Article

With the increasing utilization of telemedicine since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that clinicians have an appropriate understanding of the application of virtual care resources, including teledermatology. We present a case series of 3 patients to demonstrate the clinical utility of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of various rare and/or aggressive cutaneous malignancies, including Merkel cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, and atypical fibroxanthoma. Cases were obtained from one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Each case presented includes a description of the initial teledermatology presentation and reviews the clinical timeline from initial consultation submission to in-person clinic visit with lesion biopsy. This case series demonstrates real-world examples of how teledermatology can be utilized to expedite the care of specific vulnerable patient populations.

Teledermatology is a rapidly growing digital resource with specific utility in triaging patients to determine those requiring in-person evaluation for early and accurate detection of skin malignancies. Approximately one-third of teledermatology consultations result in face-to-face clinical encounters, with malignant neoplasms being the leading cause for biopsy.^1,2 For specific populations, such as geriatric and immunocompromised patients, teledermatology may serve as a valuable tool, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, telemedicine may aid in addressing health disparities within the field of medicine and ultimately may improve access to care for vulnerable populations.³ Along with increasing access to specific subspecialty expertise, the use of teledermatology may reduce health care costs and improve the overall quality of care delivered to patients.^4,5

We describe the clinical utility of teledermatology in triaging and diagnosing skin malignancies through a series of 3 cases obtained from digital image review at one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Three unique cases with a final diagnosis of a rare or aggressive skin cancer were selected as examples, including a 75-year-old man with Merkle cell carcinoma, a 55-year-old man with aggressive pT3b malignant melanoma, and a 72-year-old man with an atypical fibroxanthoma. A clinical timeline of each case is presented, including the time intervals from initial image submission to image review, image submission to face-to-face clinical encounter, and image submission to final diagnosis. In all cases, the primary care provider submitted an order for teledermatology, and the teledermatology team obtained the images.

Case Series

Patient 1—Images of the right hand of a 75-year-old man with a medical history of basal cell carcinoma were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing store-and-forward image-capturing technology (day 1). The patient history provided with image submission indicated that the lesion had been present for 6 months and there were no associated symptoms. Clinical imaging demonstrated a pink-red pearly papule located on the proximal fourth digit of the dorsal aspect of the right hand (Figure 1). One day following the teledermatology request (day 2), the patient’s case was reviewed and triaged for an in-person visit. The patient was brought to clinic on day 34, and a biopsy was performed. On day 36, dermatopathology results indicated a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma. On day 37, the patient was referred to surgical oncology, and on day 44, the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit with a plan for wide local excision of the right fourth digit with right axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 2—Images of the left flank of a 55-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history provided with the image indicated that the lesion had been present for months to years and there were no associated symptoms, but the lesion recently had changed in color and size. Teledermatology images were reviewed on day 3 and demonstrated a 2- to 3-cm brown plaque on the left flank with color variegation and a prominent red papule protruding centrally (Figure 2). The patient was scheduled for an urgent in-person visit with biopsy. On day 6, the patient presented to clinic and an excision biopsy was performed. Dermatopathology was ordered with a RUSH indication, with results on day 7 revealing a pT3b malignant melanoma. An urgent consultation to surgical oncology was placed on the same day, and the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit on day 24 with a plan for wide local excision with left axillary and inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 3—Images of the left ear of a 72-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing review via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history indicated that the lesion had been present for 3 months with associated bleeding. Image review demonstrated a solitary pearly pink papule located on the crura of the antihelix (Figure 3). Initial teledermatology consultation was reviewed on day 2 with notification of the need for in-person evaluation. The patient presented to clinic on day 33 for a biopsy, with dermatopathology results on day 36 consistent with an atypical fibroxanthoma. The patient was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery on day 37 and underwent surgical treatment on day 64.

Comment

Teledermatology consultations from all patients demonstrated adequate image quality to be able to evaluate the lesion of concern and yielded a request for in-person evaluation with possible biopsy (Table). In this case series, the average time interval from teledermatology consultation placement to teledermatology image report was 2 days (range, 1–3 days). The average time from teledermatology consultation placement to face-to-face encounter with biopsy was 24.3 days for the 3 cases presented in this series (range, 6–34 days). The initial surgical oncology visits took place an average of 34 days after the initial teledermatology consultation was placed for the 2 patients requiring referral (44 days for patient 1; 24 days for patient 2). For patient 3, Mohs micrographic surgery was required for treatment, which was scheduled by day 37 and subsequently performed on day 64.

When specifically looking at the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancies, studies have found that the incidence of skin cancer detection is similar for teledermatology compared to in-person clinic visits.^6,7 Creighton-Smith et al⁶ performed a retrospective cohort study comparing prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic accuracy and detection rates of skin cancer between store-and-forward technology and face-to-face consultation. When adjusting for possible compounding factors including personal and family history of skin cancer, there was no notable difference in detection rates of any skin cancer, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Furthermore, the 2 cohorts of patients were found to have similar prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic concordance, with similar times from consultation being placed to requested biopsy and time from biopsy to final treatment.⁶

Clarke et al⁷ similarly analyzed the accuracy of store-and-forward teledermatology and found that there was overall concordance in diagnosis when comparing clinical dermatologists to teledermatologists. Moreover, when melanocytic lesions were excluded from the study, the decision to biopsy did not differ substantially.⁷

Areas of further study include determining what percentage of teledermatology lesions of concern for malignancy were proven to be skin cancer after in-person evaluation and biopsy, as well as investigating the effectiveness of teledermatology for melanocytic lesions, which frequently are removed from analysis in large-scale teledermatology studies.

Although teledermatology has substantial clinical utility and may serve as a great resource for specific populations, including geriatric patients and those who are immunocompromised, it is important to recognize notable limitations. Specifically, brief history and image review should not serve as replacements for a face-to-face visit with physical examination in cases where the diagnosis remains uncertain or when high-risk skin malignancies are suspected or included in the differential. Certain aggressive cutaneous malignancies such as Merkel cell carcinoma may appear as less aggressive via teledermatology due to restrictions of technology.

Conclusion

Teledermatology has had a major impact on the way health care is delivered to patients and may increase access to care, reducing unnecessary in-person visits and decreasing the number of in-person visit no-shows. With the appropriate use of a brief clinical history and image review, teledermatology can be effective to evaluate specific lesions of concern. We report 3 unique cases identified during a 1-month period at a large Midwestern medical center. These cases serve as important examples of the application of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of aggressive skin malignancies. Further research on the clinical utility of teledermatology is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank the additional providers from the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (both in Madison, Wisconsin) involved in the medical care of the patients included in this case series.

With the increasing utilization of telemedicine since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that clinicians have an appropriate understanding of the application of virtual care resources, including teledermatology. We present a case series of 3 patients to demonstrate the clinical utility of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of various rare and/or aggressive cutaneous malignancies, including Merkel cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, and atypical fibroxanthoma. Cases were obtained from one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Each case presented includes a description of the initial teledermatology presentation and reviews the clinical timeline from initial consultation submission to in-person clinic visit with lesion biopsy. This case series demonstrates real-world examples of how teledermatology can be utilized to expedite the care of specific vulnerable patient populations.

Teledermatology is a rapidly growing digital resource with specific utility in triaging patients to determine those requiring in-person evaluation for early and accurate detection of skin malignancies. Approximately one-third of teledermatology consultations result in face-to-face clinical encounters, with malignant neoplasms being the leading cause for biopsy.^1,2 For specific populations, such as geriatric and immunocompromised patients, teledermatology may serve as a valuable tool, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, telemedicine may aid in addressing health disparities within the field of medicine and ultimately may improve access to care for vulnerable populations.³ Along with increasing access to specific subspecialty expertise, the use of teledermatology may reduce health care costs and improve the overall quality of care delivered to patients.^4,5

We describe the clinical utility of teledermatology in triaging and diagnosing skin malignancies through a series of 3 cases obtained from digital image review at one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Three unique cases with a final diagnosis of a rare or aggressive skin cancer were selected as examples, including a 75-year-old man with Merkle cell carcinoma, a 55-year-old man with aggressive pT3b malignant melanoma, and a 72-year-old man with an atypical fibroxanthoma. A clinical timeline of each case is presented, including the time intervals from initial image submission to image review, image submission to face-to-face clinical encounter, and image submission to final diagnosis. In all cases, the primary care provider submitted an order for teledermatology, and the teledermatology team obtained the images.

Case Series

Patient 1—Images of the right hand of a 75-year-old man with a medical history of basal cell carcinoma were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing store-and-forward image-capturing technology (day 1). The patient history provided with image submission indicated that the lesion had been present for 6 months and there were no associated symptoms. Clinical imaging demonstrated a pink-red pearly papule located on the proximal fourth digit of the dorsal aspect of the right hand (Figure 1). One day following the teledermatology request (day 2), the patient’s case was reviewed and triaged for an in-person visit. The patient was brought to clinic on day 34, and a biopsy was performed. On day 36, dermatopathology results indicated a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma. On day 37, the patient was referred to surgical oncology, and on day 44, the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit with a plan for wide local excision of the right fourth digit with right axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 2—Images of the left flank of a 55-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history provided with the image indicated that the lesion had been present for months to years and there were no associated symptoms, but the lesion recently had changed in color and size. Teledermatology images were reviewed on day 3 and demonstrated a 2- to 3-cm brown plaque on the left flank with color variegation and a prominent red papule protruding centrally (Figure 2). The patient was scheduled for an urgent in-person visit with biopsy. On day 6, the patient presented to clinic and an excision biopsy was performed. Dermatopathology was ordered with a RUSH indication, with results on day 7 revealing a pT3b malignant melanoma. An urgent consultation to surgical oncology was placed on the same day, and the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit on day 24 with a plan for wide local excision with left axillary and inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 3—Images of the left ear of a 72-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing review via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history indicated that the lesion had been present for 3 months with associated bleeding. Image review demonstrated a solitary pearly pink papule located on the crura of the antihelix (Figure 3). Initial teledermatology consultation was reviewed on day 2 with notification of the need for in-person evaluation. The patient presented to clinic on day 33 for a biopsy, with dermatopathology results on day 36 consistent with an atypical fibroxanthoma. The patient was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery on day 37 and underwent surgical treatment on day 64.

Comment

Teledermatology consultations from all patients demonstrated adequate image quality to be able to evaluate the lesion of concern and yielded a request for in-person evaluation with possible biopsy (Table). In this case series, the average time interval from teledermatology consultation placement to teledermatology image report was 2 days (range, 1–3 days). The average time from teledermatology consultation placement to face-to-face encounter with biopsy was 24.3 days for the 3 cases presented in this series (range, 6–34 days). The initial surgical oncology visits took place an average of 34 days after the initial teledermatology consultation was placed for the 2 patients requiring referral (44 days for patient 1; 24 days for patient 2). For patient 3, Mohs micrographic surgery was required for treatment, which was scheduled by day 37 and subsequently performed on day 64.

When specifically looking at the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancies, studies have found that the incidence of skin cancer detection is similar for teledermatology compared to in-person clinic visits.^6,7 Creighton-Smith et al⁶ performed a retrospective cohort study comparing prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic accuracy and detection rates of skin cancer between store-and-forward technology and face-to-face consultation. When adjusting for possible compounding factors including personal and family history of skin cancer, there was no notable difference in detection rates of any skin cancer, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Furthermore, the 2 cohorts of patients were found to have similar prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic concordance, with similar times from consultation being placed to requested biopsy and time from biopsy to final treatment.⁶

Clarke et al⁷ similarly analyzed the accuracy of store-and-forward teledermatology and found that there was overall concordance in diagnosis when comparing clinical dermatologists to teledermatologists. Moreover, when melanocytic lesions were excluded from the study, the decision to biopsy did not differ substantially.⁷

Areas of further study include determining what percentage of teledermatology lesions of concern for malignancy were proven to be skin cancer after in-person evaluation and biopsy, as well as investigating the effectiveness of teledermatology for melanocytic lesions, which frequently are removed from analysis in large-scale teledermatology studies.

Although teledermatology has substantial clinical utility and may serve as a great resource for specific populations, including geriatric patients and those who are immunocompromised, it is important to recognize notable limitations. Specifically, brief history and image review should not serve as replacements for a face-to-face visit with physical examination in cases where the diagnosis remains uncertain or when high-risk skin malignancies are suspected or included in the differential. Certain aggressive cutaneous malignancies such as Merkel cell carcinoma may appear as less aggressive via teledermatology due to restrictions of technology.

Conclusion

Teledermatology has had a major impact on the way health care is delivered to patients and may increase access to care, reducing unnecessary in-person visits and decreasing the number of in-person visit no-shows. With the appropriate use of a brief clinical history and image review, teledermatology can be effective to evaluate specific lesions of concern. We report 3 unique cases identified during a 1-month period at a large Midwestern medical center. These cases serve as important examples of the application of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of aggressive skin malignancies. Further research on the clinical utility of teledermatology is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank the additional providers from the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (both in Madison, Wisconsin) involved in the medical care of the patients included in this case series.

With the increasing utilization of telemedicine since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that clinicians have an appropriate understanding of the application of virtual care resources, including teledermatology. We present a case series of 3 patients to demonstrate the clinical utility of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of various rare and/or aggressive cutaneous malignancies, including Merkel cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, and atypical fibroxanthoma. Cases were obtained from one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Each case presented includes a description of the initial teledermatology presentation and reviews the clinical timeline from initial consultation submission to in-person clinic visit with lesion biopsy. This case series demonstrates real-world examples of how teledermatology can be utilized to expedite the care of specific vulnerable patient populations.

Teledermatology is a rapidly growing digital resource with specific utility in triaging patients to determine those requiring in-person evaluation for early and accurate detection of skin malignancies. Approximately one-third of teledermatology consultations result in face-to-face clinical encounters, with malignant neoplasms being the leading cause for biopsy.^1,2 For specific populations, such as geriatric and immunocompromised patients, teledermatology may serve as a valuable tool, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, telemedicine may aid in addressing health disparities within the field of medicine and ultimately may improve access to care for vulnerable populations.³ Along with increasing access to specific subspecialty expertise, the use of teledermatology may reduce health care costs and improve the overall quality of care delivered to patients.^4,5

We describe the clinical utility of teledermatology in triaging and diagnosing skin malignancies through a series of 3 cases obtained from digital image review at one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Three unique cases with a final diagnosis of a rare or aggressive skin cancer were selected as examples, including a 75-year-old man with Merkle cell carcinoma, a 55-year-old man with aggressive pT3b malignant melanoma, and a 72-year-old man with an atypical fibroxanthoma. A clinical timeline of each case is presented, including the time intervals from initial image submission to image review, image submission to face-to-face clinical encounter, and image submission to final diagnosis. In all cases, the primary care provider submitted an order for teledermatology, and the teledermatology team obtained the images.

Case Series

Patient 1—Images of the right hand of a 75-year-old man with a medical history of basal cell carcinoma were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing store-and-forward image-capturing technology (day 1). The patient history provided with image submission indicated that the lesion had been present for 6 months and there were no associated symptoms. Clinical imaging demonstrated a pink-red pearly papule located on the proximal fourth digit of the dorsal aspect of the right hand (Figure 1). One day following the teledermatology request (day 2), the patient’s case was reviewed and triaged for an in-person visit. The patient was brought to clinic on day 34, and a biopsy was performed. On day 36, dermatopathology results indicated a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma. On day 37, the patient was referred to surgical oncology, and on day 44, the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit with a plan for wide local excision of the right fourth digit with right axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 2—Images of the left flank of a 55-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history provided with the image indicated that the lesion had been present for months to years and there were no associated symptoms, but the lesion recently had changed in color and size. Teledermatology images were reviewed on day 3 and demonstrated a 2- to 3-cm brown plaque on the left flank with color variegation and a prominent red papule protruding centrally (Figure 2). The patient was scheduled for an urgent in-person visit with biopsy. On day 6, the patient presented to clinic and an excision biopsy was performed. Dermatopathology was ordered with a RUSH indication, with results on day 7 revealing a pT3b malignant melanoma. An urgent consultation to surgical oncology was placed on the same day, and the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit on day 24 with a plan for wide local excision with left axillary and inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 3—Images of the left ear of a 72-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing review via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history indicated that the lesion had been present for 3 months with associated bleeding. Image review demonstrated a solitary pearly pink papule located on the crura of the antihelix (Figure 3). Initial teledermatology consultation was reviewed on day 2 with notification of the need for in-person evaluation. The patient presented to clinic on day 33 for a biopsy, with dermatopathology results on day 36 consistent with an atypical fibroxanthoma. The patient was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery on day 37 and underwent surgical treatment on day 64.

Comment

Teledermatology consultations from all patients demonstrated adequate image quality to be able to evaluate the lesion of concern and yielded a request for in-person evaluation with possible biopsy (Table). In this case series, the average time interval from teledermatology consultation placement to teledermatology image report was 2 days (range, 1–3 days). The average time from teledermatology consultation placement to face-to-face encounter with biopsy was 24.3 days for the 3 cases presented in this series (range, 6–34 days). The initial surgical oncology visits took place an average of 34 days after the initial teledermatology consultation was placed for the 2 patients requiring referral (44 days for patient 1; 24 days for patient 2). For patient 3, Mohs micrographic surgery was required for treatment, which was scheduled by day 37 and subsequently performed on day 64.

When specifically looking at the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancies, studies have found that the incidence of skin cancer detection is similar for teledermatology compared to in-person clinic visits.^6,7 Creighton-Smith et al⁶ performed a retrospective cohort study comparing prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic accuracy and detection rates of skin cancer between store-and-forward technology and face-to-face consultation. When adjusting for possible compounding factors including personal and family history of skin cancer, there was no notable difference in detection rates of any skin cancer, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Furthermore, the 2 cohorts of patients were found to have similar prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic concordance, with similar times from consultation being placed to requested biopsy and time from biopsy to final treatment.⁶

Clarke et al⁷ similarly analyzed the accuracy of store-and-forward teledermatology and found that there was overall concordance in diagnosis when comparing clinical dermatologists to teledermatologists. Moreover, when melanocytic lesions were excluded from the study, the decision to biopsy did not differ substantially.⁷

Areas of further study include determining what percentage of teledermatology lesions of concern for malignancy were proven to be skin cancer after in-person evaluation and biopsy, as well as investigating the effectiveness of teledermatology for melanocytic lesions, which frequently are removed from analysis in large-scale teledermatology studies.

Although teledermatology has substantial clinical utility and may serve as a great resource for specific populations, including geriatric patients and those who are immunocompromised, it is important to recognize notable limitations. Specifically, brief history and image review should not serve as replacements for a face-to-face visit with physical examination in cases where the diagnosis remains uncertain or when high-risk skin malignancies are suspected or included in the differential. Certain aggressive cutaneous malignancies such as Merkel cell carcinoma may appear as less aggressive via teledermatology due to restrictions of technology.

Conclusion

Teledermatology has had a major impact on the way health care is delivered to patients and may increase access to care, reducing unnecessary in-person visits and decreasing the number of in-person visit no-shows. With the appropriate use of a brief clinical history and image review, teledermatology can be effective to evaluate specific lesions of concern. We report 3 unique cases identified during a 1-month period at a large Midwestern medical center. These cases serve as important examples of the application of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of aggressive skin malignancies. Further research on the clinical utility of teledermatology is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank the additional providers from the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (both in Madison, Wisconsin) involved in the medical care of the patients included in this case series.

Sunscreen is a cornerstone of skin cancer prevention. The first commercial sunscreen was developed nearly 100 years ago,¹ yet questions and concerns about the safety of these essential topical photoprotective agents continue to occupy our minds. This article serves as an update on some of the big sunscreen questions, as informed by the available evidence.

Are sunscreens safe?

The story of sunscreen regulation in the United States is long and dry. The major pain point is that sunscreens are regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as over-the-counter drugs rather than cosmetics (as in Europe).² Regulatory hurdles created a situation wherein no new active sunscreen ingredient has been approved by the FDA since 1999, except ecamsule for use in one product line. There is hope that changes enacted under the CARES Act will streamline and expedite the sunscreen approval process in the future.³

Amid the ongoing regulatory slog, the FDA became interested in learning more about sunscreen safety. Specifically, they sought to determine the GRASE (generally regarded as safe and effective) status of the active ingredients in sunscreens. In 2019, only the inorganic (physical/mineral) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide were considered GRASE.⁴ Trolamine salicylate and para-aminobenzoic acid were not GRASE, but they currently are not used in sunscreens in the United States. For all the remaining organic (chemical) filters, additional safety data were required to establish GRASE status.⁴ In 2024, the situation remains largely unchanged. Industry is working with the FDA on testing requirements.⁵

Why the focus on safety? After all, sunscreens have been used widely for decades without any major safety signals; their only well-established adverse effects are contact dermatitis and staining of clothing.⁶ Although preclinical studies raised concerns that chemical sunscreens could be associated with endocrine, reproductive, and neurologic toxicities, to date there are no high-quality human studies demonstrating negative effects.^7,8

However, exposure patterns have evolved. Sunscreen is recommended to be applied (and reapplied) daily. Also, chemical UV filters are used in many nonsunscreen products such as cosmetics, shampoos, fragrances, and plastics. In the United States, exposure to chemical sunscreens is ubiquitous; according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004, oxybenzone was detected in 97% of more than 2500 urine samples, implying systemic absorption but not harm.⁹

The FDA confirmed the implication of systemic absorption via 2 maximal usage trials published in 2019 and 2020.^10,11 In both studies, several chemical sunscreens were applied at the recommended density of 2 mg/cm² to 75% of the body surface area multiple times over 4 days. For all tested organic UV filters, blood levels exceeded the predetermined FDA cutoff (0.5 ng/mL), even after one application.^10,11 What’s the takeaway? Simply that the FDA now requires additional safety data for chemical sunscreen filters⁵; the findings in no way imply any associated harm. Two potential mitigating factors are that no one applies sunscreen at 2 mg/cm², and the FDA’s blood level cutoff was a general estimate not specific to sunscreens.^4,12

Nevertheless, a good long-term safety record for sunscreens does not negate the need for enhanced safety data when there is clear evidence of systemic absorption. In the meantime, concerned patients should be counseled that the physical/mineral sunscreens containing zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are considered GRASE by the FDA; even in nanoparticle form, they generally have not been found to penetrate beneath the stratum corneum.^7,13

Dermatologists are confronting the conundrum of rising cases of frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). Several theories on the pathogenesis of this idiopathic scarring alopecia have been raised, one of which involves increased use of sunscreen. Proposed explanations for sunscreen’s role in FFA include a lichenoid reaction inducing hair follicle autoimmunity through an unclear mechanism; a T cell–mediated allergic reaction, which is unlikely according to contact dermatitis experts¹⁴; reactive oxygen species production by titanium nanoparticles, yet titanium has been detected in hair follicles of both patients with FFA and controls¹⁵; and endocrine disruption following systemic absorption, which has not been supported by any high-quality human studies.⁷

An association between facial sunscreen use and FFA has been reported in case-control studies¹⁶; however, they have been criticized due to methodologic issues and biases, and they provide no evidence of causality.^17,18 The jury remains out on the controversial association between sunscreen and FFA, with a need for more convincing data.

Does sunscreen impact coral reef health?

Coral reefs—crucial sources of aquatic biodiversity—are under attack from several different directions including climate change and pollution. As much as 14,000 tons of sunscreen enter coral reefs each year, and chemical sunscreen filters are detectable in waterways throughout the world—even in the Arctic.^19,20 Thus, sunscreen has come under scrutiny as a potential environmental threat, particularly with coral bleaching.

Bleaching is a process in which corals exposed to an environmental stressor expel their symbiotic photosynthetic algae and turn white; if conditions fail to improve, the corals are vulnerable to death. In a highly cited 2016 study, coral larvae exposed to oxybenzone in artificial laboratory conditions displayed concentration-dependent mortality and decreased chlorophyll fluorescence, which suggested bleaching.¹⁹ These findings influenced legislation in Hawaii and other localities banning sunscreens containing oxybenzone. Problematically, the study has been criticized for acutely exposing the most susceptible coral life-forms to unrealistic oxybenzone concentrations; more broadly, there is no standardized approach to coral toxicity testing.²¹

The bigger picture (and elephant in the room) is that the primary cause of coral bleaching is undoubtedly climate change/ocean warming.⁷ More recent studies suggest that oxybenzone probably adds insult to injury for corals already debilitated by ocean warming.^22,23

It has been posited that a narrow focus on sunscreens detracts attention from the climate issue.²⁴ Individuals can take a number of actions to reduce their carbon footprint in an effort to preserve our environment, specifically coral reefs.²⁵ Concerned patients should be counseled to use sunscreens containing the physical/mineral UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which are unlikely to contribute to coral bleaching as commercially formulated.⁷

Ongoing Questions

A lot of unknowns about sunscreen safety remain, and much hubbub has been made over studies that often are preliminary at best. At the time of this writing, absent a crystal ball, this author continues to wear chemical sunscreens; spends a lot more time worrying about their carbon footprint than what type of sunscreen to use at the beach; and believes the association of FFA with sunscreen is unlikely to be causal. Hopefully much-needed rigorous evidence will guide our future approach to sunscreen formulation and use.

Sunscreen is a cornerstone of skin cancer prevention. The first commercial sunscreen was developed nearly 100 years ago,¹ yet questions and concerns about the safety of these essential topical photoprotective agents continue to occupy our minds. This article serves as an update on some of the big sunscreen questions, as informed by the available evidence.

Are sunscreens safe?

The story of sunscreen regulation in the United States is long and dry. The major pain point is that sunscreens are regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as over-the-counter drugs rather than cosmetics (as in Europe).² Regulatory hurdles created a situation wherein no new active sunscreen ingredient has been approved by the FDA since 1999, except ecamsule for use in one product line. There is hope that changes enacted under the CARES Act will streamline and expedite the sunscreen approval process in the future.³

Amid the ongoing regulatory slog, the FDA became interested in learning more about sunscreen safety. Specifically, they sought to determine the GRASE (generally regarded as safe and effective) status of the active ingredients in sunscreens. In 2019, only the inorganic (physical/mineral) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide were considered GRASE.⁴ Trolamine salicylate and para-aminobenzoic acid were not GRASE, but they currently are not used in sunscreens in the United States. For all the remaining organic (chemical) filters, additional safety data were required to establish GRASE status.⁴ In 2024, the situation remains largely unchanged. Industry is working with the FDA on testing requirements.⁵

Why the focus on safety? After all, sunscreens have been used widely for decades without any major safety signals; their only well-established adverse effects are contact dermatitis and staining of clothing.⁶ Although preclinical studies raised concerns that chemical sunscreens could be associated with endocrine, reproductive, and neurologic toxicities, to date there are no high-quality human studies demonstrating negative effects.^7,8

However, exposure patterns have evolved. Sunscreen is recommended to be applied (and reapplied) daily. Also, chemical UV filters are used in many nonsunscreen products such as cosmetics, shampoos, fragrances, and plastics. In the United States, exposure to chemical sunscreens is ubiquitous; according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004, oxybenzone was detected in 97% of more than 2500 urine samples, implying systemic absorption but not harm.⁹

The FDA confirmed the implication of systemic absorption via 2 maximal usage trials published in 2019 and 2020.^10,11 In both studies, several chemical sunscreens were applied at the recommended density of 2 mg/cm² to 75% of the body surface area multiple times over 4 days. For all tested organic UV filters, blood levels exceeded the predetermined FDA cutoff (0.5 ng/mL), even after one application.^10,11 What’s the takeaway? Simply that the FDA now requires additional safety data for chemical sunscreen filters⁵; the findings in no way imply any associated harm. Two potential mitigating factors are that no one applies sunscreen at 2 mg/cm², and the FDA’s blood level cutoff was a general estimate not specific to sunscreens.^4,12

Nevertheless, a good long-term safety record for sunscreens does not negate the need for enhanced safety data when there is clear evidence of systemic absorption. In the meantime, concerned patients should be counseled that the physical/mineral sunscreens containing zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are considered GRASE by the FDA; even in nanoparticle form, they generally have not been found to penetrate beneath the stratum corneum.^7,13

Dermatologists are confronting the conundrum of rising cases of frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). Several theories on the pathogenesis of this idiopathic scarring alopecia have been raised, one of which involves increased use of sunscreen. Proposed explanations for sunscreen’s role in FFA include a lichenoid reaction inducing hair follicle autoimmunity through an unclear mechanism; a T cell–mediated allergic reaction, which is unlikely according to contact dermatitis experts¹⁴; reactive oxygen species production by titanium nanoparticles, yet titanium has been detected in hair follicles of both patients with FFA and controls¹⁵; and endocrine disruption following systemic absorption, which has not been supported by any high-quality human studies.⁷

An association between facial sunscreen use and FFA has been reported in case-control studies¹⁶; however, they have been criticized due to methodologic issues and biases, and they provide no evidence of causality.^17,18 The jury remains out on the controversial association between sunscreen and FFA, with a need for more convincing data.

Does sunscreen impact coral reef health?

Coral reefs—crucial sources of aquatic biodiversity—are under attack from several different directions including climate change and pollution. As much as 14,000 tons of sunscreen enter coral reefs each year, and chemical sunscreen filters are detectable in waterways throughout the world—even in the Arctic.^19,20 Thus, sunscreen has come under scrutiny as a potential environmental threat, particularly with coral bleaching.

Bleaching is a process in which corals exposed to an environmental stressor expel their symbiotic photosynthetic algae and turn white; if conditions fail to improve, the corals are vulnerable to death. In a highly cited 2016 study, coral larvae exposed to oxybenzone in artificial laboratory conditions displayed concentration-dependent mortality and decreased chlorophyll fluorescence, which suggested bleaching.¹⁹ These findings influenced legislation in Hawaii and other localities banning sunscreens containing oxybenzone. Problematically, the study has been criticized for acutely exposing the most susceptible coral life-forms to unrealistic oxybenzone concentrations; more broadly, there is no standardized approach to coral toxicity testing.²¹

The bigger picture (and elephant in the room) is that the primary cause of coral bleaching is undoubtedly climate change/ocean warming.⁷ More recent studies suggest that oxybenzone probably adds insult to injury for corals already debilitated by ocean warming.^22,23

It has been posited that a narrow focus on sunscreens detracts attention from the climate issue.²⁴ Individuals can take a number of actions to reduce their carbon footprint in an effort to preserve our environment, specifically coral reefs.²⁵ Concerned patients should be counseled to use sunscreens containing the physical/mineral UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which are unlikely to contribute to coral bleaching as commercially formulated.⁷

Ongoing Questions

A lot of unknowns about sunscreen safety remain, and much hubbub has been made over studies that often are preliminary at best. At the time of this writing, absent a crystal ball, this author continues to wear chemical sunscreens; spends a lot more time worrying about their carbon footprint than what type of sunscreen to use at the beach; and believes the association of FFA with sunscreen is unlikely to be causal. Hopefully much-needed rigorous evidence will guide our future approach to sunscreen formulation and use.

Sunscreen is a cornerstone of skin cancer prevention. The first commercial sunscreen was developed nearly 100 years ago,¹ yet questions and concerns about the safety of these essential topical photoprotective agents continue to occupy our minds. This article serves as an update on some of the big sunscreen questions, as informed by the available evidence.

Are sunscreens safe?

The story of sunscreen regulation in the United States is long and dry. The major pain point is that sunscreens are regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as over-the-counter drugs rather than cosmetics (as in Europe).² Regulatory hurdles created a situation wherein no new active sunscreen ingredient has been approved by the FDA since 1999, except ecamsule for use in one product line. There is hope that changes enacted under the CARES Act will streamline and expedite the sunscreen approval process in the future.³

Amid the ongoing regulatory slog, the FDA became interested in learning more about sunscreen safety. Specifically, they sought to determine the GRASE (generally regarded as safe and effective) status of the active ingredients in sunscreens. In 2019, only the inorganic (physical/mineral) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide were considered GRASE.⁴ Trolamine salicylate and para-aminobenzoic acid were not GRASE, but they currently are not used in sunscreens in the United States. For all the remaining organic (chemical) filters, additional safety data were required to establish GRASE status.⁴ In 2024, the situation remains largely unchanged. Industry is working with the FDA on testing requirements.⁵

Why the focus on safety? After all, sunscreens have been used widely for decades without any major safety signals; their only well-established adverse effects are contact dermatitis and staining of clothing.⁶ Although preclinical studies raised concerns that chemical sunscreens could be associated with endocrine, reproductive, and neurologic toxicities, to date there are no high-quality human studies demonstrating negative effects.^7,8

However, exposure patterns have evolved. Sunscreen is recommended to be applied (and reapplied) daily. Also, chemical UV filters are used in many nonsunscreen products such as cosmetics, shampoos, fragrances, and plastics. In the United States, exposure to chemical sunscreens is ubiquitous; according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004, oxybenzone was detected in 97% of more than 2500 urine samples, implying systemic absorption but not harm.⁹

The FDA confirmed the implication of systemic absorption via 2 maximal usage trials published in 2019 and 2020.^10,11 In both studies, several chemical sunscreens were applied at the recommended density of 2 mg/cm² to 75% of the body surface area multiple times over 4 days. For all tested organic UV filters, blood levels exceeded the predetermined FDA cutoff (0.5 ng/mL), even after one application.^10,11 What’s the takeaway? Simply that the FDA now requires additional safety data for chemical sunscreen filters⁵; the findings in no way imply any associated harm. Two potential mitigating factors are that no one applies sunscreen at 2 mg/cm², and the FDA’s blood level cutoff was a general estimate not specific to sunscreens.^4,12

Nevertheless, a good long-term safety record for sunscreens does not negate the need for enhanced safety data when there is clear evidence of systemic absorption. In the meantime, concerned patients should be counseled that the physical/mineral sunscreens containing zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are considered GRASE by the FDA; even in nanoparticle form, they generally have not been found to penetrate beneath the stratum corneum.^7,13

Dermatologists are confronting the conundrum of rising cases of frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). Several theories on the pathogenesis of this idiopathic scarring alopecia have been raised, one of which involves increased use of sunscreen. Proposed explanations for sunscreen’s role in FFA include a lichenoid reaction inducing hair follicle autoimmunity through an unclear mechanism; a T cell–mediated allergic reaction, which is unlikely according to contact dermatitis experts¹⁴; reactive oxygen species production by titanium nanoparticles, yet titanium has been detected in hair follicles of both patients with FFA and controls¹⁵; and endocrine disruption following systemic absorption, which has not been supported by any high-quality human studies.⁷

An association between facial sunscreen use and FFA has been reported in case-control studies¹⁶; however, they have been criticized due to methodologic issues and biases, and they provide no evidence of causality.^17,18 The jury remains out on the controversial association between sunscreen and FFA, with a need for more convincing data.

Does sunscreen impact coral reef health?

Coral reefs—crucial sources of aquatic biodiversity—are under attack from several different directions including climate change and pollution. As much as 14,000 tons of sunscreen enter coral reefs each year, and chemical sunscreen filters are detectable in waterways throughout the world—even in the Arctic.^19,20 Thus, sunscreen has come under scrutiny as a potential environmental threat, particularly with coral bleaching.

Bleaching is a process in which corals exposed to an environmental stressor expel their symbiotic photosynthetic algae and turn white; if conditions fail to improve, the corals are vulnerable to death. In a highly cited 2016 study, coral larvae exposed to oxybenzone in artificial laboratory conditions displayed concentration-dependent mortality and decreased chlorophyll fluorescence, which suggested bleaching.¹⁹ These findings influenced legislation in Hawaii and other localities banning sunscreens containing oxybenzone. Problematically, the study has been criticized for acutely exposing the most susceptible coral life-forms to unrealistic oxybenzone concentrations; more broadly, there is no standardized approach to coral toxicity testing.²¹

The bigger picture (and elephant in the room) is that the primary cause of coral bleaching is undoubtedly climate change/ocean warming.⁷ More recent studies suggest that oxybenzone probably adds insult to injury for corals already debilitated by ocean warming.^22,23

It has been posited that a narrow focus on sunscreens detracts attention from the climate issue.²⁴ Individuals can take a number of actions to reduce their carbon footprint in an effort to preserve our environment, specifically coral reefs.²⁵ Concerned patients should be counseled to use sunscreens containing the physical/mineral UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which are unlikely to contribute to coral bleaching as commercially formulated.⁷

Ongoing Questions

A lot of unknowns about sunscreen safety remain, and much hubbub has been made over studies that often are preliminary at best. At the time of this writing, absent a crystal ball, this author continues to wear chemical sunscreens; spends a lot more time worrying about their carbon footprint than what type of sunscreen to use at the beach; and believes the association of FFA with sunscreen is unlikely to be causal. Hopefully much-needed rigorous evidence will guide our future approach to sunscreen formulation and use.

To the Editor:

A 56-year-old man was referred to our Grand Rounds by another dermatologist in our health system for evaluation of a red scaly rash on the trunk that had been present for more than a year. More recently, over the course of approximately 9 months he experienced recurrent painful penile ulcers that lasted for approximately 4 weeks and then self-resolved. He had a medical history of central retinal vein occlusion, primary hyperparathyroidism, and nonspecific colitis. A family history was notable for lung cancer in the patient’s father and myelodysplastic syndrome and breast cancer in his mother; however, there was no family history of a similar rash. A bacterial culture of the penile ulcer was negative. Testing for antibodies against HIV and herpes simplex virus (HSV) types 1 and 2 was negative. Results of a serum VDRL test were nonreactive, which ruled out syphilis. The patient was treated by the referring dermatologist with azithromycin for possible chancroid without relief.

The patient was being followed by the referring dermatologist who initially was concerned for Degos disease based on clinical examination findings, prompting biopsy of a lesion on the back, which revealed vacuolar interface dermatitis, a sparse superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, and increased mucin—all highly suspicious for connective tissue disease (Figure 1). An antinuclear antibody test was positive, with a titer of 1:640. The patient was started on prednisone and referred to rheumatology; however, further evaluation by rheumatology for an autoimmune process—including anticardiolipin antibodies—was unremarkable. A few months prior to the current presentation, he also had mildly elevated liver function test results. A colonoscopy was performed, and a biopsy revealed nonspecific colitis. A biopsy of the penile ulcer also was nonspecific, showing only ulceration and acute and chronic inflammation. No epidermal interface change was seen. Results from a Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stain, Treponema pallidum immunostain, and HSV polymerase chain reaction were negative for fungal organisms, spirochetes, and HSV, respectively. The differential diagnosis included trauma, aphthous ulceration, and Behçet disease. Behçet disease was suspected by the referring dermatologist, and the patient was treated with colchicine, prednisone, pimecrolimus cream, and topical lidocaine; however, the lesions persisted, and he was subsequently referred to our Grand Rounds for further evaluation.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed several small papules with white atrophic centers and erythematous rims on the trunk and extremities (Figure 2A). An ulceration was noted on the penile shaft (Figure 2B). Further evaluation for Behçet disease, including testing for pathergy and HLA-B51, was negative. Degos disease was strongly suspected clinically, and a repeat biopsy was performed of a lesion on the abdomen, which revealed central epidermal necrosis, atrophy, and parakeratosis with an underlying wedge-shaped dermal infarct surrounded by multiple small occluded dermal vessels, perivascular inflammation, and dermal edema (Figure 3). Direct immunofluorescence was performed using antibodies against IgG, IgA, IgM, fibrinogen, albumin, and C3, which was negative. These findings from direct immunofluorescence and histopathology as well as the clinical presentation were considered compatible with Degos disease. The patient was started on aspirin and pentoxifylline. Pentoxifylline 400 mg twice daily appeared to lessen some of the pain. Pain management specialists started the patient on gabapentin.

Approximately 4 months after the Grand Rounds evaluation, during which time he continued treatment with pentoxifylline, he was admitted to the hospital for intractable nausea and vomiting. His condition acutely declined due to bowel perforation, and he was started on eculizumab 1200 mg every 14 days. Because of an increased risk for meningococcal meningitis while on this medication, he also was given erythromycin 500 mg twice daily prophylactically. He was being followed by hematology for the vasculopathy, and they were planning to monitor for any disease changes with computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis every 3 months, as well as echocardiogram every 6 months for any development of pericardial or pleural fibrosis. Approximately 1 month later, the patient was admitted to the hospital again but died after 1 week from gastrointestinal complications (approximately 22 months after the onset of the rash).

Degos disease (atrophic papulosis) is a rare small vessel vasculopathy of unknown etiology, but complement-mediated endothelial injury plays a role.^1,2 It typically occurs in the fourth decade of life, with a slight female predominance.^3,4 The skin lesions are characteristic and described as 5- to 10-mm papules with atrophic white centers and erythematous telangiectatic rims, most commonly on the upper body and typically sparing the head, palms, and soles.¹ Penile ulceration is an uncommon cutaneous feature, with only a few cases reported in the literature.^5,6 Approximately one-third of patients will have only skin lesions, but two-thirds will develop systemic involvement 1 to 2 years after onset, with the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system most commonly involved. For those with systemic involvement, the 5-year survival rate is approximately 55%, and the most common causes of death are bowel perforation, peritonitis, and stroke.^3,4 Because some patients appear to never develop systemic complications, Theodoridis et al⁴ proposed that the disease be classified as either malignant atrophic papulosis or benign atrophic papulosis to indicate the malignant systemic form and the benign cutaneous form, respectively.

The histopathology of Degos disease changes as the lesions evolve.⁷ Early lesions show a superficial and deep perivascular and periadnexal lymphocytic infiltrate, possible interface dermatitis, and dermal mucin resembling lupus. The more fully developed lesions show a greater degree of inflammation and interface change as well as lymphocytic vasculitis. This stage also may have epidermal atrophy and early papillary dermal sclerosis resembling lichen sclerosus. The late-stage lesions, clinically observed as papules with atrophic white centers and surrounding erythema, show the classic pathology of wedge-shaped dermal sclerosis and central epidermal atrophy with surrounding hyperkeratosis. Interface dermatitis and dermal mucin can be seen in all stages, though mucin is diminished in the later stage.

Effective treatment options are limited; however, antithrombotics or compounds that facilitate blood perfusion, such as aspirin or pentoxifylline, initially can be used.¹ Eculizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that prevents the cleavage of C5, has been used for salvage therapy,⁸ as in our case. Treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog that causes arterial vasodilation and inhibition of platelet aggregation, has been reported to improve bowel and cutaneous lesions, functional status, and neurologic symptoms.⁹

Our case highlights important features of Degos disease. First, it is important for both the clinician and the pathologist to recognize that the histopathology of Degos disease changes as the lesions evolve. In our case, although the lesions were characteristic of Degos disease clinically, the initial biopsy was suspicious for connective tissue disease, which led to an autoimmune evaluation that ultimately was unremarkable. Recognizing that early lesions of Degos disease can resemble connective tissue disease histologically could have prevented this delay in diagnosis. However, Degos disease has been reported in association with autoimmune diseases.¹⁰ Second, although penile ulceration is uncommon, it can be a prominent cutaneous manifestation of the disease. Finally, eculizumab and treprostinil are therapeutic options that have shown some efficacy in improving symptoms and cutaneous lesions.^8,9

To the Editor:

A 56-year-old man was referred to our Grand Rounds by another dermatologist in our health system for evaluation of a red scaly rash on the trunk that had been present for more than a year. More recently, over the course of approximately 9 months he experienced recurrent painful penile ulcers that lasted for approximately 4 weeks and then self-resolved. He had a medical history of central retinal vein occlusion, primary hyperparathyroidism, and nonspecific colitis. A family history was notable for lung cancer in the patient’s father and myelodysplastic syndrome and breast cancer in his mother; however, there was no family history of a similar rash. A bacterial culture of the penile ulcer was negative. Testing for antibodies against HIV and herpes simplex virus (HSV) types 1 and 2 was negative. Results of a serum VDRL test were nonreactive, which ruled out syphilis. The patient was treated by the referring dermatologist with azithromycin for possible chancroid without relief.

The patient was being followed by the referring dermatologist who initially was concerned for Degos disease based on clinical examination findings, prompting biopsy of a lesion on the back, which revealed vacuolar interface dermatitis, a sparse superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, and increased mucin—all highly suspicious for connective tissue disease (Figure 1). An antinuclear antibody test was positive, with a titer of 1:640. The patient was started on prednisone and referred to rheumatology; however, further evaluation by rheumatology for an autoimmune process—including anticardiolipin antibodies—was unremarkable. A few months prior to the current presentation, he also had mildly elevated liver function test results. A colonoscopy was performed, and a biopsy revealed nonspecific colitis. A biopsy of the penile ulcer also was nonspecific, showing only ulceration and acute and chronic inflammation. No epidermal interface change was seen. Results from a Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stain, Treponema pallidum immunostain, and HSV polymerase chain reaction were negative for fungal organisms, spirochetes, and HSV, respectively. The differential diagnosis included trauma, aphthous ulceration, and Behçet disease. Behçet disease was suspected by the referring dermatologist, and the patient was treated with colchicine, prednisone, pimecrolimus cream, and topical lidocaine; however, the lesions persisted, and he was subsequently referred to our Grand Rounds for further evaluation.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed several small papules with white atrophic centers and erythematous rims on the trunk and extremities (Figure 2A). An ulceration was noted on the penile shaft (Figure 2B). Further evaluation for Behçet disease, including testing for pathergy and HLA-B51, was negative. Degos disease was strongly suspected clinically, and a repeat biopsy was performed of a lesion on the abdomen, which revealed central epidermal necrosis, atrophy, and parakeratosis with an underlying wedge-shaped dermal infarct surrounded by multiple small occluded dermal vessels, perivascular inflammation, and dermal edema (Figure 3). Direct immunofluorescence was performed using antibodies against IgG, IgA, IgM, fibrinogen, albumin, and C3, which was negative. These findings from direct immunofluorescence and histopathology as well as the clinical presentation were considered compatible with Degos disease. The patient was started on aspirin and pentoxifylline. Pentoxifylline 400 mg twice daily appeared to lessen some of the pain. Pain management specialists started the patient on gabapentin.

Approximately 4 months after the Grand Rounds evaluation, during which time he continued treatment with pentoxifylline, he was admitted to the hospital for intractable nausea and vomiting. His condition acutely declined due to bowel perforation, and he was started on eculizumab 1200 mg every 14 days. Because of an increased risk for meningococcal meningitis while on this medication, he also was given erythromycin 500 mg twice daily prophylactically. He was being followed by hematology for the vasculopathy, and they were planning to monitor for any disease changes with computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis every 3 months, as well as echocardiogram every 6 months for any development of pericardial or pleural fibrosis. Approximately 1 month later, the patient was admitted to the hospital again but died after 1 week from gastrointestinal complications (approximately 22 months after the onset of the rash).

Degos disease (atrophic papulosis) is a rare small vessel vasculopathy of unknown etiology, but complement-mediated endothelial injury plays a role.^1,2 It typically occurs in the fourth decade of life, with a slight female predominance.^3,4 The skin lesions are characteristic and described as 5- to 10-mm papules with atrophic white centers and erythematous telangiectatic rims, most commonly on the upper body and typically sparing the head, palms, and soles.¹ Penile ulceration is an uncommon cutaneous feature, with only a few cases reported in the literature.^5,6 Approximately one-third of patients will have only skin lesions, but two-thirds will develop systemic involvement 1 to 2 years after onset, with the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system most commonly involved. For those with systemic involvement, the 5-year survival rate is approximately 55%, and the most common causes of death are bowel perforation, peritonitis, and stroke.^3,4 Because some patients appear to never develop systemic complications, Theodoridis et al⁴ proposed that the disease be classified as either malignant atrophic papulosis or benign atrophic papulosis to indicate the malignant systemic form and the benign cutaneous form, respectively.

The histopathology of Degos disease changes as the lesions evolve.⁷ Early lesions show a superficial and deep perivascular and periadnexal lymphocytic infiltrate, possible interface dermatitis, and dermal mucin resembling lupus. The more fully developed lesions show a greater degree of inflammation and interface change as well as lymphocytic vasculitis. This stage also may have epidermal atrophy and early papillary dermal sclerosis resembling lichen sclerosus. The late-stage lesions, clinically observed as papules with atrophic white centers and surrounding erythema, show the classic pathology of wedge-shaped dermal sclerosis and central epidermal atrophy with surrounding hyperkeratosis. Interface dermatitis and dermal mucin can be seen in all stages, though mucin is diminished in the later stage.

Effective treatment options are limited; however, antithrombotics or compounds that facilitate blood perfusion, such as aspirin or pentoxifylline, initially can be used.¹ Eculizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that prevents the cleavage of C5, has been used for salvage therapy,⁸ as in our case. Treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog that causes arterial vasodilation and inhibition of platelet aggregation, has been reported to improve bowel and cutaneous lesions, functional status, and neurologic symptoms.⁹

Our case highlights important features of Degos disease. First, it is important for both the clinician and the pathologist to recognize that the histopathology of Degos disease changes as the lesions evolve. In our case, although the lesions were characteristic of Degos disease clinically, the initial biopsy was suspicious for connective tissue disease, which led to an autoimmune evaluation that ultimately was unremarkable. Recognizing that early lesions of Degos disease can resemble connective tissue disease histologically could have prevented this delay in diagnosis. However, Degos disease has been reported in association with autoimmune diseases.¹⁰ Second, although penile ulceration is uncommon, it can be a prominent cutaneous manifestation of the disease. Finally, eculizumab and treprostinil are therapeutic options that have shown some efficacy in improving symptoms and cutaneous lesions.^8,9

To the Editor:

A 56-year-old man was referred to our Grand Rounds by another dermatologist in our health system for evaluation of a red scaly rash on the trunk that had been present for more than a year. More recently, over the course of approximately 9 months he experienced recurrent painful penile ulcers that lasted for approximately 4 weeks and then self-resolved. He had a medical history of central retinal vein occlusion, primary hyperparathyroidism, and nonspecific colitis. A family history was notable for lung cancer in the patient’s father and myelodysplastic syndrome and breast cancer in his mother; however, there was no family history of a similar rash. A bacterial culture of the penile ulcer was negative. Testing for antibodies against HIV and herpes simplex virus (HSV) types 1 and 2 was negative. Results of a serum VDRL test were nonreactive, which ruled out syphilis. The patient was treated by the referring dermatologist with azithromycin for possible chancroid without relief.

The patient was being followed by the referring dermatologist who initially was concerned for Degos disease based on clinical examination findings, prompting biopsy of a lesion on the back, which revealed vacuolar interface dermatitis, a sparse superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, and increased mucin—all highly suspicious for connective tissue disease (Figure 1). An antinuclear antibody test was positive, with a titer of 1:640. The patient was started on prednisone and referred to rheumatology; however, further evaluation by rheumatology for an autoimmune process—including anticardiolipin antibodies—was unremarkable. A few months prior to the current presentation, he also had mildly elevated liver function test results. A colonoscopy was performed, and a biopsy revealed nonspecific colitis. A biopsy of the penile ulcer also was nonspecific, showing only ulceration and acute and chronic inflammation. No epidermal interface change was seen. Results from a Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver stain, Treponema pallidum immunostain, and HSV polymerase chain reaction were negative for fungal organisms, spirochetes, and HSV, respectively. The differential diagnosis included trauma, aphthous ulceration, and Behçet disease. Behçet disease was suspected by the referring dermatologist, and the patient was treated with colchicine, prednisone, pimecrolimus cream, and topical lidocaine; however, the lesions persisted, and he was subsequently referred to our Grand Rounds for further evaluation.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed several small papules with white atrophic centers and erythematous rims on the trunk and extremities (Figure 2A). An ulceration was noted on the penile shaft (Figure 2B). Further evaluation for Behçet disease, including testing for pathergy and HLA-B51, was negative. Degos disease was strongly suspected clinically, and a repeat biopsy was performed of a lesion on the abdomen, which revealed central epidermal necrosis, atrophy, and parakeratosis with an underlying wedge-shaped dermal infarct surrounded by multiple small occluded dermal vessels, perivascular inflammation, and dermal edema (Figure 3). Direct immunofluorescence was performed using antibodies against IgG, IgA, IgM, fibrinogen, albumin, and C3, which was negative. These findings from direct immunofluorescence and histopathology as well as the clinical presentation were considered compatible with Degos disease. The patient was started on aspirin and pentoxifylline. Pentoxifylline 400 mg twice daily appeared to lessen some of the pain. Pain management specialists started the patient on gabapentin.

Approximately 4 months after the Grand Rounds evaluation, during which time he continued treatment with pentoxifylline, he was admitted to the hospital for intractable nausea and vomiting. His condition acutely declined due to bowel perforation, and he was started on eculizumab 1200 mg every 14 days. Because of an increased risk for meningococcal meningitis while on this medication, he also was given erythromycin 500 mg twice daily prophylactically. He was being followed by hematology for the vasculopathy, and they were planning to monitor for any disease changes with computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis every 3 months, as well as echocardiogram every 6 months for any development of pericardial or pleural fibrosis. Approximately 1 month later, the patient was admitted to the hospital again but died after 1 week from gastrointestinal complications (approximately 22 months after the onset of the rash).

Degos disease (atrophic papulosis) is a rare small vessel vasculopathy of unknown etiology, but complement-mediated endothelial injury plays a role.^1,2 It typically occurs in the fourth decade of life, with a slight female predominance.^3,4 The skin lesions are characteristic and described as 5- to 10-mm papules with atrophic white centers and erythematous telangiectatic rims, most commonly on the upper body and typically sparing the head, palms, and soles.¹ Penile ulceration is an uncommon cutaneous feature, with only a few cases reported in the literature.^5,6 Approximately one-third of patients will have only skin lesions, but two-thirds will develop systemic involvement 1 to 2 years after onset, with the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system most commonly involved. For those with systemic involvement, the 5-year survival rate is approximately 55%, and the most common causes of death are bowel perforation, peritonitis, and stroke.^3,4 Because some patients appear to never develop systemic complications, Theodoridis et al⁴ proposed that the disease be classified as either malignant atrophic papulosis or benign atrophic papulosis to indicate the malignant systemic form and the benign cutaneous form, respectively.

The histopathology of Degos disease changes as the lesions evolve.⁷ Early lesions show a superficial and deep perivascular and periadnexal lymphocytic infiltrate, possible interface dermatitis, and dermal mucin resembling lupus. The more fully developed lesions show a greater degree of inflammation and interface change as well as lymphocytic vasculitis. This stage also may have epidermal atrophy and early papillary dermal sclerosis resembling lichen sclerosus. The late-stage lesions, clinically observed as papules with atrophic white centers and surrounding erythema, show the classic pathology of wedge-shaped dermal sclerosis and central epidermal atrophy with surrounding hyperkeratosis. Interface dermatitis and dermal mucin can be seen in all stages, though mucin is diminished in the later stage.

Effective treatment options are limited; however, antithrombotics or compounds that facilitate blood perfusion, such as aspirin or pentoxifylline, initially can be used.¹ Eculizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that prevents the cleavage of C5, has been used for salvage therapy,⁸ as in our case. Treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog that causes arterial vasodilation and inhibition of platelet aggregation, has been reported to improve bowel and cutaneous lesions, functional status, and neurologic symptoms.⁹

Our case highlights important features of Degos disease. First, it is important for both the clinician and the pathologist to recognize that the histopathology of Degos disease changes as the lesions evolve. In our case, although the lesions were characteristic of Degos disease clinically, the initial biopsy was suspicious for connective tissue disease, which led to an autoimmune evaluation that ultimately was unremarkable. Recognizing that early lesions of Degos disease can resemble connective tissue disease histologically could have prevented this delay in diagnosis. However, Degos disease has been reported in association with autoimmune diseases.¹⁰ Second, although penile ulceration is uncommon, it can be a prominent cutaneous manifestation of the disease. Finally, eculizumab and treprostinil are therapeutic options that have shown some efficacy in improving symptoms and cutaneous lesions.^8,9

The class of CDK 4/6 inhibitors represents a significant advance in the treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer. All three CDK 4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib) are approved in combination with endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting. As drugs show promise in later-stage disease, they are then often studied in the curative space. Presently, abemaciclib is the only CDK 4/6 inhibitor that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer, based on results from the monarchE trial, which demonstrated invasive disease-free survival benefit with the addition of 2 years of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy. At 4 years, the absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) between the groups was 6.4% (85.8% in the abemaciclib + endocrine therapy group vs 79.4% in the endocrine therapy–alone group).^[3] In contrast, the PENELOPE-B and PALLAS trials did not show benefit with the addition of palbociclib to endocrine therapy in the adjuvant setting.^[4,5] The phase 3 NATALEE trial randomly assigned patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer to ribociclib (400 mg daily for 3 weeks followed by 1 week off for 3 years) plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) or an NSAI alone. At the time of prespecified interim analysis, among 5101 patients, ribociclib + NSAI led to a significant improvement in IDFS compared with endocrine therapy alone (3-year IDFS was 90.4% vs 87.1%; hazard ratio 0.75; 95% CI 0.62-0.91; P = .003). It is certainly noteworthy that the trial design, endocrine therapies, and patient populations differed between these adjuvant studies; for example, NATALEE included a lower-risk population, and all patients received an NSAI (in monarchE approximately 30% received tamoxifen). The current results of NATALEE are encouraging; an absolute benefit of 3.3% should be considered and weighed against toxicities and cost, and longer follow-up is needed to further elucidate the role of ribociclib in the adjuvant space.

The meaningful impact of achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) has been demonstrated in various prior studies. Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy informs prognosis and helps tailor adjuvant therapy, the latter of which is particularly relevant for the HER2-positive subtype. Strategies to identify patients who are more likely to achieve pCR and predictors of early responders may aid in improving efficacy outcomes and limiting toxicities. TRAIN-3 is a single-arm, phase 2 study that included 235 and 232 patients with stage II/III HR-/HER2+ and HR+/HER2+ breast cancer, respectively, undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (weekly paclitaxel D1 and D8/carboplatin AUC 6 D1/trastuzumab D1/pertuzumab D1 every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles), and was designed to evaluate radiologic and pathologic response rates and event-free survival. Response was monitored by breast MRI every 3 cycles and lymph node biopsy. Among patients with HR-/HER2+ tumors, 84 (36%; 95% CI 30-43) achieved a radiologic complete response after one to three cycles, of whom the majority (88%; 95% CI 79-94) had pCR. Patients with HR+/HER2+ tumors did not show the same degree of benefit with an MRI-based monitoring strategy; among the 138 patients (59%; 95% CI 53-66) who had a complete radiologic response after one to nine cycles, 73 (53%; 95% CI 44-61) had pCR. Additional imaging-guided modalities being studied to tailor and optimize treatment include [¹⁸F]fluorodeoxyglucose-PET-CT and volumetric MRI, in the PHERGain and I-SPY trials, respectively.^[6,7]

Additional References:

1. Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L, et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: The ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:918-926. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11470 Source
2. Bartels SAL, Donker M, Poncet C, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized controlled EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:2159-2165. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01565 Source
3. Johnston SRD, Toi M, O'Shaughnessy J, et al, on behalf of the monarchE Committee Members. Abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer (monarchE): Results from a preplanned interim analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24:77-90. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00694-5 Source
4. Loibl S, Marmé F, Martin M, et al. Palbociclib for residual high-risk invasive HR-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer—The Penelope-B trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:1518-1530. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.03639 Source
5. Gnant M, Dueck AC, Frantal S, et al, on behalf of the PALLAS groups and investigators. Adjuvant palbociclib for early breast cancer: The PALLAS trial results (ABCSG-42/AFT-05/BIG-14-03). J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:282-293. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02554 Source
6. Pérez-García JM, Cortés J, Ruiz-Borrego M, et al, on behalf of the PHERGain trial investigators. 3-year invasive disease-free survival with chemotherapy de-escalation using an 18F-FDG-PET-based, pathological complete response-adapted strategy in HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHERGain): A randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2024;403:1649-1659. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00054-0 Source
7. Hylton NM, Gatsonis CA, Rosen MA, et al, for the ACRIN 6657 trial team and I-SPY 1 trial investigators. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: Functional tumor volume by MR imaging predicts recurrence-free survival-results from the ACRIN 6657/CALGB 150007 I-SPY 1 trial. Radiology. 2016;279:44-55. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015150013 Source

The class of CDK 4/6 inhibitors represents a significant advance in the treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer. All three CDK 4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib) are approved in combination with endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting. As drugs show promise in later-stage disease, they are then often studied in the curative space. Presently, abemaciclib is the only CDK 4/6 inhibitor that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer, based on results from the monarchE trial, which demonstrated invasive disease-free survival benefit with the addition of 2 years of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy. At 4 years, the absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) between the groups was 6.4% (85.8% in the abemaciclib + endocrine therapy group vs 79.4% in the endocrine therapy–alone group).^[3] In contrast, the PENELOPE-B and PALLAS trials did not show benefit with the addition of palbociclib to endocrine therapy in the adjuvant setting.^[4,5] The phase 3 NATALEE trial randomly assigned patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer to ribociclib (400 mg daily for 3 weeks followed by 1 week off for 3 years) plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) or an NSAI alone. At the time of prespecified interim analysis, among 5101 patients, ribociclib + NSAI led to a significant improvement in IDFS compared with endocrine therapy alone (3-year IDFS was 90.4% vs 87.1%; hazard ratio 0.75; 95% CI 0.62-0.91; P = .003). It is certainly noteworthy that the trial design, endocrine therapies, and patient populations differed between these adjuvant studies; for example, NATALEE included a lower-risk population, and all patients received an NSAI (in monarchE approximately 30% received tamoxifen). The current results of NATALEE are encouraging; an absolute benefit of 3.3% should be considered and weighed against toxicities and cost, and longer follow-up is needed to further elucidate the role of ribociclib in the adjuvant space.

The meaningful impact of achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) has been demonstrated in various prior studies. Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy informs prognosis and helps tailor adjuvant therapy, the latter of which is particularly relevant for the HER2-positive subtype. Strategies to identify patients who are more likely to achieve pCR and predictors of early responders may aid in improving efficacy outcomes and limiting toxicities. TRAIN-3 is a single-arm, phase 2 study that included 235 and 232 patients with stage II/III HR-/HER2+ and HR+/HER2+ breast cancer, respectively, undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (weekly paclitaxel D1 and D8/carboplatin AUC 6 D1/trastuzumab D1/pertuzumab D1 every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles), and was designed to evaluate radiologic and pathologic response rates and event-free survival. Response was monitored by breast MRI every 3 cycles and lymph node biopsy. Among patients with HR-/HER2+ tumors, 84 (36%; 95% CI 30-43) achieved a radiologic complete response after one to three cycles, of whom the majority (88%; 95% CI 79-94) had pCR. Patients with HR+/HER2+ tumors did not show the same degree of benefit with an MRI-based monitoring strategy; among the 138 patients (59%; 95% CI 53-66) who had a complete radiologic response after one to nine cycles, 73 (53%; 95% CI 44-61) had pCR. Additional imaging-guided modalities being studied to tailor and optimize treatment include [¹⁸F]fluorodeoxyglucose-PET-CT and volumetric MRI, in the PHERGain and I-SPY trials, respectively.^[6,7]

Additional References:

1. Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L, et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: The ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:918-926. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11470 Source
2. Bartels SAL, Donker M, Poncet C, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized controlled EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:2159-2165. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01565 Source
3. Johnston SRD, Toi M, O'Shaughnessy J, et al, on behalf of the monarchE Committee Members. Abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer (monarchE): Results from a preplanned interim analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24:77-90. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00694-5 Source
4. Loibl S, Marmé F, Martin M, et al. Palbociclib for residual high-risk invasive HR-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer—The Penelope-B trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:1518-1530. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.03639 Source
5. Gnant M, Dueck AC, Frantal S, et al, on behalf of the PALLAS groups and investigators. Adjuvant palbociclib for early breast cancer: The PALLAS trial results (ABCSG-42/AFT-05/BIG-14-03). J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:282-293. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02554 Source
6. Pérez-García JM, Cortés J, Ruiz-Borrego M, et al, on behalf of the PHERGain trial investigators. 3-year invasive disease-free survival with chemotherapy de-escalation using an 18F-FDG-PET-based, pathological complete response-adapted strategy in HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHERGain): A randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2024;403:1649-1659. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00054-0 Source
7. Hylton NM, Gatsonis CA, Rosen MA, et al, for the ACRIN 6657 trial team and I-SPY 1 trial investigators. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: Functional tumor volume by MR imaging predicts recurrence-free survival-results from the ACRIN 6657/CALGB 150007 I-SPY 1 trial. Radiology. 2016;279:44-55. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015150013 Source

The class of CDK 4/6 inhibitors represents a significant advance in the treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer. All three CDK 4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib) are approved in combination with endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting. As drugs show promise in later-stage disease, they are then often studied in the curative space. Presently, abemaciclib is the only CDK 4/6 inhibitor that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer, based on results from the monarchE trial, which demonstrated invasive disease-free survival benefit with the addition of 2 years of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy. At 4 years, the absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) between the groups was 6.4% (85.8% in the abemaciclib + endocrine therapy group vs 79.4% in the endocrine therapy–alone group).^[3] In contrast, the PENELOPE-B and PALLAS trials did not show benefit with the addition of palbociclib to endocrine therapy in the adjuvant setting.^[4,5] The phase 3 NATALEE trial randomly assigned patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer to ribociclib (400 mg daily for 3 weeks followed by 1 week off for 3 years) plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) or an NSAI alone. At the time of prespecified interim analysis, among 5101 patients, ribociclib + NSAI led to a significant improvement in IDFS compared with endocrine therapy alone (3-year IDFS was 90.4% vs 87.1%; hazard ratio 0.75; 95% CI 0.62-0.91; P = .003). It is certainly noteworthy that the trial design, endocrine therapies, and patient populations differed between these adjuvant studies; for example, NATALEE included a lower-risk population, and all patients received an NSAI (in monarchE approximately 30% received tamoxifen). The current results of NATALEE are encouraging; an absolute benefit of 3.3% should be considered and weighed against toxicities and cost, and longer follow-up is needed to further elucidate the role of ribociclib in the adjuvant space.

The meaningful impact of achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) has been demonstrated in various prior studies. Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy informs prognosis and helps tailor adjuvant therapy, the latter of which is particularly relevant for the HER2-positive subtype. Strategies to identify patients who are more likely to achieve pCR and predictors of early responders may aid in improving efficacy outcomes and limiting toxicities. TRAIN-3 is a single-arm, phase 2 study that included 235 and 232 patients with stage II/III HR-/HER2+ and HR+/HER2+ breast cancer, respectively, undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (weekly paclitaxel D1 and D8/carboplatin AUC 6 D1/trastuzumab D1/pertuzumab D1 every 3 weeks for up to nine cycles), and was designed to evaluate radiologic and pathologic response rates and event-free survival. Response was monitored by breast MRI every 3 cycles and lymph node biopsy. Among patients with HR-/HER2+ tumors, 84 (36%; 95% CI 30-43) achieved a radiologic complete response after one to three cycles, of whom the majority (88%; 95% CI 79-94) had pCR. Patients with HR+/HER2+ tumors did not show the same degree of benefit with an MRI-based monitoring strategy; among the 138 patients (59%; 95% CI 53-66) who had a complete radiologic response after one to nine cycles, 73 (53%; 95% CI 44-61) had pCR. Additional imaging-guided modalities being studied to tailor and optimize treatment include [¹⁸F]fluorodeoxyglucose-PET-CT and volumetric MRI, in the PHERGain and I-SPY trials, respectively.^[6,7]

Additional References:

1. Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L, et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: The ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:918-926. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11470 Source
2. Bartels SAL, Donker M, Poncet C, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer: 10-year results of the randomized controlled EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:2159-2165. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.01565 Source
3. Johnston SRD, Toi M, O'Shaughnessy J, et al, on behalf of the monarchE Committee Members. Abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer (monarchE): Results from a preplanned interim analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24:77-90. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00694-5 Source
4. Loibl S, Marmé F, Martin M, et al. Palbociclib for residual high-risk invasive HR-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer—The Penelope-B trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:1518-1530. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.03639 Source
5. Gnant M, Dueck AC, Frantal S, et al, on behalf of the PALLAS groups and investigators. Adjuvant palbociclib for early breast cancer: The PALLAS trial results (ABCSG-42/AFT-05/BIG-14-03). J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:282-293. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02554 Source
6. Pérez-García JM, Cortés J, Ruiz-Borrego M, et al, on behalf of the PHERGain trial investigators. 3-year invasive disease-free survival with chemotherapy de-escalation using an 18F-FDG-PET-based, pathological complete response-adapted strategy in HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHERGain): A randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2024;403:1649-1659. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00054-0 Source
7. Hylton NM, Gatsonis CA, Rosen MA, et al, for the ACRIN 6657 trial team and I-SPY 1 trial investigators. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: Functional tumor volume by MR imaging predicts recurrence-free survival-results from the ACRIN 6657/CALGB 150007 I-SPY 1 trial. Radiology. 2016;279:44-55. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015150013 Source

Lipid highlights from the 2024 American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions included positive outcomes for bempedoic acid in statin-intolerant patients and a inclisiran-first strategy for patients with atherosclerosis. The presentations are reported by Dr Erin Michos, associate director of preventive cardiology, Johns Hopkins University. Dr Michos begins with an update of the CLEAR Outcomes trial, which examined bempedoic acid, a nonstatin inhibitor of cholesterol synthesis, in patients who had cardiovascular disease or were at high risk of developing it. The trial found that bempedoic acid safely reduced cardiovascular events by 13% compared with placebo — findings of particular value for patients unable or unwilling to take guideline-recommended doses of statins. Commendably, the trial enrolled 48% women and 17% Hispanic/Latinx persons. Dr Michos also reports on a trial investigating an inclisiran-first strategy vs usual care in patients with atherosclerosis. The reduction in LDL cholesterol was 60% for patients in the inclisiran upfront arm vs only 7% for patients provided with usual care. In closing, Dr Michos discusses the TACTIC trial, which was an evaluation of a technology-assisted web application used to qualify patients for nonprescription statin administration.

--

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Director of Women's Cardiovascular Health Research, Associate Director of Preventive Cardiology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Edwards Lifesciences; Esperion; Merck; Medtronic; New Amsterdam; Novo Nordisk; Novartis; Pfizer

Lipid highlights from the 2024 American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions included positive outcomes for bempedoic acid in statin-intolerant patients and a inclisiran-first strategy for patients with atherosclerosis. The presentations are reported by Dr Erin Michos, associate director of preventive cardiology, Johns Hopkins University. Dr Michos begins with an update of the CLEAR Outcomes trial, which examined bempedoic acid, a nonstatin inhibitor of cholesterol synthesis, in patients who had cardiovascular disease or were at high risk of developing it. The trial found that bempedoic acid safely reduced cardiovascular events by 13% compared with placebo — findings of particular value for patients unable or unwilling to take guideline-recommended doses of statins. Commendably, the trial enrolled 48% women and 17% Hispanic/Latinx persons. Dr Michos also reports on a trial investigating an inclisiran-first strategy vs usual care in patients with atherosclerosis. The reduction in LDL cholesterol was 60% for patients in the inclisiran upfront arm vs only 7% for patients provided with usual care. In closing, Dr Michos discusses the TACTIC trial, which was an evaluation of a technology-assisted web application used to qualify patients for nonprescription statin administration.

--

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Director of Women's Cardiovascular Health Research, Associate Director of Preventive Cardiology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Edwards Lifesciences; Esperion; Merck; Medtronic; New Amsterdam; Novo Nordisk; Novartis; Pfizer

Lipid highlights from the 2024 American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions included positive outcomes for bempedoic acid in statin-intolerant patients and a inclisiran-first strategy for patients with atherosclerosis. The presentations are reported by Dr Erin Michos, associate director of preventive cardiology, Johns Hopkins University. Dr Michos begins with an update of the CLEAR Outcomes trial, which examined bempedoic acid, a nonstatin inhibitor of cholesterol synthesis, in patients who had cardiovascular disease or were at high risk of developing it. The trial found that bempedoic acid safely reduced cardiovascular events by 13% compared with placebo — findings of particular value for patients unable or unwilling to take guideline-recommended doses of statins. Commendably, the trial enrolled 48% women and 17% Hispanic/Latinx persons. Dr Michos also reports on a trial investigating an inclisiran-first strategy vs usual care in patients with atherosclerosis. The reduction in LDL cholesterol was 60% for patients in the inclisiran upfront arm vs only 7% for patients provided with usual care. In closing, Dr Michos discusses the TACTIC trial, which was an evaluation of a technology-assisted web application used to qualify patients for nonprescription statin administration.

--

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Director of Women's Cardiovascular Health Research, Associate Director of Preventive Cardiology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland

Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Amgen; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Edwards Lifesciences; Esperion; Merck; Medtronic; New Amsterdam; Novo Nordisk; Novartis; Pfizer

The Diagnosis: Nodular Basal Cell Carcinoma

Histopathology of the lesion showed a large basaloid lobule with focal epidermal attachment, peripheral nuclear palisading with cleft formation between the tumor and surrounding stroma, fibromyxoid stroma and mild pleomorphism, and variable mitotic activity and apoptosis (Figure). Based on the clinical presentation and histopathology, the patient was diagnosed with nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC). He underwent a wide local excision of the affected area that was repaired with a splitthickness skin graft.

Basal cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer worldwide and typically occurs due to years of UV radiation damage on sun-exposed skin, which accounts for a higher frequency of BCC occurring in patients residing in geographic locations with greater UV exposure (eg, higher and lower latitudes). In addition to cumulative UV dose, the duration of the exposure as well as its intensity also play a role in the development of BCC, particularly in early childhood and adolescence. Nevertheless, UV exposure is not the only risk factor, as 20% of BCCs arise in skin that is not exposed to the sun. Other risk factors include exposure to ionizing radiation and arsenic, immunosuppression, and genetic predisposition.¹ Although these malignancies typically do not metastasize, growth can lead to local tissue destruction and major disfigurement if not treated in a timely fashion.²

In our patient, the differential diagnosis included pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) given the clinical appearance of the cribriform base and violaceous undermined rim of the ulcer. Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare neutrophilic disorder that often results in ulcers that have been associated with various systemic autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease. There are 4 main subtypes of PG: the classic ulcerative type (our patient); the pustular type, which most often is seen in patients with inflammatory bowel disease; the bullous type, which can be seen in patients with an associated lymphoproliferative disorder; and the vegetative type. It frequently is thought of as both a clinical and histologic diagnosis of exclusion due to the nonspecific histopathologic features; most lesions demonstrate an infiltrate of neutrophils in the dermis. A biopsy was crucial in our patient, considering that diagnosis and treatment would have been further delayed had the patient been empirically treated with oral and topical steroids for presumed PG, which is precisely why PG is a diagnosis of exclusion. It is imperative for clinicians to rule out other pathologies, such as infection or malignancy, as demonstrated in our patient. The progressive onset and slow evolution of the lesion over years along with a lack of pain were more suggestive of BCC rather than PG. However, there is a report in the literature of PG mimicking BCC with both clinical and dermoscopic findings.³

Venous or stasis ulcers are painless, and although they rarely occur on the calf, they typically are seen lower on the leg such as on the medial ankles. Our patient endorsed occasional swelling of the affected leg and presented with edema, but overlying stasis change and other signs of venous insufficiency were absent.

Buruli ulcer is a painless chronic debilitating cutaneous disease resulting in indolent necrotizing skin as well as subcutaneous and bone lesions. It is caused by the environmental organism Mycobacterium ulcerans and typically is reported in Africa, Central/South America, the Western Pacific Region, and Australia.⁴ Histopathology usually demonstrates necrosis of subcutaneous tissue and dermal collagen accompanied by inflammation and acidfast bacilli highlighted by Ziehl-Neelsen stain.⁵ Smears of the lesions as well as culture and polymerase chain reaction for acid-fast bacilli also can be performed. Our patient reported no recent travel to any endemic areas and had no other risk factors or exposures to the pathogen responsible for this condition.

Traumatic ulcer also was included in the differential diagnosis, but the patient denied preceding trauma to the area, and the contralateral foot prosthesis did not rub on or impact the affected leg.

Basal cell carcinoma typically is treated surgically, but choice of treatment can depend on the subtype, size, tumor site, and/or patient preference.¹ Other treatment modalities include electrodesiccation and curettage, cryosurgical destruction, photodynamic therapy, radiation, topical therapies, and systemic medications. Radiotherapy can be considered as a primary treatment option for BCC if surgery is contraindicated or declined by the patient, but it also is useful as an adjuvant therapy when there is perineural invasion of the tumor or positive margins. Hedgehog pathway inhibitors such as vismodegib currently are indicated for patients who are not candidates for surgery or radiation as well as for those with metastatic or locally advanced, recurrent BCC. There is no single treatment method ideal for every lesion or patient. Specific populations such as the elderly, the immunosuppressed, or those with poor baseline functional status may warrant a nonsurgical approach. The clinician must take into consideration all factors while at the same time thinking about how to best accomplish the goals of recurrencefree tumor removal, correction of any underlying functional impairment from the tumor, and maintenance of cosmesis.¹

The Diagnosis: Nodular Basal Cell Carcinoma

Histopathology of the lesion showed a large basaloid lobule with focal epidermal attachment, peripheral nuclear palisading with cleft formation between the tumor and surrounding stroma, fibromyxoid stroma and mild pleomorphism, and variable mitotic activity and apoptosis (Figure). Based on the clinical presentation and histopathology, the patient was diagnosed with nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC). He underwent a wide local excision of the affected area that was repaired with a splitthickness skin graft.

Basal cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer worldwide and typically occurs due to years of UV radiation damage on sun-exposed skin, which accounts for a higher frequency of BCC occurring in patients residing in geographic locations with greater UV exposure (eg, higher and lower latitudes). In addition to cumulative UV dose, the duration of the exposure as well as its intensity also play a role in the development of BCC, particularly in early childhood and adolescence. Nevertheless, UV exposure is not the only risk factor, as 20% of BCCs arise in skin that is not exposed to the sun. Other risk factors include exposure to ionizing radiation and arsenic, immunosuppression, and genetic predisposition.¹ Although these malignancies typically do not metastasize, growth can lead to local tissue destruction and major disfigurement if not treated in a timely fashion.²

In our patient, the differential diagnosis included pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) given the clinical appearance of the cribriform base and violaceous undermined rim of the ulcer. Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare neutrophilic disorder that often results in ulcers that have been associated with various systemic autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease. There are 4 main subtypes of PG: the classic ulcerative type (our patient); the pustular type, which most often is seen in patients with inflammatory bowel disease; the bullous type, which can be seen in patients with an associated lymphoproliferative disorder; and the vegetative type. It frequently is thought of as both a clinical and histologic diagnosis of exclusion due to the nonspecific histopathologic features; most lesions demonstrate an infiltrate of neutrophils in the dermis. A biopsy was crucial in our patient, considering that diagnosis and treatment would have been further delayed had the patient been empirically treated with oral and topical steroids for presumed PG, which is precisely why PG is a diagnosis of exclusion. It is imperative for clinicians to rule out other pathologies, such as infection or malignancy, as demonstrated in our patient. The progressive onset and slow evolution of the lesion over years along with a lack of pain were more suggestive of BCC rather than PG. However, there is a report in the literature of PG mimicking BCC with both clinical and dermoscopic findings.³

Venous or stasis ulcers are painless, and although they rarely occur on the calf, they typically are seen lower on the leg such as on the medial ankles. Our patient endorsed occasional swelling of the affected leg and presented with edema, but overlying stasis change and other signs of venous insufficiency were absent.

Buruli ulcer is a painless chronic debilitating cutaneous disease resulting in indolent necrotizing skin as well as subcutaneous and bone lesions. It is caused by the environmental organism Mycobacterium ulcerans and typically is reported in Africa, Central/South America, the Western Pacific Region, and Australia.⁴ Histopathology usually demonstrates necrosis of subcutaneous tissue and dermal collagen accompanied by inflammation and acidfast bacilli highlighted by Ziehl-Neelsen stain.⁵ Smears of the lesions as well as culture and polymerase chain reaction for acid-fast bacilli also can be performed. Our patient reported no recent travel to any endemic areas and had no other risk factors or exposures to the pathogen responsible for this condition.

Traumatic ulcer also was included in the differential diagnosis, but the patient denied preceding trauma to the area, and the contralateral foot prosthesis did not rub on or impact the affected leg.

Basal cell carcinoma typically is treated surgically, but choice of treatment can depend on the subtype, size, tumor site, and/or patient preference.¹ Other treatment modalities include electrodesiccation and curettage, cryosurgical destruction, photodynamic therapy, radiation, topical therapies, and systemic medications. Radiotherapy can be considered as a primary treatment option for BCC if surgery is contraindicated or declined by the patient, but it also is useful as an adjuvant therapy when there is perineural invasion of the tumor or positive margins. Hedgehog pathway inhibitors such as vismodegib currently are indicated for patients who are not candidates for surgery or radiation as well as for those with metastatic or locally advanced, recurrent BCC. There is no single treatment method ideal for every lesion or patient. Specific populations such as the elderly, the immunosuppressed, or those with poor baseline functional status may warrant a nonsurgical approach. The clinician must take into consideration all factors while at the same time thinking about how to best accomplish the goals of recurrencefree tumor removal, correction of any underlying functional impairment from the tumor, and maintenance of cosmesis.¹

The Diagnosis: Nodular Basal Cell Carcinoma

Histopathology of the lesion showed a large basaloid lobule with focal epidermal attachment, peripheral nuclear palisading with cleft formation between the tumor and surrounding stroma, fibromyxoid stroma and mild pleomorphism, and variable mitotic activity and apoptosis (Figure). Based on the clinical presentation and histopathology, the patient was diagnosed with nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC). He underwent a wide local excision of the affected area that was repaired with a splitthickness skin graft.

Basal cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer worldwide and typically occurs due to years of UV radiation damage on sun-exposed skin, which accounts for a higher frequency of BCC occurring in patients residing in geographic locations with greater UV exposure (eg, higher and lower latitudes). In addition to cumulative UV dose, the duration of the exposure as well as its intensity also play a role in the development of BCC, particularly in early childhood and adolescence. Nevertheless, UV exposure is not the only risk factor, as 20% of BCCs arise in skin that is not exposed to the sun. Other risk factors include exposure to ionizing radiation and arsenic, immunosuppression, and genetic predisposition.¹ Although these malignancies typically do not metastasize, growth can lead to local tissue destruction and major disfigurement if not treated in a timely fashion.²

In our patient, the differential diagnosis included pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) given the clinical appearance of the cribriform base and violaceous undermined rim of the ulcer. Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare neutrophilic disorder that often results in ulcers that have been associated with various systemic autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease. There are 4 main subtypes of PG: the classic ulcerative type (our patient); the pustular type, which most often is seen in patients with inflammatory bowel disease; the bullous type, which can be seen in patients with an associated lymphoproliferative disorder; and the vegetative type. It frequently is thought of as both a clinical and histologic diagnosis of exclusion due to the nonspecific histopathologic features; most lesions demonstrate an infiltrate of neutrophils in the dermis. A biopsy was crucial in our patient, considering that diagnosis and treatment would have been further delayed had the patient been empirically treated with oral and topical steroids for presumed PG, which is precisely why PG is a diagnosis of exclusion. It is imperative for clinicians to rule out other pathologies, such as infection or malignancy, as demonstrated in our patient. The progressive onset and slow evolution of the lesion over years along with a lack of pain were more suggestive of BCC rather than PG. However, there is a report in the literature of PG mimicking BCC with both clinical and dermoscopic findings.³

Venous or stasis ulcers are painless, and although they rarely occur on the calf, they typically are seen lower on the leg such as on the medial ankles. Our patient endorsed occasional swelling of the affected leg and presented with edema, but overlying stasis change and other signs of venous insufficiency were absent.

Buruli ulcer is a painless chronic debilitating cutaneous disease resulting in indolent necrotizing skin as well as subcutaneous and bone lesions. It is caused by the environmental organism Mycobacterium ulcerans and typically is reported in Africa, Central/South America, the Western Pacific Region, and Australia.⁴ Histopathology usually demonstrates necrosis of subcutaneous tissue and dermal collagen accompanied by inflammation and acidfast bacilli highlighted by Ziehl-Neelsen stain.⁵ Smears of the lesions as well as culture and polymerase chain reaction for acid-fast bacilli also can be performed. Our patient reported no recent travel to any endemic areas and had no other risk factors or exposures to the pathogen responsible for this condition.

Traumatic ulcer also was included in the differential diagnosis, but the patient denied preceding trauma to the area, and the contralateral foot prosthesis did not rub on or impact the affected leg.

Basal cell carcinoma typically is treated surgically, but choice of treatment can depend on the subtype, size, tumor site, and/or patient preference.¹ Other treatment modalities include electrodesiccation and curettage, cryosurgical destruction, photodynamic therapy, radiation, topical therapies, and systemic medications. Radiotherapy can be considered as a primary treatment option for BCC if surgery is contraindicated or declined by the patient, but it also is useful as an adjuvant therapy when there is perineural invasion of the tumor or positive margins. Hedgehog pathway inhibitors such as vismodegib currently are indicated for patients who are not candidates for surgery or radiation as well as for those with metastatic or locally advanced, recurrent BCC. There is no single treatment method ideal for every lesion or patient. Specific populations such as the elderly, the immunosuppressed, or those with poor baseline functional status may warrant a nonsurgical approach. The clinician must take into consideration all factors while at the same time thinking about how to best accomplish the goals of recurrencefree tumor removal, correction of any underlying functional impairment from the tumor, and maintenance of cosmesis.¹

test

test

test

To the Editor:

A 42-year man presented with hollowing of the upper eyelid and skin discoloration of the left periorbital area of 10 years’ duration. He was a professional mixed martial arts fighter with a history of 2 surgeries for retinal detachment of the left eye 13 years prior to the current presentation. The patient also has macular scarring in the left eye. He denied a history of facial fracture, reconstructive surgery, or other medical conditions. His visual acuity was unknown; however, he did not require corrective glasses. He used 3 prescription ophthalmic eye drops—dorzolamide hydrochloride plus timolol maleate, 10 mL; brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution 0.15%, 5 mL; and latanoprost ophthalmic solution 0.005%, 125 μg/2.5 mL—in the left eye to lower intraocular pressure, as therapy for glaucoma. If left untreated, glaucoma can lead to vision loss.

Physical examination revealed periorbital hyperpigmentation on the left side; hypertrichosis and eyelash trichomegaly compared to the right side; and a deep left upper orbital sulcus compared to the right side (Figure). The patient was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. Extraocular movement was intact bilaterally, and his pupillary reflex was symmetric. No tenderness was noted over the affected area on palpation; no subcutaneous masses or lesions were observed or palpated. There was no ocular discharge, the conjunctiva was pink, and the sclera was white bilaterally.

The differential diagnosis included professional trauma-induced orbital changes, nevus of Ota (oculomucodermal melanocytosis), prostaglandin-associated periorbitopathy (PAP), and melasma. Although the patient sustained an injury that caused retinal detachment, he never experienced an orbital bone fracture; additionally, a fracture would not explain the skin discoloration or longer eyelashes. Periorbital nevus of Ota most commonly manifests as a unilateral scleral and brown-bluish skin discoloration but does not cause hollowing of the orbital sulcus or affect the length and thickness of eyelashes. Melasma—bilateral skin hyperpigmentation that most commonly affects women—can be induced by oral contraceptives, antibiotics, heat, sun exposure, and pregnancy. It does not affect the color of the iris or the depth of the scleral sulcus, and it does not increase the length and thickness of eyelashes. Based on the clinical presentation and a review of the eye drops used, he was diagnosed with PAP due to prolonged use of latanoprost ophthalmic solution. The patient was referred to an ophthalmologist for consideration of a switch to a different class of medication.

Of the 3 eye drops used by this patient, latanoprost, a prostaglandin analog, decreases intraocular pressure and is known to cause PAP. This condition comprises a constellation of changes, including upper eyelid ptosis, deepening of the upper eyelid sulcus, involution of dermatochalasis, periorbital fat atrophy, mild enophthalmos (sunken eye), inferior scleral show, increased prominence of eyelid vessels, and tight eyelids.¹ Latanoprost most often produces these findings, but all prostaglandin ophthalmic medications can, including the dual-indication bimatoprost, which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to reduce elevated intraocular pressure in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension but also is used to grow darker, thicker, and longer eyelashes. Clinicians who prescribe bimatoprost for this cosmetic indication should be mindful of the potential for PAP and discuss it with patients.

The prescribing information (PI) for bimatoprost (Latisse; Allergan) does not list PAP as an adverse reaction observed in the 4-month multicenter, double-blind, randomized, vehicle-controlled study of bimatoprost (as Latisse) in 278 adults.² The PI does list “periorbital and lid changes associated with periorbital fat atrophy and skin tightness resulting in deepening of eyelid sulcus and eyelid ptosis” as an adverse reaction in postmarketing experience. However, according to the PI, the frequency of these adverse reactions cannot be established, as the reporting of such incidents was voluntary and the size of the treated population was uncertain.²

Prostaglandins can cause periorbitopathy by several mechanisms; one speculated cause is that this group of medications might provoke smooth muscle contraction. Prostaglandin medications also have an affinity for fat cells¹; atrophy of fat cells can lead to enophthalmos and deepening upper eyelid sulcus. In an observational study of 105 participants who were using a prostaglandin in 1 eye for longer than 1 month (the other eye was used as a control), the overall frequency of prostaglandin-associated periorbitopathy was 93.3% in the bimatoprost group, 41.4% in the latanoprost group, and 70% in the travoprost group, while the frequency of deepening of the upper eyelid sulcus was 80% in the bimatoprost group, 15.7% in the latanoprost group, and 45% in the travoprost group.³ These changes may not be as striking when a patient is using a prostaglandin ophthalmic medication in both eyes and may not be noticed even by the patient. It is prudent for the clinician to take a baseline photograph of the patient when these medications are prescribed to observe for early signs of periorbitopathy. These adverse effects may not be reversible when the medication is discontinued⁴ and have been observed as early as 4 to 6 weeks after the start of treatment.⁵

Our patient was counseled that his constellation of PAP findings potentially could be partially reversed over months or even a year or longer if the offending agent was discontinued. However, he was cautioned that cessation of latanoprost first needed to be discussed with his ophthalmologist, who would determine if there was a suitable alternative to a prostaglandin analog for him. The patient’s only concern was the aesthetic appearance of the left periorbital area. A hyaluronic acid filler or fat grafting can be considered for correction of orbital sulcus hollowing; however, we could not locate any long-term studies in which such corrective treatments were applied for PAP. Our patient continues to use latanoprost with no change in the frequency of use. There have been no further changes or progression in the physical appearance of the left eye or periorbital area. The patient has not undergone any corrective treatments.

To the Editor:

A 42-year man presented with hollowing of the upper eyelid and skin discoloration of the left periorbital area of 10 years’ duration. He was a professional mixed martial arts fighter with a history of 2 surgeries for retinal detachment of the left eye 13 years prior to the current presentation. The patient also has macular scarring in the left eye. He denied a history of facial fracture, reconstructive surgery, or other medical conditions. His visual acuity was unknown; however, he did not require corrective glasses. He used 3 prescription ophthalmic eye drops—dorzolamide hydrochloride plus timolol maleate, 10 mL; brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution 0.15%, 5 mL; and latanoprost ophthalmic solution 0.005%, 125 μg/2.5 mL—in the left eye to lower intraocular pressure, as therapy for glaucoma. If left untreated, glaucoma can lead to vision loss.

Physical examination revealed periorbital hyperpigmentation on the left side; hypertrichosis and eyelash trichomegaly compared to the right side; and a deep left upper orbital sulcus compared to the right side (Figure). The patient was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. Extraocular movement was intact bilaterally, and his pupillary reflex was symmetric. No tenderness was noted over the affected area on palpation; no subcutaneous masses or lesions were observed or palpated. There was no ocular discharge, the conjunctiva was pink, and the sclera was white bilaterally.

The differential diagnosis included professional trauma-induced orbital changes, nevus of Ota (oculomucodermal melanocytosis), prostaglandin-associated periorbitopathy (PAP), and melasma. Although the patient sustained an injury that caused retinal detachment, he never experienced an orbital bone fracture; additionally, a fracture would not explain the skin discoloration or longer eyelashes. Periorbital nevus of Ota most commonly manifests as a unilateral scleral and brown-bluish skin discoloration but does not cause hollowing of the orbital sulcus or affect the length and thickness of eyelashes. Melasma—bilateral skin hyperpigmentation that most commonly affects women—can be induced by oral contraceptives, antibiotics, heat, sun exposure, and pregnancy. It does not affect the color of the iris or the depth of the scleral sulcus, and it does not increase the length and thickness of eyelashes. Based on the clinical presentation and a review of the eye drops used, he was diagnosed with PAP due to prolonged use of latanoprost ophthalmic solution. The patient was referred to an ophthalmologist for consideration of a switch to a different class of medication.

Of the 3 eye drops used by this patient, latanoprost, a prostaglandin analog, decreases intraocular pressure and is known to cause PAP. This condition comprises a constellation of changes, including upper eyelid ptosis, deepening of the upper eyelid sulcus, involution of dermatochalasis, periorbital fat atrophy, mild enophthalmos (sunken eye), inferior scleral show, increased prominence of eyelid vessels, and tight eyelids.¹ Latanoprost most often produces these findings, but all prostaglandin ophthalmic medications can, including the dual-indication bimatoprost, which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to reduce elevated intraocular pressure in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension but also is used to grow darker, thicker, and longer eyelashes. Clinicians who prescribe bimatoprost for this cosmetic indication should be mindful of the potential for PAP and discuss it with patients.

The prescribing information (PI) for bimatoprost (Latisse; Allergan) does not list PAP as an adverse reaction observed in the 4-month multicenter, double-blind, randomized, vehicle-controlled study of bimatoprost (as Latisse) in 278 adults.² The PI does list “periorbital and lid changes associated with periorbital fat atrophy and skin tightness resulting in deepening of eyelid sulcus and eyelid ptosis” as an adverse reaction in postmarketing experience. However, according to the PI, the frequency of these adverse reactions cannot be established, as the reporting of such incidents was voluntary and the size of the treated population was uncertain.²

Prostaglandins can cause periorbitopathy by several mechanisms; one speculated cause is that this group of medications might provoke smooth muscle contraction. Prostaglandin medications also have an affinity for fat cells¹; atrophy of fat cells can lead to enophthalmos and deepening upper eyelid sulcus. In an observational study of 105 participants who were using a prostaglandin in 1 eye for longer than 1 month (the other eye was used as a control), the overall frequency of prostaglandin-associated periorbitopathy was 93.3% in the bimatoprost group, 41.4% in the latanoprost group, and 70% in the travoprost group, while the frequency of deepening of the upper eyelid sulcus was 80% in the bimatoprost group, 15.7% in the latanoprost group, and 45% in the travoprost group.³ These changes may not be as striking when a patient is using a prostaglandin ophthalmic medication in both eyes and may not be noticed even by the patient. It is prudent for the clinician to take a baseline photograph of the patient when these medications are prescribed to observe for early signs of periorbitopathy. These adverse effects may not be reversible when the medication is discontinued⁴ and have been observed as early as 4 to 6 weeks after the start of treatment.⁵

Our patient was counseled that his constellation of PAP findings potentially could be partially reversed over months or even a year or longer if the offending agent was discontinued. However, he was cautioned that cessation of latanoprost first needed to be discussed with his ophthalmologist, who would determine if there was a suitable alternative to a prostaglandin analog for him. The patient’s only concern was the aesthetic appearance of the left periorbital area. A hyaluronic acid filler or fat grafting can be considered for correction of orbital sulcus hollowing; however, we could not locate any long-term studies in which such corrective treatments were applied for PAP. Our patient continues to use latanoprost with no change in the frequency of use. There have been no further changes or progression in the physical appearance of the left eye or periorbital area. The patient has not undergone any corrective treatments.

To the Editor:

A 42-year man presented with hollowing of the upper eyelid and skin discoloration of the left periorbital area of 10 years’ duration. He was a professional mixed martial arts fighter with a history of 2 surgeries for retinal detachment of the left eye 13 years prior to the current presentation. The patient also has macular scarring in the left eye. He denied a history of facial fracture, reconstructive surgery, or other medical conditions. His visual acuity was unknown; however, he did not require corrective glasses. He used 3 prescription ophthalmic eye drops—dorzolamide hydrochloride plus timolol maleate, 10 mL; brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution 0.15%, 5 mL; and latanoprost ophthalmic solution 0.005%, 125 μg/2.5 mL—in the left eye to lower intraocular pressure, as therapy for glaucoma. If left untreated, glaucoma can lead to vision loss.

Physical examination revealed periorbital hyperpigmentation on the left side; hypertrichosis and eyelash trichomegaly compared to the right side; and a deep left upper orbital sulcus compared to the right side (Figure). The patient was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. Extraocular movement was intact bilaterally, and his pupillary reflex was symmetric. No tenderness was noted over the affected area on palpation; no subcutaneous masses or lesions were observed or palpated. There was no ocular discharge, the conjunctiva was pink, and the sclera was white bilaterally.

The differential diagnosis included professional trauma-induced orbital changes, nevus of Ota (oculomucodermal melanocytosis), prostaglandin-associated periorbitopathy (PAP), and melasma. Although the patient sustained an injury that caused retinal detachment, he never experienced an orbital bone fracture; additionally, a fracture would not explain the skin discoloration or longer eyelashes. Periorbital nevus of Ota most commonly manifests as a unilateral scleral and brown-bluish skin discoloration but does not cause hollowing of the orbital sulcus or affect the length and thickness of eyelashes. Melasma—bilateral skin hyperpigmentation that most commonly affects women—can be induced by oral contraceptives, antibiotics, heat, sun exposure, and pregnancy. It does not affect the color of the iris or the depth of the scleral sulcus, and it does not increase the length and thickness of eyelashes. Based on the clinical presentation and a review of the eye drops used, he was diagnosed with PAP due to prolonged use of latanoprost ophthalmic solution. The patient was referred to an ophthalmologist for consideration of a switch to a different class of medication.

Of the 3 eye drops used by this patient, latanoprost, a prostaglandin analog, decreases intraocular pressure and is known to cause PAP. This condition comprises a constellation of changes, including upper eyelid ptosis, deepening of the upper eyelid sulcus, involution of dermatochalasis, periorbital fat atrophy, mild enophthalmos (sunken eye), inferior scleral show, increased prominence of eyelid vessels, and tight eyelids.¹ Latanoprost most often produces these findings, but all prostaglandin ophthalmic medications can, including the dual-indication bimatoprost, which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to reduce elevated intraocular pressure in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension but also is used to grow darker, thicker, and longer eyelashes. Clinicians who prescribe bimatoprost for this cosmetic indication should be mindful of the potential for PAP and discuss it with patients.

The prescribing information (PI) for bimatoprost (Latisse; Allergan) does not list PAP as an adverse reaction observed in the 4-month multicenter, double-blind, randomized, vehicle-controlled study of bimatoprost (as Latisse) in 278 adults.² The PI does list “periorbital and lid changes associated with periorbital fat atrophy and skin tightness resulting in deepening of eyelid sulcus and eyelid ptosis” as an adverse reaction in postmarketing experience. However, according to the PI, the frequency of these adverse reactions cannot be established, as the reporting of such incidents was voluntary and the size of the treated population was uncertain.²

Prostaglandins can cause periorbitopathy by several mechanisms; one speculated cause is that this group of medications might provoke smooth muscle contraction. Prostaglandin medications also have an affinity for fat cells¹; atrophy of fat cells can lead to enophthalmos and deepening upper eyelid sulcus. In an observational study of 105 participants who were using a prostaglandin in 1 eye for longer than 1 month (the other eye was used as a control), the overall frequency of prostaglandin-associated periorbitopathy was 93.3% in the bimatoprost group, 41.4% in the latanoprost group, and 70% in the travoprost group, while the frequency of deepening of the upper eyelid sulcus was 80% in the bimatoprost group, 15.7% in the latanoprost group, and 45% in the travoprost group.³ These changes may not be as striking when a patient is using a prostaglandin ophthalmic medication in both eyes and may not be noticed even by the patient. It is prudent for the clinician to take a baseline photograph of the patient when these medications are prescribed to observe for early signs of periorbitopathy. These adverse effects may not be reversible when the medication is discontinued⁴ and have been observed as early as 4 to 6 weeks after the start of treatment.⁵

Our patient was counseled that his constellation of PAP findings potentially could be partially reversed over months or even a year or longer if the offending agent was discontinued. However, he was cautioned that cessation of latanoprost first needed to be discussed with his ophthalmologist, who would determine if there was a suitable alternative to a prostaglandin analog for him. The patient’s only concern was the aesthetic appearance of the left periorbital area. A hyaluronic acid filler or fat grafting can be considered for correction of orbital sulcus hollowing; however, we could not locate any long-term studies in which such corrective treatments were applied for PAP. Our patient continues to use latanoprost with no change in the frequency of use. There have been no further changes or progression in the physical appearance of the left eye or periorbital area. The patient has not undergone any corrective treatments.