Christina N. Kraus, MD

Vulvar dermatoses continue to be an overlooked aspect of medical care, highlighting the necessity for enhanced diagnosis and management of these conditions. Here, we address recent advancements in understanding vulvar inflammatory dermatoses other than lichen sclerosus (LS), which was discussed in a prior Guest Editorial¹—specifically vulvovaginal lichen planus (VLP), plasma cell vulvitis (PCV), and vulvar lichen simplex chronicus (LSC).

Vulvar Inflammatory Skin Disease and Quality of Life

There is an increased awareness of the impact vulvar skin disease has on quality of life and its association with anxiety and depression.^2-5 Evaluating the burden of vulvar dermatoses remains an active area of research due to its significance in monitoring disease progression and assessing therapeutic effectiveness. Despite the existence of various dermatology quality-of-life assessment tools, many fail to adequately capture the unique impacts of vulvovaginal diseases, such as sexual or urinary dysfunction. The vulvar quality of life index, which was developed and validated by Saunderson et al⁶ in 2020, consists of a 15-item questionnaire spanning 4 domains: symptoms, anxiety, activities of daily living, and sexuality. This tool has been utilized to gauge treatment response in vulvar conditions and to compare disease burden of various vulvar dermatoses.^7,8 Moving forward, integrating this tool into clinical studies on vulvar skin disease holds promise for enhancing our understanding and management of these conditions.

Vulvovaginal Lichen Planus

Vulvovaginal lichen planus is unique among several prevalent vulvar inflammatory skin disorders encountered by dermatologists—primarily due to its erosive form, which can extend to the vagina, resulting in noninfectious vaginitis and potential vaginal stenosis.^9,10 Managing VLP poses a notable challenge, even when it is confined to the vulva, as it often proves resistant to topical therapies.¹¹

Evaluation for Vaginal Mucosal Disease—In contrast to LS, which typically spares the vaginal mucosa, VLP can involve mucosal sites.^9,12,13 Therefore, it is imperative that all patients with a diagnosis of vulvar VLP undergo evaluation for potential vaginal involvement through speculum examination, wet mount, or vaginal biopsy. Strategies to manage vaginal involvement include use of dilators and pelvic floor physical therapy, lysis of adhesions (if present), topical estrogen, and intravaginal corticosteroids—all tailored to the severity of the disease.^9,11,14

Management of VLP—Approximately 20% to 40% of patients with VLP may require systemic therapy for disease management, including those who are younger, those of non-White ethnicity, and those presenting with vulvar pruritus.¹¹ Various systemic immunosuppressants have been used for VLP, with a recent retrospective study revealing similar response rates for both methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil in the treatment of VLP.¹⁵ Another retrospective study found hydroxychloroquine to be safe and effective for VLP but noted a slow onset of action, with approximately 70% responding at 9 months following initiation of therapy.¹⁶

Recent attention has shifted to use of targeted therapies for VLP. For instance, apremilast has shown efficacy in a single-center, nonrandomized, open-label pilot study.¹⁷ Tildrakizumab, an IL-23 inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy in a case series involving 24 patients with VLP.¹⁸ Moreover, recent case reports and series have highlighted the potential of oral Janus kinase (JAK) ­inhibitors, such as tofacitinib, in VLP treatment.¹⁹ Clinical trials are ongoing to evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical ruxolitinib and deucravacitinib (a tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor) in VLP.^20-22 Systemic therapies for VLP currently are used off label, emphasizing the need for future randomized controlled trials to ascertain the optimal therapies for patients affected by erosive and nonerosive forms of this disease.

Plasma Cell Vulvitis

Plasma cell vulvitis is a chronic inflammatory disorder with an unknown etiology that some consider to be a variant of VLP.²³ Others have observed an overlap with desquamative inflammatory vaginitis, categorizing PCV as a hemorrhagic vestibulovaginitis.²⁴ Although its classification as a distinct entity remains under scrutiny, studies indicate a predilection for the nonkeratinized or partially keratinized vulva. A systematic review outlining common clinical findings reported that the most common anatomic sites included the vulvar vestibule, periurethral area, and labia minora.²³ Additionally, reports have emphasized the association between PCV and other inflammatory vulvar skin conditions, including LS.²⁵

Clinical Variants of PCV—A retrospective review proposed 2 clinical phenotypes for PCV: (1) primary non–lichen-associated PCV and (2) secondary lichen-associated PCV, which is linked to LS.²⁶ The primary form is reported to be restricted to the vestibule, and the authors considered this a vulvar counterpart of atrophic vaginitis due to estrogen deficiency (now known as postmenopausal genitourinary syndrome). The secondary phenotype more commonly involved the vestibular and extravestibular epithelium.²⁶

Management of PCV—Recognizing PCV in the context of LS may be important for identifying comorbid conditions and guiding treatment. However, evidence-based guidelines for PCV treatment are lacking. Commonly reported treatment modalities include clobetasol ointment 0.05% and tacrolimus ointment 0.1%.²³ Successful treatment with hydrocortisone suppositories alternating with estradiol vaginal cream was reported in a recent case series.²⁷ Crisaborole also has been reported as a treatment in 1 case of PCV.²⁸ A recent case report found abrocitinib to be effective for the treatment of plasma cell balanitis in the setting of male genital LS,²⁹ but there are limited data on the use of JAK inhibitors for PCV. Further research is necessary to ascertain the incidence, prevalence, clinical subtypes, and optimal management strategies for PCV to effectively treat patients with this condition.

Vulvar LSC

Similar to extragenital LSC, the evaluation of vulvar LSC should prioritize identification of underlying ­etiologies that contribute to the itch-scratch cycle, which may include psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, neurologic conditions, and allergic or irritant contact dermatitis.^30,31 Although treatment strategies may vary based on underlying ­conditions, we will concentrate on updates in managing vulvar LSC and pruritus associated with an atopic ­diathesis or resulting from chronic contact dermatitis, which is prevalent in vulvar skin areas. Finally, we highlight some emerging vulvar allergens for consideration in clinical practice.

Management of Vulvar LSC—The advent of targeted therapies, including biologics and small-molecule inhibitors, for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis in recent years presents potential options for treatment of individuals with vulvar LSC. However, studies on the use of these therapies specifically for vulvar LSC are limited, necessitating thorough discussions with patients. Given the debilitating nature of vulvar pruritus that may be seen in vulvar LSC and the potential inadequacy of topical steroids as monotherapy, systemic therapies may serve as alternative options for patients with refractory disease.³⁰

Dupilumab, a dual inhibitor of IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, has shown rapid and sustained disease improvement in patients with atopic dermatitis, prurigo nodularis, and pruritus.^32,33 Although data on its role in managing vulvar LSC are scarce, a recent case series reported improvement of vulvar pruritus with dupilumab.³⁴ Similarly, tralokinumab, an IL-13 inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for atopic dermatitis, has shown efficacy in prurigo nodularis³⁵ and may benefit patients with vulvar LSC, though studies on cutaneous outcomes in those with genital involvement specifically are lacking. Oral JAK inhibitors such as upadacitinib and abrocitinib—both FDA approved for atopic dermatitis—have demonstrated efficacy in treating LSC and itch, potentially serving as management options for vulvar LSC in cases resistant to topical steroids or in which steroid atrophy or other steroid adverse effects may preclude continued use of such agents.^36,37 Finally, IL-31 inhibitors such as nemolizumab, which reduced the signs and symptoms of prurigo nodularis in a recent phase 3 clinical trial, may hold utility in addressing vulvar LSC and associated pruritus.³⁸

The topical JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib, which is FDA approved for atopic dermatitis and vitiligo, holds promise for managing LSC on vulvar skin while mitigating the risk for steroid-induced atrophy.³⁹ Additionally, nonsteroidal topicals including roflumilast cream 0.3% and tapinarof cream 1%, both FDA approved for psoriasis, are being evaluated in studies for their safety and efficacy in atopic dermatitis.^40,41 These agents may have the potential to improve signs and symptoms of vulvar LSC, but further studies are necessary.

Vulvar Allergens and LSC—When assessing patients with vulvar LSC, it is crucial to recognize that allergic contact dermatitis is a common primary vulvar dermatosis but can coexist with other vulvar dermatoses such as LS.^13,30 The vulvar skin’s susceptibly to allergic contact dermatitis is attributed to factors such as a higher ratio of antigen-presenting cells in the vulvar skin, the nonkeratinized nature of certain sites, and frequent contact with potential allergens.^42,43 Therefore, incorporating patch testing into the diagnostic process should be considered when evaluating patients with vulvar skin conditions.⁴³

A systemic review identified multiple vulvar allergens, including metals, topical medicaments, fragrances, preservatives, cosmetic constituents, and rubber components that led to contact dermatitis.⁴⁴ Moreover, a recent analysis of topical preparations recommended by women with LS on social media found a high prevalence of known vulvar allergens in these agents, including botanical extracts/spices.⁴⁵ Personal-care wipes marketed for vulvar care and hygiene are known to contain a variety of allergens, with a recent study finding numerous allergens in commercially available wipes including fragrances, scented botanicals in the form of essences, oils, fruit juices, and vitamin E.⁴⁶ These findings underscore the importance of considering potential allergens when caring for patients with vulvar LSC and counseling patients about the potential allergens in many commercially available products that may be recommended on social media sites or by other sources.

Final Thoughts

Vulvar inflammatory dermatoses are becoming increasingly recognized, and there is a need to develop more effective diagnostic and treatment approaches. Recent literature has shed light on some of the challenges in the management of VLP, particularly its resistance to topical therapies and the importance of assessing and managing both cutaneous and vaginal involvement. Efforts have been made to refine the classification of PCV, with studies suggesting a variant that coexists with LS. Although evidence for vulvar-specific treatment of LSC is limited, the emergence of biologics and small-molecule inhibitors that are FDA approved for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis offer promise for certain cases of vulvar LSC and vulvar pruritus. Moreover, recent developments in steroid-sparing topical agents warrant further investigation for their potential efficacy in treating vulvar LSC and possibly other vulvar inflammatory conditions in the future.

Vulvar dermatoses continue to be an overlooked aspect of medical care, highlighting the necessity for enhanced diagnosis and management of these conditions. Here, we address recent advancements in understanding vulvar inflammatory dermatoses other than lichen sclerosus (LS), which was discussed in a prior Guest Editorial¹—specifically vulvovaginal lichen planus (VLP), plasma cell vulvitis (PCV), and vulvar lichen simplex chronicus (LSC).

Vulvar Inflammatory Skin Disease and Quality of Life

There is an increased awareness of the impact vulvar skin disease has on quality of life and its association with anxiety and depression.^2-5 Evaluating the burden of vulvar dermatoses remains an active area of research due to its significance in monitoring disease progression and assessing therapeutic effectiveness. Despite the existence of various dermatology quality-of-life assessment tools, many fail to adequately capture the unique impacts of vulvovaginal diseases, such as sexual or urinary dysfunction. The vulvar quality of life index, which was developed and validated by Saunderson et al⁶ in 2020, consists of a 15-item questionnaire spanning 4 domains: symptoms, anxiety, activities of daily living, and sexuality. This tool has been utilized to gauge treatment response in vulvar conditions and to compare disease burden of various vulvar dermatoses.^7,8 Moving forward, integrating this tool into clinical studies on vulvar skin disease holds promise for enhancing our understanding and management of these conditions.

Vulvovaginal Lichen Planus

Vulvovaginal lichen planus is unique among several prevalent vulvar inflammatory skin disorders encountered by dermatologists—primarily due to its erosive form, which can extend to the vagina, resulting in noninfectious vaginitis and potential vaginal stenosis.^9,10 Managing VLP poses a notable challenge, even when it is confined to the vulva, as it often proves resistant to topical therapies.¹¹

Evaluation for Vaginal Mucosal Disease—In contrast to LS, which typically spares the vaginal mucosa, VLP can involve mucosal sites.^9,12,13 Therefore, it is imperative that all patients with a diagnosis of vulvar VLP undergo evaluation for potential vaginal involvement through speculum examination, wet mount, or vaginal biopsy. Strategies to manage vaginal involvement include use of dilators and pelvic floor physical therapy, lysis of adhesions (if present), topical estrogen, and intravaginal corticosteroids—all tailored to the severity of the disease.^9,11,14

Management of VLP—Approximately 20% to 40% of patients with VLP may require systemic therapy for disease management, including those who are younger, those of non-White ethnicity, and those presenting with vulvar pruritus.¹¹ Various systemic immunosuppressants have been used for VLP, with a recent retrospective study revealing similar response rates for both methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil in the treatment of VLP.¹⁵ Another retrospective study found hydroxychloroquine to be safe and effective for VLP but noted a slow onset of action, with approximately 70% responding at 9 months following initiation of therapy.¹⁶

Recent attention has shifted to use of targeted therapies for VLP. For instance, apremilast has shown efficacy in a single-center, nonrandomized, open-label pilot study.¹⁷ Tildrakizumab, an IL-23 inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy in a case series involving 24 patients with VLP.¹⁸ Moreover, recent case reports and series have highlighted the potential of oral Janus kinase (JAK) ­inhibitors, such as tofacitinib, in VLP treatment.¹⁹ Clinical trials are ongoing to evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical ruxolitinib and deucravacitinib (a tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor) in VLP.^20-22 Systemic therapies for VLP currently are used off label, emphasizing the need for future randomized controlled trials to ascertain the optimal therapies for patients affected by erosive and nonerosive forms of this disease.

Plasma Cell Vulvitis

Plasma cell vulvitis is a chronic inflammatory disorder with an unknown etiology that some consider to be a variant of VLP.²³ Others have observed an overlap with desquamative inflammatory vaginitis, categorizing PCV as a hemorrhagic vestibulovaginitis.²⁴ Although its classification as a distinct entity remains under scrutiny, studies indicate a predilection for the nonkeratinized or partially keratinized vulva. A systematic review outlining common clinical findings reported that the most common anatomic sites included the vulvar vestibule, periurethral area, and labia minora.²³ Additionally, reports have emphasized the association between PCV and other inflammatory vulvar skin conditions, including LS.²⁵

Clinical Variants of PCV—A retrospective review proposed 2 clinical phenotypes for PCV: (1) primary non–lichen-associated PCV and (2) secondary lichen-associated PCV, which is linked to LS.²⁶ The primary form is reported to be restricted to the vestibule, and the authors considered this a vulvar counterpart of atrophic vaginitis due to estrogen deficiency (now known as postmenopausal genitourinary syndrome). The secondary phenotype more commonly involved the vestibular and extravestibular epithelium.²⁶

Management of PCV—Recognizing PCV in the context of LS may be important for identifying comorbid conditions and guiding treatment. However, evidence-based guidelines for PCV treatment are lacking. Commonly reported treatment modalities include clobetasol ointment 0.05% and tacrolimus ointment 0.1%.²³ Successful treatment with hydrocortisone suppositories alternating with estradiol vaginal cream was reported in a recent case series.²⁷ Crisaborole also has been reported as a treatment in 1 case of PCV.²⁸ A recent case report found abrocitinib to be effective for the treatment of plasma cell balanitis in the setting of male genital LS,²⁹ but there are limited data on the use of JAK inhibitors for PCV. Further research is necessary to ascertain the incidence, prevalence, clinical subtypes, and optimal management strategies for PCV to effectively treat patients with this condition.

Vulvar LSC

Similar to extragenital LSC, the evaluation of vulvar LSC should prioritize identification of underlying ­etiologies that contribute to the itch-scratch cycle, which may include psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, neurologic conditions, and allergic or irritant contact dermatitis.^30,31 Although treatment strategies may vary based on underlying ­conditions, we will concentrate on updates in managing vulvar LSC and pruritus associated with an atopic ­diathesis or resulting from chronic contact dermatitis, which is prevalent in vulvar skin areas. Finally, we highlight some emerging vulvar allergens for consideration in clinical practice.

Management of Vulvar LSC—The advent of targeted therapies, including biologics and small-molecule inhibitors, for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis in recent years presents potential options for treatment of individuals with vulvar LSC. However, studies on the use of these therapies specifically for vulvar LSC are limited, necessitating thorough discussions with patients. Given the debilitating nature of vulvar pruritus that may be seen in vulvar LSC and the potential inadequacy of topical steroids as monotherapy, systemic therapies may serve as alternative options for patients with refractory disease.³⁰

Dupilumab, a dual inhibitor of IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, has shown rapid and sustained disease improvement in patients with atopic dermatitis, prurigo nodularis, and pruritus.^32,33 Although data on its role in managing vulvar LSC are scarce, a recent case series reported improvement of vulvar pruritus with dupilumab.³⁴ Similarly, tralokinumab, an IL-13 inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for atopic dermatitis, has shown efficacy in prurigo nodularis³⁵ and may benefit patients with vulvar LSC, though studies on cutaneous outcomes in those with genital involvement specifically are lacking. Oral JAK inhibitors such as upadacitinib and abrocitinib—both FDA approved for atopic dermatitis—have demonstrated efficacy in treating LSC and itch, potentially serving as management options for vulvar LSC in cases resistant to topical steroids or in which steroid atrophy or other steroid adverse effects may preclude continued use of such agents.^36,37 Finally, IL-31 inhibitors such as nemolizumab, which reduced the signs and symptoms of prurigo nodularis in a recent phase 3 clinical trial, may hold utility in addressing vulvar LSC and associated pruritus.³⁸

The topical JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib, which is FDA approved for atopic dermatitis and vitiligo, holds promise for managing LSC on vulvar skin while mitigating the risk for steroid-induced atrophy.³⁹ Additionally, nonsteroidal topicals including roflumilast cream 0.3% and tapinarof cream 1%, both FDA approved for psoriasis, are being evaluated in studies for their safety and efficacy in atopic dermatitis.^40,41 These agents may have the potential to improve signs and symptoms of vulvar LSC, but further studies are necessary.

Vulvar Allergens and LSC—When assessing patients with vulvar LSC, it is crucial to recognize that allergic contact dermatitis is a common primary vulvar dermatosis but can coexist with other vulvar dermatoses such as LS.^13,30 The vulvar skin’s susceptibly to allergic contact dermatitis is attributed to factors such as a higher ratio of antigen-presenting cells in the vulvar skin, the nonkeratinized nature of certain sites, and frequent contact with potential allergens.^42,43 Therefore, incorporating patch testing into the diagnostic process should be considered when evaluating patients with vulvar skin conditions.⁴³

A systemic review identified multiple vulvar allergens, including metals, topical medicaments, fragrances, preservatives, cosmetic constituents, and rubber components that led to contact dermatitis.⁴⁴ Moreover, a recent analysis of topical preparations recommended by women with LS on social media found a high prevalence of known vulvar allergens in these agents, including botanical extracts/spices.⁴⁵ Personal-care wipes marketed for vulvar care and hygiene are known to contain a variety of allergens, with a recent study finding numerous allergens in commercially available wipes including fragrances, scented botanicals in the form of essences, oils, fruit juices, and vitamin E.⁴⁶ These findings underscore the importance of considering potential allergens when caring for patients with vulvar LSC and counseling patients about the potential allergens in many commercially available products that may be recommended on social media sites or by other sources.

Final Thoughts

Vulvar inflammatory dermatoses are becoming increasingly recognized, and there is a need to develop more effective diagnostic and treatment approaches. Recent literature has shed light on some of the challenges in the management of VLP, particularly its resistance to topical therapies and the importance of assessing and managing both cutaneous and vaginal involvement. Efforts have been made to refine the classification of PCV, with studies suggesting a variant that coexists with LS. Although evidence for vulvar-specific treatment of LSC is limited, the emergence of biologics and small-molecule inhibitors that are FDA approved for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis offer promise for certain cases of vulvar LSC and vulvar pruritus. Moreover, recent developments in steroid-sparing topical agents warrant further investigation for their potential efficacy in treating vulvar LSC and possibly other vulvar inflammatory conditions in the future.

Vulvar dermatoses continue to be an overlooked aspect of medical care, highlighting the necessity for enhanced diagnosis and management of these conditions. Here, we address recent advancements in understanding vulvar inflammatory dermatoses other than lichen sclerosus (LS), which was discussed in a prior Guest Editorial¹—specifically vulvovaginal lichen planus (VLP), plasma cell vulvitis (PCV), and vulvar lichen simplex chronicus (LSC).

Vulvar Inflammatory Skin Disease and Quality of Life

There is an increased awareness of the impact vulvar skin disease has on quality of life and its association with anxiety and depression.^2-5 Evaluating the burden of vulvar dermatoses remains an active area of research due to its significance in monitoring disease progression and assessing therapeutic effectiveness. Despite the existence of various dermatology quality-of-life assessment tools, many fail to adequately capture the unique impacts of vulvovaginal diseases, such as sexual or urinary dysfunction. The vulvar quality of life index, which was developed and validated by Saunderson et al⁶ in 2020, consists of a 15-item questionnaire spanning 4 domains: symptoms, anxiety, activities of daily living, and sexuality. This tool has been utilized to gauge treatment response in vulvar conditions and to compare disease burden of various vulvar dermatoses.^7,8 Moving forward, integrating this tool into clinical studies on vulvar skin disease holds promise for enhancing our understanding and management of these conditions.

Vulvovaginal Lichen Planus

Vulvovaginal lichen planus is unique among several prevalent vulvar inflammatory skin disorders encountered by dermatologists—primarily due to its erosive form, which can extend to the vagina, resulting in noninfectious vaginitis and potential vaginal stenosis.^9,10 Managing VLP poses a notable challenge, even when it is confined to the vulva, as it often proves resistant to topical therapies.¹¹

Evaluation for Vaginal Mucosal Disease—In contrast to LS, which typically spares the vaginal mucosa, VLP can involve mucosal sites.^9,12,13 Therefore, it is imperative that all patients with a diagnosis of vulvar VLP undergo evaluation for potential vaginal involvement through speculum examination, wet mount, or vaginal biopsy. Strategies to manage vaginal involvement include use of dilators and pelvic floor physical therapy, lysis of adhesions (if present), topical estrogen, and intravaginal corticosteroids—all tailored to the severity of the disease.^9,11,14

Management of VLP—Approximately 20% to 40% of patients with VLP may require systemic therapy for disease management, including those who are younger, those of non-White ethnicity, and those presenting with vulvar pruritus.¹¹ Various systemic immunosuppressants have been used for VLP, with a recent retrospective study revealing similar response rates for both methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil in the treatment of VLP.¹⁵ Another retrospective study found hydroxychloroquine to be safe and effective for VLP but noted a slow onset of action, with approximately 70% responding at 9 months following initiation of therapy.¹⁶

Recent attention has shifted to use of targeted therapies for VLP. For instance, apremilast has shown efficacy in a single-center, nonrandomized, open-label pilot study.¹⁷ Tildrakizumab, an IL-23 inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy in a case series involving 24 patients with VLP.¹⁸ Moreover, recent case reports and series have highlighted the potential of oral Janus kinase (JAK) ­inhibitors, such as tofacitinib, in VLP treatment.¹⁹ Clinical trials are ongoing to evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical ruxolitinib and deucravacitinib (a tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor) in VLP.^20-22 Systemic therapies for VLP currently are used off label, emphasizing the need for future randomized controlled trials to ascertain the optimal therapies for patients affected by erosive and nonerosive forms of this disease.

Plasma Cell Vulvitis

Plasma cell vulvitis is a chronic inflammatory disorder with an unknown etiology that some consider to be a variant of VLP.²³ Others have observed an overlap with desquamative inflammatory vaginitis, categorizing PCV as a hemorrhagic vestibulovaginitis.²⁴ Although its classification as a distinct entity remains under scrutiny, studies indicate a predilection for the nonkeratinized or partially keratinized vulva. A systematic review outlining common clinical findings reported that the most common anatomic sites included the vulvar vestibule, periurethral area, and labia minora.²³ Additionally, reports have emphasized the association between PCV and other inflammatory vulvar skin conditions, including LS.²⁵

Clinical Variants of PCV—A retrospective review proposed 2 clinical phenotypes for PCV: (1) primary non–lichen-associated PCV and (2) secondary lichen-associated PCV, which is linked to LS.²⁶ The primary form is reported to be restricted to the vestibule, and the authors considered this a vulvar counterpart of atrophic vaginitis due to estrogen deficiency (now known as postmenopausal genitourinary syndrome). The secondary phenotype more commonly involved the vestibular and extravestibular epithelium.²⁶

Management of PCV—Recognizing PCV in the context of LS may be important for identifying comorbid conditions and guiding treatment. However, evidence-based guidelines for PCV treatment are lacking. Commonly reported treatment modalities include clobetasol ointment 0.05% and tacrolimus ointment 0.1%.²³ Successful treatment with hydrocortisone suppositories alternating with estradiol vaginal cream was reported in a recent case series.²⁷ Crisaborole also has been reported as a treatment in 1 case of PCV.²⁸ A recent case report found abrocitinib to be effective for the treatment of plasma cell balanitis in the setting of male genital LS,²⁹ but there are limited data on the use of JAK inhibitors for PCV. Further research is necessary to ascertain the incidence, prevalence, clinical subtypes, and optimal management strategies for PCV to effectively treat patients with this condition.

Vulvar LSC

Similar to extragenital LSC, the evaluation of vulvar LSC should prioritize identification of underlying ­etiologies that contribute to the itch-scratch cycle, which may include psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, neurologic conditions, and allergic or irritant contact dermatitis.^30,31 Although treatment strategies may vary based on underlying ­conditions, we will concentrate on updates in managing vulvar LSC and pruritus associated with an atopic ­diathesis or resulting from chronic contact dermatitis, which is prevalent in vulvar skin areas. Finally, we highlight some emerging vulvar allergens for consideration in clinical practice.

Management of Vulvar LSC—The advent of targeted therapies, including biologics and small-molecule inhibitors, for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis in recent years presents potential options for treatment of individuals with vulvar LSC. However, studies on the use of these therapies specifically for vulvar LSC are limited, necessitating thorough discussions with patients. Given the debilitating nature of vulvar pruritus that may be seen in vulvar LSC and the potential inadequacy of topical steroids as monotherapy, systemic therapies may serve as alternative options for patients with refractory disease.³⁰

Dupilumab, a dual inhibitor of IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, has shown rapid and sustained disease improvement in patients with atopic dermatitis, prurigo nodularis, and pruritus.^32,33 Although data on its role in managing vulvar LSC are scarce, a recent case series reported improvement of vulvar pruritus with dupilumab.³⁴ Similarly, tralokinumab, an IL-13 inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for atopic dermatitis, has shown efficacy in prurigo nodularis³⁵ and may benefit patients with vulvar LSC, though studies on cutaneous outcomes in those with genital involvement specifically are lacking. Oral JAK inhibitors such as upadacitinib and abrocitinib—both FDA approved for atopic dermatitis—have demonstrated efficacy in treating LSC and itch, potentially serving as management options for vulvar LSC in cases resistant to topical steroids or in which steroid atrophy or other steroid adverse effects may preclude continued use of such agents.^36,37 Finally, IL-31 inhibitors such as nemolizumab, which reduced the signs and symptoms of prurigo nodularis in a recent phase 3 clinical trial, may hold utility in addressing vulvar LSC and associated pruritus.³⁸

The topical JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib, which is FDA approved for atopic dermatitis and vitiligo, holds promise for managing LSC on vulvar skin while mitigating the risk for steroid-induced atrophy.³⁹ Additionally, nonsteroidal topicals including roflumilast cream 0.3% and tapinarof cream 1%, both FDA approved for psoriasis, are being evaluated in studies for their safety and efficacy in atopic dermatitis.^40,41 These agents may have the potential to improve signs and symptoms of vulvar LSC, but further studies are necessary.

Vulvar Allergens and LSC—When assessing patients with vulvar LSC, it is crucial to recognize that allergic contact dermatitis is a common primary vulvar dermatosis but can coexist with other vulvar dermatoses such as LS.^13,30 The vulvar skin’s susceptibly to allergic contact dermatitis is attributed to factors such as a higher ratio of antigen-presenting cells in the vulvar skin, the nonkeratinized nature of certain sites, and frequent contact with potential allergens.^42,43 Therefore, incorporating patch testing into the diagnostic process should be considered when evaluating patients with vulvar skin conditions.⁴³

A systemic review identified multiple vulvar allergens, including metals, topical medicaments, fragrances, preservatives, cosmetic constituents, and rubber components that led to contact dermatitis.⁴⁴ Moreover, a recent analysis of topical preparations recommended by women with LS on social media found a high prevalence of known vulvar allergens in these agents, including botanical extracts/spices.⁴⁵ Personal-care wipes marketed for vulvar care and hygiene are known to contain a variety of allergens, with a recent study finding numerous allergens in commercially available wipes including fragrances, scented botanicals in the form of essences, oils, fruit juices, and vitamin E.⁴⁶ These findings underscore the importance of considering potential allergens when caring for patients with vulvar LSC and counseling patients about the potential allergens in many commercially available products that may be recommended on social media sites or by other sources.

Final Thoughts

Vulvar inflammatory dermatoses are becoming increasingly recognized, and there is a need to develop more effective diagnostic and treatment approaches. Recent literature has shed light on some of the challenges in the management of VLP, particularly its resistance to topical therapies and the importance of assessing and managing both cutaneous and vaginal involvement. Efforts have been made to refine the classification of PCV, with studies suggesting a variant that coexists with LS. Although evidence for vulvar-specific treatment of LSC is limited, the emergence of biologics and small-molecule inhibitors that are FDA approved for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis offer promise for certain cases of vulvar LSC and vulvar pruritus. Moreover, recent developments in steroid-sparing topical agents warrant further investigation for their potential efficacy in treating vulvar LSC and possibly other vulvar inflammatory conditions in the future.

Vulvar lichen sclerosus (VLS) is an underserved area in medicine and dermatology. We discuss updates in VLS, which include the following: (1) development of core outcome domains to include in all future clinical trials, with current efforts focused on determining outcome measurements for each domain; (2) increased understanding of the impact VLS has on quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes; (3) expanded disease associations; (4) clinical and histologic variants, including vestibular sclerosis and nonsclerotic VLS; and (5) updates in management of VLS.

Core Outcomes Measures

The burden of VLS is challenging to quantify, with little agreement among experts.¹ Recently there has been a focus on developing scoring scales to measure disease progression and treatment response. Simpson et al² pioneered the development of a core outcome set to be included in all future clinical trials for genital lichen sclerosus (LS)—clinical (visible) signs, symptoms, and LS-specific QOL.

Although there is no standardized method for assessing disease severity, various scales have been proposed to measure clinical findings in VLS, such as the vulvar architecture severity scale³ as well as the clinical LS score,⁴ which is the only validated scale to incorporate the signs and architectural changes identified by a 2018 Delphi consensus group of the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.⁵ Work is ongoing to identify and evaluate outcome measurement instruments for each of the 3 core outcome domains.

Increased Understanding of QOL Impacts

Pain, pruritus, impairment of sexual function, genitourinary complications, architectural changes, and risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) all have been well established as VLS sequelae.^6,7 Recent studies have focused on the QOL impact and associations with psychiatric comorbidities. A matched case-control study found that LS was significantly associated with depression and anxiety among US women (P<.001), and individuals with LS had a more than 2-fold increased odds of receiving a diagnosis of depression or anxiety.⁸

A review evaluating QOL outcomes in LS found that overall QOL was impaired. Female patients reported worse QOL in the work-school domain of the dermatology life quality index compared with male counterparts.⁹

Finally, a study exploring the experiences of patients living with VLS highlighted the secrecy and stigma of the condition,¹⁰ which serves as a call to action to improve the general population’s knowledge about vulvar anatomy and create change in societal attitudes on vulvar conditions.

Although there are several instruments assessing vulvar-specific QOL, most are for patients with vulvar cancer and focus on sexual function. In 2020, Saunderson et al¹¹ published the 15-item vulvar quality of life index (VQLI), which has broad implications for measuring vulvar disease burden and is an important tool for standardizing vulvar disease measurements and outcomes for clinical research.¹² The VQLI, though not specific to VLS, consists of 4 domains to assess vulvar QOL including symptoms, anxiety, activities of daily living, and sexuality. Studies have evaluated this scoring system in patients with VLS, with 1 study finding that VQLI correlated with clinician-rated severity scores (P=.01) and overall patient itch/discomfort score (P<.001) in VLS.^13,14

Expanded Disease Associations

Lichen sclerosus has a well-known association with vulvar SCC and other autoimmune conditions, including thyroid disease and bullous pemphigoid.^15-17 Recent studies also have revealed an association between LS and psoriasis.¹⁸ A case-control study from a single center found VLS was associated with elevated body mass index, statin usage, and cholecystectomy.¹⁹ Gynecologic pain syndromes, interstitial cystitis, urinary incontinence, and some gastrointestinal tract disorders including celiac disease also have been found to be increased in patients with VLS.²⁰ Finally, the incidence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events such as LS has increased as the use of immune checkpoint therapies as anticancer treatments has expanded.²¹ Clinicians should be aware of these potential disease associations when caring for patients with VLS.

The incidence of VLS is higher in lower estrogen states throughout the lifespan, and a recent case-control study evaluated the cutaneous hormonal and microbial landscapes in postmenopausal patients (6 patients with VLS; 12 controls).²² Levels of the following cutaneous hormones in the groin were found to be altered in patients with VLS compared with controls: estrone (lower; P=.006), progesterone (higher; P<.0001), and testosterone (lower; P=.02). The authors found that most hormone levels normalized following treatment with a topical steroid. Additionally, bacterial microbiome alterations were seen in patients with VLS compared with controls. Thus, cutaneous sex hormone and skin microbiome alterations may be associated with VLS.²²

Updates in Clinical and Histologic Variants

Less-recognized variants of VLS have been characterized in recent years. Vestibular sclerosis is a variant of VLS with unique clinical and histopathologic features; it is characterized by involvement localized to the anterior vestibule and either an absent or sparse lymphocytic infiltrate on histopathology.^23,24 Nonsclerotic VLS is a variant with clinical features consistent with VLS that does not exhibit dermal sclerosis on histopathology. Thus, a diagnosis of nonsclerotic VLS requires clinicopathologic correlation. Four nonsclerotic histopathologic subtypes are proposed: lichenoid, hypertrophic lichenoid, dermal fibrosis without acanthosis, and dermal fibrosis with acanthosis.²⁵ Longitudinal studies that correlate duration, signs, and symptoms will be important to further understand these variants.

Management Updates

First-line treatment of VLS still consists of ultrapotent topical corticosteroids with chronic maintenance therapy (usually lifetime) to decrease the risk for SCC and architectural changes.²⁶ However, a survey across social media platforms found steroid phobia is common in patients with VLS (N=865), with approximately 40% of respondents endorsing waiting as long as they could before using topical corticosteroids and stopping as soon as possible.²⁷ Clinicians should be aware of possible patient perceptions in the use of chronic steroids when discussing this therapy.

Randomized controlled trials utilizing fractional CO₂ devices for VLS have been performed with conflicting results and no consensus regarding outcome measurement.^28,29 Additionally, long-term disease outcomes following laser use have not been investigated. Although there is evidence that both ablative and nonablative devices can improve symptoms and signs, there is no evidence that they offer a cure for a chronic inflammatory skin condition. Current evidence suggests that even for patients undergoing these procedures, maintenance therapy is still essential to prevent sequelae.³⁰ Future studies incorporating standardized outcome measures will be important for assessing the benefits of laser therapy in VLS. Finally, the reasons why topical corticosteroids may fail in an individual patient are multifaceted and should be explored thoroughly when considering laser therapy for VLS.

Studies evaluating the role of systemic therapies for refractory cases of VLS have expanded. A systematic review of systemic therapies for both genital and extragenital LS found oral corticosteroids and methotrexate were the most-reported systemic treatment regimens.³¹ Use of biologics in LS has been reported, with cases utilizing adalimumab for VLS and dupilumab for extragenital LS. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors including abrocitinib and baricitinib also has been reported for LS.³¹ A clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical ruxolitinib in VLS was recently completed (ClinicalTrials.govidentifier NCT05593445). Future research studies likely will focus on the safety and efficacy of targeted and steroid-sparing therapies for patients with VLS.

Final Thoughts

Vulvar lichen sclerosus increasingly is becoming recognized as a chronic genital skin condition that impacts QOL and health outcomes, with a need to develop more effective and safe evidence-based therapies. Recent literature has focused on the importance of developing and standardizing disease outcomes; identifying disease associations including the role of cutaneous hormones and microbiome alterations; characterizing histologic and clinical variants; and staying up-to-date on management, including the need for understanding patient perceptions of chronic topical steroid therapy. Each of these are important updates for clinicians to consider when caring for patients with VLS. Future studies likely will focus on elucidating disease etiology and mechanisms to gain a better understanding of VLS pathogenesis and potential targets for therapies as well as implementation of clinical trials that incorporate standardized outcome domains to test efficacy and safety of additional therapies.

Vulvar lichen sclerosus (VLS) is an underserved area in medicine and dermatology. We discuss updates in VLS, which include the following: (1) development of core outcome domains to include in all future clinical trials, with current efforts focused on determining outcome measurements for each domain; (2) increased understanding of the impact VLS has on quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes; (3) expanded disease associations; (4) clinical and histologic variants, including vestibular sclerosis and nonsclerotic VLS; and (5) updates in management of VLS.

Core Outcomes Measures

The burden of VLS is challenging to quantify, with little agreement among experts.¹ Recently there has been a focus on developing scoring scales to measure disease progression and treatment response. Simpson et al² pioneered the development of a core outcome set to be included in all future clinical trials for genital lichen sclerosus (LS)—clinical (visible) signs, symptoms, and LS-specific QOL.

Although there is no standardized method for assessing disease severity, various scales have been proposed to measure clinical findings in VLS, such as the vulvar architecture severity scale³ as well as the clinical LS score,⁴ which is the only validated scale to incorporate the signs and architectural changes identified by a 2018 Delphi consensus group of the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.⁵ Work is ongoing to identify and evaluate outcome measurement instruments for each of the 3 core outcome domains.

Increased Understanding of QOL Impacts

Pain, pruritus, impairment of sexual function, genitourinary complications, architectural changes, and risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) all have been well established as VLS sequelae.^6,7 Recent studies have focused on the QOL impact and associations with psychiatric comorbidities. A matched case-control study found that LS was significantly associated with depression and anxiety among US women (P<.001), and individuals with LS had a more than 2-fold increased odds of receiving a diagnosis of depression or anxiety.⁸

A review evaluating QOL outcomes in LS found that overall QOL was impaired. Female patients reported worse QOL in the work-school domain of the dermatology life quality index compared with male counterparts.⁹

Finally, a study exploring the experiences of patients living with VLS highlighted the secrecy and stigma of the condition,¹⁰ which serves as a call to action to improve the general population’s knowledge about vulvar anatomy and create change in societal attitudes on vulvar conditions.

Although there are several instruments assessing vulvar-specific QOL, most are for patients with vulvar cancer and focus on sexual function. In 2020, Saunderson et al¹¹ published the 15-item vulvar quality of life index (VQLI), which has broad implications for measuring vulvar disease burden and is an important tool for standardizing vulvar disease measurements and outcomes for clinical research.¹² The VQLI, though not specific to VLS, consists of 4 domains to assess vulvar QOL including symptoms, anxiety, activities of daily living, and sexuality. Studies have evaluated this scoring system in patients with VLS, with 1 study finding that VQLI correlated with clinician-rated severity scores (P=.01) and overall patient itch/discomfort score (P<.001) in VLS.^13,14

Expanded Disease Associations

Lichen sclerosus has a well-known association with vulvar SCC and other autoimmune conditions, including thyroid disease and bullous pemphigoid.^15-17 Recent studies also have revealed an association between LS and psoriasis.¹⁸ A case-control study from a single center found VLS was associated with elevated body mass index, statin usage, and cholecystectomy.¹⁹ Gynecologic pain syndromes, interstitial cystitis, urinary incontinence, and some gastrointestinal tract disorders including celiac disease also have been found to be increased in patients with VLS.²⁰ Finally, the incidence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events such as LS has increased as the use of immune checkpoint therapies as anticancer treatments has expanded.²¹ Clinicians should be aware of these potential disease associations when caring for patients with VLS.

The incidence of VLS is higher in lower estrogen states throughout the lifespan, and a recent case-control study evaluated the cutaneous hormonal and microbial landscapes in postmenopausal patients (6 patients with VLS; 12 controls).²² Levels of the following cutaneous hormones in the groin were found to be altered in patients with VLS compared with controls: estrone (lower; P=.006), progesterone (higher; P<.0001), and testosterone (lower; P=.02). The authors found that most hormone levels normalized following treatment with a topical steroid. Additionally, bacterial microbiome alterations were seen in patients with VLS compared with controls. Thus, cutaneous sex hormone and skin microbiome alterations may be associated with VLS.²²

Updates in Clinical and Histologic Variants

Less-recognized variants of VLS have been characterized in recent years. Vestibular sclerosis is a variant of VLS with unique clinical and histopathologic features; it is characterized by involvement localized to the anterior vestibule and either an absent or sparse lymphocytic infiltrate on histopathology.^23,24 Nonsclerotic VLS is a variant with clinical features consistent with VLS that does not exhibit dermal sclerosis on histopathology. Thus, a diagnosis of nonsclerotic VLS requires clinicopathologic correlation. Four nonsclerotic histopathologic subtypes are proposed: lichenoid, hypertrophic lichenoid, dermal fibrosis without acanthosis, and dermal fibrosis with acanthosis.²⁵ Longitudinal studies that correlate duration, signs, and symptoms will be important to further understand these variants.

Management Updates

First-line treatment of VLS still consists of ultrapotent topical corticosteroids with chronic maintenance therapy (usually lifetime) to decrease the risk for SCC and architectural changes.²⁶ However, a survey across social media platforms found steroid phobia is common in patients with VLS (N=865), with approximately 40% of respondents endorsing waiting as long as they could before using topical corticosteroids and stopping as soon as possible.²⁷ Clinicians should be aware of possible patient perceptions in the use of chronic steroids when discussing this therapy.

Randomized controlled trials utilizing fractional CO₂ devices for VLS have been performed with conflicting results and no consensus regarding outcome measurement.^28,29 Additionally, long-term disease outcomes following laser use have not been investigated. Although there is evidence that both ablative and nonablative devices can improve symptoms and signs, there is no evidence that they offer a cure for a chronic inflammatory skin condition. Current evidence suggests that even for patients undergoing these procedures, maintenance therapy is still essential to prevent sequelae.³⁰ Future studies incorporating standardized outcome measures will be important for assessing the benefits of laser therapy in VLS. Finally, the reasons why topical corticosteroids may fail in an individual patient are multifaceted and should be explored thoroughly when considering laser therapy for VLS.

Studies evaluating the role of systemic therapies for refractory cases of VLS have expanded. A systematic review of systemic therapies for both genital and extragenital LS found oral corticosteroids and methotrexate were the most-reported systemic treatment regimens.³¹ Use of biologics in LS has been reported, with cases utilizing adalimumab for VLS and dupilumab for extragenital LS. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors including abrocitinib and baricitinib also has been reported for LS.³¹ A clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical ruxolitinib in VLS was recently completed (ClinicalTrials.govidentifier NCT05593445). Future research studies likely will focus on the safety and efficacy of targeted and steroid-sparing therapies for patients with VLS.

Final Thoughts

Vulvar lichen sclerosus increasingly is becoming recognized as a chronic genital skin condition that impacts QOL and health outcomes, with a need to develop more effective and safe evidence-based therapies. Recent literature has focused on the importance of developing and standardizing disease outcomes; identifying disease associations including the role of cutaneous hormones and microbiome alterations; characterizing histologic and clinical variants; and staying up-to-date on management, including the need for understanding patient perceptions of chronic topical steroid therapy. Each of these are important updates for clinicians to consider when caring for patients with VLS. Future studies likely will focus on elucidating disease etiology and mechanisms to gain a better understanding of VLS pathogenesis and potential targets for therapies as well as implementation of clinical trials that incorporate standardized outcome domains to test efficacy and safety of additional therapies.

Vulvar lichen sclerosus (VLS) is an underserved area in medicine and dermatology. We discuss updates in VLS, which include the following: (1) development of core outcome domains to include in all future clinical trials, with current efforts focused on determining outcome measurements for each domain; (2) increased understanding of the impact VLS has on quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes; (3) expanded disease associations; (4) clinical and histologic variants, including vestibular sclerosis and nonsclerotic VLS; and (5) updates in management of VLS.

Core Outcomes Measures

The burden of VLS is challenging to quantify, with little agreement among experts.¹ Recently there has been a focus on developing scoring scales to measure disease progression and treatment response. Simpson et al² pioneered the development of a core outcome set to be included in all future clinical trials for genital lichen sclerosus (LS)—clinical (visible) signs, symptoms, and LS-specific QOL.

Although there is no standardized method for assessing disease severity, various scales have been proposed to measure clinical findings in VLS, such as the vulvar architecture severity scale³ as well as the clinical LS score,⁴ which is the only validated scale to incorporate the signs and architectural changes identified by a 2018 Delphi consensus group of the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.⁵ Work is ongoing to identify and evaluate outcome measurement instruments for each of the 3 core outcome domains.

Increased Understanding of QOL Impacts

Pain, pruritus, impairment of sexual function, genitourinary complications, architectural changes, and risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) all have been well established as VLS sequelae.^6,7 Recent studies have focused on the QOL impact and associations with psychiatric comorbidities. A matched case-control study found that LS was significantly associated with depression and anxiety among US women (P<.001), and individuals with LS had a more than 2-fold increased odds of receiving a diagnosis of depression or anxiety.⁸

A review evaluating QOL outcomes in LS found that overall QOL was impaired. Female patients reported worse QOL in the work-school domain of the dermatology life quality index compared with male counterparts.⁹

Finally, a study exploring the experiences of patients living with VLS highlighted the secrecy and stigma of the condition,¹⁰ which serves as a call to action to improve the general population’s knowledge about vulvar anatomy and create change in societal attitudes on vulvar conditions.

Although there are several instruments assessing vulvar-specific QOL, most are for patients with vulvar cancer and focus on sexual function. In 2020, Saunderson et al¹¹ published the 15-item vulvar quality of life index (VQLI), which has broad implications for measuring vulvar disease burden and is an important tool for standardizing vulvar disease measurements and outcomes for clinical research.¹² The VQLI, though not specific to VLS, consists of 4 domains to assess vulvar QOL including symptoms, anxiety, activities of daily living, and sexuality. Studies have evaluated this scoring system in patients with VLS, with 1 study finding that VQLI correlated with clinician-rated severity scores (P=.01) and overall patient itch/discomfort score (P<.001) in VLS.^13,14

Expanded Disease Associations

Lichen sclerosus has a well-known association with vulvar SCC and other autoimmune conditions, including thyroid disease and bullous pemphigoid.^15-17 Recent studies also have revealed an association between LS and psoriasis.¹⁸ A case-control study from a single center found VLS was associated with elevated body mass index, statin usage, and cholecystectomy.¹⁹ Gynecologic pain syndromes, interstitial cystitis, urinary incontinence, and some gastrointestinal tract disorders including celiac disease also have been found to be increased in patients with VLS.²⁰ Finally, the incidence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events such as LS has increased as the use of immune checkpoint therapies as anticancer treatments has expanded.²¹ Clinicians should be aware of these potential disease associations when caring for patients with VLS.

The incidence of VLS is higher in lower estrogen states throughout the lifespan, and a recent case-control study evaluated the cutaneous hormonal and microbial landscapes in postmenopausal patients (6 patients with VLS; 12 controls).²² Levels of the following cutaneous hormones in the groin were found to be altered in patients with VLS compared with controls: estrone (lower; P=.006), progesterone (higher; P<.0001), and testosterone (lower; P=.02). The authors found that most hormone levels normalized following treatment with a topical steroid. Additionally, bacterial microbiome alterations were seen in patients with VLS compared with controls. Thus, cutaneous sex hormone and skin microbiome alterations may be associated with VLS.²²

Updates in Clinical and Histologic Variants

Less-recognized variants of VLS have been characterized in recent years. Vestibular sclerosis is a variant of VLS with unique clinical and histopathologic features; it is characterized by involvement localized to the anterior vestibule and either an absent or sparse lymphocytic infiltrate on histopathology.^23,24 Nonsclerotic VLS is a variant with clinical features consistent with VLS that does not exhibit dermal sclerosis on histopathology. Thus, a diagnosis of nonsclerotic VLS requires clinicopathologic correlation. Four nonsclerotic histopathologic subtypes are proposed: lichenoid, hypertrophic lichenoid, dermal fibrosis without acanthosis, and dermal fibrosis with acanthosis.²⁵ Longitudinal studies that correlate duration, signs, and symptoms will be important to further understand these variants.

Management Updates

First-line treatment of VLS still consists of ultrapotent topical corticosteroids with chronic maintenance therapy (usually lifetime) to decrease the risk for SCC and architectural changes.²⁶ However, a survey across social media platforms found steroid phobia is common in patients with VLS (N=865), with approximately 40% of respondents endorsing waiting as long as they could before using topical corticosteroids and stopping as soon as possible.²⁷ Clinicians should be aware of possible patient perceptions in the use of chronic steroids when discussing this therapy.

Randomized controlled trials utilizing fractional CO₂ devices for VLS have been performed with conflicting results and no consensus regarding outcome measurement.^28,29 Additionally, long-term disease outcomes following laser use have not been investigated. Although there is evidence that both ablative and nonablative devices can improve symptoms and signs, there is no evidence that they offer a cure for a chronic inflammatory skin condition. Current evidence suggests that even for patients undergoing these procedures, maintenance therapy is still essential to prevent sequelae.³⁰ Future studies incorporating standardized outcome measures will be important for assessing the benefits of laser therapy in VLS. Finally, the reasons why topical corticosteroids may fail in an individual patient are multifaceted and should be explored thoroughly when considering laser therapy for VLS.

Studies evaluating the role of systemic therapies for refractory cases of VLS have expanded. A systematic review of systemic therapies for both genital and extragenital LS found oral corticosteroids and methotrexate were the most-reported systemic treatment regimens.³¹ Use of biologics in LS has been reported, with cases utilizing adalimumab for VLS and dupilumab for extragenital LS. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors including abrocitinib and baricitinib also has been reported for LS.³¹ A clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of topical ruxolitinib in VLS was recently completed (ClinicalTrials.govidentifier NCT05593445). Future research studies likely will focus on the safety and efficacy of targeted and steroid-sparing therapies for patients with VLS.

Final Thoughts

Vulvar lichen sclerosus increasingly is becoming recognized as a chronic genital skin condition that impacts QOL and health outcomes, with a need to develop more effective and safe evidence-based therapies. Recent literature has focused on the importance of developing and standardizing disease outcomes; identifying disease associations including the role of cutaneous hormones and microbiome alterations; characterizing histologic and clinical variants; and staying up-to-date on management, including the need for understanding patient perceptions of chronic topical steroid therapy. Each of these are important updates for clinicians to consider when caring for patients with VLS. Future studies likely will focus on elucidating disease etiology and mechanisms to gain a better understanding of VLS pathogenesis and potential targets for therapies as well as implementation of clinical trials that incorporate standardized outcome domains to test efficacy and safety of additional therapies.

Verrucous carcinoma (VC) is an uncommon type of well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that most commonly affects men in the fifth to sixth decades of life. ¹ The tumor grows slowly over a decade or more and does not frequently metastasize but has a high propensity for recurrence and local invasion. ²  There are 3 main subtypes of VC classified by anatomic site: oral florid papillomatosis (oral cavity), Buschke-Lowenstein tumor (anogenital region), and epithelioma cuniculatum (EC)(feet). ³ Epithelioma cuniculatum, also known as carcinoma cuniculatum or papillomatosis cutis carcinoides, most commonly presents as a solitary, warty or cauliflowerlike, exophytic mass with keratin-filled sinus tracts and malodorous discharge. ⁴ Diabetic foot ulcers and chronic inflammatory conditions are predisposing risk factors for EC, and it can result in difficulty walking/immobility, pain, and bleeding depending on anatomic involvement. ^5-9

The differential diagnosis for VC includes refractory verruca vulgaris, clavus, SCC, keratoacanthoma, deep fungal or mycobacterial infection, eccrine poroma or porocarcinoma, amelanotic melanoma, and sarcoma.^10-13 The slow-growing nature of VC, sampling error of superficial biopsies, and minimal cytological atypia on histologic examination can contribute to delayed diagnosis and appropriate treatment.¹⁴ Characteristic histologic features include hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, marked acanthosis, broad blunt-ended rete ridges with a “bulldozing” architecture, and minimal cytologic atypia and mitoses.^5,6 In some cases, pleomorphism and glassy eosinophilic cytoplasmic changes may be more pronounced than that of a common wart though less dramatic than that of conventional SCCs.¹⁵ Antigen Ki-67 and tumor protein p53 have been proposed to help differentiate between common plantar verruca, VC, and SCC, but the histologic diagnosis remains challenging, and repeat histopathologic examination often is required.^16-19 Following diagnosis, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging may be necessary to determine tumor extension and assess for deep tissue and bony involvement.^20-22

Treatment of EC is particularly challenging because of the anatomic location and need for margin control while maintaining adequate function, preserving healthy tissue, and providing coverage of defects. Surgical excision of EC is the first-line treatment, most commonly by wide local excision (WLE) or amputation. Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) also has been utilized. One review found no recurrences in 5 cases of EC treated with MMS.²³ As MMS is a tissue-sparing technique, this is a valuable modality for sites of functional importance such as the feet. Herein, we review various reported EC treatment modalities and outcomes, with an emphasis on recurrence rates for WLE and MMS.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE, as well as databases including the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), was performed on January 14, 2020. Two authors (S.S.D. and S.V.C.) independently screened results using the search terms (plantar OR foot) AND (verrucous carcinoma OR epithelioma cuniculatum OR carcinoma cuniculatum). The search terms were chosen according to MeSH subject headings. All articles from the start date of the databases through the search date were screened, and articles pertaining to VC, EC, or carcinoma cuniculatum located on the foot were included. Of these, non–English-language articles were translated and included. Articles reporting VC on a site other than the foot (eg, the oral cavity) or benign verrucous skin lesions were excluded. The reference lists for all articles also were reviewed for additional reports that were absent from the initial search using both included and excluded articles. A full-text review was performed on 221 articles published between 1954 and 2019 per the PRISMA guidelines (Figure).

A total of 101 articles were included in the study for qualitative analysis. Nearly all articles identified were case reports, giving an evidence level of 5 by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine rating scale. Five articles reported data on multiple patients without individual demographic or clinical details and were excluded from analysis. Of the remaining 96 articles, information about patient characteristics, tumor size, treatment modality, and recurrence were extracted for 115 cases.

RESULTS

Of the 115 cases that were reviewed, 81 (70%) were male and 33 (29%) were female with a male-to-female ratio of 2.4:1. Ages of the patients ranged from 18 to 88 years; the mean and median age was 56 years. Nearly all reported cases of EC affected the plantar surface of one foot, with 4 reports of tumors affecting both feet.^24-27 One case affecting both feet reported known exposure to lead arsenate pesticides²⁷; all others were associated with a clinical history of chronic ulcers or warts persisting for several years to decades. Other less common sites of EC included the dorsal foot, interdigital web space, and subungual digit.^28-30 The most common location reported was the anterior ball of the foot. Tumors were reported to arise within pre-existing lesions, such as hypertrophic lichen planus or chronic foot wounds associated with diabetes mellitus or leprosy.^31-35 Tumor size ranged from 1 to 22 cm with a median of 4.5 cm.

Eight cases were reported to be associated with human papillomavirus; low-risk types 6 and 11 and high-risk types 16 and 18 were found in 6 cases.^36-41 Two cases reported association with human papillomavirus type 2.^7,42

Metastases to dermal and subdermal lymphatics, regional lymph nodes, and the lungs were reported in 3 cases, repectively.^43-45 Of these, one primary tumor had received low-dose irradiation in the form of X-ray therapy.⁴⁵

Treatment Modalities

The cases of EC that we reviewed included treatment with surgical and systemic therapies as well as other modalities such as acitretin, interferon alfa, topical imiquimod, curettage, debridement, electrodesiccation, and radiation. The Table includes a complete summary of the treatments we analyzed.

Surgical Therapy—The majority (91% [105/115]) of cases were treated surgically. The most common treatment modality was WLE (50% [58/115]), followed by amputation (37% [43/115]) and MMS (12% [14/115]).

Wide local excision was the most frequently reported treatment, with excision margins of at least 5 mm to 1 cm.⁴⁸ Incidence of recurrence was reported for 57% (33/58) of cases treated with WLE; of these, the recurrence rate was 33% (11/33). For patients with EC recurrence, the most common secondary treatment was repeat excision with wider margins (1–2 cm) or amputation (5/11).^49-52 Few postoperative complications were reported but included pain, infection, and difficulty walking, which were mostly associated with repair modality (eg, split-thickness skin grafts, rotational flaps).⁵³ 
Amputation was the second most common treatment modality, with a 67% (29/43) incidence of recurrence. Types of amputation included transmetatarsal ray amputation (7/43 [16%]), foot or forefoot amputation (2/43 [5%]), above-the-knee amputation (1/43 [2%]), and below-the-knee amputation (1/43 [2%]). Complications associated with amputation included infection and requirement of prosthetics for ambulation. Split-thickness skin grafts and rotational flaps were the most common surgical repairs performed.^52,53

Mohs micrographic surgery was the least frequently reported surgical treatment modality. Both traditional MMS on fresh tissue and “slow Mohs,” with formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue examination over several days, were performed for EC with horizontal en face sectioning.^54-56 Incidence of recurrence was reported for 86% (12/14) of MMS cases. Of these, recurrence was seen in 17% (2/12) that utilized a flat horizontal processing of tissue sections coupled with saucerlike excisions to enable examination of the entire undersurface and margins. In one case, the patient was treated with MMS with recurrence noted 1 month later; thus, repeat MMS was performed, and the tumor was found to be entwined around the flexor tendon.⁵⁷ The tendon was removed, and clear margins were obtained. Follow-up 3 years after the second MMS revealed no signs of recurrence.⁵⁷ In the other case, the patient had a particularly aggressive course with bilateral VC in the setting of diabetic ulcers that was treated with WLE prior to MMS and recurrence still noted after MMS.²⁶ No complications were reported with MMS.

Overall, recurrence was most frequently reported with WLE (11/33 [33%]), followed by MMS (2/12 [17%]) and amputation (3/29 [10%]). When comparing WLE and amputation, the relationship between treatment modality and recurrence was statistically significant using a χ² test of independence (χ²=4.7; P=.03). However, results were not significant with Yates correction for continuity (χ²=3.4; P=.06). The χ² test of independence showed no significant association between treatment method and recurrence when comparing WLE with MMS (χ²=1.2; P=.28). Reported follow-up times varied greatly from a few months to 10 years.

Systemic Therapy—Of the total cases, only 2 cases reported treatment with acitretin and 2 utilized interferon alfa.^58,59 In one case, treatment of EC with interferon alfa alone required more aggressive therapy (ie, amputation).⁵⁸ Neither of the 2 cases using acitretin reported recurrence.^59,60 Complications of acitretin therapy included cheilitis and transaminitis.⁶⁰

Other Treatment Modalities—Three cases utilized imiquimod, with 2 cases of imiquimod monotherapy and 1 case of imiquimod in combination with electrodesiccation and WLE.³⁷ One of the cases of EC treated with imiquimod monotherapy recurred and required WLE.⁶¹

There were reports of other treatments including curettage alone (2% [2/115]),^40,62 debridement alone (1% [1/115]),⁴⁰ electrodesiccation (1% [1/115]),³⁷ and radiation (1% [1/115]).⁴³ Recurrence was found with curettage alone and debridement alone. Electrodesiccation was reported in conjunction with WLE without recurrence. Radiation was used to treat a case of VC that had metastasized to the lymph nodes; no follow-up was described.⁴³

COMMENT

Epithelioma cuniculatum is an indolent malignancy of the plantar foot that likely is frequently underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of location, sampling error, and challenges in histopathologic diagnosis. Once diagnosed, surgical removal with margin control is the first-line therapy for EC. Our review found a number of surgical, systemic, and other treatment modalities that have been used to treat EC, but there remains a lack of evidence to provide clear guidelines as to which therapies are most effective. Current data on the treatment of EC largely are limited to case reports and case series. To date, there are no reports of higher-quality studies or randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of various treatment modalities.

Our review found that WLE is the most common treatment modality for EC, followed by amputation and MMS. Three cases^43-45 that reported metastasis to lymph nodes also were treated with fine-needle aspiration or biopsy, and it is recommended that sentinel lymph node biopsy be performed when there is a history of radiation exposure or clinically and sonographically unsuspicious lymph nodes, while dissection of regional nodes should be performed if lymph node metastasis is suspected.⁵³ Additional treatments reported included acitretin, interferon alfa, topical imiquimod, curettage, debridement, and electrodesiccation, but because of the limited number of cases and variable efficacy, no conclusions can be made on the utility of these alternative modalities.

The lowest rate of reported recurrence was found with amputation, followed by MMS and WLE. Amputation is the most aggressive treatment option, but its superiority in lower recurrence rates was not statistically significant when compared with either WLE or MMS after Yates correction. Despite treatment with radical surgery, recurrence is still possible and may be associated with factors including greater size (>2 cm) and depth (>4 mm), poor histologic differentiation, perineural involvement, failure of previous treatments, and immunosuppression.⁶³ No statistically significant difference in recurrence rates was found among surgical methods, though data trended toward lower rates of recurrence with MMS compared with WLE, as recurrence with MMS was only reported in 2 cases.^25,56

The efficacy of MMS is well documented for tumors with contiguous growth and enables maximum preservation of normal tissue structure and function with complete margin visualization. Thus, our results are in agreement with those of prior studies,^54-56,64 suggesting that MMS is associated with lower recurrence rates for EC than WLE. Future studies and reporting of MMS for EC are particularly important because of the functional importance of the plantar foot.

It is important to note that there are local and systemic risk factors that increase the likelihood of developing EC and facilitate tumor growth, including antecedent trauma to the lesion site, chronic irritation or infection, and immunosuppression (HIV related or iatrogenic medication induced). These risk factors may play a role in the treatment modality utilized (eg, more aggressive EC may be treated with amputation instead of WLE). Underlying patient comorbidities could potentially affect recurrence rates, which is a variable we could not control for in our analysis.

Our findings are limited by study design, with supporting evidence consisting of case reports and series. The review is limited by interstudy variability and heterogeneity of results. Additionally, recurrence is not reported in all cases and may be a source of sampling bias. Further complicating the generalizability of these results is the lack of follow-up to evaluate morbidity and quality of life after treatment.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that MMS is associated with lower recurrence rates than WLE for the treatment of EC. Further investigation of MMS for EC with appropriate follow-up is necessary to identify whether MMS is associated with lower recurrence and less functional impairment. Nonsurgical treatments, including topical imiquimod, interferon alfa, and acitretin, may be useful in cases where surgical therapies are contraindicated, but there is little evidence to support these treatment modalities. Treatment guidelines for EC are not established, and appropriate treatment guidelines should be developed in the future.

Verrucous carcinoma (VC) is an uncommon type of well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that most commonly affects men in the fifth to sixth decades of life. ¹ The tumor grows slowly over a decade or more and does not frequently metastasize but has a high propensity for recurrence and local invasion. ²  There are 3 main subtypes of VC classified by anatomic site: oral florid papillomatosis (oral cavity), Buschke-Lowenstein tumor (anogenital region), and epithelioma cuniculatum (EC)(feet). ³ Epithelioma cuniculatum, also known as carcinoma cuniculatum or papillomatosis cutis carcinoides, most commonly presents as a solitary, warty or cauliflowerlike, exophytic mass with keratin-filled sinus tracts and malodorous discharge. ⁴ Diabetic foot ulcers and chronic inflammatory conditions are predisposing risk factors for EC, and it can result in difficulty walking/immobility, pain, and bleeding depending on anatomic involvement. ^5-9

The differential diagnosis for VC includes refractory verruca vulgaris, clavus, SCC, keratoacanthoma, deep fungal or mycobacterial infection, eccrine poroma or porocarcinoma, amelanotic melanoma, and sarcoma.^10-13 The slow-growing nature of VC, sampling error of superficial biopsies, and minimal cytological atypia on histologic examination can contribute to delayed diagnosis and appropriate treatment.¹⁴ Characteristic histologic features include hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, marked acanthosis, broad blunt-ended rete ridges with a “bulldozing” architecture, and minimal cytologic atypia and mitoses.^5,6 In some cases, pleomorphism and glassy eosinophilic cytoplasmic changes may be more pronounced than that of a common wart though less dramatic than that of conventional SCCs.¹⁵ Antigen Ki-67 and tumor protein p53 have been proposed to help differentiate between common plantar verruca, VC, and SCC, but the histologic diagnosis remains challenging, and repeat histopathologic examination often is required.^16-19 Following diagnosis, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging may be necessary to determine tumor extension and assess for deep tissue and bony involvement.^20-22

Treatment of EC is particularly challenging because of the anatomic location and need for margin control while maintaining adequate function, preserving healthy tissue, and providing coverage of defects. Surgical excision of EC is the first-line treatment, most commonly by wide local excision (WLE) or amputation. Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) also has been utilized. One review found no recurrences in 5 cases of EC treated with MMS.²³ As MMS is a tissue-sparing technique, this is a valuable modality for sites of functional importance such as the feet. Herein, we review various reported EC treatment modalities and outcomes, with an emphasis on recurrence rates for WLE and MMS.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE, as well as databases including the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), was performed on January 14, 2020. Two authors (S.S.D. and S.V.C.) independently screened results using the search terms (plantar OR foot) AND (verrucous carcinoma OR epithelioma cuniculatum OR carcinoma cuniculatum). The search terms were chosen according to MeSH subject headings. All articles from the start date of the databases through the search date were screened, and articles pertaining to VC, EC, or carcinoma cuniculatum located on the foot were included. Of these, non–English-language articles were translated and included. Articles reporting VC on a site other than the foot (eg, the oral cavity) or benign verrucous skin lesions were excluded. The reference lists for all articles also were reviewed for additional reports that were absent from the initial search using both included and excluded articles. A full-text review was performed on 221 articles published between 1954 and 2019 per the PRISMA guidelines (Figure).

A total of 101 articles were included in the study for qualitative analysis. Nearly all articles identified were case reports, giving an evidence level of 5 by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine rating scale. Five articles reported data on multiple patients without individual demographic or clinical details and were excluded from analysis. Of the remaining 96 articles, information about patient characteristics, tumor size, treatment modality, and recurrence were extracted for 115 cases.

RESULTS

Of the 115 cases that were reviewed, 81 (70%) were male and 33 (29%) were female with a male-to-female ratio of 2.4:1. Ages of the patients ranged from 18 to 88 years; the mean and median age was 56 years. Nearly all reported cases of EC affected the plantar surface of one foot, with 4 reports of tumors affecting both feet.^24-27 One case affecting both feet reported known exposure to lead arsenate pesticides²⁷; all others were associated with a clinical history of chronic ulcers or warts persisting for several years to decades. Other less common sites of EC included the dorsal foot, interdigital web space, and subungual digit.^28-30 The most common location reported was the anterior ball of the foot. Tumors were reported to arise within pre-existing lesions, such as hypertrophic lichen planus or chronic foot wounds associated with diabetes mellitus or leprosy.^31-35 Tumor size ranged from 1 to 22 cm with a median of 4.5 cm.

Eight cases were reported to be associated with human papillomavirus; low-risk types 6 and 11 and high-risk types 16 and 18 were found in 6 cases.^36-41 Two cases reported association with human papillomavirus type 2.^7,42

Metastases to dermal and subdermal lymphatics, regional lymph nodes, and the lungs were reported in 3 cases, repectively.^43-45 Of these, one primary tumor had received low-dose irradiation in the form of X-ray therapy.⁴⁵

Treatment Modalities

The cases of EC that we reviewed included treatment with surgical and systemic therapies as well as other modalities such as acitretin, interferon alfa, topical imiquimod, curettage, debridement, electrodesiccation, and radiation. The Table includes a complete summary of the treatments we analyzed.

Surgical Therapy—The majority (91% [105/115]) of cases were treated surgically. The most common treatment modality was WLE (50% [58/115]), followed by amputation (37% [43/115]) and MMS (12% [14/115]).

Wide local excision was the most frequently reported treatment, with excision margins of at least 5 mm to 1 cm.⁴⁸ Incidence of recurrence was reported for 57% (33/58) of cases treated with WLE; of these, the recurrence rate was 33% (11/33). For patients with EC recurrence, the most common secondary treatment was repeat excision with wider margins (1–2 cm) or amputation (5/11).^49-52 Few postoperative complications were reported but included pain, infection, and difficulty walking, which were mostly associated with repair modality (eg, split-thickness skin grafts, rotational flaps).⁵³ 
Amputation was the second most common treatment modality, with a 67% (29/43) incidence of recurrence. Types of amputation included transmetatarsal ray amputation (7/43 [16%]), foot or forefoot amputation (2/43 [5%]), above-the-knee amputation (1/43 [2%]), and below-the-knee amputation (1/43 [2%]). Complications associated with amputation included infection and requirement of prosthetics for ambulation. Split-thickness skin grafts and rotational flaps were the most common surgical repairs performed.^52,53

Mohs micrographic surgery was the least frequently reported surgical treatment modality. Both traditional MMS on fresh tissue and “slow Mohs,” with formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue examination over several days, were performed for EC with horizontal en face sectioning.^54-56 Incidence of recurrence was reported for 86% (12/14) of MMS cases. Of these, recurrence was seen in 17% (2/12) that utilized a flat horizontal processing of tissue sections coupled with saucerlike excisions to enable examination of the entire undersurface and margins. In one case, the patient was treated with MMS with recurrence noted 1 month later; thus, repeat MMS was performed, and the tumor was found to be entwined around the flexor tendon.⁵⁷ The tendon was removed, and clear margins were obtained. Follow-up 3 years after the second MMS revealed no signs of recurrence.⁵⁷ In the other case, the patient had a particularly aggressive course with bilateral VC in the setting of diabetic ulcers that was treated with WLE prior to MMS and recurrence still noted after MMS.²⁶ No complications were reported with MMS.

Overall, recurrence was most frequently reported with WLE (11/33 [33%]), followed by MMS (2/12 [17%]) and amputation (3/29 [10%]). When comparing WLE and amputation, the relationship between treatment modality and recurrence was statistically significant using a χ² test of independence (χ²=4.7; P=.03). However, results were not significant with Yates correction for continuity (χ²=3.4; P=.06). The χ² test of independence showed no significant association between treatment method and recurrence when comparing WLE with MMS (χ²=1.2; P=.28). Reported follow-up times varied greatly from a few months to 10 years.

Systemic Therapy—Of the total cases, only 2 cases reported treatment with acitretin and 2 utilized interferon alfa.^58,59 In one case, treatment of EC with interferon alfa alone required more aggressive therapy (ie, amputation).⁵⁸ Neither of the 2 cases using acitretin reported recurrence.^59,60 Complications of acitretin therapy included cheilitis and transaminitis.⁶⁰

Other Treatment Modalities—Three cases utilized imiquimod, with 2 cases of imiquimod monotherapy and 1 case of imiquimod in combination with electrodesiccation and WLE.³⁷ One of the cases of EC treated with imiquimod monotherapy recurred and required WLE.⁶¹

There were reports of other treatments including curettage alone (2% [2/115]),^40,62 debridement alone (1% [1/115]),⁴⁰ electrodesiccation (1% [1/115]),³⁷ and radiation (1% [1/115]).⁴³ Recurrence was found with curettage alone and debridement alone. Electrodesiccation was reported in conjunction with WLE without recurrence. Radiation was used to treat a case of VC that had metastasized to the lymph nodes; no follow-up was described.⁴³

COMMENT

Epithelioma cuniculatum is an indolent malignancy of the plantar foot that likely is frequently underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of location, sampling error, and challenges in histopathologic diagnosis. Once diagnosed, surgical removal with margin control is the first-line therapy for EC. Our review found a number of surgical, systemic, and other treatment modalities that have been used to treat EC, but there remains a lack of evidence to provide clear guidelines as to which therapies are most effective. Current data on the treatment of EC largely are limited to case reports and case series. To date, there are no reports of higher-quality studies or randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of various treatment modalities.

Our review found that WLE is the most common treatment modality for EC, followed by amputation and MMS. Three cases^43-45 that reported metastasis to lymph nodes also were treated with fine-needle aspiration or biopsy, and it is recommended that sentinel lymph node biopsy be performed when there is a history of radiation exposure or clinically and sonographically unsuspicious lymph nodes, while dissection of regional nodes should be performed if lymph node metastasis is suspected.⁵³ Additional treatments reported included acitretin, interferon alfa, topical imiquimod, curettage, debridement, and electrodesiccation, but because of the limited number of cases and variable efficacy, no conclusions can be made on the utility of these alternative modalities.

The lowest rate of reported recurrence was found with amputation, followed by MMS and WLE. Amputation is the most aggressive treatment option, but its superiority in lower recurrence rates was not statistically significant when compared with either WLE or MMS after Yates correction. Despite treatment with radical surgery, recurrence is still possible and may be associated with factors including greater size (>2 cm) and depth (>4 mm), poor histologic differentiation, perineural involvement, failure of previous treatments, and immunosuppression.⁶³ No statistically significant difference in recurrence rates was found among surgical methods, though data trended toward lower rates of recurrence with MMS compared with WLE, as recurrence with MMS was only reported in 2 cases.^25,56

The efficacy of MMS is well documented for tumors with contiguous growth and enables maximum preservation of normal tissue structure and function with complete margin visualization. Thus, our results are in agreement with those of prior studies,^54-56,64 suggesting that MMS is associated with lower recurrence rates for EC than WLE. Future studies and reporting of MMS for EC are particularly important because of the functional importance of the plantar foot.

It is important to note that there are local and systemic risk factors that increase the likelihood of developing EC and facilitate tumor growth, including antecedent trauma to the lesion site, chronic irritation or infection, and immunosuppression (HIV related or iatrogenic medication induced). These risk factors may play a role in the treatment modality utilized (eg, more aggressive EC may be treated with amputation instead of WLE). Underlying patient comorbidities could potentially affect recurrence rates, which is a variable we could not control for in our analysis.

Our findings are limited by study design, with supporting evidence consisting of case reports and series. The review is limited by interstudy variability and heterogeneity of results. Additionally, recurrence is not reported in all cases and may be a source of sampling bias. Further complicating the generalizability of these results is the lack of follow-up to evaluate morbidity and quality of life after treatment.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that MMS is associated with lower recurrence rates than WLE for the treatment of EC. Further investigation of MMS for EC with appropriate follow-up is necessary to identify whether MMS is associated with lower recurrence and less functional impairment. Nonsurgical treatments, including topical imiquimod, interferon alfa, and acitretin, may be useful in cases where surgical therapies are contraindicated, but there is little evidence to support these treatment modalities. Treatment guidelines for EC are not established, and appropriate treatment guidelines should be developed in the future.

Verrucous carcinoma (VC) is an uncommon type of well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that most commonly affects men in the fifth to sixth decades of life. ¹ The tumor grows slowly over a decade or more and does not frequently metastasize but has a high propensity for recurrence and local invasion. ²  There are 3 main subtypes of VC classified by anatomic site: oral florid papillomatosis (oral cavity), Buschke-Lowenstein tumor (anogenital region), and epithelioma cuniculatum (EC)(feet). ³ Epithelioma cuniculatum, also known as carcinoma cuniculatum or papillomatosis cutis carcinoides, most commonly presents as a solitary, warty or cauliflowerlike, exophytic mass with keratin-filled sinus tracts and malodorous discharge. ⁴ Diabetic foot ulcers and chronic inflammatory conditions are predisposing risk factors for EC, and it can result in difficulty walking/immobility, pain, and bleeding depending on anatomic involvement. ^5-9

The differential diagnosis for VC includes refractory verruca vulgaris, clavus, SCC, keratoacanthoma, deep fungal or mycobacterial infection, eccrine poroma or porocarcinoma, amelanotic melanoma, and sarcoma.^10-13 The slow-growing nature of VC, sampling error of superficial biopsies, and minimal cytological atypia on histologic examination can contribute to delayed diagnosis and appropriate treatment.¹⁴ Characteristic histologic features include hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, marked acanthosis, broad blunt-ended rete ridges with a “bulldozing” architecture, and minimal cytologic atypia and mitoses.^5,6 In some cases, pleomorphism and glassy eosinophilic cytoplasmic changes may be more pronounced than that of a common wart though less dramatic than that of conventional SCCs.¹⁵ Antigen Ki-67 and tumor protein p53 have been proposed to help differentiate between common plantar verruca, VC, and SCC, but the histologic diagnosis remains challenging, and repeat histopathologic examination often is required.^16-19 Following diagnosis, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging may be necessary to determine tumor extension and assess for deep tissue and bony involvement.^20-22

Treatment of EC is particularly challenging because of the anatomic location and need for margin control while maintaining adequate function, preserving healthy tissue, and providing coverage of defects. Surgical excision of EC is the first-line treatment, most commonly by wide local excision (WLE) or amputation. Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) also has been utilized. One review found no recurrences in 5 cases of EC treated with MMS.²³ As MMS is a tissue-sparing technique, this is a valuable modality for sites of functional importance such as the feet. Herein, we review various reported EC treatment modalities and outcomes, with an emphasis on recurrence rates for WLE and MMS.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE, as well as databases including the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), was performed on January 14, 2020. Two authors (S.S.D. and S.V.C.) independently screened results using the search terms (plantar OR foot) AND (verrucous carcinoma OR epithelioma cuniculatum OR carcinoma cuniculatum). The search terms were chosen according to MeSH subject headings. All articles from the start date of the databases through the search date were screened, and articles pertaining to VC, EC, or carcinoma cuniculatum located on the foot were included. Of these, non–English-language articles were translated and included. Articles reporting VC on a site other than the foot (eg, the oral cavity) or benign verrucous skin lesions were excluded. The reference lists for all articles also were reviewed for additional reports that were absent from the initial search using both included and excluded articles. A full-text review was performed on 221 articles published between 1954 and 2019 per the PRISMA guidelines (Figure).

A total of 101 articles were included in the study for qualitative analysis. Nearly all articles identified were case reports, giving an evidence level of 5 by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine rating scale. Five articles reported data on multiple patients without individual demographic or clinical details and were excluded from analysis. Of the remaining 96 articles, information about patient characteristics, tumor size, treatment modality, and recurrence were extracted for 115 cases.

RESULTS

Of the 115 cases that were reviewed, 81 (70%) were male and 33 (29%) were female with a male-to-female ratio of 2.4:1. Ages of the patients ranged from 18 to 88 years; the mean and median age was 56 years. Nearly all reported cases of EC affected the plantar surface of one foot, with 4 reports of tumors affecting both feet.^24-27 One case affecting both feet reported known exposure to lead arsenate pesticides²⁷; all others were associated with a clinical history of chronic ulcers or warts persisting for several years to decades. Other less common sites of EC included the dorsal foot, interdigital web space, and subungual digit.^28-30 The most common location reported was the anterior ball of the foot. Tumors were reported to arise within pre-existing lesions, such as hypertrophic lichen planus or chronic foot wounds associated with diabetes mellitus or leprosy.^31-35 Tumor size ranged from 1 to 22 cm with a median of 4.5 cm.

Eight cases were reported to be associated with human papillomavirus; low-risk types 6 and 11 and high-risk types 16 and 18 were found in 6 cases.^36-41 Two cases reported association with human papillomavirus type 2.^7,42

Metastases to dermal and subdermal lymphatics, regional lymph nodes, and the lungs were reported in 3 cases, repectively.^43-45 Of these, one primary tumor had received low-dose irradiation in the form of X-ray therapy.⁴⁵

Treatment Modalities

The cases of EC that we reviewed included treatment with surgical and systemic therapies as well as other modalities such as acitretin, interferon alfa, topical imiquimod, curettage, debridement, electrodesiccation, and radiation. The Table includes a complete summary of the treatments we analyzed.

Surgical Therapy—The majority (91% [105/115]) of cases were treated surgically. The most common treatment modality was WLE (50% [58/115]), followed by amputation (37% [43/115]) and MMS (12% [14/115]).

Wide local excision was the most frequently reported treatment, with excision margins of at least 5 mm to 1 cm.⁴⁸ Incidence of recurrence was reported for 57% (33/58) of cases treated with WLE; of these, the recurrence rate was 33% (11/33). For patients with EC recurrence, the most common secondary treatment was repeat excision with wider margins (1–2 cm) or amputation (5/11).^49-52 Few postoperative complications were reported but included pain, infection, and difficulty walking, which were mostly associated with repair modality (eg, split-thickness skin grafts, rotational flaps).⁵³ 
Amputation was the second most common treatment modality, with a 67% (29/43) incidence of recurrence. Types of amputation included transmetatarsal ray amputation (7/43 [16%]), foot or forefoot amputation (2/43 [5%]), above-the-knee amputation (1/43 [2%]), and below-the-knee amputation (1/43 [2%]). Complications associated with amputation included infection and requirement of prosthetics for ambulation. Split-thickness skin grafts and rotational flaps were the most common surgical repairs performed.^52,53

Mohs micrographic surgery was the least frequently reported surgical treatment modality. Both traditional MMS on fresh tissue and “slow Mohs,” with formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue examination over several days, were performed for EC with horizontal en face sectioning.^54-56 Incidence of recurrence was reported for 86% (12/14) of MMS cases. Of these, recurrence was seen in 17% (2/12) that utilized a flat horizontal processing of tissue sections coupled with saucerlike excisions to enable examination of the entire undersurface and margins. In one case, the patient was treated with MMS with recurrence noted 1 month later; thus, repeat MMS was performed, and the tumor was found to be entwined around the flexor tendon.⁵⁷ The tendon was removed, and clear margins were obtained. Follow-up 3 years after the second MMS revealed no signs of recurrence.⁵⁷ In the other case, the patient had a particularly aggressive course with bilateral VC in the setting of diabetic ulcers that was treated with WLE prior to MMS and recurrence still noted after MMS.²⁶ No complications were reported with MMS.

Overall, recurrence was most frequently reported with WLE (11/33 [33%]), followed by MMS (2/12 [17%]) and amputation (3/29 [10%]). When comparing WLE and amputation, the relationship between treatment modality and recurrence was statistically significant using a χ² test of independence (χ²=4.7; P=.03). However, results were not significant with Yates correction for continuity (χ²=3.4; P=.06). The χ² test of independence showed no significant association between treatment method and recurrence when comparing WLE with MMS (χ²=1.2; P=.28). Reported follow-up times varied greatly from a few months to 10 years.

Systemic Therapy—Of the total cases, only 2 cases reported treatment with acitretin and 2 utilized interferon alfa.^58,59 In one case, treatment of EC with interferon alfa alone required more aggressive therapy (ie, amputation).⁵⁸ Neither of the 2 cases using acitretin reported recurrence.^59,60 Complications of acitretin therapy included cheilitis and transaminitis.⁶⁰

Other Treatment Modalities—Three cases utilized imiquimod, with 2 cases of imiquimod monotherapy and 1 case of imiquimod in combination with electrodesiccation and WLE.³⁷ One of the cases of EC treated with imiquimod monotherapy recurred and required WLE.⁶¹

There were reports of other treatments including curettage alone (2% [2/115]),^40,62 debridement alone (1% [1/115]),⁴⁰ electrodesiccation (1% [1/115]),³⁷ and radiation (1% [1/115]).⁴³ Recurrence was found with curettage alone and debridement alone. Electrodesiccation was reported in conjunction with WLE without recurrence. Radiation was used to treat a case of VC that had metastasized to the lymph nodes; no follow-up was described.⁴³

COMMENT

Epithelioma cuniculatum is an indolent malignancy of the plantar foot that likely is frequently underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of location, sampling error, and challenges in histopathologic diagnosis. Once diagnosed, surgical removal with margin control is the first-line therapy for EC. Our review found a number of surgical, systemic, and other treatment modalities that have been used to treat EC, but there remains a lack of evidence to provide clear guidelines as to which therapies are most effective. Current data on the treatment of EC largely are limited to case reports and case series. To date, there are no reports of higher-quality studies or randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy of various treatment modalities.

Our review found that WLE is the most common treatment modality for EC, followed by amputation and MMS. Three cases^43-45 that reported metastasis to lymph nodes also were treated with fine-needle aspiration or biopsy, and it is recommended that sentinel lymph node biopsy be performed when there is a history of radiation exposure or clinically and sonographically unsuspicious lymph nodes, while dissection of regional nodes should be performed if lymph node metastasis is suspected.⁵³ Additional treatments reported included acitretin, interferon alfa, topical imiquimod, curettage, debridement, and electrodesiccation, but because of the limited number of cases and variable efficacy, no conclusions can be made on the utility of these alternative modalities.

The lowest rate of reported recurrence was found with amputation, followed by MMS and WLE. Amputation is the most aggressive treatment option, but its superiority in lower recurrence rates was not statistically significant when compared with either WLE or MMS after Yates correction. Despite treatment with radical surgery, recurrence is still possible and may be associated with factors including greater size (>2 cm) and depth (>4 mm), poor histologic differentiation, perineural involvement, failure of previous treatments, and immunosuppression.⁶³ No statistically significant difference in recurrence rates was found among surgical methods, though data trended toward lower rates of recurrence with MMS compared with WLE, as recurrence with MMS was only reported in 2 cases.^25,56

The efficacy of MMS is well documented for tumors with contiguous growth and enables maximum preservation of normal tissue structure and function with complete margin visualization. Thus, our results are in agreement with those of prior studies,^54-56,64 suggesting that MMS is associated with lower recurrence rates for EC than WLE. Future studies and reporting of MMS for EC are particularly important because of the functional importance of the plantar foot.

It is important to note that there are local and systemic risk factors that increase the likelihood of developing EC and facilitate tumor growth, including antecedent trauma to the lesion site, chronic irritation or infection, and immunosuppression (HIV related or iatrogenic medication induced). These risk factors may play a role in the treatment modality utilized (eg, more aggressive EC may be treated with amputation instead of WLE). Underlying patient comorbidities could potentially affect recurrence rates, which is a variable we could not control for in our analysis.

Our findings are limited by study design, with supporting evidence consisting of case reports and series. The review is limited by interstudy variability and heterogeneity of results. Additionally, recurrence is not reported in all cases and may be a source of sampling bias. Further complicating the generalizability of these results is the lack of follow-up to evaluate morbidity and quality of life after treatment.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that MMS is associated with lower recurrence rates than WLE for the treatment of EC. Further investigation of MMS for EC with appropriate follow-up is necessary to identify whether MMS is associated with lower recurrence and less functional impairment. Nonsurgical treatments, including topical imiquimod, interferon alfa, and acitretin, may be useful in cases where surgical therapies are contraindicated, but there is little evidence to support these treatment modalities. Treatment guidelines for EC are not established, and appropriate treatment guidelines should be developed in the future.

To the Editor:

Calcinosis cutis is a condition characterized by the deposition of insoluble calcium salts in the skin. Dystrophic calcinosis cutis is the most common type, occurring in previously traumatized skin in the absence of abnormal blood calcium levels. It commonly is seen in patients with connective tissue diseases and is thought to be precipitated by chronic inflammation and vascular hypoxia.¹ Herein, we describe a case of calcinosis cutis arising after treatment with subcutaneous glatiramer acetate, an agent that is effective for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Diagnostic workup and treatment modalities for calcinosis cutis in this patient population should be considered in the context of minimizing interruption or discontinuation of this disease-modifying agent.

A 53-year-old woman with a history of relapsing-remitting MS and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) presented with multiple firm asymptomatic subcutaneous nodules on the thighs of 1 year’s duration that were increasing in number. The involved areas were the injection sites of subcutaneous glatiramer acetate, an immunomodulator for the treatment of MS, which our patient self-administered 3 times weekly. Physical examination revealed multiple flesh-colored to white, firm, and nontender nodules on the thighs (Figure). There was no epidermal change, and she had no other skin involvement. A punch biopsy of one of the nodules revealed calcium deposits in collagen bundles of the deep dermis. Calcium, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone, and vitamin D levels were within reference range. She declined further treatment for the calcinosis cutis and opted to continue treatment with glatiramer acetate, as her MS was well controlled on this medication.

Glatiramer acetate is an immunogenic polypeptide injectable that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of relapsing-remitting MS.² It is composed of synthetic polypeptides and contains 4 naturally occurring amino acids. Glatiramer acetate is administered subcutaneously as 20 mg/mL/d or 40 mg/mL 3 times weekly. Transient injection-site reactions are the most common cutaneous adverse events and include localized edema, induration, erythema, pain, and pruritus.³ There have been multiple reports of lobular panniculitis and skin necrosis as well as embolia cutis medicamentosa (Nicolau syndrome).^4,5 Our case of calcinosis cutis related to glatiramer acetate is unique. The mechanism of calcinosis cutis in our patient likely was dystrophic due to tissue damage, rather than due to the injection of a calcium-containing substance. Our patient’s history of SLE is a notable risk factor for the development of calcinosis cutis, likely incited by the trauma occurring with subcutaneous injections.⁶

The mainstay of treatment for localized calcinosis cutis in the setting of connective tissue disease is surgical excision as well as treatment of the underlying disorder. Potential therapies include calcium channel blockers, warfarin, bisphosphonates, intravenous immunoglobulin, minocycline, colchicine, anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, intralesional corticosteroids, intravenous sodium thiosulfate, and CO₂ laser.^1,6 Our patient was already on intravenous immunoglobulin for MS and hydroxychloroquine for SLE. In select cases where the patient is asymptomatic and prefers not to pursue treatment, no treatment is necessary.

Although calcinosis cutis may occur in SLE alone, it is uncommon and usually is seen in chronic severe SLE, where calcification usually occurs in the setting of pre-existing cutaneous lupus.⁴ This case report of calcinosis cutis following treatment with glatiramer acetate highlights some of the cutaneous side effects associated with glatiramer acetate injections and should prompt practitioners to consider dystrophic calcinosis cutis in patients requiring subcutaneous medications, particularly in those with pre-existing connective tissue disease.

To the Editor:

Calcinosis cutis is a condition characterized by the deposition of insoluble calcium salts in the skin. Dystrophic calcinosis cutis is the most common type, occurring in previously traumatized skin in the absence of abnormal blood calcium levels. It commonly is seen in patients with connective tissue diseases and is thought to be precipitated by chronic inflammation and vascular hypoxia.¹ Herein, we describe a case of calcinosis cutis arising after treatment with subcutaneous glatiramer acetate, an agent that is effective for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Diagnostic workup and treatment modalities for calcinosis cutis in this patient population should be considered in the context of minimizing interruption or discontinuation of this disease-modifying agent.

A 53-year-old woman with a history of relapsing-remitting MS and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) presented with multiple firm asymptomatic subcutaneous nodules on the thighs of 1 year’s duration that were increasing in number. The involved areas were the injection sites of subcutaneous glatiramer acetate, an immunomodulator for the treatment of MS, which our patient self-administered 3 times weekly. Physical examination revealed multiple flesh-colored to white, firm, and nontender nodules on the thighs (Figure). There was no epidermal change, and she had no other skin involvement. A punch biopsy of one of the nodules revealed calcium deposits in collagen bundles of the deep dermis. Calcium, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone, and vitamin D levels were within reference range. She declined further treatment for the calcinosis cutis and opted to continue treatment with glatiramer acetate, as her MS was well controlled on this medication.

Glatiramer acetate is an immunogenic polypeptide injectable that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of relapsing-remitting MS.² It is composed of synthetic polypeptides and contains 4 naturally occurring amino acids. Glatiramer acetate is administered subcutaneously as 20 mg/mL/d or 40 mg/mL 3 times weekly. Transient injection-site reactions are the most common cutaneous adverse events and include localized edema, induration, erythema, pain, and pruritus.³ There have been multiple reports of lobular panniculitis and skin necrosis as well as embolia cutis medicamentosa (Nicolau syndrome).^4,5 Our case of calcinosis cutis related to glatiramer acetate is unique. The mechanism of calcinosis cutis in our patient likely was dystrophic due to tissue damage, rather than due to the injection of a calcium-containing substance. Our patient’s history of SLE is a notable risk factor for the development of calcinosis cutis, likely incited by the trauma occurring with subcutaneous injections.⁶

The mainstay of treatment for localized calcinosis cutis in the setting of connective tissue disease is surgical excision as well as treatment of the underlying disorder. Potential therapies include calcium channel blockers, warfarin, bisphosphonates, intravenous immunoglobulin, minocycline, colchicine, anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, intralesional corticosteroids, intravenous sodium thiosulfate, and CO₂ laser.^1,6 Our patient was already on intravenous immunoglobulin for MS and hydroxychloroquine for SLE. In select cases where the patient is asymptomatic and prefers not to pursue treatment, no treatment is necessary.

Although calcinosis cutis may occur in SLE alone, it is uncommon and usually is seen in chronic severe SLE, where calcification usually occurs in the setting of pre-existing cutaneous lupus.⁴ This case report of calcinosis cutis following treatment with glatiramer acetate highlights some of the cutaneous side effects associated with glatiramer acetate injections and should prompt practitioners to consider dystrophic calcinosis cutis in patients requiring subcutaneous medications, particularly in those with pre-existing connective tissue disease.

To the Editor:

Calcinosis cutis is a condition characterized by the deposition of insoluble calcium salts in the skin. Dystrophic calcinosis cutis is the most common type, occurring in previously traumatized skin in the absence of abnormal blood calcium levels. It commonly is seen in patients with connective tissue diseases and is thought to be precipitated by chronic inflammation and vascular hypoxia.¹ Herein, we describe a case of calcinosis cutis arising after treatment with subcutaneous glatiramer acetate, an agent that is effective for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Diagnostic workup and treatment modalities for calcinosis cutis in this patient population should be considered in the context of minimizing interruption or discontinuation of this disease-modifying agent.

A 53-year-old woman with a history of relapsing-remitting MS and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) presented with multiple firm asymptomatic subcutaneous nodules on the thighs of 1 year’s duration that were increasing in number. The involved areas were the injection sites of subcutaneous glatiramer acetate, an immunomodulator for the treatment of MS, which our patient self-administered 3 times weekly. Physical examination revealed multiple flesh-colored to white, firm, and nontender nodules on the thighs (Figure). There was no epidermal change, and she had no other skin involvement. A punch biopsy of one of the nodules revealed calcium deposits in collagen bundles of the deep dermis. Calcium, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone, and vitamin D levels were within reference range. She declined further treatment for the calcinosis cutis and opted to continue treatment with glatiramer acetate, as her MS was well controlled on this medication.

Glatiramer acetate is an immunogenic polypeptide injectable that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of relapsing-remitting MS.² It is composed of synthetic polypeptides and contains 4 naturally occurring amino acids. Glatiramer acetate is administered subcutaneously as 20 mg/mL/d or 40 mg/mL 3 times weekly. Transient injection-site reactions are the most common cutaneous adverse events and include localized edema, induration, erythema, pain, and pruritus.³ There have been multiple reports of lobular panniculitis and skin necrosis as well as embolia cutis medicamentosa (Nicolau syndrome).^4,5 Our case of calcinosis cutis related to glatiramer acetate is unique. The mechanism of calcinosis cutis in our patient likely was dystrophic due to tissue damage, rather than due to the injection of a calcium-containing substance. Our patient’s history of SLE is a notable risk factor for the development of calcinosis cutis, likely incited by the trauma occurring with subcutaneous injections.⁶

The mainstay of treatment for localized calcinosis cutis in the setting of connective tissue disease is surgical excision as well as treatment of the underlying disorder. Potential therapies include calcium channel blockers, warfarin, bisphosphonates, intravenous immunoglobulin, minocycline, colchicine, anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, intralesional corticosteroids, intravenous sodium thiosulfate, and CO₂ laser.^1,6 Our patient was already on intravenous immunoglobulin for MS and hydroxychloroquine for SLE. In select cases where the patient is asymptomatic and prefers not to pursue treatment, no treatment is necessary.

Although calcinosis cutis may occur in SLE alone, it is uncommon and usually is seen in chronic severe SLE, where calcification usually occurs in the setting of pre-existing cutaneous lupus.⁴ This case report of calcinosis cutis following treatment with glatiramer acetate highlights some of the cutaneous side effects associated with glatiramer acetate injections and should prompt practitioners to consider dystrophic calcinosis cutis in patients requiring subcutaneous medications, particularly in those with pre-existing connective tissue disease.