this stage, we cannot say how big an effect diet has on depression risk compared to other risk factors, like family history of depression, stress levels, and having a supportive social network.”
Dr. Keedwell noted that the investigators carefully excluded the possibility that the effect is mediated by obesity or lack of exercise.
“However, an important consideration is that a diet based on ready meals and artificially sweetened drinks might indicate a hectic lifestyle or one with shift work. In other words, a fast-food diet could be an indirect marker of chronic stress. Prolonged stress probably remains the main risk factor for depression,” Dr. Keedwell said.
Keith Frayn, PhD, professor emeritus of human metabolism, University of Oxford (England), noted that the relationship between artificial sweeteners and depression “stands out clearly” even after adjusting for multiple confounding factors, including BMI, smoking, and exercise.
“This adds to growing concerns about artificial sweeteners and cardiometabolic health. The link with depression needs confirmation and further research to suggest how it might be brought about,” Dr. Frayn cautioned.
The NHS II was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Chan reported receiving grants from Bayer and Zoe and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Freenome outside this work. Dr. Keedwell and Dr. Kuhnle disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Frayn is an author of books on nutrition and metabolism.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
new data from the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) suggest.
Nurses who consumed more than eight servings daily had about a 50% higher risk of developing depression than nurses who consumed four or fewer servings daily.
However, in a secondary analysis, in which the researchers tried to tease out specific foods that may be associated with increased risk, only artificial sweeteners and artificially sweetened beverages were associated with an increased risk of depression.
“Animal studies have shown that artificial sweeteners may trigger the transmission of particular signaling molecules in the brain that are important for mood,” study investigator Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, of the clinical and translational epidemiology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“Given this potential association between ultraprocessed food and multiple adverse health conditions, wherever possible individuals may wish to limit their intake of such foods. This may be a lifestyle change that could have important benefits, particularly for those who struggle with mental health,” Dr. Chan said.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Multiple potential mechanisms
The findings are based on 31,712 mostly non-Hispanic White women who were free of depression at baseline. The mean age of the patients at baseline was 52 years. As part of the NHS II, the women provided information on diet every 4 years using validated food frequency questionnaires.
Compared with women with low UPF intake, those with high UPF intake had greater body mass index (BMI). In addition, they were apt to smoke and have diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, and they were less apt to exercise regularly.
During the study period, there were 2,122 incident cases of depression, as determined using a strict definition that required self-reported clinician-diagnosed depression and regular antidepressant use. There were 4,840 incident cases, as determined using a broad definition that required clinical diagnosis and/or antidepressant use.
Compared with women in the lowest quintile of UPF consumption (fewer than four daily servings), those in the highest quintile (more than 8.8 daily servings) had an increased risk of depression.
This was noted for both the strict depression definition (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.76; P < .001) and the broad one (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.20-1.50; P < .001).
“Models were not materially altered after inclusion of potential confounders. We did not observe differential associations in subgroups defined by age, BMI, physical activity, or smoking,” the researchers reported.
In secondary analyses, they classified UPF into their components, including ultraprocessed grain foods, sweet snacks, ready-to-eat meals, fats, sauces, ultraprocessed dairy products, savory snacks, processed meat, beverages, and artificial sweeteners.
Comparing the highest with the lowest quintiles, only high intake of artificially sweetened beverages (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.19-1.57; P < .001) and artificial sweeteners (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43; P < .001) was associated with greater risk of depression and after multivariable regression.
In an exploratory analysis, women who reduced their UPF intake by at least three servings per day were at lower risk of depression (strict definition: HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99), compared with those with relatively stable intake in each 4-year period.
“Ultraprocessed foods have been associated with several different health outcomes which may reflect an effect on common pathways that underlie chronic conditions,” said Dr. Chan.
For example, UPF intake has been associated with chronic inflammation, which in turns leads to multiple potential adverse health effects, including depression, he explained.
There is also a link between UPF and disruption of the gut microbiome.
“This is an important potential mechanism linking ultraprocessed food to depression since there is emerging evidence that microbes in the gut have been linked with mood through their role in metabolizing and producing proteins that have activity in the brain,” Dr. Chan said.
Association, not causation
Several experts weighed in on the study results in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Centre.
Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading (England), cautioned that the study only offers information on association – not causation.
“It is very possible that people with depression change their diet and might decide to consume foods that are easier to prepare – which would often be foods considered to be ultraprocessed,” Dr. Kuhnle said.
What’s most interesting is that the association between UPF intake and depression was driven by a single factor – artificial sweeteners.
“This supports one of the main criticisms of the UPF concept, that it combines a wide range of different foods and thereby makes it difficult to identify underlying causes,” Dr. Kuhnle added.
“There are currently no data that link artificial sweetener use to mental health, despite most of them having been available for some time. It is also important to note that there are a wide range of different artificial sweeteners that are metabolized very differently and that there might be reverse causality,” Dr. Kuhnle commented.
Paul Keedwell, MBChB, PhD, consultant psychiatrist and fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said this is an “interesting and important finding, but one that raises more questions. At this stage, we cannot say how big an effect diet has on depression risk compared to other risk factors, like family history of depression, stress levels, and having a supportive social network.”
Dr. Keedwell noted that the investigators carefully excluded the possibility that the effect is mediated by obesity or lack of exercise.
“However, an important consideration is that a diet based on ready meals and artificially sweetened drinks might indicate a hectic lifestyle or one with shift work. In other words, a fast-food diet could be an indirect marker of chronic stress. Prolonged stress probably remains the main risk factor for depression,” Dr. Keedwell said.
Keith Frayn, PhD, professor emeritus of human metabolism, University of Oxford (England), noted that the relationship between artificial sweeteners and depression “stands out clearly” even after adjusting for multiple confounding factors, including BMI, smoking, and exercise.
“This adds to growing concerns about artificial sweeteners and cardiometabolic health. The link with depression needs confirmation and further research to suggest how it might be brought about,” Dr. Frayn cautioned.
The NHS II was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Chan reported receiving grants from Bayer and Zoe and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Freenome outside this work. Dr. Keedwell and Dr. Kuhnle disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Frayn is an author of books on nutrition and metabolism.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Granulomatous Dermatitis in a Patient With Cholangiocarcinoma Treated With BRAF and MEK Inhibitors
To the Editor:
Granulomatous dermatitis (GD) has been described as a rare side effect of MEK and BRAF inhibitor use in the treatment of BRAF V600E mutation–positive metastatic melanoma. As the utilization of BRAF and MEK inhibitors increases for the treatment of a variety of cancers, it is essential that clinicians and pathologists recognize GD as a potential cutaneous manifestation. We present the case of a 52-year-old woman who developed GD while being treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib for BRAF V600E mutation–positive metastatic cholangiocarcinoma.
A 52-year-old White woman presented with faint patches of nonpalpable violaceous mottling that extended distally to proximally from the ankles to the thighs on the medial aspects of both legs. She was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma 10 months prior, with metastases to the lung, liver, and sternum. She underwent treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin therapy. Computed tomography after several treatment cycles revealed progressive disease with multiple pulmonary nodules as well as metastatic intrathoracic and abdominal adenopathy. Treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin failed to produce a favorable response and was discontinued after 6 treatment cycles.
Genomic testing performed at the time of diagnosis revealed a positive mutation for BRAF V600E. The patient subsequently enrolled in a clinical trial and started treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. She developed sun sensitivity and multiple sunburns after starting these therapies. The patient tolerated the next few cycles of therapy well with only moderate concerns of dry sensitive skin.
During the sixth cycle of therapy, she presented to dermatology after developing a rash. Over the next 2 weeks, similar lesions appeared on the arms. The patient denied the use of any new lotions, soaps, or other medications. Punch biopsies of the right forearm and right medial thigh revealed nonnecrotizing granulomas in the superficial dermis that extended into the subcutaneous adipose tissue (Figure 1). Surrounding chronic inflammation was scant, and the presence of rare eosinophils was noted (Figure 2). The histiocytes were highlighted by a CD68 immunohistochemical stain. An auramine-O special stain test was negative for acid-fast bacilli, and a Grocott methenamine-silver special stain test for fungal organisms was negative. These findings were consistent with GD. Computed tomography of the chest performed 2 months prior and 1 month after biopsy of the skin lesions revealed no axillary, mediastinal, or hilar lymphadenopathy. The calcium level at the time of skin biopsy was within reference range.
A topical steroid was prescribed; however, it was not utilized by the patient. Within 2 months of onset, the GD lesions resolved with no treatment. The GD lesions did not affect the patient’s enrollment in the clinical trial, and no dose reductions were made. Due to progressive disease with metastases to the brain, the patient eventually discontinued the clinical trial.
BRAF inhibitors are US Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma to deactivate the serine-threonine kinase BRAF gene mutation, which leads to decreased generation and survival of melanoma cells.1,2 Vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and encorafenib are the only BRAF inhibitors approved in the United States.3 The most common side effects of vemurafenib include arthralgia, fatigue, rash, and photosensitivity.1,4 There are 4 MEK inhibitors currently available in the United States: cobimetinib, trametinib, selumetinib and binimetinib. The addition of a MEK inhibitor to BRAF inhibitor therapy has shown increased patient response rates and prolonged survival in 3 phase 3 studies.5-10
Response rates remain low in the treatment of advanced cholangiocarcinoma with standard chemotherapy. Recent research has explored if targeted therapies at the molecular level would be of benefit.11 Our patient was enrolled in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) trial, a phase 2, prospective, nonrandomized trial that matches eligible participants to US Food and Drug Administration–approved study medications based on specific data from their molecular testing results.12 Some of the most common mutations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma include HER2, KRAS, MET, and BRAF.13-17 Our patient’s molecular test results were positive for a BRAF V600E–positive mutation, and she subsequently started therapy with vemurafenib and cobimetinib. The use of personalized genomic treatment approaches for BRAF V600E mutation–positive cholangiocarcinoma has produced a dramatic patient response to BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapies.11,18-20
Drug-induced GD most likely is caused by vascular insults that lead to deposition of immune complexes in vessels causing inflammation and a consequent granulomatous infiltrate.21,22 Although cordlike lesions in the subcutaneous tissue on the trunk commonly are reported, the presentation of GD can vary considerably. Other presentations include areas of violaceous or erythematous patches or plaques on the limbs, intertriginous areas, and upper trunk. Diffuse macular erythema or small flesh-colored papules also can be observed.23
Granulomatous dermatitis secondary to drug reactions can have varying morphologies. The infiltrate often can have an interstitial appearance with the presence of lymphocytes, plasma cells, histiocytes, eosinophils, and multinucleated giant cells.24 These findings can be confused with interstitial granuloma annulare. Other cases, such as in our patient, can have discrete granulomata formation with a sarcoidlike appearance. These naked granulomas lack surrounding inflammation and suggest a differential diagnosis of sarcoidosis and infection. Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CIs) and kinase inhibitors has been proven to cause sarcoidosislike reactions.25 The development of granulomatous/sarcoidlike lesions associated with the use of BRAF and MEK inhibitors may clinically and radiographically mimic disease recurrence. An awareness of this type of reaction by clinicians and pathologists is important to ensure appropriate management in patients who develop GD.26
Checkpoint inhibitor–induced GD that remains asymptomatic does not necessarily warrant treatment; however, corticosteroid use and elimination of CI therapies have resolved GD in prior cases. Responsiveness of the cancer to CI therapy and severity of GD symptoms should be considered before discontinuation of a CI trial.25
One case report described complete resolution of a GD eruption without interruption of the scheduled BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. There was no reported use of a steroidal cream or other topical medication to aid in controlling the eruption.27 The exact mechanism of how GD resolves while continuing therapy is unknown; however, it has been suggested that a GD eruption may be the consequence of a BRAF and MEK inhibitor–mediated immune response against a subclinical area of metastatic melanoma.28 If the immune response successfully eliminates the subclinical tumor, one could postulate that the inflammatory response and granulomatous eruption would resolve. Future studies are necessary to further elucidate the exact mechanisms involved.
There have been several case reports of GD with vemurafenib treatment,29,30 1 report of GD and erythema induratum with vemurafenib and cobimetinib treatment,31 2 reports of GD with dabrafenib treatment,27,30 and a few reports of GD with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib combined with the MEK inhibitor trametinib,28,32,33 all for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Additionally, a report described a 3-year-old boy who developed GD secondary to vemurafenib for the treatment of Langerhans cell histiocytosis.34 We present a unique case of BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy–induced GD in the treatment of metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with vemurafenib and cobimetinib.
BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy is used in patients with metastatic melanomas with a positive BRAF V600E mutation. Due to advancements in next-generation DNA sequencing, these therapies also are being tested in clinical trials for use in the treatment of other cancers with the same checkpoint mutation, such as metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cutaneous reactions frequently are documented side effects that occur during treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors; GD is an uncommon finding. As the utilization of BRAF and MEK inhibitors increases for the treatment of a variety of other cancers, it is essential that clinicians and pathologists recognize GD as a potential cutaneous manifestation.
- Mackiewicz J, Mackiewicz A. BRAF and MEK inhibitors in the era of immunotherapy in melanoma patients. Comtemp Oncol (Pozn). 2018;22:68-72.
- Jovanovic B, Krockel D, Linden D, et al. Lack of cytoplasmic ERK activation is an independent adverse prognostic factor in primary cutaneous melanoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2008;128:2696-2704.
- Alqathama A. BRAF in malignant melanoma progression and metastasis: potentials and challenges. Am J Cancer Res. 2020;10:1103-1114.
- Zimmer L, Hillen U, Livingstone E, et al. Atypical melanocytic proliferations and new primary melanomas in patients with advanced melanoma undergoing selective BRAF inhibition. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2375-2383.
- Casey D, Demko S, Sinha A, et al. FDA approval summary: selumetinib for plexiform neurofibroma. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27;4142-4146
- Flaherty K, Davies MA, Grob JJ, et al. Genomic analysis and 3-y efficacy and safety update of COMBI-d: a phase 3 study of dabrafenib (D) fl trametinib (T) vs D monotherapy in patients (pts) with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant cutaneous melanoma. Abstract presented at: American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting; June 3-7, 2016; Chicago, IL. P9502.
- Robert C, Karaszewska B, Schachter J, et al. Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:30-39.
- Robert C, Karaszewska B, Schachter J, et al. Three-year estimate of overall survival in COMBI-v, a randomized phase 3 study evaluating first-line dabrafenib (D) + trametinib (T) in patients (pts) with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K–mutant cutaneous melanoma. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(suppl 6):vi552-vi587.
- Larkin J, Ascierto PA, Dreno B, et al. Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1867-1876.
- Ascierto PA, McArthur GA, Dréno B, et al. Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib in advance BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma (coBRIM): updated efficacy results from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Once. 2016;17:1248-1260.
- Kocsis J, Árokszállási A, András C, et al. Combined dabrafenib and trametinib treatment in a case of chemotherapy-refractory extrahepatic BRAF V600E mutant cholangiocarcinoma: dramatic clinical and radiological response with a confusing synchronic new liver lesion. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2017;8:E32-E38.
- Mangat PK, Halabi S, Bruinooge SS, et al. Rationale and design of the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study [published online July 11, 2018]. JCO Precis Oncol. doi:10.1200/PO.18.00122
- Terada T, Ashida K, Endo K, et al. c-erbB-2 protein is expressed in hepatolithiasis and cholangiocarcinoma. Histopathology. 1998;33:325-331.
- Tannapfel A, Benicke M, Katalinic A, et al. Frequency of p16INK4A alterations and K-ras mutations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma of the liver. Gut. 2000;47:721-727.
- Momoi H, Itoh T, Nozaki Y, et al. Microsatellite instability and alternative genetic pathway in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol. 2001;35:235-244.
- Terada T, Nakanuma Y, Sirica AE. Immunohistochemical demonstration of MET overexpression in human intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and in hepatolithiasis. Hum Pathol. 1998;29:175-180.
- Tannapfel A, Sommerer F, Benicke M, et al. Mutations of the BRAF gene in cholangiocarcinoma but not in hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut. 2003;52:706-712.
- Bunyatov T, Zhao A, Kovalenko J, et al. Personalised approach in combined treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: a case report of healing from cholangiocellular carcinoma at stage IV. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2019;10:815-820.
- Lavingia V, Fakih M. Impressive response to dual BRAF and MEK inhibition in patients with BRAF mutant intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma-2 case reports and a brief review. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016;7:E98-E102.
- Loaiza-Bonilla A, Clayton E, Furth E, et al. Dramatic response to dabrafenib and trametinib combination in a BRAF V600E-mutated cholangiocarcinoma: implementation of a molecular tumour board and next-generation sequencing for personalized medicine. Ecancermedicalscience. 2014;8:479.
- Rosenbach M, English JC. Reactive granulomatous dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2015;33:373-387.
- Tomasini C, Pippione M. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis with plaques. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;46:892-899.
- Peroni A, Colato C, Schena D, et al. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis: a distinct entity with characteristic histological and clinical pattern. Br J Dermatol 2012;166:775-783.
- Calonje JE, Brenn T, Lazar A, Billings S. Lichenoid and interface dermatitis. In: McKee’s Pathology of the Skin. 5th ed. China: Elsevier Limited: 2018;7:241-282.
- Gkiozos I, Kopitopoulou A, Kalkanis A, et al. Sarcoidosis-like reactions induced by checkpoint inhibitors. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13:1076-1082.
- Tetzlaff MT, Nelson KC, Diab A, et al. Granulomatous/sarcoid-like lesions associated with checkpoint inhibitors: a marker of therapy response in a subset of melanoma patients. J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6:14.
- Garrido MC, Gutiérrez C, Riveiro-Falkenbach E, et al. BRAF inhibitor-induced antitumoral granulomatous dermatitis eruption in advanced melanoma. Am J Dermatopathol. 2015;37:795-798.
- Park JJ, Hawryluk EB, Tahan SR, et al. Cutaneous granulomatous eruption and successful response to potent topical steroids in patients undergoing targeted BRAF inhibitor treatment for metastatic melanoma. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:307‐311.
- Ong ELH, Sinha R, Jmor S, et al. BRAF inhibitor-associated granulomatous dermatitis: a report of 3 cases. Am J of Dermatopathol. 2019;41:214-217.
- Wali GN, Stonard C, Espinosa O, et al. Persistent granulomatous cutaneous drug eruption to a BRAF inhibitor. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(suppl 1):AB195.
- Aj lafolla M, Ramsay J, Wismer J, et al. Cobimetinib- and vemurafenib-induced granulomatous dermatitis and erythema induratum: a case report. SAGE Open Med Case Rep. 2019;7:2050313X19847358
- Jansen YJ, Janssens P, Hoorens A, et al. Granulomatous nephritis and dermatitis in a patient with BRAF V600E mutant metastatic melanoma treated with dabrafenib and trametinib. Melanoma Res. 2015;25:550‐554.
- Green JS, Norris DA, Wisell J. Novel cutaneous effects of combination chemotherapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors: a report of two cases. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169:172-176.
- Chen L, His A, Kothari A, et al. Granulomatous dermatitis secondary to vemurafenib in a child with Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018;35:E402-E403.
To the Editor:
Granulomatous dermatitis (GD) has been described as a rare side effect of MEK and BRAF inhibitor use in the treatment of BRAF V600E mutation–positive metastatic melanoma. As the utilization of BRAF and MEK inhibitors increases for the treatment of a variety of cancers, it is essential that clinicians and pathologists recognize GD as a potential cutaneous manifestation. We present the case of a 52-year-old woman who developed GD while being treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib for BRAF V600E mutation–positive metastatic cholangiocarcinoma.
A 52-year-old White woman presented with faint patches of nonpalpable violaceous mottling that extended distally to proximally from the ankles to the thighs on the medial aspects of both legs. She was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma 10 months prior, with metastases to the lung, liver, and sternum. She underwent treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin therapy. Computed tomography after several treatment cycles revealed progressive disease with multiple pulmonary nodules as well as metastatic intrathoracic and abdominal adenopathy. Treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin failed to produce a favorable response and was discontinued after 6 treatment cycles.
Genomic testing performed at the time of diagnosis revealed a positive mutation for BRAF V600E. The patient subsequently enrolled in a clinical trial and started treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. She developed sun sensitivity and multiple sunburns after starting these therapies. The patient tolerated the next few cycles of therapy well with only moderate concerns of dry sensitive skin.
During the sixth cycle of therapy, she presented to dermatology after developing a rash. Over the next 2 weeks, similar lesions appeared on the arms. The patient denied the use of any new lotions, soaps, or other medications. Punch biopsies of the right forearm and right medial thigh revealed nonnecrotizing granulomas in the superficial dermis that extended into the subcutaneous adipose tissue (Figure 1). Surrounding chronic inflammation was scant, and the presence of rare eosinophils was noted (Figure 2). The histiocytes were highlighted by a CD68 immunohistochemical stain. An auramine-O special stain test was negative for acid-fast bacilli, and a Grocott methenamine-silver special stain test for fungal organisms was negative. These findings were consistent with GD. Computed tomography of the chest performed 2 months prior and 1 month after biopsy of the skin lesions revealed no axillary, mediastinal, or hilar lymphadenopathy. The calcium level at the time of skin biopsy was within reference range.
A topical steroid was prescribed; however, it was not utilized by the patient. Within 2 months of onset, the GD lesions resolved with no treatment. The GD lesions did not affect the patient’s enrollment in the clinical trial, and no dose reductions were made. Due to progressive disease with metastases to the brain, the patient eventually discontinued the clinical trial.
BRAF inhibitors are US Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma to deactivate the serine-threonine kinase BRAF gene mutation, which leads to decreased generation and survival of melanoma cells.1,2 Vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and encorafenib are the only BRAF inhibitors approved in the United States.3 The most common side effects of vemurafenib include arthralgia, fatigue, rash, and photosensitivity.1,4 There are 4 MEK inhibitors currently available in the United States: cobimetinib, trametinib, selumetinib and binimetinib. The addition of a MEK inhibitor to BRAF inhibitor therapy has shown increased patient response rates and prolonged survival in 3 phase 3 studies.5-10
Response rates remain low in the treatment of advanced cholangiocarcinoma with standard chemotherapy. Recent research has explored if targeted therapies at the molecular level would be of benefit.11 Our patient was enrolled in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) trial, a phase 2, prospective, nonrandomized trial that matches eligible participants to US Food and Drug Administration–approved study medications based on specific data from their molecular testing results.12 Some of the most common mutations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma include HER2, KRAS, MET, and BRAF.13-17 Our patient’s molecular test results were positive for a BRAF V600E–positive mutation, and she subsequently started therapy with vemurafenib and cobimetinib. The use of personalized genomic treatment approaches for BRAF V600E mutation–positive cholangiocarcinoma has produced a dramatic patient response to BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapies.11,18-20
Drug-induced GD most likely is caused by vascular insults that lead to deposition of immune complexes in vessels causing inflammation and a consequent granulomatous infiltrate.21,22 Although cordlike lesions in the subcutaneous tissue on the trunk commonly are reported, the presentation of GD can vary considerably. Other presentations include areas of violaceous or erythematous patches or plaques on the limbs, intertriginous areas, and upper trunk. Diffuse macular erythema or small flesh-colored papules also can be observed.23
Granulomatous dermatitis secondary to drug reactions can have varying morphologies. The infiltrate often can have an interstitial appearance with the presence of lymphocytes, plasma cells, histiocytes, eosinophils, and multinucleated giant cells.24 These findings can be confused with interstitial granuloma annulare. Other cases, such as in our patient, can have discrete granulomata formation with a sarcoidlike appearance. These naked granulomas lack surrounding inflammation and suggest a differential diagnosis of sarcoidosis and infection. Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CIs) and kinase inhibitors has been proven to cause sarcoidosislike reactions.25 The development of granulomatous/sarcoidlike lesions associated with the use of BRAF and MEK inhibitors may clinically and radiographically mimic disease recurrence. An awareness of this type of reaction by clinicians and pathologists is important to ensure appropriate management in patients who develop GD.26
Checkpoint inhibitor–induced GD that remains asymptomatic does not necessarily warrant treatment; however, corticosteroid use and elimination of CI therapies have resolved GD in prior cases. Responsiveness of the cancer to CI therapy and severity of GD symptoms should be considered before discontinuation of a CI trial.25
One case report described complete resolution of a GD eruption without interruption of the scheduled BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. There was no reported use of a steroidal cream or other topical medication to aid in controlling the eruption.27 The exact mechanism of how GD resolves while continuing therapy is unknown; however, it has been suggested that a GD eruption may be the consequence of a BRAF and MEK inhibitor–mediated immune response against a subclinical area of metastatic melanoma.28 If the immune response successfully eliminates the subclinical tumor, one could postulate that the inflammatory response and granulomatous eruption would resolve. Future studies are necessary to further elucidate the exact mechanisms involved.
There have been several case reports of GD with vemurafenib treatment,29,30 1 report of GD and erythema induratum with vemurafenib and cobimetinib treatment,31 2 reports of GD with dabrafenib treatment,27,30 and a few reports of GD with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib combined with the MEK inhibitor trametinib,28,32,33 all for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Additionally, a report described a 3-year-old boy who developed GD secondary to vemurafenib for the treatment of Langerhans cell histiocytosis.34 We present a unique case of BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy–induced GD in the treatment of metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with vemurafenib and cobimetinib.
BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy is used in patients with metastatic melanomas with a positive BRAF V600E mutation. Due to advancements in next-generation DNA sequencing, these therapies also are being tested in clinical trials for use in the treatment of other cancers with the same checkpoint mutation, such as metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cutaneous reactions frequently are documented side effects that occur during treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors; GD is an uncommon finding. As the utilization of BRAF and MEK inhibitors increases for the treatment of a variety of other cancers, it is essential that clinicians and pathologists recognize GD as a potential cutaneous manifestation.
To the Editor:
Granulomatous dermatitis (GD) has been described as a rare side effect of MEK and BRAF inhibitor use in the treatment of BRAF V600E mutation–positive metastatic melanoma. As the utilization of BRAF and MEK inhibitors increases for the treatment of a variety of cancers, it is essential that clinicians and pathologists recognize GD as a potential cutaneous manifestation. We present the case of a 52-year-old woman who developed GD while being treated with vemurafenib and cobimetinib for BRAF V600E mutation–positive metastatic cholangiocarcinoma.
A 52-year-old White woman presented with faint patches of nonpalpable violaceous mottling that extended distally to proximally from the ankles to the thighs on the medial aspects of both legs. She was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma 10 months prior, with metastases to the lung, liver, and sternum. She underwent treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin therapy. Computed tomography after several treatment cycles revealed progressive disease with multiple pulmonary nodules as well as metastatic intrathoracic and abdominal adenopathy. Treatment with gemcitabine and cisplatin failed to produce a favorable response and was discontinued after 6 treatment cycles.
Genomic testing performed at the time of diagnosis revealed a positive mutation for BRAF V600E. The patient subsequently enrolled in a clinical trial and started treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. She developed sun sensitivity and multiple sunburns after starting these therapies. The patient tolerated the next few cycles of therapy well with only moderate concerns of dry sensitive skin.
During the sixth cycle of therapy, she presented to dermatology after developing a rash. Over the next 2 weeks, similar lesions appeared on the arms. The patient denied the use of any new lotions, soaps, or other medications. Punch biopsies of the right forearm and right medial thigh revealed nonnecrotizing granulomas in the superficial dermis that extended into the subcutaneous adipose tissue (Figure 1). Surrounding chronic inflammation was scant, and the presence of rare eosinophils was noted (Figure 2). The histiocytes were highlighted by a CD68 immunohistochemical stain. An auramine-O special stain test was negative for acid-fast bacilli, and a Grocott methenamine-silver special stain test for fungal organisms was negative. These findings were consistent with GD. Computed tomography of the chest performed 2 months prior and 1 month after biopsy of the skin lesions revealed no axillary, mediastinal, or hilar lymphadenopathy. The calcium level at the time of skin biopsy was within reference range.
A topical steroid was prescribed; however, it was not utilized by the patient. Within 2 months of onset, the GD lesions resolved with no treatment. The GD lesions did not affect the patient’s enrollment in the clinical trial, and no dose reductions were made. Due to progressive disease with metastases to the brain, the patient eventually discontinued the clinical trial.
BRAF inhibitors are US Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma to deactivate the serine-threonine kinase BRAF gene mutation, which leads to decreased generation and survival of melanoma cells.1,2 Vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and encorafenib are the only BRAF inhibitors approved in the United States.3 The most common side effects of vemurafenib include arthralgia, fatigue, rash, and photosensitivity.1,4 There are 4 MEK inhibitors currently available in the United States: cobimetinib, trametinib, selumetinib and binimetinib. The addition of a MEK inhibitor to BRAF inhibitor therapy has shown increased patient response rates and prolonged survival in 3 phase 3 studies.5-10
Response rates remain low in the treatment of advanced cholangiocarcinoma with standard chemotherapy. Recent research has explored if targeted therapies at the molecular level would be of benefit.11 Our patient was enrolled in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) trial, a phase 2, prospective, nonrandomized trial that matches eligible participants to US Food and Drug Administration–approved study medications based on specific data from their molecular testing results.12 Some of the most common mutations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma include HER2, KRAS, MET, and BRAF.13-17 Our patient’s molecular test results were positive for a BRAF V600E–positive mutation, and she subsequently started therapy with vemurafenib and cobimetinib. The use of personalized genomic treatment approaches for BRAF V600E mutation–positive cholangiocarcinoma has produced a dramatic patient response to BRAF and MEK inhibitor combination therapies.11,18-20
Drug-induced GD most likely is caused by vascular insults that lead to deposition of immune complexes in vessels causing inflammation and a consequent granulomatous infiltrate.21,22 Although cordlike lesions in the subcutaneous tissue on the trunk commonly are reported, the presentation of GD can vary considerably. Other presentations include areas of violaceous or erythematous patches or plaques on the limbs, intertriginous areas, and upper trunk. Diffuse macular erythema or small flesh-colored papules also can be observed.23
Granulomatous dermatitis secondary to drug reactions can have varying morphologies. The infiltrate often can have an interstitial appearance with the presence of lymphocytes, plasma cells, histiocytes, eosinophils, and multinucleated giant cells.24 These findings can be confused with interstitial granuloma annulare. Other cases, such as in our patient, can have discrete granulomata formation with a sarcoidlike appearance. These naked granulomas lack surrounding inflammation and suggest a differential diagnosis of sarcoidosis and infection. Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CIs) and kinase inhibitors has been proven to cause sarcoidosislike reactions.25 The development of granulomatous/sarcoidlike lesions associated with the use of BRAF and MEK inhibitors may clinically and radiographically mimic disease recurrence. An awareness of this type of reaction by clinicians and pathologists is important to ensure appropriate management in patients who develop GD.26
Checkpoint inhibitor–induced GD that remains asymptomatic does not necessarily warrant treatment; however, corticosteroid use and elimination of CI therapies have resolved GD in prior cases. Responsiveness of the cancer to CI therapy and severity of GD symptoms should be considered before discontinuation of a CI trial.25
One case report described complete resolution of a GD eruption without interruption of the scheduled BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. There was no reported use of a steroidal cream or other topical medication to aid in controlling the eruption.27 The exact mechanism of how GD resolves while continuing therapy is unknown; however, it has been suggested that a GD eruption may be the consequence of a BRAF and MEK inhibitor–mediated immune response against a subclinical area of metastatic melanoma.28 If the immune response successfully eliminates the subclinical tumor, one could postulate that the inflammatory response and granulomatous eruption would resolve. Future studies are necessary to further elucidate the exact mechanisms involved.
There have been several case reports of GD with vemurafenib treatment,29,30 1 report of GD and erythema induratum with vemurafenib and cobimetinib treatment,31 2 reports of GD with dabrafenib treatment,27,30 and a few reports of GD with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib combined with the MEK inhibitor trametinib,28,32,33 all for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Additionally, a report described a 3-year-old boy who developed GD secondary to vemurafenib for the treatment of Langerhans cell histiocytosis.34 We present a unique case of BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy–induced GD in the treatment of metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with vemurafenib and cobimetinib.
BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy is used in patients with metastatic melanomas with a positive BRAF V600E mutation. Due to advancements in next-generation DNA sequencing, these therapies also are being tested in clinical trials for use in the treatment of other cancers with the same checkpoint mutation, such as metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cutaneous reactions frequently are documented side effects that occur during treatment with BRAF and MEK inhibitors; GD is an uncommon finding. As the utilization of BRAF and MEK inhibitors increases for the treatment of a variety of other cancers, it is essential that clinicians and pathologists recognize GD as a potential cutaneous manifestation.
- Mackiewicz J, Mackiewicz A. BRAF and MEK inhibitors in the era of immunotherapy in melanoma patients. Comtemp Oncol (Pozn). 2018;22:68-72.
- Jovanovic B, Krockel D, Linden D, et al. Lack of cytoplasmic ERK activation is an independent adverse prognostic factor in primary cutaneous melanoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2008;128:2696-2704.
- Alqathama A. BRAF in malignant melanoma progression and metastasis: potentials and challenges. Am J Cancer Res. 2020;10:1103-1114.
- Zimmer L, Hillen U, Livingstone E, et al. Atypical melanocytic proliferations and new primary melanomas in patients with advanced melanoma undergoing selective BRAF inhibition. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2375-2383.
- Casey D, Demko S, Sinha A, et al. FDA approval summary: selumetinib for plexiform neurofibroma. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27;4142-4146
- Flaherty K, Davies MA, Grob JJ, et al. Genomic analysis and 3-y efficacy and safety update of COMBI-d: a phase 3 study of dabrafenib (D) fl trametinib (T) vs D monotherapy in patients (pts) with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant cutaneous melanoma. Abstract presented at: American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting; June 3-7, 2016; Chicago, IL. P9502.
- Robert C, Karaszewska B, Schachter J, et al. Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:30-39.
- Robert C, Karaszewska B, Schachter J, et al. Three-year estimate of overall survival in COMBI-v, a randomized phase 3 study evaluating first-line dabrafenib (D) + trametinib (T) in patients (pts) with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K–mutant cutaneous melanoma. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(suppl 6):vi552-vi587.
- Larkin J, Ascierto PA, Dreno B, et al. Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1867-1876.
- Ascierto PA, McArthur GA, Dréno B, et al. Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib in advance BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma (coBRIM): updated efficacy results from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Once. 2016;17:1248-1260.
- Kocsis J, Árokszállási A, András C, et al. Combined dabrafenib and trametinib treatment in a case of chemotherapy-refractory extrahepatic BRAF V600E mutant cholangiocarcinoma: dramatic clinical and radiological response with a confusing synchronic new liver lesion. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2017;8:E32-E38.
- Mangat PK, Halabi S, Bruinooge SS, et al. Rationale and design of the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study [published online July 11, 2018]. JCO Precis Oncol. doi:10.1200/PO.18.00122
- Terada T, Ashida K, Endo K, et al. c-erbB-2 protein is expressed in hepatolithiasis and cholangiocarcinoma. Histopathology. 1998;33:325-331.
- Tannapfel A, Benicke M, Katalinic A, et al. Frequency of p16INK4A alterations and K-ras mutations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma of the liver. Gut. 2000;47:721-727.
- Momoi H, Itoh T, Nozaki Y, et al. Microsatellite instability and alternative genetic pathway in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol. 2001;35:235-244.
- Terada T, Nakanuma Y, Sirica AE. Immunohistochemical demonstration of MET overexpression in human intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and in hepatolithiasis. Hum Pathol. 1998;29:175-180.
- Tannapfel A, Sommerer F, Benicke M, et al. Mutations of the BRAF gene in cholangiocarcinoma but not in hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut. 2003;52:706-712.
- Bunyatov T, Zhao A, Kovalenko J, et al. Personalised approach in combined treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: a case report of healing from cholangiocellular carcinoma at stage IV. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2019;10:815-820.
- Lavingia V, Fakih M. Impressive response to dual BRAF and MEK inhibition in patients with BRAF mutant intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma-2 case reports and a brief review. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016;7:E98-E102.
- Loaiza-Bonilla A, Clayton E, Furth E, et al. Dramatic response to dabrafenib and trametinib combination in a BRAF V600E-mutated cholangiocarcinoma: implementation of a molecular tumour board and next-generation sequencing for personalized medicine. Ecancermedicalscience. 2014;8:479.
- Rosenbach M, English JC. Reactive granulomatous dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2015;33:373-387.
- Tomasini C, Pippione M. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis with plaques. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;46:892-899.
- Peroni A, Colato C, Schena D, et al. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis: a distinct entity with characteristic histological and clinical pattern. Br J Dermatol 2012;166:775-783.
- Calonje JE, Brenn T, Lazar A, Billings S. Lichenoid and interface dermatitis. In: McKee’s Pathology of the Skin. 5th ed. China: Elsevier Limited: 2018;7:241-282.
- Gkiozos I, Kopitopoulou A, Kalkanis A, et al. Sarcoidosis-like reactions induced by checkpoint inhibitors. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13:1076-1082.
- Tetzlaff MT, Nelson KC, Diab A, et al. Granulomatous/sarcoid-like lesions associated with checkpoint inhibitors: a marker of therapy response in a subset of melanoma patients. J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6:14.
- Garrido MC, Gutiérrez C, Riveiro-Falkenbach E, et al. BRAF inhibitor-induced antitumoral granulomatous dermatitis eruption in advanced melanoma. Am J Dermatopathol. 2015;37:795-798.
- Park JJ, Hawryluk EB, Tahan SR, et al. Cutaneous granulomatous eruption and successful response to potent topical steroids in patients undergoing targeted BRAF inhibitor treatment for metastatic melanoma. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:307‐311.
- Ong ELH, Sinha R, Jmor S, et al. BRAF inhibitor-associated granulomatous dermatitis: a report of 3 cases. Am J of Dermatopathol. 2019;41:214-217.
- Wali GN, Stonard C, Espinosa O, et al. Persistent granulomatous cutaneous drug eruption to a BRAF inhibitor. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(suppl 1):AB195.
- Aj lafolla M, Ramsay J, Wismer J, et al. Cobimetinib- and vemurafenib-induced granulomatous dermatitis and erythema induratum: a case report. SAGE Open Med Case Rep. 2019;7:2050313X19847358
- Jansen YJ, Janssens P, Hoorens A, et al. Granulomatous nephritis and dermatitis in a patient with BRAF V600E mutant metastatic melanoma treated with dabrafenib and trametinib. Melanoma Res. 2015;25:550‐554.
- Green JS, Norris DA, Wisell J. Novel cutaneous effects of combination chemotherapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors: a report of two cases. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169:172-176.
- Chen L, His A, Kothari A, et al. Granulomatous dermatitis secondary to vemurafenib in a child with Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018;35:E402-E403.
- Mackiewicz J, Mackiewicz A. BRAF and MEK inhibitors in the era of immunotherapy in melanoma patients. Comtemp Oncol (Pozn). 2018;22:68-72.
- Jovanovic B, Krockel D, Linden D, et al. Lack of cytoplasmic ERK activation is an independent adverse prognostic factor in primary cutaneous melanoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2008;128:2696-2704.
- Alqathama A. BRAF in malignant melanoma progression and metastasis: potentials and challenges. Am J Cancer Res. 2020;10:1103-1114.
- Zimmer L, Hillen U, Livingstone E, et al. Atypical melanocytic proliferations and new primary melanomas in patients with advanced melanoma undergoing selective BRAF inhibition. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2375-2383.
- Casey D, Demko S, Sinha A, et al. FDA approval summary: selumetinib for plexiform neurofibroma. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27;4142-4146
- Flaherty K, Davies MA, Grob JJ, et al. Genomic analysis and 3-y efficacy and safety update of COMBI-d: a phase 3 study of dabrafenib (D) fl trametinib (T) vs D monotherapy in patients (pts) with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant cutaneous melanoma. Abstract presented at: American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting; June 3-7, 2016; Chicago, IL. P9502.
- Robert C, Karaszewska B, Schachter J, et al. Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:30-39.
- Robert C, Karaszewska B, Schachter J, et al. Three-year estimate of overall survival in COMBI-v, a randomized phase 3 study evaluating first-line dabrafenib (D) + trametinib (T) in patients (pts) with unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K–mutant cutaneous melanoma. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(suppl 6):vi552-vi587.
- Larkin J, Ascierto PA, Dreno B, et al. Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1867-1876.
- Ascierto PA, McArthur GA, Dréno B, et al. Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib in advance BRAF(V600)-mutant melanoma (coBRIM): updated efficacy results from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Once. 2016;17:1248-1260.
- Kocsis J, Árokszállási A, András C, et al. Combined dabrafenib and trametinib treatment in a case of chemotherapy-refractory extrahepatic BRAF V600E mutant cholangiocarcinoma: dramatic clinical and radiological response with a confusing synchronic new liver lesion. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2017;8:E32-E38.
- Mangat PK, Halabi S, Bruinooge SS, et al. Rationale and design of the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study [published online July 11, 2018]. JCO Precis Oncol. doi:10.1200/PO.18.00122
- Terada T, Ashida K, Endo K, et al. c-erbB-2 protein is expressed in hepatolithiasis and cholangiocarcinoma. Histopathology. 1998;33:325-331.
- Tannapfel A, Benicke M, Katalinic A, et al. Frequency of p16INK4A alterations and K-ras mutations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma of the liver. Gut. 2000;47:721-727.
- Momoi H, Itoh T, Nozaki Y, et al. Microsatellite instability and alternative genetic pathway in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol. 2001;35:235-244.
- Terada T, Nakanuma Y, Sirica AE. Immunohistochemical demonstration of MET overexpression in human intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and in hepatolithiasis. Hum Pathol. 1998;29:175-180.
- Tannapfel A, Sommerer F, Benicke M, et al. Mutations of the BRAF gene in cholangiocarcinoma but not in hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut. 2003;52:706-712.
- Bunyatov T, Zhao A, Kovalenko J, et al. Personalised approach in combined treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: a case report of healing from cholangiocellular carcinoma at stage IV. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2019;10:815-820.
- Lavingia V, Fakih M. Impressive response to dual BRAF and MEK inhibition in patients with BRAF mutant intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma-2 case reports and a brief review. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2016;7:E98-E102.
- Loaiza-Bonilla A, Clayton E, Furth E, et al. Dramatic response to dabrafenib and trametinib combination in a BRAF V600E-mutated cholangiocarcinoma: implementation of a molecular tumour board and next-generation sequencing for personalized medicine. Ecancermedicalscience. 2014;8:479.
- Rosenbach M, English JC. Reactive granulomatous dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2015;33:373-387.
- Tomasini C, Pippione M. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis with plaques. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;46:892-899.
- Peroni A, Colato C, Schena D, et al. Interstitial granulomatous dermatitis: a distinct entity with characteristic histological and clinical pattern. Br J Dermatol 2012;166:775-783.
- Calonje JE, Brenn T, Lazar A, Billings S. Lichenoid and interface dermatitis. In: McKee’s Pathology of the Skin. 5th ed. China: Elsevier Limited: 2018;7:241-282.
- Gkiozos I, Kopitopoulou A, Kalkanis A, et al. Sarcoidosis-like reactions induced by checkpoint inhibitors. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13:1076-1082.
- Tetzlaff MT, Nelson KC, Diab A, et al. Granulomatous/sarcoid-like lesions associated with checkpoint inhibitors: a marker of therapy response in a subset of melanoma patients. J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6:14.
- Garrido MC, Gutiérrez C, Riveiro-Falkenbach E, et al. BRAF inhibitor-induced antitumoral granulomatous dermatitis eruption in advanced melanoma. Am J Dermatopathol. 2015;37:795-798.
- Park JJ, Hawryluk EB, Tahan SR, et al. Cutaneous granulomatous eruption and successful response to potent topical steroids in patients undergoing targeted BRAF inhibitor treatment for metastatic melanoma. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:307‐311.
- Ong ELH, Sinha R, Jmor S, et al. BRAF inhibitor-associated granulomatous dermatitis: a report of 3 cases. Am J of Dermatopathol. 2019;41:214-217.
- Wali GN, Stonard C, Espinosa O, et al. Persistent granulomatous cutaneous drug eruption to a BRAF inhibitor. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(suppl 1):AB195.
- Aj lafolla M, Ramsay J, Wismer J, et al. Cobimetinib- and vemurafenib-induced granulomatous dermatitis and erythema induratum: a case report. SAGE Open Med Case Rep. 2019;7:2050313X19847358
- Jansen YJ, Janssens P, Hoorens A, et al. Granulomatous nephritis and dermatitis in a patient with BRAF V600E mutant metastatic melanoma treated with dabrafenib and trametinib. Melanoma Res. 2015;25:550‐554.
- Green JS, Norris DA, Wisell J. Novel cutaneous effects of combination chemotherapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors: a report of two cases. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169:172-176.
- Chen L, His A, Kothari A, et al. Granulomatous dermatitis secondary to vemurafenib in a child with Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018;35:E402-E403.
Practice Points
- Granulomatous dermatitis (GD) is a potential rare side effect of the use of BRAF and MEK inhibitors for the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation–positive cancers, including metastatic cholangiocarcinoma.
- Granulomatous dermatitis can resolve despite continuation of BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapies.
- Histologically, GD can appear similar to disease recurrence. It is imperative that clinicians and pathologists recognize the cutaneous manifestations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.
Concurrent Atopic Dermatitis and Psoriasis Successfully Treated With Dual Biologic Therapy
Atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are common skin diseases in which dysfunction of the epidermal barrier leads to skin inflammation and altered expression of proinflammatory cytokines.1 There often is overlap in the clinical and histopathologic features of AD and psoriasis, which can make diagnosis a challenge. Persistent late-stage AD can present with psoriasiform lichenified changes, and psoriasis lesions in the acute stage can have an eczematous appearance.2 Histologically, chronic psoriasis lesions share many overlapping features with AD, and some subsets of AD with IL-17 predominance (ie, intrinsic, pediatric, presentation in Asian patients) exhibit a psoriasiform appearance.3,4
Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are considered 2 distinct conditions because AD is a helper T cell (TH2)–driven disease with subsequent overproduction of IL-4 and IL-13 and psoriasis is a TH17 cell–driven disease with overproduction of IL-173; however, the shared features of AD and psoriasis represent an underlying immunopathological spectrum2,5,6 in which one condition can develop following treatment of the other condition (immunological shift in pathways), both conditions can occur at different times in a patient’s life with alternating cycles of disease flares, or both conditions can coexist as an overlapping syndrome.1,2 A retrospective study from 2012 to 2019 estimated the prevalence of concomitant AD and psoriasis in the United States at 1.3%, with AD following the diagnosis of psoriasis in 67% of cases.1 Concurrent AD and psoriasis—when both diseases flaresimultaneously—is the rarest scenario.2,5
Treatment modalities for AD include topical corticosteroids, which act on immune cells to suppress the release of proinflammatory cytokines, as well as dupilumab, which offers targeted blockade of involved cytokines IL-4 and IL-13. Psoriasis can be treated with multiple immune modulators, including topical corticosteroids and vitamin D analogs, as well as systemic medications that reduce T-cell activation and inflammatory cytokines through targeting of IFN-γ, IL-2, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-17, and IL-23.7,8
We present the case of a patient with long-standing concurrent, treatment-resistant AD and psoriasis who was successfully treated with dual biologic therapy with guselkumab and dupilumab.
Case Report
A 62-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic with red itchy scales and painful fissures on the palms, hands, and soles of more than 12 years’ duration. Her medical history included an allergy to amoxicillin-clavulanate as well as an allergy to both dog and cat dander on prick testing. Her family history included dyshidrotic eczema in her mother. A complete blood cell count with differential was within reference range. A shave biopsy of the right dorsal hand performed at the onset of symptoms at an outside facility revealed hyperkeratotic acanthotic epidermis with a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate.
Results of patch testing indicated contact hypersensitivity to the botanical rosin colophonium (or colophony); carba mix (1, 3-diphenylguanidine, zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate, and zinc diethydithiocarbamate); thiuram mix (tetramethylthiuram disulfide, tetramethylthiuram monosulfide, and tetraethylthiuram disulfide); n,n-diphenylguanidine; and tixocortol-21-pivalate. Our patient was given guidance on avoiding these agents, as it was suspected that exposure may be exacerbating the psoriasis. The psoriasis was treated with topical corticosteroids, keratolytics, and calcineurin inhibitors, all of which offered minimal or no relief. Trials of systemic agents, including methotrexate (discontinued because transaminitis developed), etanercept, adalimumab, and apremilast for 6 to 10 months did not provide improvement.
Two years prior to the current presentation, our patient had been treated with the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab, which provided moderate improvement. When she presented to our clinic, physical examination while she was taking guselkumab demonstrated prurigo with excoriations of the extremities, hyperkeratosis with scaling and fissures of the soles, erythematous scaly plaques on the palms and dorsal surface of the hands, and mild onycholysis of the nails (Figures 1 and 2). Because we were concerned about concomitant intrinsic AD, dupilumab was initiated in conjunction with guselkumab. A second biopsy was considered but deferred in favor of clinical monitoring.
After 1 year of dual biologic therapy, the patient experienced near-complete resolution of symptoms. The psoriasis completely resolved from an initial body surface area of 5%, and the AD body surface area decreased from 30% to 2% (Figure 3). The patient reported no adverse effects from treatment.
Comment
Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis involve complex immunopathology and a spectrum of cytokines that might explain the overlap in their clinical and histopathologic presentations.
Atopic dermatitis—Atopic dermatitis involves TH1, TH2, TH9, TH17, and TH22 cells; TH2 cells release IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, all of which are key cytokines in the inflammatory pathway of AD.9,10 Activation of the helper T-cell subset and the release of cytokines differ slightly based on the subcategory of AD and the stage of exacerbation. In addition to TH2-cell activation, TH1 cells and TH22 cells—which release IL-12 and IL-22, respectively—are active in both intrinsic and extrinsic AD. TH17 cells and TH9 cells—which release IL-17 and IL-9, respectively—are more prominent in the intrinsic pathway than in the extrinsic pathway.9 Intrinsic AD is recognized by a lack of eosinophilia, female predominance, and delayed onset compared to extrinsic AD; there also is a lack of history of atopy.1 Extrinsic AD is characterized by eosinophilia as well as a personal and family history of atopy.11 Our patient—a female with onset in older adulthood, lack of eosinophilia, and a family history of atopy—displayed features of both intrinsic and extrinsic AD.
Psoriasis—The immunopathology of psoriasis involves stimulation of dendritic cells, which activate TH17 cells through IL-23. TH17 cells then release IL-17 and IL-22. Therefore, both AD and psoriasis involve activation of TH22 and TH1 cells, with increased IL-17 and IL-22 production.3,10,12 IL-17 and IL-22 induce epidermal hyperplasia; IL-22 also contributes to skin barrier dysfunction.12 Therefore, it might be reasonable to consider psoriasis and AD as diseases that exist across a T-cell axis spectrum, thereby accounting for some overlap in disease characteristics.3
Dual Biologic Therapy—Dupilumab blocks the IL-4 receptor α subunit, a receptor for IL-4 and IL-13, which are key cytokines in the pathogenesis of AD.10 Guselkumab inhibits IL-23, thus blocking the inflammatory cascade of TH17 cell activation and release of IL-17 and IL-22 in the psoriasis pathway.13 Although an immunopathological spectrum exists between the 2 diseases, the continued presence of AD symptoms after blocking the IL-23 cascade suggests that additional blockade of TH2 cells is required to control AD in patients with true concurrent disease.
Accurate diagnosis of AD and/or psoriasis is important when considering targeted treatment of these conditions with biologics. The use of dual biologics is limited by a paucity of data regarding the safety of these agents when given in combination. A recent meta-analysis of dual biologic therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease demonstrated acceptable safety results with a pooled adverse reaction rate of 31%.14
Anchoring Bias—Anchoring bias can occur when a clinician’s decisions are influenced by a particular event or reference point, which might cause them to disregard subsequent evidence. Our case illustrates the importance of critically assessing the response to treatment and being mindful of the potential influence of anchoring bias on the differential diagnosis. Although overcoming biases in conditions with clinical overlap can be challenging, it is important to consider coexisting AD and psoriasis in patients with extensive hand involvement when multiple treatments have failed and only a partial response to targeted pathways has been achieved. In our case, the patient also had contact hypersensitivity to tixocortol-21-pivalate, which indicates hypersensitivity to many prescription topical corticosteroids, oral prednisone, and over-the-counter hydrocortisone; however, topical corticosteroids continued to be prescribed for her, which might have contributed to the lack of improvement and even exacerbated the rash.
Future Considerations—A consideration for the future in this case is discontinuing guselkumab to observe whether symptoms recur. We discussed this option with the patient, but she opted to continue treatment with dupilumab and guselkumab because of the symptom resolution.
Conclusion
Concomitant disease can present as an overlapping pattern in the same area, whereas other regions might have geographically isolated disease. Our patient’s overlap of symptoms, the failure of multiple treatments, and the partial improvement she experienced on guselkumab made diagnosis and management challenging; however, dual biologic therapy was successful.
- Barry K, Zancanaro P, Casseres R, et al. Concomitant atopic dermatitis and psoriasis—a retrospective review. J Dermatolog Treat. 2021;32:716-720. doi:10.1080/09546634.2019.1702147
- Bozek A, Zajac M, Krupka M. Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis as overlapping syndromes. Mediators Inflamm. 2020;2020:7527859. doi:10.1155/2020/7527859
- Guttman-Yassky E, Krueger JG. Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis: two different immune diseases or one spectrum? Curr Opin Immunol. 2017;48:68-73. doi:10.1016/j.coi.2017.08.008
- De Rosa G, Mignogna C. The histopathology of psoriasis. Reumatismo. 2007;59(suppl 1):46-48. doi:10.4081/reumatismo.2007.1s.46
- Docampo A, MJ, I, et al. Response to letter to the editor: ‘psoriasis dermatitis: an overlap condition of psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in children.’ J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33:E410-E412. doi:10.1111/jdv.15716
- Johnson MC, Bowers NL, Strowd LC. Concurrent atopic dermatitis and psoriasis vulgaris: implications for targeted biologic therapy. Cutis. 2022;109:110-112. doi:10.12788/cutis.0453
- Menter A, Gelfand JM, Connor C, et al. Joint American Academy of Dermatology–National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis with systemic nonbiologic therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82:1445-1486. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.044
- Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Chamlin SL, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 1. diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:338-351. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2013.10.010
- Klonowska J, Glen J, Nowicki RJ, et al. New cytokines in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis—new therapeutic targets. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19:3086. doi:10.3390/ijms19103086
- Ratchataswan T, Banzon TM, Thyssen JP, et al. Biologics for treatment of atopic dermatitis: current status and future prospect. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9:1053-1065. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2020.11.034
- Czarnowicki T, He H, Krueger JG, et al. Atopic dermatitis endotypes and implications for targeted therapeutics. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143:1-11. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2018.10.032
- Tokuyama M, Mabuchi T. New treatment addressing the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21:7488. doi:10.3390/ijms21207488
- Gordon KB, Armstrong AW, Foley P, et al. Guselkumab efficacy after withdrawal is associated with suppression of serum IL-23-regulated IL-17 and IL-22 in psoriasis: VOYAGE 2 study. J Invest Dermatol. 2019;139:2437-2446.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2019.05.016
- Gold SL, Steinlauf AF. Efficacy and safety of dual biologic therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a review of the literature. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2021;17:406-414.
Atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are common skin diseases in which dysfunction of the epidermal barrier leads to skin inflammation and altered expression of proinflammatory cytokines.1 There often is overlap in the clinical and histopathologic features of AD and psoriasis, which can make diagnosis a challenge. Persistent late-stage AD can present with psoriasiform lichenified changes, and psoriasis lesions in the acute stage can have an eczematous appearance.2 Histologically, chronic psoriasis lesions share many overlapping features with AD, and some subsets of AD with IL-17 predominance (ie, intrinsic, pediatric, presentation in Asian patients) exhibit a psoriasiform appearance.3,4
Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are considered 2 distinct conditions because AD is a helper T cell (TH2)–driven disease with subsequent overproduction of IL-4 and IL-13 and psoriasis is a TH17 cell–driven disease with overproduction of IL-173; however, the shared features of AD and psoriasis represent an underlying immunopathological spectrum2,5,6 in which one condition can develop following treatment of the other condition (immunological shift in pathways), both conditions can occur at different times in a patient’s life with alternating cycles of disease flares, or both conditions can coexist as an overlapping syndrome.1,2 A retrospective study from 2012 to 2019 estimated the prevalence of concomitant AD and psoriasis in the United States at 1.3%, with AD following the diagnosis of psoriasis in 67% of cases.1 Concurrent AD and psoriasis—when both diseases flaresimultaneously—is the rarest scenario.2,5
Treatment modalities for AD include topical corticosteroids, which act on immune cells to suppress the release of proinflammatory cytokines, as well as dupilumab, which offers targeted blockade of involved cytokines IL-4 and IL-13. Psoriasis can be treated with multiple immune modulators, including topical corticosteroids and vitamin D analogs, as well as systemic medications that reduce T-cell activation and inflammatory cytokines through targeting of IFN-γ, IL-2, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-17, and IL-23.7,8
We present the case of a patient with long-standing concurrent, treatment-resistant AD and psoriasis who was successfully treated with dual biologic therapy with guselkumab and dupilumab.
Case Report
A 62-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic with red itchy scales and painful fissures on the palms, hands, and soles of more than 12 years’ duration. Her medical history included an allergy to amoxicillin-clavulanate as well as an allergy to both dog and cat dander on prick testing. Her family history included dyshidrotic eczema in her mother. A complete blood cell count with differential was within reference range. A shave biopsy of the right dorsal hand performed at the onset of symptoms at an outside facility revealed hyperkeratotic acanthotic epidermis with a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate.
Results of patch testing indicated contact hypersensitivity to the botanical rosin colophonium (or colophony); carba mix (1, 3-diphenylguanidine, zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate, and zinc diethydithiocarbamate); thiuram mix (tetramethylthiuram disulfide, tetramethylthiuram monosulfide, and tetraethylthiuram disulfide); n,n-diphenylguanidine; and tixocortol-21-pivalate. Our patient was given guidance on avoiding these agents, as it was suspected that exposure may be exacerbating the psoriasis. The psoriasis was treated with topical corticosteroids, keratolytics, and calcineurin inhibitors, all of which offered minimal or no relief. Trials of systemic agents, including methotrexate (discontinued because transaminitis developed), etanercept, adalimumab, and apremilast for 6 to 10 months did not provide improvement.
Two years prior to the current presentation, our patient had been treated with the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab, which provided moderate improvement. When she presented to our clinic, physical examination while she was taking guselkumab demonstrated prurigo with excoriations of the extremities, hyperkeratosis with scaling and fissures of the soles, erythematous scaly plaques on the palms and dorsal surface of the hands, and mild onycholysis of the nails (Figures 1 and 2). Because we were concerned about concomitant intrinsic AD, dupilumab was initiated in conjunction with guselkumab. A second biopsy was considered but deferred in favor of clinical monitoring.
After 1 year of dual biologic therapy, the patient experienced near-complete resolution of symptoms. The psoriasis completely resolved from an initial body surface area of 5%, and the AD body surface area decreased from 30% to 2% (Figure 3). The patient reported no adverse effects from treatment.
Comment
Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis involve complex immunopathology and a spectrum of cytokines that might explain the overlap in their clinical and histopathologic presentations.
Atopic dermatitis—Atopic dermatitis involves TH1, TH2, TH9, TH17, and TH22 cells; TH2 cells release IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, all of which are key cytokines in the inflammatory pathway of AD.9,10 Activation of the helper T-cell subset and the release of cytokines differ slightly based on the subcategory of AD and the stage of exacerbation. In addition to TH2-cell activation, TH1 cells and TH22 cells—which release IL-12 and IL-22, respectively—are active in both intrinsic and extrinsic AD. TH17 cells and TH9 cells—which release IL-17 and IL-9, respectively—are more prominent in the intrinsic pathway than in the extrinsic pathway.9 Intrinsic AD is recognized by a lack of eosinophilia, female predominance, and delayed onset compared to extrinsic AD; there also is a lack of history of atopy.1 Extrinsic AD is characterized by eosinophilia as well as a personal and family history of atopy.11 Our patient—a female with onset in older adulthood, lack of eosinophilia, and a family history of atopy—displayed features of both intrinsic and extrinsic AD.
Psoriasis—The immunopathology of psoriasis involves stimulation of dendritic cells, which activate TH17 cells through IL-23. TH17 cells then release IL-17 and IL-22. Therefore, both AD and psoriasis involve activation of TH22 and TH1 cells, with increased IL-17 and IL-22 production.3,10,12 IL-17 and IL-22 induce epidermal hyperplasia; IL-22 also contributes to skin barrier dysfunction.12 Therefore, it might be reasonable to consider psoriasis and AD as diseases that exist across a T-cell axis spectrum, thereby accounting for some overlap in disease characteristics.3
Dual Biologic Therapy—Dupilumab blocks the IL-4 receptor α subunit, a receptor for IL-4 and IL-13, which are key cytokines in the pathogenesis of AD.10 Guselkumab inhibits IL-23, thus blocking the inflammatory cascade of TH17 cell activation and release of IL-17 and IL-22 in the psoriasis pathway.13 Although an immunopathological spectrum exists between the 2 diseases, the continued presence of AD symptoms after blocking the IL-23 cascade suggests that additional blockade of TH2 cells is required to control AD in patients with true concurrent disease.
Accurate diagnosis of AD and/or psoriasis is important when considering targeted treatment of these conditions with biologics. The use of dual biologics is limited by a paucity of data regarding the safety of these agents when given in combination. A recent meta-analysis of dual biologic therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease demonstrated acceptable safety results with a pooled adverse reaction rate of 31%.14
Anchoring Bias—Anchoring bias can occur when a clinician’s decisions are influenced by a particular event or reference point, which might cause them to disregard subsequent evidence. Our case illustrates the importance of critically assessing the response to treatment and being mindful of the potential influence of anchoring bias on the differential diagnosis. Although overcoming biases in conditions with clinical overlap can be challenging, it is important to consider coexisting AD and psoriasis in patients with extensive hand involvement when multiple treatments have failed and only a partial response to targeted pathways has been achieved. In our case, the patient also had contact hypersensitivity to tixocortol-21-pivalate, which indicates hypersensitivity to many prescription topical corticosteroids, oral prednisone, and over-the-counter hydrocortisone; however, topical corticosteroids continued to be prescribed for her, which might have contributed to the lack of improvement and even exacerbated the rash.
Future Considerations—A consideration for the future in this case is discontinuing guselkumab to observe whether symptoms recur. We discussed this option with the patient, but she opted to continue treatment with dupilumab and guselkumab because of the symptom resolution.
Conclusion
Concomitant disease can present as an overlapping pattern in the same area, whereas other regions might have geographically isolated disease. Our patient’s overlap of symptoms, the failure of multiple treatments, and the partial improvement she experienced on guselkumab made diagnosis and management challenging; however, dual biologic therapy was successful.
Atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are common skin diseases in which dysfunction of the epidermal barrier leads to skin inflammation and altered expression of proinflammatory cytokines.1 There often is overlap in the clinical and histopathologic features of AD and psoriasis, which can make diagnosis a challenge. Persistent late-stage AD can present with psoriasiform lichenified changes, and psoriasis lesions in the acute stage can have an eczematous appearance.2 Histologically, chronic psoriasis lesions share many overlapping features with AD, and some subsets of AD with IL-17 predominance (ie, intrinsic, pediatric, presentation in Asian patients) exhibit a psoriasiform appearance.3,4
Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are considered 2 distinct conditions because AD is a helper T cell (TH2)–driven disease with subsequent overproduction of IL-4 and IL-13 and psoriasis is a TH17 cell–driven disease with overproduction of IL-173; however, the shared features of AD and psoriasis represent an underlying immunopathological spectrum2,5,6 in which one condition can develop following treatment of the other condition (immunological shift in pathways), both conditions can occur at different times in a patient’s life with alternating cycles of disease flares, or both conditions can coexist as an overlapping syndrome.1,2 A retrospective study from 2012 to 2019 estimated the prevalence of concomitant AD and psoriasis in the United States at 1.3%, with AD following the diagnosis of psoriasis in 67% of cases.1 Concurrent AD and psoriasis—when both diseases flaresimultaneously—is the rarest scenario.2,5
Treatment modalities for AD include topical corticosteroids, which act on immune cells to suppress the release of proinflammatory cytokines, as well as dupilumab, which offers targeted blockade of involved cytokines IL-4 and IL-13. Psoriasis can be treated with multiple immune modulators, including topical corticosteroids and vitamin D analogs, as well as systemic medications that reduce T-cell activation and inflammatory cytokines through targeting of IFN-γ, IL-2, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-17, and IL-23.7,8
We present the case of a patient with long-standing concurrent, treatment-resistant AD and psoriasis who was successfully treated with dual biologic therapy with guselkumab and dupilumab.
Case Report
A 62-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic with red itchy scales and painful fissures on the palms, hands, and soles of more than 12 years’ duration. Her medical history included an allergy to amoxicillin-clavulanate as well as an allergy to both dog and cat dander on prick testing. Her family history included dyshidrotic eczema in her mother. A complete blood cell count with differential was within reference range. A shave biopsy of the right dorsal hand performed at the onset of symptoms at an outside facility revealed hyperkeratotic acanthotic epidermis with a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate.
Results of patch testing indicated contact hypersensitivity to the botanical rosin colophonium (or colophony); carba mix (1, 3-diphenylguanidine, zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate, and zinc diethydithiocarbamate); thiuram mix (tetramethylthiuram disulfide, tetramethylthiuram monosulfide, and tetraethylthiuram disulfide); n,n-diphenylguanidine; and tixocortol-21-pivalate. Our patient was given guidance on avoiding these agents, as it was suspected that exposure may be exacerbating the psoriasis. The psoriasis was treated with topical corticosteroids, keratolytics, and calcineurin inhibitors, all of which offered minimal or no relief. Trials of systemic agents, including methotrexate (discontinued because transaminitis developed), etanercept, adalimumab, and apremilast for 6 to 10 months did not provide improvement.
Two years prior to the current presentation, our patient had been treated with the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab, which provided moderate improvement. When she presented to our clinic, physical examination while she was taking guselkumab demonstrated prurigo with excoriations of the extremities, hyperkeratosis with scaling and fissures of the soles, erythematous scaly plaques on the palms and dorsal surface of the hands, and mild onycholysis of the nails (Figures 1 and 2). Because we were concerned about concomitant intrinsic AD, dupilumab was initiated in conjunction with guselkumab. A second biopsy was considered but deferred in favor of clinical monitoring.
After 1 year of dual biologic therapy, the patient experienced near-complete resolution of symptoms. The psoriasis completely resolved from an initial body surface area of 5%, and the AD body surface area decreased from 30% to 2% (Figure 3). The patient reported no adverse effects from treatment.
Comment
Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis involve complex immunopathology and a spectrum of cytokines that might explain the overlap in their clinical and histopathologic presentations.
Atopic dermatitis—Atopic dermatitis involves TH1, TH2, TH9, TH17, and TH22 cells; TH2 cells release IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, all of which are key cytokines in the inflammatory pathway of AD.9,10 Activation of the helper T-cell subset and the release of cytokines differ slightly based on the subcategory of AD and the stage of exacerbation. In addition to TH2-cell activation, TH1 cells and TH22 cells—which release IL-12 and IL-22, respectively—are active in both intrinsic and extrinsic AD. TH17 cells and TH9 cells—which release IL-17 and IL-9, respectively—are more prominent in the intrinsic pathway than in the extrinsic pathway.9 Intrinsic AD is recognized by a lack of eosinophilia, female predominance, and delayed onset compared to extrinsic AD; there also is a lack of history of atopy.1 Extrinsic AD is characterized by eosinophilia as well as a personal and family history of atopy.11 Our patient—a female with onset in older adulthood, lack of eosinophilia, and a family history of atopy—displayed features of both intrinsic and extrinsic AD.
Psoriasis—The immunopathology of psoriasis involves stimulation of dendritic cells, which activate TH17 cells through IL-23. TH17 cells then release IL-17 and IL-22. Therefore, both AD and psoriasis involve activation of TH22 and TH1 cells, with increased IL-17 and IL-22 production.3,10,12 IL-17 and IL-22 induce epidermal hyperplasia; IL-22 also contributes to skin barrier dysfunction.12 Therefore, it might be reasonable to consider psoriasis and AD as diseases that exist across a T-cell axis spectrum, thereby accounting for some overlap in disease characteristics.3
Dual Biologic Therapy—Dupilumab blocks the IL-4 receptor α subunit, a receptor for IL-4 and IL-13, which are key cytokines in the pathogenesis of AD.10 Guselkumab inhibits IL-23, thus blocking the inflammatory cascade of TH17 cell activation and release of IL-17 and IL-22 in the psoriasis pathway.13 Although an immunopathological spectrum exists between the 2 diseases, the continued presence of AD symptoms after blocking the IL-23 cascade suggests that additional blockade of TH2 cells is required to control AD in patients with true concurrent disease.
Accurate diagnosis of AD and/or psoriasis is important when considering targeted treatment of these conditions with biologics. The use of dual biologics is limited by a paucity of data regarding the safety of these agents when given in combination. A recent meta-analysis of dual biologic therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease demonstrated acceptable safety results with a pooled adverse reaction rate of 31%.14
Anchoring Bias—Anchoring bias can occur when a clinician’s decisions are influenced by a particular event or reference point, which might cause them to disregard subsequent evidence. Our case illustrates the importance of critically assessing the response to treatment and being mindful of the potential influence of anchoring bias on the differential diagnosis. Although overcoming biases in conditions with clinical overlap can be challenging, it is important to consider coexisting AD and psoriasis in patients with extensive hand involvement when multiple treatments have failed and only a partial response to targeted pathways has been achieved. In our case, the patient also had contact hypersensitivity to tixocortol-21-pivalate, which indicates hypersensitivity to many prescription topical corticosteroids, oral prednisone, and over-the-counter hydrocortisone; however, topical corticosteroids continued to be prescribed for her, which might have contributed to the lack of improvement and even exacerbated the rash.
Future Considerations—A consideration for the future in this case is discontinuing guselkumab to observe whether symptoms recur. We discussed this option with the patient, but she opted to continue treatment with dupilumab and guselkumab because of the symptom resolution.
Conclusion
Concomitant disease can present as an overlapping pattern in the same area, whereas other regions might have geographically isolated disease. Our patient’s overlap of symptoms, the failure of multiple treatments, and the partial improvement she experienced on guselkumab made diagnosis and management challenging; however, dual biologic therapy was successful.
- Barry K, Zancanaro P, Casseres R, et al. Concomitant atopic dermatitis and psoriasis—a retrospective review. J Dermatolog Treat. 2021;32:716-720. doi:10.1080/09546634.2019.1702147
- Bozek A, Zajac M, Krupka M. Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis as overlapping syndromes. Mediators Inflamm. 2020;2020:7527859. doi:10.1155/2020/7527859
- Guttman-Yassky E, Krueger JG. Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis: two different immune diseases or one spectrum? Curr Opin Immunol. 2017;48:68-73. doi:10.1016/j.coi.2017.08.008
- De Rosa G, Mignogna C. The histopathology of psoriasis. Reumatismo. 2007;59(suppl 1):46-48. doi:10.4081/reumatismo.2007.1s.46
- Docampo A, MJ, I, et al. Response to letter to the editor: ‘psoriasis dermatitis: an overlap condition of psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in children.’ J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33:E410-E412. doi:10.1111/jdv.15716
- Johnson MC, Bowers NL, Strowd LC. Concurrent atopic dermatitis and psoriasis vulgaris: implications for targeted biologic therapy. Cutis. 2022;109:110-112. doi:10.12788/cutis.0453
- Menter A, Gelfand JM, Connor C, et al. Joint American Academy of Dermatology–National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis with systemic nonbiologic therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82:1445-1486. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.044
- Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Chamlin SL, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 1. diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:338-351. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2013.10.010
- Klonowska J, Glen J, Nowicki RJ, et al. New cytokines in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis—new therapeutic targets. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19:3086. doi:10.3390/ijms19103086
- Ratchataswan T, Banzon TM, Thyssen JP, et al. Biologics for treatment of atopic dermatitis: current status and future prospect. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9:1053-1065. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2020.11.034
- Czarnowicki T, He H, Krueger JG, et al. Atopic dermatitis endotypes and implications for targeted therapeutics. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143:1-11. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2018.10.032
- Tokuyama M, Mabuchi T. New treatment addressing the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21:7488. doi:10.3390/ijms21207488
- Gordon KB, Armstrong AW, Foley P, et al. Guselkumab efficacy after withdrawal is associated with suppression of serum IL-23-regulated IL-17 and IL-22 in psoriasis: VOYAGE 2 study. J Invest Dermatol. 2019;139:2437-2446.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2019.05.016
- Gold SL, Steinlauf AF. Efficacy and safety of dual biologic therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a review of the literature. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2021;17:406-414.
- Barry K, Zancanaro P, Casseres R, et al. Concomitant atopic dermatitis and psoriasis—a retrospective review. J Dermatolog Treat. 2021;32:716-720. doi:10.1080/09546634.2019.1702147
- Bozek A, Zajac M, Krupka M. Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis as overlapping syndromes. Mediators Inflamm. 2020;2020:7527859. doi:10.1155/2020/7527859
- Guttman-Yassky E, Krueger JG. Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis: two different immune diseases or one spectrum? Curr Opin Immunol. 2017;48:68-73. doi:10.1016/j.coi.2017.08.008
- De Rosa G, Mignogna C. The histopathology of psoriasis. Reumatismo. 2007;59(suppl 1):46-48. doi:10.4081/reumatismo.2007.1s.46
- Docampo A, MJ, I, et al. Response to letter to the editor: ‘psoriasis dermatitis: an overlap condition of psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in children.’ J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33:E410-E412. doi:10.1111/jdv.15716
- Johnson MC, Bowers NL, Strowd LC. Concurrent atopic dermatitis and psoriasis vulgaris: implications for targeted biologic therapy. Cutis. 2022;109:110-112. doi:10.12788/cutis.0453
- Menter A, Gelfand JM, Connor C, et al. Joint American Academy of Dermatology–National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis with systemic nonbiologic therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82:1445-1486. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.044
- Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Chamlin SL, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 1. diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:338-351. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2013.10.010
- Klonowska J, Glen J, Nowicki RJ, et al. New cytokines in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis—new therapeutic targets. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19:3086. doi:10.3390/ijms19103086
- Ratchataswan T, Banzon TM, Thyssen JP, et al. Biologics for treatment of atopic dermatitis: current status and future prospect. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9:1053-1065. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2020.11.034
- Czarnowicki T, He H, Krueger JG, et al. Atopic dermatitis endotypes and implications for targeted therapeutics. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143:1-11. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2018.10.032
- Tokuyama M, Mabuchi T. New treatment addressing the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21:7488. doi:10.3390/ijms21207488
- Gordon KB, Armstrong AW, Foley P, et al. Guselkumab efficacy after withdrawal is associated with suppression of serum IL-23-regulated IL-17 and IL-22 in psoriasis: VOYAGE 2 study. J Invest Dermatol. 2019;139:2437-2446.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2019.05.016
- Gold SL, Steinlauf AF. Efficacy and safety of dual biologic therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a review of the literature. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2021;17:406-414.
Practice Points
- Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis can share clinical and histopathologic features, which represents their underlying immunopathologic spectrum.
- Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis can coexist in a single patient, which may be suspected from a clinical picture of treatment-resistant disease, a partial response to targeted therapies, or extensive hand involvement.
Endocrine Mucin-Producing Sweat Gland Carcinoma and Primary Cutaneous Mucinous Carcinoma: A Case Series
Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (EMPSGC) and
Methods
Following institutional review board approval, we conducted a retrospective, single-institution case series. We searched electronic medical records dating from 2000 to 2019 for tumors diagnosed as PCMC or extramammary Paget disease treated with MMS. We gathered demographic, clinical, pathologic, and follow-up information from the electronic medical records for each case (Tables 1 and 2). Two dermatopathologists (B.P. and B.F.K.) reviewed the hematoxylin and eosin–stained slides of each tumor as well as all available immunohistochemical stains. One of the reviewers (B.F.K.) is a board-certified dermatologist, dermatopathologist, and fellowship-trained Mohs surgeon.
Results
Demographic and Clinical Information—We identified 2 cases of EMPSGC and 3 cases of PCMC diagnosed and treated at our institution; 4 of these cases had been treated within the last 2 years. One had been treated 18 years prior; case information was limited due to planned institutional record destruction. Three of the patients were female and 2 were male. The mean age at presentation was 71 years (range, 62–87 years). None had experienced recurrence or metastases after a mean follow-up of 30 months.
Case 1—A 68-year-old woman noted a slow-growing, flesh-colored papule measuring 12×10 mm on the right lower eyelid. An excisional biopsy was completed with 2-mm clinical margins, and the defect was closed in a linear fashion. Histologic sections demonstrated EMPSGC with uninvolved margins. The patient desired no further intervention and was clinically followed. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head and neck found no evidence of metastasis. She has had no recurrence after 15 months.
Case 2—A 62-year-old man presented with a 7×5-mm, flesh-colored papule on the left lower eyelid margin (Figure 1). It was previously treated conservatively as a hordeolum but was biopsied after it failed to resolve with 3-mm margins. Histopathology demonstrated an EMPSGC (Figure 2). The lesion was treated with modified MMS with permanent en face section processing and cleared after 1 stage. Computed tomography of the head and neck showed no abnormalities. He has had no recurrence after 9 months.
Case 3—A 72-year-old man presented with a nontender papule near the right lateral canthus. A punch biopsy demonstrated PCMC. He was treated via modified MMS with permanent en face section processing. The tumor was cleared in 1 stage. He showed no evidence of recurrence after 112 months and died of unrelated causes. The rest of his clinical information was limited because of planned institutional destruction of records.
Case 4—An 87-year-old woman presented with a 25×25-mm, slow-growing mass of 12 months’ duration on the left lower abdomen (Figure 3). A biopsy demonstrated PCMC (Figure 4). Because of the size of the lesion, she underwent WLE with 20- to 30-mm margins by a general surgeon under general anesthesia. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography was unremarkable. She has remained disease free for 11 months.
Case 5—A 66-year-old woman presented for evaluation of a posterior scalp mass measuring 23×18 mm that had grown over the last 24 months. Biopsy showed mucinous carcinoma with lymphovascular invasion consistent with PCMC (Figure 5) confirmed on multiple tissue levels and with the aid of immunohistochemistry. She was sent for an MRI of the head, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis, which demonstrated 2 enlarged postauricular lymph nodes and raised suspicion for metastatic disease vs reactive lymphadenopathy. Mohs micrographic surgery with frozen sections was performed with 1- to 3-mm margins; the final layer was sent for permanent processing and confirmed negative margins. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and lymphadenectomy of the 2 nodes present on imaging showed no evidence of metastasis. The patient had no recurrence in 1 month.
Comment
Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma and PCMC are sweat gland malignancies that carry low metastatic potential but are locally aggressive. Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma has a strong predilection for the periorbital region, especially the lower eyelids of older women.3 Primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma may arise on the eyelids, scalp, axillae, and trunk and has been reported more often in older men. These slow-growing tumors appear as nonspecific nodules.3 Lesions frequently are asymptomatic but rarely may cause pruritus and bleeding. Histologically, EMPSGC appears as solid or cystic nodules of cells with a papillary, cribriform, or pseudopapillary appearance. Intracellular or extracellular mucin as well as malignant spread of tumor cells along pre-existing ductlike structures make it difficult to histologically distinguish EMPSGC from ductal carcinoma in situ.3
A key histopathologic feature of PCMC is basophilic epithelioid cell nests in mucinous lakes.4 Rosettelike structures are seen within solid areas of the tumor. Fibrous septae separate individual collections of mucin, creating a lobulated appearance. The histopathologic differential diagnosis of EMPSGC and PCMC is broad, including basal cell carcinoma, hidradenoma, hidradenocarcinoma, apocrine adenoma, and dermal duct tumor. Positive expression of at least 1 neuroendocrine marker (ie, synaptophysin, neuron-specific enolase, chromogranin) and low-molecular cytokeratin (cytokeratin 7, CAM5.2, Ber-EP4) can aid in the diagnosis of both EMPSGC and PCMC.4 The use of p63 immunostaining is beneficial in delineating adnexal neoplasms. Adnexal tumors that stain positively with p63 are more likely to be of primary cutaneous origin, whereas lack of p63 staining usually denotes a secondary metastatic process. However, p63 staining is less reliable when distinguishing primary and metastatic mucinous neoplasms. Metastatic mucinous carcinomas often stain positive with p63, while PCMC usually stains negative despite its primary cutaneous origin, decreasing the clinical utility of p63. The tumor may be identical to metastatic mucinous adenocarcinoma of the breast, gastrointestinal tract, lung, ovary, and pancreas. Tumor islands floating in mucin are identified in both primary cutaneous and metastatic disease to the skin.3,6 Areas of tumor necrosis, notable atypia, and perineural or lymphovascular invasion are infrequently reported in EMPSGC or PCMC, though lymphatic invasion was identified in case 5 presented herein.
A metastatic workup is warranted in all cases of PCMC, including a thorough history, review of systems, breast examination, and imaging. A workup may be considered in cases of EMPSGC depending on histologic features or clinical history.
There is uncertainty regarding the optimal management of these slow-growing yet locally destructive tumors.5 The incidence of local recurrence of PCMC after WLE with narrow margins of at least 1 cm can be as high as 30% to 40%, especially on the eyelid.4 There is no consensus on surgical care for either of these tumors.5 Because of the high recurrence rate and the predilection for the eyelid and face, MMS provides an excellent alternative to WLE for tissue preservation and meticulous margin control. We advocate for the use of the Mohs technique with permanent sectioning, which may delay the repair, but reviewing tissue with permanent fixation improves the quality and accuracy of the margin evaluation because these tumors often are infiltrative and difficult to delineate under frozen section processing. Permanent en face sectioning allows the laboratory to utilize the full array of immunohistochemical stains for these tumors, providing accurate and timely results.
Limitations to our retrospective uncontrolled study include missing or incomplete data points and short follow-up time. Additionally, there was no standardization to the margins removed with MMS or WLE because of the limited available data that comment on appropriate margins.
- Held L, Ruetten A, Kutzner H, et al. Endocrine mucin‐producing sweat gland carcinoma: clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical and molecular analysis of 11 cases with emphasis on MYB immunoexpression. J Cutan Pathol. 2018;45:674-680.
- Navrazhina K, Petukhova T, Wildman HF, et al. Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma of the scalp treated with Mohs micrographic surgery. JAAD Case Rep. 2018;4:887-889.
- Scott BL, Anyanwu CO, Vandergriff T, et al. Endocrine mucin–producing sweat gland carcinoma treated with Mohs micrographic surgery. Dermatol Surg. 2017;43:1498-1500.
- Chang S, Shim SH, Joo M, et al. A case of endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma co-existing with mucinous carcinoma: a case report. Korean J Pathol. 2010;44:97-100.
- Kamalpour L, Brindise RT, Nodzenski M, et al. Primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after surgery. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:380-384.
- Bulliard C, Murali R, Maloof A, et al. Endocrine mucin‐producing sweat gland carcinoma: report of a case and review of the literature. J Cutan Pathol. 2006;33:812-816.
Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (EMPSGC) and
Methods
Following institutional review board approval, we conducted a retrospective, single-institution case series. We searched electronic medical records dating from 2000 to 2019 for tumors diagnosed as PCMC or extramammary Paget disease treated with MMS. We gathered demographic, clinical, pathologic, and follow-up information from the electronic medical records for each case (Tables 1 and 2). Two dermatopathologists (B.P. and B.F.K.) reviewed the hematoxylin and eosin–stained slides of each tumor as well as all available immunohistochemical stains. One of the reviewers (B.F.K.) is a board-certified dermatologist, dermatopathologist, and fellowship-trained Mohs surgeon.
Results
Demographic and Clinical Information—We identified 2 cases of EMPSGC and 3 cases of PCMC diagnosed and treated at our institution; 4 of these cases had been treated within the last 2 years. One had been treated 18 years prior; case information was limited due to planned institutional record destruction. Three of the patients were female and 2 were male. The mean age at presentation was 71 years (range, 62–87 years). None had experienced recurrence or metastases after a mean follow-up of 30 months.
Case 1—A 68-year-old woman noted a slow-growing, flesh-colored papule measuring 12×10 mm on the right lower eyelid. An excisional biopsy was completed with 2-mm clinical margins, and the defect was closed in a linear fashion. Histologic sections demonstrated EMPSGC with uninvolved margins. The patient desired no further intervention and was clinically followed. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head and neck found no evidence of metastasis. She has had no recurrence after 15 months.
Case 2—A 62-year-old man presented with a 7×5-mm, flesh-colored papule on the left lower eyelid margin (Figure 1). It was previously treated conservatively as a hordeolum but was biopsied after it failed to resolve with 3-mm margins. Histopathology demonstrated an EMPSGC (Figure 2). The lesion was treated with modified MMS with permanent en face section processing and cleared after 1 stage. Computed tomography of the head and neck showed no abnormalities. He has had no recurrence after 9 months.
Case 3—A 72-year-old man presented with a nontender papule near the right lateral canthus. A punch biopsy demonstrated PCMC. He was treated via modified MMS with permanent en face section processing. The tumor was cleared in 1 stage. He showed no evidence of recurrence after 112 months and died of unrelated causes. The rest of his clinical information was limited because of planned institutional destruction of records.
Case 4—An 87-year-old woman presented with a 25×25-mm, slow-growing mass of 12 months’ duration on the left lower abdomen (Figure 3). A biopsy demonstrated PCMC (Figure 4). Because of the size of the lesion, she underwent WLE with 20- to 30-mm margins by a general surgeon under general anesthesia. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography was unremarkable. She has remained disease free for 11 months.
Case 5—A 66-year-old woman presented for evaluation of a posterior scalp mass measuring 23×18 mm that had grown over the last 24 months. Biopsy showed mucinous carcinoma with lymphovascular invasion consistent with PCMC (Figure 5) confirmed on multiple tissue levels and with the aid of immunohistochemistry. She was sent for an MRI of the head, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis, which demonstrated 2 enlarged postauricular lymph nodes and raised suspicion for metastatic disease vs reactive lymphadenopathy. Mohs micrographic surgery with frozen sections was performed with 1- to 3-mm margins; the final layer was sent for permanent processing and confirmed negative margins. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and lymphadenectomy of the 2 nodes present on imaging showed no evidence of metastasis. The patient had no recurrence in 1 month.
Comment
Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma and PCMC are sweat gland malignancies that carry low metastatic potential but are locally aggressive. Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma has a strong predilection for the periorbital region, especially the lower eyelids of older women.3 Primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma may arise on the eyelids, scalp, axillae, and trunk and has been reported more often in older men. These slow-growing tumors appear as nonspecific nodules.3 Lesions frequently are asymptomatic but rarely may cause pruritus and bleeding. Histologically, EMPSGC appears as solid or cystic nodules of cells with a papillary, cribriform, or pseudopapillary appearance. Intracellular or extracellular mucin as well as malignant spread of tumor cells along pre-existing ductlike structures make it difficult to histologically distinguish EMPSGC from ductal carcinoma in situ.3
A key histopathologic feature of PCMC is basophilic epithelioid cell nests in mucinous lakes.4 Rosettelike structures are seen within solid areas of the tumor. Fibrous septae separate individual collections of mucin, creating a lobulated appearance. The histopathologic differential diagnosis of EMPSGC and PCMC is broad, including basal cell carcinoma, hidradenoma, hidradenocarcinoma, apocrine adenoma, and dermal duct tumor. Positive expression of at least 1 neuroendocrine marker (ie, synaptophysin, neuron-specific enolase, chromogranin) and low-molecular cytokeratin (cytokeratin 7, CAM5.2, Ber-EP4) can aid in the diagnosis of both EMPSGC and PCMC.4 The use of p63 immunostaining is beneficial in delineating adnexal neoplasms. Adnexal tumors that stain positively with p63 are more likely to be of primary cutaneous origin, whereas lack of p63 staining usually denotes a secondary metastatic process. However, p63 staining is less reliable when distinguishing primary and metastatic mucinous neoplasms. Metastatic mucinous carcinomas often stain positive with p63, while PCMC usually stains negative despite its primary cutaneous origin, decreasing the clinical utility of p63. The tumor may be identical to metastatic mucinous adenocarcinoma of the breast, gastrointestinal tract, lung, ovary, and pancreas. Tumor islands floating in mucin are identified in both primary cutaneous and metastatic disease to the skin.3,6 Areas of tumor necrosis, notable atypia, and perineural or lymphovascular invasion are infrequently reported in EMPSGC or PCMC, though lymphatic invasion was identified in case 5 presented herein.
A metastatic workup is warranted in all cases of PCMC, including a thorough history, review of systems, breast examination, and imaging. A workup may be considered in cases of EMPSGC depending on histologic features or clinical history.
There is uncertainty regarding the optimal management of these slow-growing yet locally destructive tumors.5 The incidence of local recurrence of PCMC after WLE with narrow margins of at least 1 cm can be as high as 30% to 40%, especially on the eyelid.4 There is no consensus on surgical care for either of these tumors.5 Because of the high recurrence rate and the predilection for the eyelid and face, MMS provides an excellent alternative to WLE for tissue preservation and meticulous margin control. We advocate for the use of the Mohs technique with permanent sectioning, which may delay the repair, but reviewing tissue with permanent fixation improves the quality and accuracy of the margin evaluation because these tumors often are infiltrative and difficult to delineate under frozen section processing. Permanent en face sectioning allows the laboratory to utilize the full array of immunohistochemical stains for these tumors, providing accurate and timely results.
Limitations to our retrospective uncontrolled study include missing or incomplete data points and short follow-up time. Additionally, there was no standardization to the margins removed with MMS or WLE because of the limited available data that comment on appropriate margins.
Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma (EMPSGC) and
Methods
Following institutional review board approval, we conducted a retrospective, single-institution case series. We searched electronic medical records dating from 2000 to 2019 for tumors diagnosed as PCMC or extramammary Paget disease treated with MMS. We gathered demographic, clinical, pathologic, and follow-up information from the electronic medical records for each case (Tables 1 and 2). Two dermatopathologists (B.P. and B.F.K.) reviewed the hematoxylin and eosin–stained slides of each tumor as well as all available immunohistochemical stains. One of the reviewers (B.F.K.) is a board-certified dermatologist, dermatopathologist, and fellowship-trained Mohs surgeon.
Results
Demographic and Clinical Information—We identified 2 cases of EMPSGC and 3 cases of PCMC diagnosed and treated at our institution; 4 of these cases had been treated within the last 2 years. One had been treated 18 years prior; case information was limited due to planned institutional record destruction. Three of the patients were female and 2 were male. The mean age at presentation was 71 years (range, 62–87 years). None had experienced recurrence or metastases after a mean follow-up of 30 months.
Case 1—A 68-year-old woman noted a slow-growing, flesh-colored papule measuring 12×10 mm on the right lower eyelid. An excisional biopsy was completed with 2-mm clinical margins, and the defect was closed in a linear fashion. Histologic sections demonstrated EMPSGC with uninvolved margins. The patient desired no further intervention and was clinically followed. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head and neck found no evidence of metastasis. She has had no recurrence after 15 months.
Case 2—A 62-year-old man presented with a 7×5-mm, flesh-colored papule on the left lower eyelid margin (Figure 1). It was previously treated conservatively as a hordeolum but was biopsied after it failed to resolve with 3-mm margins. Histopathology demonstrated an EMPSGC (Figure 2). The lesion was treated with modified MMS with permanent en face section processing and cleared after 1 stage. Computed tomography of the head and neck showed no abnormalities. He has had no recurrence after 9 months.
Case 3—A 72-year-old man presented with a nontender papule near the right lateral canthus. A punch biopsy demonstrated PCMC. He was treated via modified MMS with permanent en face section processing. The tumor was cleared in 1 stage. He showed no evidence of recurrence after 112 months and died of unrelated causes. The rest of his clinical information was limited because of planned institutional destruction of records.
Case 4—An 87-year-old woman presented with a 25×25-mm, slow-growing mass of 12 months’ duration on the left lower abdomen (Figure 3). A biopsy demonstrated PCMC (Figure 4). Because of the size of the lesion, she underwent WLE with 20- to 30-mm margins by a general surgeon under general anesthesia. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography was unremarkable. She has remained disease free for 11 months.
Case 5—A 66-year-old woman presented for evaluation of a posterior scalp mass measuring 23×18 mm that had grown over the last 24 months. Biopsy showed mucinous carcinoma with lymphovascular invasion consistent with PCMC (Figure 5) confirmed on multiple tissue levels and with the aid of immunohistochemistry. She was sent for an MRI of the head, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis, which demonstrated 2 enlarged postauricular lymph nodes and raised suspicion for metastatic disease vs reactive lymphadenopathy. Mohs micrographic surgery with frozen sections was performed with 1- to 3-mm margins; the final layer was sent for permanent processing and confirmed negative margins. Sentinel lymph node biopsy and lymphadenectomy of the 2 nodes present on imaging showed no evidence of metastasis. The patient had no recurrence in 1 month.
Comment
Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma and PCMC are sweat gland malignancies that carry low metastatic potential but are locally aggressive. Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma has a strong predilection for the periorbital region, especially the lower eyelids of older women.3 Primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma may arise on the eyelids, scalp, axillae, and trunk and has been reported more often in older men. These slow-growing tumors appear as nonspecific nodules.3 Lesions frequently are asymptomatic but rarely may cause pruritus and bleeding. Histologically, EMPSGC appears as solid or cystic nodules of cells with a papillary, cribriform, or pseudopapillary appearance. Intracellular or extracellular mucin as well as malignant spread of tumor cells along pre-existing ductlike structures make it difficult to histologically distinguish EMPSGC from ductal carcinoma in situ.3
A key histopathologic feature of PCMC is basophilic epithelioid cell nests in mucinous lakes.4 Rosettelike structures are seen within solid areas of the tumor. Fibrous septae separate individual collections of mucin, creating a lobulated appearance. The histopathologic differential diagnosis of EMPSGC and PCMC is broad, including basal cell carcinoma, hidradenoma, hidradenocarcinoma, apocrine adenoma, and dermal duct tumor. Positive expression of at least 1 neuroendocrine marker (ie, synaptophysin, neuron-specific enolase, chromogranin) and low-molecular cytokeratin (cytokeratin 7, CAM5.2, Ber-EP4) can aid in the diagnosis of both EMPSGC and PCMC.4 The use of p63 immunostaining is beneficial in delineating adnexal neoplasms. Adnexal tumors that stain positively with p63 are more likely to be of primary cutaneous origin, whereas lack of p63 staining usually denotes a secondary metastatic process. However, p63 staining is less reliable when distinguishing primary and metastatic mucinous neoplasms. Metastatic mucinous carcinomas often stain positive with p63, while PCMC usually stains negative despite its primary cutaneous origin, decreasing the clinical utility of p63. The tumor may be identical to metastatic mucinous adenocarcinoma of the breast, gastrointestinal tract, lung, ovary, and pancreas. Tumor islands floating in mucin are identified in both primary cutaneous and metastatic disease to the skin.3,6 Areas of tumor necrosis, notable atypia, and perineural or lymphovascular invasion are infrequently reported in EMPSGC or PCMC, though lymphatic invasion was identified in case 5 presented herein.
A metastatic workup is warranted in all cases of PCMC, including a thorough history, review of systems, breast examination, and imaging. A workup may be considered in cases of EMPSGC depending on histologic features or clinical history.
There is uncertainty regarding the optimal management of these slow-growing yet locally destructive tumors.5 The incidence of local recurrence of PCMC after WLE with narrow margins of at least 1 cm can be as high as 30% to 40%, especially on the eyelid.4 There is no consensus on surgical care for either of these tumors.5 Because of the high recurrence rate and the predilection for the eyelid and face, MMS provides an excellent alternative to WLE for tissue preservation and meticulous margin control. We advocate for the use of the Mohs technique with permanent sectioning, which may delay the repair, but reviewing tissue with permanent fixation improves the quality and accuracy of the margin evaluation because these tumors often are infiltrative and difficult to delineate under frozen section processing. Permanent en face sectioning allows the laboratory to utilize the full array of immunohistochemical stains for these tumors, providing accurate and timely results.
Limitations to our retrospective uncontrolled study include missing or incomplete data points and short follow-up time. Additionally, there was no standardization to the margins removed with MMS or WLE because of the limited available data that comment on appropriate margins.
- Held L, Ruetten A, Kutzner H, et al. Endocrine mucin‐producing sweat gland carcinoma: clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical and molecular analysis of 11 cases with emphasis on MYB immunoexpression. J Cutan Pathol. 2018;45:674-680.
- Navrazhina K, Petukhova T, Wildman HF, et al. Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma of the scalp treated with Mohs micrographic surgery. JAAD Case Rep. 2018;4:887-889.
- Scott BL, Anyanwu CO, Vandergriff T, et al. Endocrine mucin–producing sweat gland carcinoma treated with Mohs micrographic surgery. Dermatol Surg. 2017;43:1498-1500.
- Chang S, Shim SH, Joo M, et al. A case of endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma co-existing with mucinous carcinoma: a case report. Korean J Pathol. 2010;44:97-100.
- Kamalpour L, Brindise RT, Nodzenski M, et al. Primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after surgery. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:380-384.
- Bulliard C, Murali R, Maloof A, et al. Endocrine mucin‐producing sweat gland carcinoma: report of a case and review of the literature. J Cutan Pathol. 2006;33:812-816.
- Held L, Ruetten A, Kutzner H, et al. Endocrine mucin‐producing sweat gland carcinoma: clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical and molecular analysis of 11 cases with emphasis on MYB immunoexpression. J Cutan Pathol. 2018;45:674-680.
- Navrazhina K, Petukhova T, Wildman HF, et al. Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma of the scalp treated with Mohs micrographic surgery. JAAD Case Rep. 2018;4:887-889.
- Scott BL, Anyanwu CO, Vandergriff T, et al. Endocrine mucin–producing sweat gland carcinoma treated with Mohs micrographic surgery. Dermatol Surg. 2017;43:1498-1500.
- Chang S, Shim SH, Joo M, et al. A case of endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma co-existing with mucinous carcinoma: a case report. Korean J Pathol. 2010;44:97-100.
- Kamalpour L, Brindise RT, Nodzenski M, et al. Primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after surgery. JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:380-384.
- Bulliard C, Murali R, Maloof A, et al. Endocrine mucin‐producing sweat gland carcinoma: report of a case and review of the literature. J Cutan Pathol. 2006;33:812-816.
Practice Points
- Endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinoma and primary cutaneous mucinous carcinoma are rare low-grade neoplasms thought to arise from apocrine glands that are morphologically and immunohistochemically analogous to ductal carcinoma in situ and mucinous carcinoma of the breast, respectively.
- Management involves a metastatic workup and either wide local excision with margins greater than 5 mm or Mohs micrographic surgery in anatomically sensitive areas.
Uveitis more frequent in axSpA than in PsA
Key clinical point: Uveitis is far more prevalent in patients with axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) than in those with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). A family history of SpA, axial disease at diagnosis, and disease duration were important factors associated with the occurrence of uveitis in PsA.
Major finding: Uveitis was more frequent in patients with axSpA vs PsA (11.7% vs 2.7%), with a median uveitis recurrence rate of 0.205 episodes per year and 0.285 episodes per year for axSpA and PsA, respectively. Family history of SpA (odds ratio [OR] 6.35; P = .023), axial disease at diagnosis (OR 5.61; P = .038), and disease duration (OR 1.12; P = .004) were associated with the occurrence of uveitis in PsA.
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 264 patients with axSpA and 369 patients with PsA.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding except open access funding by HEAL-Link Greece. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Kougkas N et al. Higher frequency but similar recurrence rate of uveitis episodes in axial spondylarthritis compared to psoriatic arthritis. A multicentre retrospective study. Rheumatol Int. 2023;43:2081-2088 (Aug 23). doi: 10.1007/s00296-023-05424-0
Key clinical point: Uveitis is far more prevalent in patients with axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) than in those with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). A family history of SpA, axial disease at diagnosis, and disease duration were important factors associated with the occurrence of uveitis in PsA.
Major finding: Uveitis was more frequent in patients with axSpA vs PsA (11.7% vs 2.7%), with a median uveitis recurrence rate of 0.205 episodes per year and 0.285 episodes per year for axSpA and PsA, respectively. Family history of SpA (odds ratio [OR] 6.35; P = .023), axial disease at diagnosis (OR 5.61; P = .038), and disease duration (OR 1.12; P = .004) were associated with the occurrence of uveitis in PsA.
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 264 patients with axSpA and 369 patients with PsA.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding except open access funding by HEAL-Link Greece. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Kougkas N et al. Higher frequency but similar recurrence rate of uveitis episodes in axial spondylarthritis compared to psoriatic arthritis. A multicentre retrospective study. Rheumatol Int. 2023;43:2081-2088 (Aug 23). doi: 10.1007/s00296-023-05424-0
Key clinical point: Uveitis is far more prevalent in patients with axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) than in those with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). A family history of SpA, axial disease at diagnosis, and disease duration were important factors associated with the occurrence of uveitis in PsA.
Major finding: Uveitis was more frequent in patients with axSpA vs PsA (11.7% vs 2.7%), with a median uveitis recurrence rate of 0.205 episodes per year and 0.285 episodes per year for axSpA and PsA, respectively. Family history of SpA (odds ratio [OR] 6.35; P = .023), axial disease at diagnosis (OR 5.61; P = .038), and disease duration (OR 1.12; P = .004) were associated with the occurrence of uveitis in PsA.
Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 264 patients with axSpA and 369 patients with PsA.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding except open access funding by HEAL-Link Greece. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Kougkas N et al. Higher frequency but similar recurrence rate of uveitis episodes in axial spondylarthritis compared to psoriatic arthritis. A multicentre retrospective study. Rheumatol Int. 2023;43:2081-2088 (Aug 23). doi: 10.1007/s00296-023-05424-0
Tofacitinib can be considered as a treatment option for PsA with enthesitis
Key clinical point: Compared with placebo, tofacitinib demonstrated greater improvement in enthesitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), irrespective of enthesitis location and severity.
Major finding: Tofacitinib vs placebo led to greater changes in the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis Index scores up to month 3, irrespective of baseline enthesitis locations and severities, with all improvements with tofacitinib being maintained and continued through month 6. Among patients with baseline LEI >0 whose enthesitis had resolved at month 1, relapse at month 3 was experienced by 26.3% and 15.6% vs 30.8% of patients treated with 5 mg tofacitinib and 10 mg tofacitinib vs placebo, respectively.
Study details: This post hoc analysis of pooled data from 2 phase 3 studies (OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond) and included 710 patients with PsA who received tofacitinib for 6 months or placebo for 3 months.
Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of Pfizer Inc. Five authors declared receiving grants, research support, or consulting fees from or having ties with various sources, including Pfizer.
Source: Mease PJ et al. Efficacy of tofacitinib on enthesitis in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: Analysis of pooled data from two phase 3 studies. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:153 (Aug 22). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03108-5
Key clinical point: Compared with placebo, tofacitinib demonstrated greater improvement in enthesitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), irrespective of enthesitis location and severity.
Major finding: Tofacitinib vs placebo led to greater changes in the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis Index scores up to month 3, irrespective of baseline enthesitis locations and severities, with all improvements with tofacitinib being maintained and continued through month 6. Among patients with baseline LEI >0 whose enthesitis had resolved at month 1, relapse at month 3 was experienced by 26.3% and 15.6% vs 30.8% of patients treated with 5 mg tofacitinib and 10 mg tofacitinib vs placebo, respectively.
Study details: This post hoc analysis of pooled data from 2 phase 3 studies (OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond) and included 710 patients with PsA who received tofacitinib for 6 months or placebo for 3 months.
Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of Pfizer Inc. Five authors declared receiving grants, research support, or consulting fees from or having ties with various sources, including Pfizer.
Source: Mease PJ et al. Efficacy of tofacitinib on enthesitis in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: Analysis of pooled data from two phase 3 studies. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:153 (Aug 22). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03108-5
Key clinical point: Compared with placebo, tofacitinib demonstrated greater improvement in enthesitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), irrespective of enthesitis location and severity.
Major finding: Tofacitinib vs placebo led to greater changes in the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis Index scores up to month 3, irrespective of baseline enthesitis locations and severities, with all improvements with tofacitinib being maintained and continued through month 6. Among patients with baseline LEI >0 whose enthesitis had resolved at month 1, relapse at month 3 was experienced by 26.3% and 15.6% vs 30.8% of patients treated with 5 mg tofacitinib and 10 mg tofacitinib vs placebo, respectively.
Study details: This post hoc analysis of pooled data from 2 phase 3 studies (OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond) and included 710 patients with PsA who received tofacitinib for 6 months or placebo for 3 months.
Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of Pfizer Inc. Five authors declared receiving grants, research support, or consulting fees from or having ties with various sources, including Pfizer.
Source: Mease PJ et al. Efficacy of tofacitinib on enthesitis in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: Analysis of pooled data from two phase 3 studies. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:153 (Aug 22). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03108-5
Secukinumab offers sustained improvement in synovitis and enthesitis in active PsA
Key clinical point: Patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who initiated secukinumab treatment had stable improvements in synovitis and sustained clinical improvements in enthesitis up to week 52.
Major finding: At week 12, secukinumab vs placebo led to significant improvements in power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS)-assessed synovitis (Global EULAR-OMERACT Synovitis Score: −9 vs −6; one-sided P = .004) and PDUS-assessed enthesitis (Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada enthesitis index score: −2.2 vs −1.6; one-sided P = .03), with the improvements being sustained up to week 52.
Study details: This 52-week, phase 3 ULTIMATE study included 166 patients with active PsA, who were naive to biologics and intolerant to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab or placebo.
Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Three authors declared being employees or stockholders of Novartis. Several authors declared ties with various sources, including Novartis. Three authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: D’Agostino MA et al. Effects of secukinumab on synovitis and enthesitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 52-week clinical and ultrasound results from the randomised, double-blind ULTIMATE trial with open label extension. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2023;63:152259 (Aug 19). doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2023.152259
Key clinical point: Patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who initiated secukinumab treatment had stable improvements in synovitis and sustained clinical improvements in enthesitis up to week 52.
Major finding: At week 12, secukinumab vs placebo led to significant improvements in power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS)-assessed synovitis (Global EULAR-OMERACT Synovitis Score: −9 vs −6; one-sided P = .004) and PDUS-assessed enthesitis (Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada enthesitis index score: −2.2 vs −1.6; one-sided P = .03), with the improvements being sustained up to week 52.
Study details: This 52-week, phase 3 ULTIMATE study included 166 patients with active PsA, who were naive to biologics and intolerant to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab or placebo.
Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Three authors declared being employees or stockholders of Novartis. Several authors declared ties with various sources, including Novartis. Three authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: D’Agostino MA et al. Effects of secukinumab on synovitis and enthesitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 52-week clinical and ultrasound results from the randomised, double-blind ULTIMATE trial with open label extension. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2023;63:152259 (Aug 19). doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2023.152259
Key clinical point: Patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who initiated secukinumab treatment had stable improvements in synovitis and sustained clinical improvements in enthesitis up to week 52.
Major finding: At week 12, secukinumab vs placebo led to significant improvements in power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS)-assessed synovitis (Global EULAR-OMERACT Synovitis Score: −9 vs −6; one-sided P = .004) and PDUS-assessed enthesitis (Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada enthesitis index score: −2.2 vs −1.6; one-sided P = .03), with the improvements being sustained up to week 52.
Study details: This 52-week, phase 3 ULTIMATE study included 166 patients with active PsA, who were naive to biologics and intolerant to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab or placebo.
Disclosures: This study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Three authors declared being employees or stockholders of Novartis. Several authors declared ties with various sources, including Novartis. Three authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: D’Agostino MA et al. Effects of secukinumab on synovitis and enthesitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 52-week clinical and ultrasound results from the randomised, double-blind ULTIMATE trial with open label extension. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2023;63:152259 (Aug 19). doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2023.152259
Real-world study confirms high retention rates and favorable safety of secukinumab in active PsA
Key clinical point: Secukinumab demonstrated sustained efficacy, high retention rates, and a consistent safety profile in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were followed for ≥ 2 years.
Major finding: The treatment retention rate with secukinumab was 78.2% in PsA. The mean swollen joint counts (enrolment vs 2 years: 4.5 vs 3.6) and tender joint counts (enrolment vs 2 years: 12.8 vs 9.2) remained stable over 2 years of treatment. Serious adverse events occurred in 13.6% of patients, but no deaths related to treatment-emergent adverse events were reported.
Study details: Findings are from an interim analysis of the ongoing SERENA study including patients with active PsA (n = 81) or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (n = 108) who had received secukinumab for ≥16 weeks prior to enrolment.
Disclosures: This study was supported by Novartis Pharma AG. Two authors declared being employees of Novartis Pharmaceuticals U.K. Ltd. Three authors declared ties with various sources, including Novartis.
Source: Gaffney K et al. Real-world evidence for secukinumab in UK patients with psoriatic arthritis or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: Interim 2-year analysis from SERENA. Rheumatol Adv Pract. 2023;7(3):rkad055 (Aug 21). doi: 10.1093/rap/rkad055
Key clinical point: Secukinumab demonstrated sustained efficacy, high retention rates, and a consistent safety profile in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were followed for ≥ 2 years.
Major finding: The treatment retention rate with secukinumab was 78.2% in PsA. The mean swollen joint counts (enrolment vs 2 years: 4.5 vs 3.6) and tender joint counts (enrolment vs 2 years: 12.8 vs 9.2) remained stable over 2 years of treatment. Serious adverse events occurred in 13.6% of patients, but no deaths related to treatment-emergent adverse events were reported.
Study details: Findings are from an interim analysis of the ongoing SERENA study including patients with active PsA (n = 81) or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (n = 108) who had received secukinumab for ≥16 weeks prior to enrolment.
Disclosures: This study was supported by Novartis Pharma AG. Two authors declared being employees of Novartis Pharmaceuticals U.K. Ltd. Three authors declared ties with various sources, including Novartis.
Source: Gaffney K et al. Real-world evidence for secukinumab in UK patients with psoriatic arthritis or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: Interim 2-year analysis from SERENA. Rheumatol Adv Pract. 2023;7(3):rkad055 (Aug 21). doi: 10.1093/rap/rkad055
Key clinical point: Secukinumab demonstrated sustained efficacy, high retention rates, and a consistent safety profile in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were followed for ≥ 2 years.
Major finding: The treatment retention rate with secukinumab was 78.2% in PsA. The mean swollen joint counts (enrolment vs 2 years: 4.5 vs 3.6) and tender joint counts (enrolment vs 2 years: 12.8 vs 9.2) remained stable over 2 years of treatment. Serious adverse events occurred in 13.6% of patients, but no deaths related to treatment-emergent adverse events were reported.
Study details: Findings are from an interim analysis of the ongoing SERENA study including patients with active PsA (n = 81) or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (n = 108) who had received secukinumab for ≥16 weeks prior to enrolment.
Disclosures: This study was supported by Novartis Pharma AG. Two authors declared being employees of Novartis Pharmaceuticals U.K. Ltd. Three authors declared ties with various sources, including Novartis.
Source: Gaffney K et al. Real-world evidence for secukinumab in UK patients with psoriatic arthritis or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: Interim 2-year analysis from SERENA. Rheumatol Adv Pract. 2023;7(3):rkad055 (Aug 21). doi: 10.1093/rap/rkad055
Persistence and multidomain effectiveness of guselkumab in active PsA
Key clinical point: In a real-world population of patients with treatment-resistant, long-standing active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), nearly 80% persisted with guselkumab treatment for 6 months and showed improvements in peripheral joint and skin symptoms of PsA.
Major finding: Overall, 78.9% of patients who initiated guselkumab had persistent use at the 6-month follow-up. The mean scores for clinical Disease Activity in PsA (mean change [Δ] −5.4), overall joint+skin activity (Δ −19.0), patient-reported pain (Δ −9.1), and percentage of skin with psoriasis (Δ −5.1%) improved significantly in patients receiving guselkumab for 6 months (all P < .001).
Study details: This study evaluated 114 patients with active PsA from the CorEvitas PsA/Spondyloarthritis Registry who initiated guselkumab.
Disclosures: This study was sponsored by CorEvitas, LLC, and the analysis was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Six authors declared employment with CorEvitas, LLC, or Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, or owned stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson or others. Several authors declared ties with various sources, including Janssen and CorEvitas.
Source: Mease PJ et al. Six-month persistence and multi-domain effectiveness of guselkumab in adults with psoriatic arthritis: Real-world data from the CorEvitas psoriatic arthritis/spondyloarthritis registry. Rheumatol Ther. 2023 (Aug 19). doi: 10.1007/s40744-023-00582-w
Key clinical point: In a real-world population of patients with treatment-resistant, long-standing active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), nearly 80% persisted with guselkumab treatment for 6 months and showed improvements in peripheral joint and skin symptoms of PsA.
Major finding: Overall, 78.9% of patients who initiated guselkumab had persistent use at the 6-month follow-up. The mean scores for clinical Disease Activity in PsA (mean change [Δ] −5.4), overall joint+skin activity (Δ −19.0), patient-reported pain (Δ −9.1), and percentage of skin with psoriasis (Δ −5.1%) improved significantly in patients receiving guselkumab for 6 months (all P < .001).
Study details: This study evaluated 114 patients with active PsA from the CorEvitas PsA/Spondyloarthritis Registry who initiated guselkumab.
Disclosures: This study was sponsored by CorEvitas, LLC, and the analysis was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Six authors declared employment with CorEvitas, LLC, or Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, or owned stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson or others. Several authors declared ties with various sources, including Janssen and CorEvitas.
Source: Mease PJ et al. Six-month persistence and multi-domain effectiveness of guselkumab in adults with psoriatic arthritis: Real-world data from the CorEvitas psoriatic arthritis/spondyloarthritis registry. Rheumatol Ther. 2023 (Aug 19). doi: 10.1007/s40744-023-00582-w
Key clinical point: In a real-world population of patients with treatment-resistant, long-standing active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), nearly 80% persisted with guselkumab treatment for 6 months and showed improvements in peripheral joint and skin symptoms of PsA.
Major finding: Overall, 78.9% of patients who initiated guselkumab had persistent use at the 6-month follow-up. The mean scores for clinical Disease Activity in PsA (mean change [Δ] −5.4), overall joint+skin activity (Δ −19.0), patient-reported pain (Δ −9.1), and percentage of skin with psoriasis (Δ −5.1%) improved significantly in patients receiving guselkumab for 6 months (all P < .001).
Study details: This study evaluated 114 patients with active PsA from the CorEvitas PsA/Spondyloarthritis Registry who initiated guselkumab.
Disclosures: This study was sponsored by CorEvitas, LLC, and the analysis was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Six authors declared employment with CorEvitas, LLC, or Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, or owned stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson or others. Several authors declared ties with various sources, including Janssen and CorEvitas.
Source: Mease PJ et al. Six-month persistence and multi-domain effectiveness of guselkumab in adults with psoriatic arthritis: Real-world data from the CorEvitas psoriatic arthritis/spondyloarthritis registry. Rheumatol Ther. 2023 (Aug 19). doi: 10.1007/s40744-023-00582-w
Ixekizumab improves axial symptoms in PsA
Key clinical point: Ixekizumab was more effective than placebo in improving axial symptoms, such as back pain and morning stiffness, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) presenting with axial manifestations.
Major finding: At weeks 16 and 24, ixekizumab vs placebo led to greater improvements in axial manifestations, such as back pain and morning stiffness (P < .001), as indicated by Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scores, with a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving a 50% improvement in BASDAI scores (P < .001). All improvements with ixekizumab were sustained through week 52.
Study details: This post hoc analysis of pooled data from two phase 3 studies included biologic-naive and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor-experienced patients with active PsA and axial manifestations (n = 313) who were randomly assigned to receive either ixekizumab or placebo.
Disclosures: The studies described in this post hoc analysis were sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including Eli Lilly and Company.
Source: Deodhar A et al. The effect of ixekizumab on axial manifestations in patients with psoriatic arthritis from two phase III clinical trials: SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2023 (Aug 24). doi: 10.1177/1759720X231189005
Key clinical point: Ixekizumab was more effective than placebo in improving axial symptoms, such as back pain and morning stiffness, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) presenting with axial manifestations.
Major finding: At weeks 16 and 24, ixekizumab vs placebo led to greater improvements in axial manifestations, such as back pain and morning stiffness (P < .001), as indicated by Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scores, with a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving a 50% improvement in BASDAI scores (P < .001). All improvements with ixekizumab were sustained through week 52.
Study details: This post hoc analysis of pooled data from two phase 3 studies included biologic-naive and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor-experienced patients with active PsA and axial manifestations (n = 313) who were randomly assigned to receive either ixekizumab or placebo.
Disclosures: The studies described in this post hoc analysis were sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including Eli Lilly and Company.
Source: Deodhar A et al. The effect of ixekizumab on axial manifestations in patients with psoriatic arthritis from two phase III clinical trials: SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2023 (Aug 24). doi: 10.1177/1759720X231189005
Key clinical point: Ixekizumab was more effective than placebo in improving axial symptoms, such as back pain and morning stiffness, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) presenting with axial manifestations.
Major finding: At weeks 16 and 24, ixekizumab vs placebo led to greater improvements in axial manifestations, such as back pain and morning stiffness (P < .001), as indicated by Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scores, with a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving a 50% improvement in BASDAI scores (P < .001). All improvements with ixekizumab were sustained through week 52.
Study details: This post hoc analysis of pooled data from two phase 3 studies included biologic-naive and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor-experienced patients with active PsA and axial manifestations (n = 313) who were randomly assigned to receive either ixekizumab or placebo.
Disclosures: The studies described in this post hoc analysis were sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including Eli Lilly and Company.
Source: Deodhar A et al. The effect of ixekizumab on axial manifestations in patients with psoriatic arthritis from two phase III clinical trials: SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2023 (Aug 24). doi: 10.1177/1759720X231189005