MDedge Dermatology

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) who exhibit abnormal small bowel transit are more likely to be men, experience more severe cardiac involvement, have a higher mortality risk, and show fewer sicca symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers enrolled 130 patients with SSc having gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (mean age at symptom onset, 56.8 years; 90% women; 81% White) seen at the Johns Hopkins Scleroderma Center, Baltimore, from October 2014 to May 2022.
• Clinical data and serum samples were longitudinally collected from all actively followed patients at the time of enrollment and every 6 months thereafter (median disease duration, 8.4 years).
• Participants underwent whole gut transit scintigraphy for the assessment of small bowel motility.
• A cross-sectional analysis compared the clinical features of patients with (n = 22; mean age at symptom onset, 61.4 years) and without (n = 108; mean age at symptom onset, 55.8 years) abnormal small bowel transit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men with SSc (odds ratio [OR], 3.70; P = .038) and those with severe cardiac involvement (OR, 3.98; P = .035) were more likely to have abnormal small bowel transit.
• Sicca symptoms were negatively associated with abnormal small bowel transit in patients with SSc (adjusted OR, 0.28; P = .043).
• Patients with abnormal small bowel transit reported significantly worse  (P = .028) and social functioning (P = .015) than those having a normal transit.
• A multivariate analysis showed that patients with abnormal small bowel transit had higher mortality than those with a normal transit (adjusted hazard ratio, 5.03; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings improve our understanding of risk factors associated with abnormal small bowel transit in SSc patients and shed light on the lived experience of patients with this GI [gastrointestinal] complication,” the authors wrote. “Overall, these findings are important for patient risk stratification and monitoring and will help to identify a more homogeneous group of patients for future clinical and translational studies,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jenice X. Cheah, MD, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on October 7, 2024, in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may be subject to referral bias as it was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially including patients with a more severe disease status. Furthermore, this study was retrospective in nature, and whole gut transit studies were not conducted in all the patients seen at the referral center. Additionally, the cross-sectional design limited the ability to establish causality between the clinical features and abnormal small bowel transit.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) who exhibit abnormal small bowel transit are more likely to be men, experience more severe cardiac involvement, have a higher mortality risk, and show fewer sicca symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers enrolled 130 patients with SSc having gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (mean age at symptom onset, 56.8 years; 90% women; 81% White) seen at the Johns Hopkins Scleroderma Center, Baltimore, from October 2014 to May 2022.
• Clinical data and serum samples were longitudinally collected from all actively followed patients at the time of enrollment and every 6 months thereafter (median disease duration, 8.4 years).
• Participants underwent whole gut transit scintigraphy for the assessment of small bowel motility.
• A cross-sectional analysis compared the clinical features of patients with (n = 22; mean age at symptom onset, 61.4 years) and without (n = 108; mean age at symptom onset, 55.8 years) abnormal small bowel transit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men with SSc (odds ratio [OR], 3.70; P = .038) and those with severe cardiac involvement (OR, 3.98; P = .035) were more likely to have abnormal small bowel transit.
• Sicca symptoms were negatively associated with abnormal small bowel transit in patients with SSc (adjusted OR, 0.28; P = .043).
• Patients with abnormal small bowel transit reported significantly worse  (P = .028) and social functioning (P = .015) than those having a normal transit.
• A multivariate analysis showed that patients with abnormal small bowel transit had higher mortality than those with a normal transit (adjusted hazard ratio, 5.03; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings improve our understanding of risk factors associated with abnormal small bowel transit in SSc patients and shed light on the lived experience of patients with this GI [gastrointestinal] complication,” the authors wrote. “Overall, these findings are important for patient risk stratification and monitoring and will help to identify a more homogeneous group of patients for future clinical and translational studies,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jenice X. Cheah, MD, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on October 7, 2024, in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may be subject to referral bias as it was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially including patients with a more severe disease status. Furthermore, this study was retrospective in nature, and whole gut transit studies were not conducted in all the patients seen at the referral center. Additionally, the cross-sectional design limited the ability to establish causality between the clinical features and abnormal small bowel transit.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) who exhibit abnormal small bowel transit are more likely to be men, experience more severe cardiac involvement, have a higher mortality risk, and show fewer sicca symptoms.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers enrolled 130 patients with SSc having gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (mean age at symptom onset, 56.8 years; 90% women; 81% White) seen at the Johns Hopkins Scleroderma Center, Baltimore, from October 2014 to May 2022.
• Clinical data and serum samples were longitudinally collected from all actively followed patients at the time of enrollment and every 6 months thereafter (median disease duration, 8.4 years).
• Participants underwent whole gut transit scintigraphy for the assessment of small bowel motility.
• A cross-sectional analysis compared the clinical features of patients with (n = 22; mean age at symptom onset, 61.4 years) and without (n = 108; mean age at symptom onset, 55.8 years) abnormal small bowel transit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men with SSc (odds ratio [OR], 3.70; P = .038) and those with severe cardiac involvement (OR, 3.98; P = .035) were more likely to have abnormal small bowel transit.
• Sicca symptoms were negatively associated with abnormal small bowel transit in patients with SSc (adjusted OR, 0.28; P = .043).
• Patients with abnormal small bowel transit reported significantly worse  (P = .028) and social functioning (P = .015) than those having a normal transit.
• A multivariate analysis showed that patients with abnormal small bowel transit had higher mortality than those with a normal transit (adjusted hazard ratio, 5.03; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings improve our understanding of risk factors associated with abnormal small bowel transit in SSc patients and shed light on the lived experience of patients with this GI [gastrointestinal] complication,” the authors wrote. “Overall, these findings are important for patient risk stratification and monitoring and will help to identify a more homogeneous group of patients for future clinical and translational studies,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jenice X. Cheah, MD, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on October 7, 2024, in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study may be subject to referral bias as it was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially including patients with a more severe disease status. Furthermore, this study was retrospective in nature, and whole gut transit studies were not conducted in all the patients seen at the referral center. Additionally, the cross-sectional design limited the ability to establish causality between the clinical features and abnormal small bowel transit.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What is the world’s most dangerous tree? According to Guinness World Records¹ (and one unlucky contestant on the wilderness survival reality show Naked and Afraid,² who got its sap in his eyes and needed to be evacuated for treatment), the manchineel tree (Hippomane mancinella) has earned this designation.^1-3 Manchineel trees are part of the strand vegetation of islands in the West Indies and along the Caribbean coasts of South and Central America, where their copious root systems help reduce coastal erosion. In the United States, this poisonous tree grows along the southern edge of Florida’s Everglades National Park; the Florida Keys; and the US Virgin Islands, especially Virgin Islands National Park. Although the manchineel tree appears on several endangered species lists,^4-6 there are places within its distribution where it is locally abundant and thus poses a risk to residents and visitors.

The first European description of manchineel toxicity was by Peter Martyr d’Anghiera, a court historian and geographer of Christopher Columbus’s patroness, Isabella I, Queen of Castile and Léon. In the early 1500s, Peter Martyr wrote that on Columbus’s second New World voyage in 1493, the crew encountered a mysterious tree that burned the skin and eyes of anyone who had contact with it.⁷ Columbus called the tree’s fruit manzanilla de la muerte (“little apple of death”) after several sailors became severely ill from eating the fruit.^8,9 Manchineel lore is rife with tales of agonizing death after eating the applelike fruit, and several contemporaneous accounts describe indigenous Caribbean islanders using manchineel’s toxic sap as an arrow poison.¹⁰

Eating manchineel fruit is known to cause abdominal pain, burning sensations in the oropharynx, and esophageal spasms.¹¹ Several case reports mention that consuming the fruit can create an exaggerated parasympathomimetic syndrome due to suspected anticholinesteraselike compounds.^3,11,12 Ophthalmologic injuries include severe conjunctivitis—sometimes extensive enough to cause superficial punctate epithelial keratitis.⁵ Dermatologic injuries have been described, but reports on its histopathologic features are limited. We present a case of manchineel dermatitis in a patient who subsequently underwent a skin biopsy.

Case Report

A 64-year-old physician (S.A.N.) came across a stand of manchineel trees while camping in the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John in the US Virgin Islands (Figure 1). The patient—who was knowledgeable about tropical ecology and was familiar with the tree—was curious about its purported cutaneous toxicity and applied the viscous white sap of a broken branchlet (Figure 2) to a patch of skin measuring 4 cm in diameter on the medial left calf. He took serial photographs of the site on days 2, 4 (Figure 3), 6, and 10 (Figure 4), showing the onset of erythema and the subsequent development of follicular pustules. On day 6, a 4-mm punch biopsy specimen was taken of the most prominent pustule. Histopathology showed a subcorneal acantholytic blister and epidermal spongiosis overlying a mixed perivascular infiltrate and follicular necrosis, which was consistent with irritant contact dermatitis (Figure 5). On day 8, the region became indurated and tender to pressure; however, there was no warmth, edema, purulent drainage, lymphangitic streaks, or other signs of infection. The region was never itchy; it was uncomfortable only with firm direct pressure. The patient applied hot compresses to the site for 10 minutes 1 to 2 times daily for roughly 2 weeks, and the affected area healed fully (without any additional intervention) in approximately 6 weeks.

Comment

Manchineel is a member of the Euphorbiaceae (also known as the euphorb or spurge) family, a mainly tropical or subtropical plant family that includes many useful as well as many toxic species. Examples of useful plants include cassava (Manihot esculenta) and the rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis). Many euphorbs have well-described toxicities, and many (eg, castor bean, Ricinus communis) are useful in some circumstances and toxic in others.^6,12-14 Many euphorbs are known to cause skin reactions, usually due to toxins in the milky sap that directly irritate the skin or to latex compounds that can induce IgE-mediated contact dermatitis.^9,14

Manchineel contains a complex mix of toxins, though no specific one has been identified as the main cause of the associated irritant contact dermatitis. Manchineel sap (and sap of many other euphorbs) contains phorbol esters that may cause direct pH-induced cytotoxicity leading to keratinocyte necrosis. Diterpenes may augment this cytotoxic effect via induction of proinflammatory cytokines.¹² Pitts et al⁵ pointed to a mixture of oxygenated diterpene esters as the primary cause of toxicity and suggested that their water solubility explained occurrences of keratoconjunctivitis after contact with rainwater or dew from the manchineel tree.

All parts of the manchineel tree—fruit, leaves, wood, and sap—are poisonous. In a retrospective series of 97 cases of manchineel fruit ingestion, the most common symptoms were oropharyngeal pain (68% [66/97]), abdominal pain (42% [41/97]), and diarrhea (37% [36/97]). The same series identified 1 (1%) case of bradycardia and hypotension.³ Contact with the wood, exposure to sawdust, and inhalation of smoke from burning the wood can irritate the skin, conjunctivae, or nasopharynx. Rainwater or dew dripping from the leaves onto the skin can cause dermatitis and ophthalmitis, even without direct contact with the tree.^4,5

Management—There is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis. Because it is an irritant reaction and not a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, topical corticosteroids have minimal benefit. A regimen consisting of a thorough cleansing, wet compresses, and observation, as most symptoms resolve spontaneously within a few days, has been recommended.⁴ Our patient used hot compresses, which he believes helped heal the site, although his symptoms lasted for several weeks.

Given that there is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis, the wisest approach is strict avoidance. On many Caribbean islands, visitors are warned about the manchineel tree, advised to avoid direct contact, and reminded to avoid standing beneath it during a rainstorm (Figure 6).

Conclusion

This article begins with a question: “What is the world’s most dangerous tree?” Many sources from the indexed medical literature as well as the popular press and social media state that it is the manchineel. Although all parts of the manchineel tree are highly toxic, human exposures are uncommon, and deaths are more apocryphal than actual.

What is the world’s most dangerous tree? According to Guinness World Records¹ (and one unlucky contestant on the wilderness survival reality show Naked and Afraid,² who got its sap in his eyes and needed to be evacuated for treatment), the manchineel tree (Hippomane mancinella) has earned this designation.^1-3 Manchineel trees are part of the strand vegetation of islands in the West Indies and along the Caribbean coasts of South and Central America, where their copious root systems help reduce coastal erosion. In the United States, this poisonous tree grows along the southern edge of Florida’s Everglades National Park; the Florida Keys; and the US Virgin Islands, especially Virgin Islands National Park. Although the manchineel tree appears on several endangered species lists,^4-6 there are places within its distribution where it is locally abundant and thus poses a risk to residents and visitors.

The first European description of manchineel toxicity was by Peter Martyr d’Anghiera, a court historian and geographer of Christopher Columbus’s patroness, Isabella I, Queen of Castile and Léon. In the early 1500s, Peter Martyr wrote that on Columbus’s second New World voyage in 1493, the crew encountered a mysterious tree that burned the skin and eyes of anyone who had contact with it.⁷ Columbus called the tree’s fruit manzanilla de la muerte (“little apple of death”) after several sailors became severely ill from eating the fruit.^8,9 Manchineel lore is rife with tales of agonizing death after eating the applelike fruit, and several contemporaneous accounts describe indigenous Caribbean islanders using manchineel’s toxic sap as an arrow poison.¹⁰

Eating manchineel fruit is known to cause abdominal pain, burning sensations in the oropharynx, and esophageal spasms.¹¹ Several case reports mention that consuming the fruit can create an exaggerated parasympathomimetic syndrome due to suspected anticholinesteraselike compounds.^3,11,12 Ophthalmologic injuries include severe conjunctivitis—sometimes extensive enough to cause superficial punctate epithelial keratitis.⁵ Dermatologic injuries have been described, but reports on its histopathologic features are limited. We present a case of manchineel dermatitis in a patient who subsequently underwent a skin biopsy.

Case Report

A 64-year-old physician (S.A.N.) came across a stand of manchineel trees while camping in the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John in the US Virgin Islands (Figure 1). The patient—who was knowledgeable about tropical ecology and was familiar with the tree—was curious about its purported cutaneous toxicity and applied the viscous white sap of a broken branchlet (Figure 2) to a patch of skin measuring 4 cm in diameter on the medial left calf. He took serial photographs of the site on days 2, 4 (Figure 3), 6, and 10 (Figure 4), showing the onset of erythema and the subsequent development of follicular pustules. On day 6, a 4-mm punch biopsy specimen was taken of the most prominent pustule. Histopathology showed a subcorneal acantholytic blister and epidermal spongiosis overlying a mixed perivascular infiltrate and follicular necrosis, which was consistent with irritant contact dermatitis (Figure 5). On day 8, the region became indurated and tender to pressure; however, there was no warmth, edema, purulent drainage, lymphangitic streaks, or other signs of infection. The region was never itchy; it was uncomfortable only with firm direct pressure. The patient applied hot compresses to the site for 10 minutes 1 to 2 times daily for roughly 2 weeks, and the affected area healed fully (without any additional intervention) in approximately 6 weeks.

Comment

Manchineel is a member of the Euphorbiaceae (also known as the euphorb or spurge) family, a mainly tropical or subtropical plant family that includes many useful as well as many toxic species. Examples of useful plants include cassava (Manihot esculenta) and the rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis). Many euphorbs have well-described toxicities, and many (eg, castor bean, Ricinus communis) are useful in some circumstances and toxic in others.^6,12-14 Many euphorbs are known to cause skin reactions, usually due to toxins in the milky sap that directly irritate the skin or to latex compounds that can induce IgE-mediated contact dermatitis.^9,14

Manchineel contains a complex mix of toxins, though no specific one has been identified as the main cause of the associated irritant contact dermatitis. Manchineel sap (and sap of many other euphorbs) contains phorbol esters that may cause direct pH-induced cytotoxicity leading to keratinocyte necrosis. Diterpenes may augment this cytotoxic effect via induction of proinflammatory cytokines.¹² Pitts et al⁵ pointed to a mixture of oxygenated diterpene esters as the primary cause of toxicity and suggested that their water solubility explained occurrences of keratoconjunctivitis after contact with rainwater or dew from the manchineel tree.

All parts of the manchineel tree—fruit, leaves, wood, and sap—are poisonous. In a retrospective series of 97 cases of manchineel fruit ingestion, the most common symptoms were oropharyngeal pain (68% [66/97]), abdominal pain (42% [41/97]), and diarrhea (37% [36/97]). The same series identified 1 (1%) case of bradycardia and hypotension.³ Contact with the wood, exposure to sawdust, and inhalation of smoke from burning the wood can irritate the skin, conjunctivae, or nasopharynx. Rainwater or dew dripping from the leaves onto the skin can cause dermatitis and ophthalmitis, even without direct contact with the tree.^4,5

Management—There is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis. Because it is an irritant reaction and not a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, topical corticosteroids have minimal benefit. A regimen consisting of a thorough cleansing, wet compresses, and observation, as most symptoms resolve spontaneously within a few days, has been recommended.⁴ Our patient used hot compresses, which he believes helped heal the site, although his symptoms lasted for several weeks.

Given that there is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis, the wisest approach is strict avoidance. On many Caribbean islands, visitors are warned about the manchineel tree, advised to avoid direct contact, and reminded to avoid standing beneath it during a rainstorm (Figure 6).

Conclusion

This article begins with a question: “What is the world’s most dangerous tree?” Many sources from the indexed medical literature as well as the popular press and social media state that it is the manchineel. Although all parts of the manchineel tree are highly toxic, human exposures are uncommon, and deaths are more apocryphal than actual.

What is the world’s most dangerous tree? According to Guinness World Records¹ (and one unlucky contestant on the wilderness survival reality show Naked and Afraid,² who got its sap in his eyes and needed to be evacuated for treatment), the manchineel tree (Hippomane mancinella) has earned this designation.^1-3 Manchineel trees are part of the strand vegetation of islands in the West Indies and along the Caribbean coasts of South and Central America, where their copious root systems help reduce coastal erosion. In the United States, this poisonous tree grows along the southern edge of Florida’s Everglades National Park; the Florida Keys; and the US Virgin Islands, especially Virgin Islands National Park. Although the manchineel tree appears on several endangered species lists,^4-6 there are places within its distribution where it is locally abundant and thus poses a risk to residents and visitors.

The first European description of manchineel toxicity was by Peter Martyr d’Anghiera, a court historian and geographer of Christopher Columbus’s patroness, Isabella I, Queen of Castile and Léon. In the early 1500s, Peter Martyr wrote that on Columbus’s second New World voyage in 1493, the crew encountered a mysterious tree that burned the skin and eyes of anyone who had contact with it.⁷ Columbus called the tree’s fruit manzanilla de la muerte (“little apple of death”) after several sailors became severely ill from eating the fruit.^8,9 Manchineel lore is rife with tales of agonizing death after eating the applelike fruit, and several contemporaneous accounts describe indigenous Caribbean islanders using manchineel’s toxic sap as an arrow poison.¹⁰

Eating manchineel fruit is known to cause abdominal pain, burning sensations in the oropharynx, and esophageal spasms.¹¹ Several case reports mention that consuming the fruit can create an exaggerated parasympathomimetic syndrome due to suspected anticholinesteraselike compounds.^3,11,12 Ophthalmologic injuries include severe conjunctivitis—sometimes extensive enough to cause superficial punctate epithelial keratitis.⁵ Dermatologic injuries have been described, but reports on its histopathologic features are limited. We present a case of manchineel dermatitis in a patient who subsequently underwent a skin biopsy.

Case Report

A 64-year-old physician (S.A.N.) came across a stand of manchineel trees while camping in the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John in the US Virgin Islands (Figure 1). The patient—who was knowledgeable about tropical ecology and was familiar with the tree—was curious about its purported cutaneous toxicity and applied the viscous white sap of a broken branchlet (Figure 2) to a patch of skin measuring 4 cm in diameter on the medial left calf. He took serial photographs of the site on days 2, 4 (Figure 3), 6, and 10 (Figure 4), showing the onset of erythema and the subsequent development of follicular pustules. On day 6, a 4-mm punch biopsy specimen was taken of the most prominent pustule. Histopathology showed a subcorneal acantholytic blister and epidermal spongiosis overlying a mixed perivascular infiltrate and follicular necrosis, which was consistent with irritant contact dermatitis (Figure 5). On day 8, the region became indurated and tender to pressure; however, there was no warmth, edema, purulent drainage, lymphangitic streaks, or other signs of infection. The region was never itchy; it was uncomfortable only with firm direct pressure. The patient applied hot compresses to the site for 10 minutes 1 to 2 times daily for roughly 2 weeks, and the affected area healed fully (without any additional intervention) in approximately 6 weeks.

Comment

Manchineel is a member of the Euphorbiaceae (also known as the euphorb or spurge) family, a mainly tropical or subtropical plant family that includes many useful as well as many toxic species. Examples of useful plants include cassava (Manihot esculenta) and the rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis). Many euphorbs have well-described toxicities, and many (eg, castor bean, Ricinus communis) are useful in some circumstances and toxic in others.^6,12-14 Many euphorbs are known to cause skin reactions, usually due to toxins in the milky sap that directly irritate the skin or to latex compounds that can induce IgE-mediated contact dermatitis.^9,14

Manchineel contains a complex mix of toxins, though no specific one has been identified as the main cause of the associated irritant contact dermatitis. Manchineel sap (and sap of many other euphorbs) contains phorbol esters that may cause direct pH-induced cytotoxicity leading to keratinocyte necrosis. Diterpenes may augment this cytotoxic effect via induction of proinflammatory cytokines.¹² Pitts et al⁵ pointed to a mixture of oxygenated diterpene esters as the primary cause of toxicity and suggested that their water solubility explained occurrences of keratoconjunctivitis after contact with rainwater or dew from the manchineel tree.

All parts of the manchineel tree—fruit, leaves, wood, and sap—are poisonous. In a retrospective series of 97 cases of manchineel fruit ingestion, the most common symptoms were oropharyngeal pain (68% [66/97]), abdominal pain (42% [41/97]), and diarrhea (37% [36/97]). The same series identified 1 (1%) case of bradycardia and hypotension.³ Contact with the wood, exposure to sawdust, and inhalation of smoke from burning the wood can irritate the skin, conjunctivae, or nasopharynx. Rainwater or dew dripping from the leaves onto the skin can cause dermatitis and ophthalmitis, even without direct contact with the tree.^4,5

Management—There is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis. Because it is an irritant reaction and not a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, topical corticosteroids have minimal benefit. A regimen consisting of a thorough cleansing, wet compresses, and observation, as most symptoms resolve spontaneously within a few days, has been recommended.⁴ Our patient used hot compresses, which he believes helped heal the site, although his symptoms lasted for several weeks.

Given that there is no specific treatment for manchineel dermatitis, the wisest approach is strict avoidance. On many Caribbean islands, visitors are warned about the manchineel tree, advised to avoid direct contact, and reminded to avoid standing beneath it during a rainstorm (Figure 6).

Conclusion

This article begins with a question: “What is the world’s most dangerous tree?” Many sources from the indexed medical literature as well as the popular press and social media state that it is the manchineel. Although all parts of the manchineel tree are highly toxic, human exposures are uncommon, and deaths are more apocryphal than actual.

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) — a treatment most commonly thought of for field cancerization — is an effective tool for reducing rhytides and lentigines, results from a small prospective study showed.

“Our study helps capture and quantify a phenomenon that clinicians who use PDT in their practice have already noticed: Patients experience a visible improvement across several cosmetically important metrics including but not limited to fine lines, wrinkles, and skin tightness following PDT,” one of the study authors, Luke Horton, MD, a fourth-year dermatology resident at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview following the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where he presented the results during an oral abstract session.

Dr. Horton

For the study, 11 patients underwent a 120-minute incubation period with 17% 5-aminolevulinic acid over the face, followed by visible blue light PDT exposure for 16 minutes, to reduce rhytides. The researchers used a Vectra imaging system to capture three-dimensional images of the patients before the procedure and during the follow-up. Three dermatologists analyzed the pre-procedure and post-procedure images and used a validated five-point Merz wrinkle severity scale to grade various regions of the face including the forehead, glabella, lateral canthal rhytides, melolabial folds, nasolabial folds, and perioral rhytides.

They also used a five-point solar lentigines scale to evaluate the change in degree of pigmentation and quantity of age spots as well as the change in rhytid severity before and after PDT and the change in the seven-point Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) to gauge overall improvement of fine lines and wrinkles.

After a mean follow-up of 4.25 months, rhytid severity among the 11 patients was reduced by an average of 0.65 points on the Merz scale, with an SD of 0.20. Broken down by region, rhytid severity scores decreased by 0.2 points (SD, 0.42) for the forehead, 0.7 points (SD, 0.48) for the glabella and lateral canthal rhytides, 0.88 points (SD, 0.35) for the melolabial folds and perioral rhytides, and 0.8 points (SD, 0.42) for the nasolabial folds. (The researchers excluded ratings for the melolabial folds and perioral rhytides in two patients with beards.)

In other findings, solar lentigines grading showed an average reduction of 1 point (SD, 0.45), while the GAIS score improved by 1 or more for every patient, with an average of score of 1.45 (SD, 0.52), showing that some degree of improvement in facial rhytides was noted for all patients following PDT.

“The degree of improvement as measured by our independent physician graders was impressive and not far off from those reported with CO₂ ablative laser,” Horton said. “Further, the effect was not isolated to actinic keratoses but extended to improved appearance of fine lines, some deep lines, and lentigines. Although we are not implying that PDT is superior to and should replace lasers or other energy-based devices, it does provide a real, measurable cosmetic benefit.”

Clinicians, he added, can use these findings “to counsel their patients when discussing field cancerization treatment options, especially for patients who may be hesitant to undergo PDT as it can be a painful therapy with a considerable downtime for some.”

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings “shine more light on the long-standing off-label use of PDT for lessening signs of photoaging. Like studies done before it, I think this adds an additional benefit to discuss for those who are considering PDT treatment for their actinic keratoses.”

Horton acknowledged certain limitations of the study including its small sample size and the fact that physician graders were not blinded to which images were pre- and post-treatment, “which could introduce an element of bias in the data,” he said. “But this being an unfunded project born out of clinical observation, we hope to later expand its size. Furthermore, we invite other physicians to join us to better study these effects and to design protocols that minimize adverse effects and maximize clinical outcomes.”

His co-authors were Milan Hirpara; Sarah Choe; Joel Cohen, MD; and Natasha A. Mesinkovska, MD, PhD.

No relevant disclosures were reported. Green had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) — a treatment most commonly thought of for field cancerization — is an effective tool for reducing rhytides and lentigines, results from a small prospective study showed.

“Our study helps capture and quantify a phenomenon that clinicians who use PDT in their practice have already noticed: Patients experience a visible improvement across several cosmetically important metrics including but not limited to fine lines, wrinkles, and skin tightness following PDT,” one of the study authors, Luke Horton, MD, a fourth-year dermatology resident at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview following the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where he presented the results during an oral abstract session.

Dr. Horton

For the study, 11 patients underwent a 120-minute incubation period with 17% 5-aminolevulinic acid over the face, followed by visible blue light PDT exposure for 16 minutes, to reduce rhytides. The researchers used a Vectra imaging system to capture three-dimensional images of the patients before the procedure and during the follow-up. Three dermatologists analyzed the pre-procedure and post-procedure images and used a validated five-point Merz wrinkle severity scale to grade various regions of the face including the forehead, glabella, lateral canthal rhytides, melolabial folds, nasolabial folds, and perioral rhytides.

They also used a five-point solar lentigines scale to evaluate the change in degree of pigmentation and quantity of age spots as well as the change in rhytid severity before and after PDT and the change in the seven-point Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) to gauge overall improvement of fine lines and wrinkles.

After a mean follow-up of 4.25 months, rhytid severity among the 11 patients was reduced by an average of 0.65 points on the Merz scale, with an SD of 0.20. Broken down by region, rhytid severity scores decreased by 0.2 points (SD, 0.42) for the forehead, 0.7 points (SD, 0.48) for the glabella and lateral canthal rhytides, 0.88 points (SD, 0.35) for the melolabial folds and perioral rhytides, and 0.8 points (SD, 0.42) for the nasolabial folds. (The researchers excluded ratings for the melolabial folds and perioral rhytides in two patients with beards.)

In other findings, solar lentigines grading showed an average reduction of 1 point (SD, 0.45), while the GAIS score improved by 1 or more for every patient, with an average of score of 1.45 (SD, 0.52), showing that some degree of improvement in facial rhytides was noted for all patients following PDT.

“The degree of improvement as measured by our independent physician graders was impressive and not far off from those reported with CO₂ ablative laser,” Horton said. “Further, the effect was not isolated to actinic keratoses but extended to improved appearance of fine lines, some deep lines, and lentigines. Although we are not implying that PDT is superior to and should replace lasers or other energy-based devices, it does provide a real, measurable cosmetic benefit.”

Clinicians, he added, can use these findings “to counsel their patients when discussing field cancerization treatment options, especially for patients who may be hesitant to undergo PDT as it can be a painful therapy with a considerable downtime for some.”

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings “shine more light on the long-standing off-label use of PDT for lessening signs of photoaging. Like studies done before it, I think this adds an additional benefit to discuss for those who are considering PDT treatment for their actinic keratoses.”

Horton acknowledged certain limitations of the study including its small sample size and the fact that physician graders were not blinded to which images were pre- and post-treatment, “which could introduce an element of bias in the data,” he said. “But this being an unfunded project born out of clinical observation, we hope to later expand its size. Furthermore, we invite other physicians to join us to better study these effects and to design protocols that minimize adverse effects and maximize clinical outcomes.”

His co-authors were Milan Hirpara; Sarah Choe; Joel Cohen, MD; and Natasha A. Mesinkovska, MD, PhD.

No relevant disclosures were reported. Green had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) — a treatment most commonly thought of for field cancerization — is an effective tool for reducing rhytides and lentigines, results from a small prospective study showed.

“Our study helps capture and quantify a phenomenon that clinicians who use PDT in their practice have already noticed: Patients experience a visible improvement across several cosmetically important metrics including but not limited to fine lines, wrinkles, and skin tightness following PDT,” one of the study authors, Luke Horton, MD, a fourth-year dermatology resident at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview following the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where he presented the results during an oral abstract session.

Dr. Horton

For the study, 11 patients underwent a 120-minute incubation period with 17% 5-aminolevulinic acid over the face, followed by visible blue light PDT exposure for 16 minutes, to reduce rhytides. The researchers used a Vectra imaging system to capture three-dimensional images of the patients before the procedure and during the follow-up. Three dermatologists analyzed the pre-procedure and post-procedure images and used a validated five-point Merz wrinkle severity scale to grade various regions of the face including the forehead, glabella, lateral canthal rhytides, melolabial folds, nasolabial folds, and perioral rhytides.

They also used a five-point solar lentigines scale to evaluate the change in degree of pigmentation and quantity of age spots as well as the change in rhytid severity before and after PDT and the change in the seven-point Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) to gauge overall improvement of fine lines and wrinkles.

After a mean follow-up of 4.25 months, rhytid severity among the 11 patients was reduced by an average of 0.65 points on the Merz scale, with an SD of 0.20. Broken down by region, rhytid severity scores decreased by 0.2 points (SD, 0.42) for the forehead, 0.7 points (SD, 0.48) for the glabella and lateral canthal rhytides, 0.88 points (SD, 0.35) for the melolabial folds and perioral rhytides, and 0.8 points (SD, 0.42) for the nasolabial folds. (The researchers excluded ratings for the melolabial folds and perioral rhytides in two patients with beards.)

In other findings, solar lentigines grading showed an average reduction of 1 point (SD, 0.45), while the GAIS score improved by 1 or more for every patient, with an average of score of 1.45 (SD, 0.52), showing that some degree of improvement in facial rhytides was noted for all patients following PDT.

“The degree of improvement as measured by our independent physician graders was impressive and not far off from those reported with CO₂ ablative laser,” Horton said. “Further, the effect was not isolated to actinic keratoses but extended to improved appearance of fine lines, some deep lines, and lentigines. Although we are not implying that PDT is superior to and should replace lasers or other energy-based devices, it does provide a real, measurable cosmetic benefit.”

Clinicians, he added, can use these findings “to counsel their patients when discussing field cancerization treatment options, especially for patients who may be hesitant to undergo PDT as it can be a painful therapy with a considerable downtime for some.”

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings “shine more light on the long-standing off-label use of PDT for lessening signs of photoaging. Like studies done before it, I think this adds an additional benefit to discuss for those who are considering PDT treatment for their actinic keratoses.”

Horton acknowledged certain limitations of the study including its small sample size and the fact that physician graders were not blinded to which images were pre- and post-treatment, “which could introduce an element of bias in the data,” he said. “But this being an unfunded project born out of clinical observation, we hope to later expand its size. Furthermore, we invite other physicians to join us to better study these effects and to design protocols that minimize adverse effects and maximize clinical outcomes.”

His co-authors were Milan Hirpara; Sarah Choe; Joel Cohen, MD; and Natasha A. Mesinkovska, MD, PhD.

No relevant disclosures were reported. Green had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment with ritlecitinib sustained hair regrowth through week 48 in patients with alopecia areata (AA), and up to one third of nonresponders at week 24 also achieved responses by week 48.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial (ALLEGRO) and included 718 adults and adolescents aged 12 or older with severe AA (Severity of Alopecia Tool [SALT] score ≥ 50).
• Patients received various doses of the oral Janus kinase inhibitor ritlecitinib, with or without a 4-week loading dose, including 200/50 mg, 200/30 mg, 50 mg, or 30 mg, with or without a 4-week loading dose for up to 24 weeks and continued to receive their assigned maintenance dose.
• Researchers assessed sustained clinical responses at week 48 for those who had achieved SALT scores ≤ 20 and ≤ 10 at 24 weeks, and nonresponders at week 24 were assessed for responses through week 48.
• Adverse events were also evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among patients on ritlecitinib who had responded at week 24, SALT responses ≤ 20 were sustained in 85.2%-100% of patients through week 48. Similar results were seen among patients who achieved a SALT score ≤ 10 (68.8%-91.7%) and improvements in eyebrow (70.4%-96.9%) or eyelash (52.4%-94.1%) assessment scores.
• Among those who were nonresponders at week 24, 22.2%-33.7% achieved a SALT score ≤ 20 and 19.8%-25.5% achieved a SALT score ≤ 10 by week 48. Similarly, among those with no eyebrow or eyelash responses at week 24, 19.7%-32.8% and 16.7%-30.2% had improved eyebrow or eyelash assessment scores, respectively, at week 48.
• Between weeks 24 and 48, adverse events were reported in 74%-93% of patients who achieved a SALT score ≤ 20, most were mild or moderate; two serious events were reported but deemed unrelated to treatment. The safety profile was similar across all subgroups.
• No deaths, malignancies, major cardiovascular events, opportunistic infections, or herpes zoster infections were observed.

IN PRACTICE:

“The majority of ritlecitinib-treated patients with AA who met target clinical response based on scalp, eyebrow, or eyelash regrowth at week 24 sustained their response through week 48 with continued treatment,” the authors wrote. “Some patients, including those with more extensive hair loss, may require ritlecitinib treatment beyond 6 months to achieve target clinical response,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Melissa Piliang, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, and was published online on October 17 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis was limited by its post hoc nature, small sample size in each treatment group, and a follow-up period of only 48 weeks.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Pfizer. Piliang disclosed being a consultant or investigator for Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Procter & Gamble. Six authors were employees or shareholders of or received salary from Pfizer. Other authors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside this work, including Pfizer.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment with ritlecitinib sustained hair regrowth through week 48 in patients with alopecia areata (AA), and up to one third of nonresponders at week 24 also achieved responses by week 48.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial (ALLEGRO) and included 718 adults and adolescents aged 12 or older with severe AA (Severity of Alopecia Tool [SALT] score ≥ 50).
• Patients received various doses of the oral Janus kinase inhibitor ritlecitinib, with or without a 4-week loading dose, including 200/50 mg, 200/30 mg, 50 mg, or 30 mg, with or without a 4-week loading dose for up to 24 weeks and continued to receive their assigned maintenance dose.
• Researchers assessed sustained clinical responses at week 48 for those who had achieved SALT scores ≤ 20 and ≤ 10 at 24 weeks, and nonresponders at week 24 were assessed for responses through week 48.
• Adverse events were also evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among patients on ritlecitinib who had responded at week 24, SALT responses ≤ 20 were sustained in 85.2%-100% of patients through week 48. Similar results were seen among patients who achieved a SALT score ≤ 10 (68.8%-91.7%) and improvements in eyebrow (70.4%-96.9%) or eyelash (52.4%-94.1%) assessment scores.
• Among those who were nonresponders at week 24, 22.2%-33.7% achieved a SALT score ≤ 20 and 19.8%-25.5% achieved a SALT score ≤ 10 by week 48. Similarly, among those with no eyebrow or eyelash responses at week 24, 19.7%-32.8% and 16.7%-30.2% had improved eyebrow or eyelash assessment scores, respectively, at week 48.
• Between weeks 24 and 48, adverse events were reported in 74%-93% of patients who achieved a SALT score ≤ 20, most were mild or moderate; two serious events were reported but deemed unrelated to treatment. The safety profile was similar across all subgroups.
• No deaths, malignancies, major cardiovascular events, opportunistic infections, or herpes zoster infections were observed.

IN PRACTICE:

“The majority of ritlecitinib-treated patients with AA who met target clinical response based on scalp, eyebrow, or eyelash regrowth at week 24 sustained their response through week 48 with continued treatment,” the authors wrote. “Some patients, including those with more extensive hair loss, may require ritlecitinib treatment beyond 6 months to achieve target clinical response,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Melissa Piliang, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, and was published online on October 17 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis was limited by its post hoc nature, small sample size in each treatment group, and a follow-up period of only 48 weeks.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Pfizer. Piliang disclosed being a consultant or investigator for Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Procter & Gamble. Six authors were employees or shareholders of or received salary from Pfizer. Other authors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside this work, including Pfizer.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment with ritlecitinib sustained hair regrowth through week 48 in patients with alopecia areata (AA), and up to one third of nonresponders at week 24 also achieved responses by week 48.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial (ALLEGRO) and included 718 adults and adolescents aged 12 or older with severe AA (Severity of Alopecia Tool [SALT] score ≥ 50).
• Patients received various doses of the oral Janus kinase inhibitor ritlecitinib, with or without a 4-week loading dose, including 200/50 mg, 200/30 mg, 50 mg, or 30 mg, with or without a 4-week loading dose for up to 24 weeks and continued to receive their assigned maintenance dose.
• Researchers assessed sustained clinical responses at week 48 for those who had achieved SALT scores ≤ 20 and ≤ 10 at 24 weeks, and nonresponders at week 24 were assessed for responses through week 48.
• Adverse events were also evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among patients on ritlecitinib who had responded at week 24, SALT responses ≤ 20 were sustained in 85.2%-100% of patients through week 48. Similar results were seen among patients who achieved a SALT score ≤ 10 (68.8%-91.7%) and improvements in eyebrow (70.4%-96.9%) or eyelash (52.4%-94.1%) assessment scores.
• Among those who were nonresponders at week 24, 22.2%-33.7% achieved a SALT score ≤ 20 and 19.8%-25.5% achieved a SALT score ≤ 10 by week 48. Similarly, among those with no eyebrow or eyelash responses at week 24, 19.7%-32.8% and 16.7%-30.2% had improved eyebrow or eyelash assessment scores, respectively, at week 48.
• Between weeks 24 and 48, adverse events were reported in 74%-93% of patients who achieved a SALT score ≤ 20, most were mild or moderate; two serious events were reported but deemed unrelated to treatment. The safety profile was similar across all subgroups.
• No deaths, malignancies, major cardiovascular events, opportunistic infections, or herpes zoster infections were observed.

IN PRACTICE:

“The majority of ritlecitinib-treated patients with AA who met target clinical response based on scalp, eyebrow, or eyelash regrowth at week 24 sustained their response through week 48 with continued treatment,” the authors wrote. “Some patients, including those with more extensive hair loss, may require ritlecitinib treatment beyond 6 months to achieve target clinical response,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Melissa Piliang, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, and was published online on October 17 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis was limited by its post hoc nature, small sample size in each treatment group, and a follow-up period of only 48 weeks.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Pfizer. Piliang disclosed being a consultant or investigator for Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Procter & Gamble. Six authors were employees or shareholders of or received salary from Pfizer. Other authors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside this work, including Pfizer.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To the Editor:

Although biologics provide major therapeutic benefits for dermatologic conditions, they also come with a substantial cost, making them among the most expensive medications available. Medicare and Medicaid spending on biologics for dermatologic conditions increased by 320% from 2012 to 2018, reaching a staggering $10.6 billion in 2018 alone.¹ Biosimilars show promise in reducing health care spending for dermatologic conditions; however, their utilization has been limited due to multiple factors, including delayed market entry from patent thickets, exclusionary formulary contracts, and prescriber skepticism regarding their safety and efficacy.² For instance, a national survey of 1201 US physicians in specialties that are high prescribers of biologics reported that 55% doubted the safety and appropriateness of biosimilars.³

US Food and Drug Administration approval of biosimilars for adalimumab and etanercept offers the potential to reduce health care spending for dermatologic conditions. However, this cost reduction is dependent on utilization rates among dermatologists. In this national cross-sectional review of Medicare data, we predicted the impact of these biosimilars on dermatologic Medicare costs and demonstrated how differing utilization rates among dermatologists can influence potential savings.

To model 2023 utilization and cost reduction from biosimilars, we analyzed Medicare Part D data from 2020 on existing biosimilars, including granulocyte colony–stimulating factors, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors.⁴ Methods in line with a 2021 report from the US Department of Health and Human Services⁵ as well as those of Yazdany et al⁶ were used. For each class, we calculated the 2020 distribution of biosimilar and originator drug claims as well as biosimilar cost reduction per 30-day claim. We utilized 2018-2021 annual growth rates for branded adalimumab and etanercept to estimate 30-day claims for 2023 and the cost of these branded agents in the absence of biosimilars. The hypothetical 2023 cost reduction from adalimumab and etanercept biosimilars was estimated by assuming 2020 biosimilar utilization rates and mean cost reduction per claim. This study utilized publicly available or aggregate summary data (not attributable to specific patients) and did not qualify as human subject research; therefore, institutional review board approval was not required.

In 2020, biosimilar utilization proportions ranged from 6.4% (tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors) to 82.7% (granulocyte colony–stimulating factors), with a mean across all classes of 35.7%. On average, the cost per 30-day claim of biosimilars was 66.8% of originator agents (Table 1). In 2021, we identified 57,868 30-day claims for branded adalimumab and etanercept submitted by dermatologists. From 2018 to 2021, 30-day branded adalimumab claims increased by 1.27% annually (cost + 10.62% annually), while claims for branded etanercept decreased by 13.0% annually (cost + 5.68% annually). Assuming these trends, the cost of branded adalimumab and etanercept was estimated to be $539 million in 2023. Applying the aforementioned 35.7% utilization, the introduction of biosimilars in dermatology would yield a cost reduction of approximately $118 million (21.9%). A high utilization rate (82.7%) of biosimilars among dermatologists would increase cost savings to $199 million (36.9%)(Table 2).

We found that the extent of savings from biosimilars was dependent on the utilization rates among dermatologists, with the highest utilization rate almost doubling the total savings of average utilization rates. Given the impact of high utilization and the wide variation observed, understanding the factors that have influenced uptake of biosimilars is important to increasing utilization as these medications become integrated into dermatology. For instance, limited uptake of infliximab initially may have been influenced by concerns about efficacy and increased adverse events.^8,9 In contrast, the high utilization of filgrastim biosimilars (82.7%) may be attributed to its longevity in the market and familiarity to prescribers, as filgrastim was the first biosimilar to be approved in the United States.¹⁰

Promoting reasonable utilization of biosimilars may require prescriber education on their safety and approval processes, which could foster increased utilization and reduce skepticism.⁴ Under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, the US Food and Drug Administration approves biosimilars only when they exhibit “high similarity” and show no “clinically meaningful differences” compared to the reference biologic, with no added safety risks or reduced efficacy.¹¹ Moreover, a 2023 systematic review of 17 studies found no major difference in efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of etanercept, infliximab, and other biologics.¹² Understanding these findings may reassure dermatologists and patients about the reliability and safety of biosimilars.

A limitation of our study is that it solely assesses Medicare data and estimates derived from existing (separate) biologic classes. It also does not account for potential expenditure shifts to newer biologic agents (eg, IL-12/17/23 inhibitors) or changes in manufacturer behavior or promotions. Nevertheless, it indicates notable financial savings from new biosimilar agents in dermatology; along with their compelling efficacy and safety profiles, this could represent a substantial benefit to patients and the health care system.

To the Editor:

Although biologics provide major therapeutic benefits for dermatologic conditions, they also come with a substantial cost, making them among the most expensive medications available. Medicare and Medicaid spending on biologics for dermatologic conditions increased by 320% from 2012 to 2018, reaching a staggering $10.6 billion in 2018 alone.¹ Biosimilars show promise in reducing health care spending for dermatologic conditions; however, their utilization has been limited due to multiple factors, including delayed market entry from patent thickets, exclusionary formulary contracts, and prescriber skepticism regarding their safety and efficacy.² For instance, a national survey of 1201 US physicians in specialties that are high prescribers of biologics reported that 55% doubted the safety and appropriateness of biosimilars.³

US Food and Drug Administration approval of biosimilars for adalimumab and etanercept offers the potential to reduce health care spending for dermatologic conditions. However, this cost reduction is dependent on utilization rates among dermatologists. In this national cross-sectional review of Medicare data, we predicted the impact of these biosimilars on dermatologic Medicare costs and demonstrated how differing utilization rates among dermatologists can influence potential savings.

To model 2023 utilization and cost reduction from biosimilars, we analyzed Medicare Part D data from 2020 on existing biosimilars, including granulocyte colony–stimulating factors, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors.⁴ Methods in line with a 2021 report from the US Department of Health and Human Services⁵ as well as those of Yazdany et al⁶ were used. For each class, we calculated the 2020 distribution of biosimilar and originator drug claims as well as biosimilar cost reduction per 30-day claim. We utilized 2018-2021 annual growth rates for branded adalimumab and etanercept to estimate 30-day claims for 2023 and the cost of these branded agents in the absence of biosimilars. The hypothetical 2023 cost reduction from adalimumab and etanercept biosimilars was estimated by assuming 2020 biosimilar utilization rates and mean cost reduction per claim. This study utilized publicly available or aggregate summary data (not attributable to specific patients) and did not qualify as human subject research; therefore, institutional review board approval was not required.

In 2020, biosimilar utilization proportions ranged from 6.4% (tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors) to 82.7% (granulocyte colony–stimulating factors), with a mean across all classes of 35.7%. On average, the cost per 30-day claim of biosimilars was 66.8% of originator agents (Table 1). In 2021, we identified 57,868 30-day claims for branded adalimumab and etanercept submitted by dermatologists. From 2018 to 2021, 30-day branded adalimumab claims increased by 1.27% annually (cost + 10.62% annually), while claims for branded etanercept decreased by 13.0% annually (cost + 5.68% annually). Assuming these trends, the cost of branded adalimumab and etanercept was estimated to be $539 million in 2023. Applying the aforementioned 35.7% utilization, the introduction of biosimilars in dermatology would yield a cost reduction of approximately $118 million (21.9%). A high utilization rate (82.7%) of biosimilars among dermatologists would increase cost savings to $199 million (36.9%)(Table 2).

We found that the extent of savings from biosimilars was dependent on the utilization rates among dermatologists, with the highest utilization rate almost doubling the total savings of average utilization rates. Given the impact of high utilization and the wide variation observed, understanding the factors that have influenced uptake of biosimilars is important to increasing utilization as these medications become integrated into dermatology. For instance, limited uptake of infliximab initially may have been influenced by concerns about efficacy and increased adverse events.^8,9 In contrast, the high utilization of filgrastim biosimilars (82.7%) may be attributed to its longevity in the market and familiarity to prescribers, as filgrastim was the first biosimilar to be approved in the United States.¹⁰

Promoting reasonable utilization of biosimilars may require prescriber education on their safety and approval processes, which could foster increased utilization and reduce skepticism.⁴ Under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, the US Food and Drug Administration approves biosimilars only when they exhibit “high similarity” and show no “clinically meaningful differences” compared to the reference biologic, with no added safety risks or reduced efficacy.¹¹ Moreover, a 2023 systematic review of 17 studies found no major difference in efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of etanercept, infliximab, and other biologics.¹² Understanding these findings may reassure dermatologists and patients about the reliability and safety of biosimilars.

A limitation of our study is that it solely assesses Medicare data and estimates derived from existing (separate) biologic classes. It also does not account for potential expenditure shifts to newer biologic agents (eg, IL-12/17/23 inhibitors) or changes in manufacturer behavior or promotions. Nevertheless, it indicates notable financial savings from new biosimilar agents in dermatology; along with their compelling efficacy and safety profiles, this could represent a substantial benefit to patients and the health care system.

To the Editor:

Although biologics provide major therapeutic benefits for dermatologic conditions, they also come with a substantial cost, making them among the most expensive medications available. Medicare and Medicaid spending on biologics for dermatologic conditions increased by 320% from 2012 to 2018, reaching a staggering $10.6 billion in 2018 alone.¹ Biosimilars show promise in reducing health care spending for dermatologic conditions; however, their utilization has been limited due to multiple factors, including delayed market entry from patent thickets, exclusionary formulary contracts, and prescriber skepticism regarding their safety and efficacy.² For instance, a national survey of 1201 US physicians in specialties that are high prescribers of biologics reported that 55% doubted the safety and appropriateness of biosimilars.³

US Food and Drug Administration approval of biosimilars for adalimumab and etanercept offers the potential to reduce health care spending for dermatologic conditions. However, this cost reduction is dependent on utilization rates among dermatologists. In this national cross-sectional review of Medicare data, we predicted the impact of these biosimilars on dermatologic Medicare costs and demonstrated how differing utilization rates among dermatologists can influence potential savings.

To model 2023 utilization and cost reduction from biosimilars, we analyzed Medicare Part D data from 2020 on existing biosimilars, including granulocyte colony–stimulating factors, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors.⁴ Methods in line with a 2021 report from the US Department of Health and Human Services⁵ as well as those of Yazdany et al⁶ were used. For each class, we calculated the 2020 distribution of biosimilar and originator drug claims as well as biosimilar cost reduction per 30-day claim. We utilized 2018-2021 annual growth rates for branded adalimumab and etanercept to estimate 30-day claims for 2023 and the cost of these branded agents in the absence of biosimilars. The hypothetical 2023 cost reduction from adalimumab and etanercept biosimilars was estimated by assuming 2020 biosimilar utilization rates and mean cost reduction per claim. This study utilized publicly available or aggregate summary data (not attributable to specific patients) and did not qualify as human subject research; therefore, institutional review board approval was not required.

In 2020, biosimilar utilization proportions ranged from 6.4% (tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors) to 82.7% (granulocyte colony–stimulating factors), with a mean across all classes of 35.7%. On average, the cost per 30-day claim of biosimilars was 66.8% of originator agents (Table 1). In 2021, we identified 57,868 30-day claims for branded adalimumab and etanercept submitted by dermatologists. From 2018 to 2021, 30-day branded adalimumab claims increased by 1.27% annually (cost + 10.62% annually), while claims for branded etanercept decreased by 13.0% annually (cost + 5.68% annually). Assuming these trends, the cost of branded adalimumab and etanercept was estimated to be $539 million in 2023. Applying the aforementioned 35.7% utilization, the introduction of biosimilars in dermatology would yield a cost reduction of approximately $118 million (21.9%). A high utilization rate (82.7%) of biosimilars among dermatologists would increase cost savings to $199 million (36.9%)(Table 2).

We found that the extent of savings from biosimilars was dependent on the utilization rates among dermatologists, with the highest utilization rate almost doubling the total savings of average utilization rates. Given the impact of high utilization and the wide variation observed, understanding the factors that have influenced uptake of biosimilars is important to increasing utilization as these medications become integrated into dermatology. For instance, limited uptake of infliximab initially may have been influenced by concerns about efficacy and increased adverse events.^8,9 In contrast, the high utilization of filgrastim biosimilars (82.7%) may be attributed to its longevity in the market and familiarity to prescribers, as filgrastim was the first biosimilar to be approved in the United States.¹⁰

Promoting reasonable utilization of biosimilars may require prescriber education on their safety and approval processes, which could foster increased utilization and reduce skepticism.⁴ Under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, the US Food and Drug Administration approves biosimilars only when they exhibit “high similarity” and show no “clinically meaningful differences” compared to the reference biologic, with no added safety risks or reduced efficacy.¹¹ Moreover, a 2023 systematic review of 17 studies found no major difference in efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of etanercept, infliximab, and other biologics.¹² Understanding these findings may reassure dermatologists and patients about the reliability and safety of biosimilars.

A limitation of our study is that it solely assesses Medicare data and estimates derived from existing (separate) biologic classes. It also does not account for potential expenditure shifts to newer biologic agents (eg, IL-12/17/23 inhibitors) or changes in manufacturer behavior or promotions. Nevertheless, it indicates notable financial savings from new biosimilar agents in dermatology; along with their compelling efficacy and safety profiles, this could represent a substantial benefit to patients and the health care system.

To the Editor:

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome—a severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction—is characterized by a cutaneous rash and systemic upset in the form of various internal organ and hematologic disturbances. This delayed and idiosyncratic syndrome went by several names, including anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome, before Bocquet et al¹ proposed the term DRESS syndrome.

Phenytoin, a hydantoin derivative used in neurology, was implicated in 41% of cases of DRESS syndrome in a study of 100 patients conducted in southern India.^2,3 While DRESS syndrome is a newer name, the clinical picture of DRESS secondary to phenytoin use remains similar in that it manifests with a morbilliform rash and systemic upset. We sought to describe the clinical and laboratory characteristics of phenytoin-induced DRESS syndrome in this case series.

The analysis included 23 patients with DRESS syndrome secondary to phenytoin use who presented to a tertiary care institution in North India between July 2021 and December 2022, satisfied the European Registry of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reaction (RegiSCAR) criteria,⁴ and achieved a DRESS diagnostic score of more than 1. The mean age of the patients was 44 years (range, 14–74 years). There was a slight female predominance with a male to female ratio of 0.9:1. More than half of the patients (52.2% [12/23]) presented directly to the dermatology outpatient department; the remaining patients were referred from other departments (47.8% [11/23]). Patients primarily were receiving phenytoin for neurologic indications. Specific reasons included antiseizure prophylaxis following a traffic accident (34.8% [8/23]); epilepsy (26.1% [6/23]); and neoplastic (17.4% [4/23]), vascular (17.4% [4/23]), and infectious (4.3% [1/23]) causes. The mean latency period from drug intake to symptom onset was 29 days (range, 6–62 days), and the mean illness duration was 9 days (range, 1–45 days).

The majority of patients experienced pruritus (91.3% [21/23]) and fever (74.0% [17/23]), and all initially had a rash. Maculopapular morphology was seen in all patients. Erythema multiforme–like (17.4% [4/23]), erythrodermic (17.4% [4/23]), and vesicular (13.0% [3/23]) rashes also were documented (Figure 1). The trunk (100% [23/23]) and extremities (95.7% [22/23]) were involved most often, followed by the palms and soles (56.5% [13/23]). The mean total body surface area affected was 73.65%. Only 7 patients (30.4%) had mucosal ­involvement; nonhemorrhagic cheilitis was the most common manifestation.

To the Editor:

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome—a severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction—is characterized by a cutaneous rash and systemic upset in the form of various internal organ and hematologic disturbances. This delayed and idiosyncratic syndrome went by several names, including anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome, before Bocquet et al¹ proposed the term DRESS syndrome.

Phenytoin, a hydantoin derivative used in neurology, was implicated in 41% of cases of DRESS syndrome in a study of 100 patients conducted in southern India.^2,3 While DRESS syndrome is a newer name, the clinical picture of DRESS secondary to phenytoin use remains similar in that it manifests with a morbilliform rash and systemic upset. We sought to describe the clinical and laboratory characteristics of phenytoin-induced DRESS syndrome in this case series.

The analysis included 23 patients with DRESS syndrome secondary to phenytoin use who presented to a tertiary care institution in North India between July 2021 and December 2022, satisfied the European Registry of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reaction (RegiSCAR) criteria,⁴ and achieved a DRESS diagnostic score of more than 1. The mean age of the patients was 44 years (range, 14–74 years). There was a slight female predominance with a male to female ratio of 0.9:1. More than half of the patients (52.2% [12/23]) presented directly to the dermatology outpatient department; the remaining patients were referred from other departments (47.8% [11/23]). Patients primarily were receiving phenytoin for neurologic indications. Specific reasons included antiseizure prophylaxis following a traffic accident (34.8% [8/23]); epilepsy (26.1% [6/23]); and neoplastic (17.4% [4/23]), vascular (17.4% [4/23]), and infectious (4.3% [1/23]) causes. The mean latency period from drug intake to symptom onset was 29 days (range, 6–62 days), and the mean illness duration was 9 days (range, 1–45 days).

The majority of patients experienced pruritus (91.3% [21/23]) and fever (74.0% [17/23]), and all initially had a rash. Maculopapular morphology was seen in all patients. Erythema multiforme–like (17.4% [4/23]), erythrodermic (17.4% [4/23]), and vesicular (13.0% [3/23]) rashes also were documented (Figure 1). The trunk (100% [23/23]) and extremities (95.7% [22/23]) were involved most often, followed by the palms and soles (56.5% [13/23]). The mean total body surface area affected was 73.65%. Only 7 patients (30.4%) had mucosal ­involvement; nonhemorrhagic cheilitis was the most common manifestation.

To the Editor:

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome—a severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction—is characterized by a cutaneous rash and systemic upset in the form of various internal organ and hematologic disturbances. This delayed and idiosyncratic syndrome went by several names, including anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome, before Bocquet et al¹ proposed the term DRESS syndrome.

Phenytoin, a hydantoin derivative used in neurology, was implicated in 41% of cases of DRESS syndrome in a study of 100 patients conducted in southern India.^2,3 While DRESS syndrome is a newer name, the clinical picture of DRESS secondary to phenytoin use remains similar in that it manifests with a morbilliform rash and systemic upset. We sought to describe the clinical and laboratory characteristics of phenytoin-induced DRESS syndrome in this case series.

The analysis included 23 patients with DRESS syndrome secondary to phenytoin use who presented to a tertiary care institution in North India between July 2021 and December 2022, satisfied the European Registry of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reaction (RegiSCAR) criteria,⁴ and achieved a DRESS diagnostic score of more than 1. The mean age of the patients was 44 years (range, 14–74 years). There was a slight female predominance with a male to female ratio of 0.9:1. More than half of the patients (52.2% [12/23]) presented directly to the dermatology outpatient department; the remaining patients were referred from other departments (47.8% [11/23]). Patients primarily were receiving phenytoin for neurologic indications. Specific reasons included antiseizure prophylaxis following a traffic accident (34.8% [8/23]); epilepsy (26.1% [6/23]); and neoplastic (17.4% [4/23]), vascular (17.4% [4/23]), and infectious (4.3% [1/23]) causes. The mean latency period from drug intake to symptom onset was 29 days (range, 6–62 days), and the mean illness duration was 9 days (range, 1–45 days).

The majority of patients experienced pruritus (91.3% [21/23]) and fever (74.0% [17/23]), and all initially had a rash. Maculopapular morphology was seen in all patients. Erythema multiforme–like (17.4% [4/23]), erythrodermic (17.4% [4/23]), and vesicular (13.0% [3/23]) rashes also were documented (Figure 1). The trunk (100% [23/23]) and extremities (95.7% [22/23]) were involved most often, followed by the palms and soles (56.5% [13/23]). The mean total body surface area affected was 73.65%. Only 7 patients (30.4%) had mucosal ­involvement; nonhemorrhagic cheilitis was the most common manifestation.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Ectopic (Accessory) Breast Tissue

Ectopic (accessory) breast tissue (EBT) is a phenomenon caused by failed regression of one or more components of the embryonic mammary ridges— paired ectodermal thickenings that eventually develop into definitive breast tissue including the nipples, areolae, and parenchyma. Ectopic breast tissue is more common in women than men and is believed to be sporadic, although an autosomal-dominant inheritance mechanism with incomplete penetrance has been proposed for some cases.¹ The reported incidence of EBT varies greatly among racial and ethnic groups but is most common in individuals of Asian descent. The incidence across all types of EBT is estimated at 0.25% to 6% in the general population.²

Observed clinical variations of EBT range from simple polythelia (additional nipple[s] without associated parenchyma) to complete polymastia (organized and differentiated accessory breasts). Some types of EBT are rarer than others: One report of gynecologic cancer screenings in 1660 patients found polymastia and polythelia incidences of 0.12% and 5.48%, respectively.³ Of the symptomatic variations, isolated parenchymal EBT without a nipple or areolar complex is the most common and may manifest clinically as unilateral or bilateral tender, mildly erythematous nodules or masses often located in the axillae. Ectopic breast tissue generally is observed along the milk line, a developmental regional designation corresponding to the embryologic mammary ridge and extending linearly from the anterior axilla to the inguinal fold on both sides of the body; however, there have been rare reports of EBT manifesting in areas outside the milk line, such as the face, neck, back, vulva, and extremities.^2,3

Given that the underlying elements of EBT usually are hormone responsive (as with normal breast tissue), the initial symptom onset and subsequent manifestation frequently coincide with pubertal milestones, pregnancy, or lactation. Furthermore, some patients with EBT may experience symptom fluctuations in concordance with monthly menstrual phases. Many cases of EBT are selflimited and resolve within weeks to months after the end of a pregnancy or lactation, but some cases may persist. Continued observation and follow-up are advisable in all patients, as EBT symptoms often recur and the tissue is susceptible to the same disease processes that affect normal breasts, the most concerning of which is malignancy.⁴ Although the true incidence is limited by available data, primary ectopic breast malignancy has been estimated to account for 0.3% to 3.8% of diagnosed breast malignancies.² Cases of malignancy arising from EBT often are of higher grade and poorer prognosis, a finding that may be attributable to diagnostic delays caused by oversight or misdiagnosis of EBT rather than inherent differences in the biologic profile of the tumors.^2,4 Patients with a documented history of EBT may benefit from having their routine breast cancer screenings expanded to include areas with EBT foci.

Potential misdiagnoses for EBT include subcutaneous lipoma, axillary lymphadenopathy, abscess, hidradenitis suppurativa, or malignancy. Features that are suggestive of EBT include symptom association with hormone fluctuations (eg, menstrual phases), absence of fever, and lactescent rather than purulent drainage. Among reported EBT cases, spontaneous lactation rarely is described and, if present, often is associated with a history of prior trauma (eg, core needle biopsy or local abscess formation).⁵ This trauma creates an aberrant connection known as a milk fistula between the underlying parenchyma and the skin surface. Interestingly, our patient denied any history of axillary trauma, but she was noted to be lactating from an apparent milk fistula rather than an organized secretory duct system.

Though a patient history and clinical examination may be sufficient to diagnose EBT cases that are more physically apparent and well correlated with hormone fluctuations, many cases require additional diagnostic studies for confirmation. Of the tools available, ultrasonography generally is considered first-line due to its noninvasive nature, low cost, minimal risk, and high diagnostic value.² Ultrasonography quickly differentiates between abscesses and cystlike processes, which may appear as discrete areas of decreased echogenicity, and breast tissue, which manifests with fibroglandular tissue and lobules of fat.^2,6 Additionally, ultrasonography may demonstrate the secretion of milk through ducts or fistulae, if present. Should examination with ultrasonography prove inconclusive, follow-up studies using conventional radiographic mammography or magnetic resonance imaging may be warranted. Biopsy of EBT foci generally is not indicated unless first-line noninvasive studies fail to yield a conclusive diagnosis; however, biopsy also may be warranted if initial imaging is suggestive of malignancy arising from EBT.²

Management of EBT generally is conservative, and symptoms often resolve without intervention.⁴ Symptomatic relief may be achieved through techniques such as application of warm/cold compresses, avoidance of mechanical stimulation, and use of over-the-counter pain medicine. In cases that are persistent, frequently recurrent, or associated with severe symptoms or that cause considerable cosmetic impact, management with surgical excision and/or liposuction may be warranted.⁷ In our patient, the symptoms were not bothersome enough to warrant surgical intervention, so she was managed conservatively and did not return for follow-up.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Ectopic (Accessory) Breast Tissue

Ectopic (accessory) breast tissue (EBT) is a phenomenon caused by failed regression of one or more components of the embryonic mammary ridges— paired ectodermal thickenings that eventually develop into definitive breast tissue including the nipples, areolae, and parenchyma. Ectopic breast tissue is more common in women than men and is believed to be sporadic, although an autosomal-dominant inheritance mechanism with incomplete penetrance has been proposed for some cases.¹ The reported incidence of EBT varies greatly among racial and ethnic groups but is most common in individuals of Asian descent. The incidence across all types of EBT is estimated at 0.25% to 6% in the general population.²

Observed clinical variations of EBT range from simple polythelia (additional nipple[s] without associated parenchyma) to complete polymastia (organized and differentiated accessory breasts). Some types of EBT are rarer than others: One report of gynecologic cancer screenings in 1660 patients found polymastia and polythelia incidences of 0.12% and 5.48%, respectively.³ Of the symptomatic variations, isolated parenchymal EBT without a nipple or areolar complex is the most common and may manifest clinically as unilateral or bilateral tender, mildly erythematous nodules or masses often located in the axillae. Ectopic breast tissue generally is observed along the milk line, a developmental regional designation corresponding to the embryologic mammary ridge and extending linearly from the anterior axilla to the inguinal fold on both sides of the body; however, there have been rare reports of EBT manifesting in areas outside the milk line, such as the face, neck, back, vulva, and extremities.^2,3

Given that the underlying elements of EBT usually are hormone responsive (as with normal breast tissue), the initial symptom onset and subsequent manifestation frequently coincide with pubertal milestones, pregnancy, or lactation. Furthermore, some patients with EBT may experience symptom fluctuations in concordance with monthly menstrual phases. Many cases of EBT are selflimited and resolve within weeks to months after the end of a pregnancy or lactation, but some cases may persist. Continued observation and follow-up are advisable in all patients, as EBT symptoms often recur and the tissue is susceptible to the same disease processes that affect normal breasts, the most concerning of which is malignancy.⁴ Although the true incidence is limited by available data, primary ectopic breast malignancy has been estimated to account for 0.3% to 3.8% of diagnosed breast malignancies.² Cases of malignancy arising from EBT often are of higher grade and poorer prognosis, a finding that may be attributable to diagnostic delays caused by oversight or misdiagnosis of EBT rather than inherent differences in the biologic profile of the tumors.^2,4 Patients with a documented history of EBT may benefit from having their routine breast cancer screenings expanded to include areas with EBT foci.

Potential misdiagnoses for EBT include subcutaneous lipoma, axillary lymphadenopathy, abscess, hidradenitis suppurativa, or malignancy. Features that are suggestive of EBT include symptom association with hormone fluctuations (eg, menstrual phases), absence of fever, and lactescent rather than purulent drainage. Among reported EBT cases, spontaneous lactation rarely is described and, if present, often is associated with a history of prior trauma (eg, core needle biopsy or local abscess formation).⁵ This trauma creates an aberrant connection known as a milk fistula between the underlying parenchyma and the skin surface. Interestingly, our patient denied any history of axillary trauma, but she was noted to be lactating from an apparent milk fistula rather than an organized secretory duct system.

Though a patient history and clinical examination may be sufficient to diagnose EBT cases that are more physically apparent and well correlated with hormone fluctuations, many cases require additional diagnostic studies for confirmation. Of the tools available, ultrasonography generally is considered first-line due to its noninvasive nature, low cost, minimal risk, and high diagnostic value.² Ultrasonography quickly differentiates between abscesses and cystlike processes, which may appear as discrete areas of decreased echogenicity, and breast tissue, which manifests with fibroglandular tissue and lobules of fat.^2,6 Additionally, ultrasonography may demonstrate the secretion of milk through ducts or fistulae, if present. Should examination with ultrasonography prove inconclusive, follow-up studies using conventional radiographic mammography or magnetic resonance imaging may be warranted. Biopsy of EBT foci generally is not indicated unless first-line noninvasive studies fail to yield a conclusive diagnosis; however, biopsy also may be warranted if initial imaging is suggestive of malignancy arising from EBT.²

Management of EBT generally is conservative, and symptoms often resolve without intervention.⁴ Symptomatic relief may be achieved through techniques such as application of warm/cold compresses, avoidance of mechanical stimulation, and use of over-the-counter pain medicine. In cases that are persistent, frequently recurrent, or associated with severe symptoms or that cause considerable cosmetic impact, management with surgical excision and/or liposuction may be warranted.⁷ In our patient, the symptoms were not bothersome enough to warrant surgical intervention, so she was managed conservatively and did not return for follow-up.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Ectopic (Accessory) Breast Tissue

Ectopic (accessory) breast tissue (EBT) is a phenomenon caused by failed regression of one or more components of the embryonic mammary ridges— paired ectodermal thickenings that eventually develop into definitive breast tissue including the nipples, areolae, and parenchyma. Ectopic breast tissue is more common in women than men and is believed to be sporadic, although an autosomal-dominant inheritance mechanism with incomplete penetrance has been proposed for some cases.¹ The reported incidence of EBT varies greatly among racial and ethnic groups but is most common in individuals of Asian descent. The incidence across all types of EBT is estimated at 0.25% to 6% in the general population.²

Observed clinical variations of EBT range from simple polythelia (additional nipple[s] without associated parenchyma) to complete polymastia (organized and differentiated accessory breasts). Some types of EBT are rarer than others: One report of gynecologic cancer screenings in 1660 patients found polymastia and polythelia incidences of 0.12% and 5.48%, respectively.³ Of the symptomatic variations, isolated parenchymal EBT without a nipple or areolar complex is the most common and may manifest clinically as unilateral or bilateral tender, mildly erythematous nodules or masses often located in the axillae. Ectopic breast tissue generally is observed along the milk line, a developmental regional designation corresponding to the embryologic mammary ridge and extending linearly from the anterior axilla to the inguinal fold on both sides of the body; however, there have been rare reports of EBT manifesting in areas outside the milk line, such as the face, neck, back, vulva, and extremities.^2,3

Given that the underlying elements of EBT usually are hormone responsive (as with normal breast tissue), the initial symptom onset and subsequent manifestation frequently coincide with pubertal milestones, pregnancy, or lactation. Furthermore, some patients with EBT may experience symptom fluctuations in concordance with monthly menstrual phases. Many cases of EBT are selflimited and resolve within weeks to months after the end of a pregnancy or lactation, but some cases may persist. Continued observation and follow-up are advisable in all patients, as EBT symptoms often recur and the tissue is susceptible to the same disease processes that affect normal breasts, the most concerning of which is malignancy.⁴ Although the true incidence is limited by available data, primary ectopic breast malignancy has been estimated to account for 0.3% to 3.8% of diagnosed breast malignancies.² Cases of malignancy arising from EBT often are of higher grade and poorer prognosis, a finding that may be attributable to diagnostic delays caused by oversight or misdiagnosis of EBT rather than inherent differences in the biologic profile of the tumors.^2,4 Patients with a documented history of EBT may benefit from having their routine breast cancer screenings expanded to include areas with EBT foci.

Potential misdiagnoses for EBT include subcutaneous lipoma, axillary lymphadenopathy, abscess, hidradenitis suppurativa, or malignancy. Features that are suggestive of EBT include symptom association with hormone fluctuations (eg, menstrual phases), absence of fever, and lactescent rather than purulent drainage. Among reported EBT cases, spontaneous lactation rarely is described and, if present, often is associated with a history of prior trauma (eg, core needle biopsy or local abscess formation).⁵ This trauma creates an aberrant connection known as a milk fistula between the underlying parenchyma and the skin surface. Interestingly, our patient denied any history of axillary trauma, but she was noted to be lactating from an apparent milk fistula rather than an organized secretory duct system.

Though a patient history and clinical examination may be sufficient to diagnose EBT cases that are more physically apparent and well correlated with hormone fluctuations, many cases require additional diagnostic studies for confirmation. Of the tools available, ultrasonography generally is considered first-line due to its noninvasive nature, low cost, minimal risk, and high diagnostic value.² Ultrasonography quickly differentiates between abscesses and cystlike processes, which may appear as discrete areas of decreased echogenicity, and breast tissue, which manifests with fibroglandular tissue and lobules of fat.^2,6 Additionally, ultrasonography may demonstrate the secretion of milk through ducts or fistulae, if present. Should examination with ultrasonography prove inconclusive, follow-up studies using conventional radiographic mammography or magnetic resonance imaging may be warranted. Biopsy of EBT foci generally is not indicated unless first-line noninvasive studies fail to yield a conclusive diagnosis; however, biopsy also may be warranted if initial imaging is suggestive of malignancy arising from EBT.²

Management of EBT generally is conservative, and symptoms often resolve without intervention.⁴ Symptomatic relief may be achieved through techniques such as application of warm/cold compresses, avoidance of mechanical stimulation, and use of over-the-counter pain medicine. In cases that are persistent, frequently recurrent, or associated with severe symptoms or that cause considerable cosmetic impact, management with surgical excision and/or liposuction may be warranted.⁷ In our patient, the symptoms were not bothersome enough to warrant surgical intervention, so she was managed conservatively and did not return for follow-up.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.