Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

The Diagnosis: Epidermodysplasia Verruciformis 

Histopathologic examination of our patient's biopsy specimen revealed mild acanthosis with prominent hypergranulosis and enlarged keratinocytes with blue-gray cytoplasm (Figure). A diagnosis of acquired epidermodysplasia verruciformis (EV) was rendered. The patient was treated with photodynamic therapy utilizing 5-aminolevulinic acid. 

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis is characterized by susceptibility to human papillomavirus (HPV) infections via a defect in cellular immunity. Epidermodysplasia verruciformis was first described as an autosomal-recessive genodermatosis, but it can be acquired in immunosuppressed states with an atypical clinical appearance.¹ There are few case reports in skin of color. Acquired EV appears in patients with acquired immunodeficiencies that are susceptible to EV-causing HPVs via a similar mechanism found in inherited EV.² The most common HPV serotypes involved in EV are HPV-5 and HPV-8. The duration of immunosuppression has been found to be positively correlated with the risk for EV development, with the majority of patients developing lesions after 5 years of immunosuppression.³ There is an approximately 60% risk of malignant transformation of EV lesions into nonmelanoma skin cancer.² This risk is believed to be lower in patients with darker skin.⁴  

Preventative measures including sun protection and annual surveillance are crucial in EV patients given the high rate of malignant transformation in sun-exposed lesions.⁵ Treatment options for EV are anecdotal and have variable results, ranging from topicals including 5-fluorouracil and imiquimod to systemic medications including acitretin and interferon.³ Photodynamic therapy can be used for extensive EV. Surgical modalities and other destructive methods also have been tried.⁶ 

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis often can be confused with similar dermatoses. Porokeratosis appears as annular pink papules with waferlike peripheral scales. Tinea versicolor is a dermatophyte infection caused by Malassezia furfur and presents as multiple dyspigmented, finely scaling, thin papules and plaques. Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus presents as pink, scaly, annular or psoriasiform papules and plaques most commonly on the trunk. Discoid lupus erythematosus presents as pink, hypopigmented or depigmented, atrophic plaques with a peripheral rim of erythema that indicates activity. Secondary syphilis, commonly denoted as the "great mimicker," presents as psoriasiform papules and plaques among other variable morphologies. 

The Diagnosis: Epidermodysplasia Verruciformis 

Histopathologic examination of our patient's biopsy specimen revealed mild acanthosis with prominent hypergranulosis and enlarged keratinocytes with blue-gray cytoplasm (Figure). A diagnosis of acquired epidermodysplasia verruciformis (EV) was rendered. The patient was treated with photodynamic therapy utilizing 5-aminolevulinic acid. 

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis is characterized by susceptibility to human papillomavirus (HPV) infections via a defect in cellular immunity. Epidermodysplasia verruciformis was first described as an autosomal-recessive genodermatosis, but it can be acquired in immunosuppressed states with an atypical clinical appearance.¹ There are few case reports in skin of color. Acquired EV appears in patients with acquired immunodeficiencies that are susceptible to EV-causing HPVs via a similar mechanism found in inherited EV.² The most common HPV serotypes involved in EV are HPV-5 and HPV-8. The duration of immunosuppression has been found to be positively correlated with the risk for EV development, with the majority of patients developing lesions after 5 years of immunosuppression.³ There is an approximately 60% risk of malignant transformation of EV lesions into nonmelanoma skin cancer.² This risk is believed to be lower in patients with darker skin.⁴  

Preventative measures including sun protection and annual surveillance are crucial in EV patients given the high rate of malignant transformation in sun-exposed lesions.⁵ Treatment options for EV are anecdotal and have variable results, ranging from topicals including 5-fluorouracil and imiquimod to systemic medications including acitretin and interferon.³ Photodynamic therapy can be used for extensive EV. Surgical modalities and other destructive methods also have been tried.⁶ 

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis often can be confused with similar dermatoses. Porokeratosis appears as annular pink papules with waferlike peripheral scales. Tinea versicolor is a dermatophyte infection caused by Malassezia furfur and presents as multiple dyspigmented, finely scaling, thin papules and plaques. Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus presents as pink, scaly, annular or psoriasiform papules and plaques most commonly on the trunk. Discoid lupus erythematosus presents as pink, hypopigmented or depigmented, atrophic plaques with a peripheral rim of erythema that indicates activity. Secondary syphilis, commonly denoted as the "great mimicker," presents as psoriasiform papules and plaques among other variable morphologies. 

The Diagnosis: Epidermodysplasia Verruciformis 

Histopathologic examination of our patient's biopsy specimen revealed mild acanthosis with prominent hypergranulosis and enlarged keratinocytes with blue-gray cytoplasm (Figure). A diagnosis of acquired epidermodysplasia verruciformis (EV) was rendered. The patient was treated with photodynamic therapy utilizing 5-aminolevulinic acid. 

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis is characterized by susceptibility to human papillomavirus (HPV) infections via a defect in cellular immunity. Epidermodysplasia verruciformis was first described as an autosomal-recessive genodermatosis, but it can be acquired in immunosuppressed states with an atypical clinical appearance.¹ There are few case reports in skin of color. Acquired EV appears in patients with acquired immunodeficiencies that are susceptible to EV-causing HPVs via a similar mechanism found in inherited EV.² The most common HPV serotypes involved in EV are HPV-5 and HPV-8. The duration of immunosuppression has been found to be positively correlated with the risk for EV development, with the majority of patients developing lesions after 5 years of immunosuppression.³ There is an approximately 60% risk of malignant transformation of EV lesions into nonmelanoma skin cancer.² This risk is believed to be lower in patients with darker skin.⁴  

Preventative measures including sun protection and annual surveillance are crucial in EV patients given the high rate of malignant transformation in sun-exposed lesions.⁵ Treatment options for EV are anecdotal and have variable results, ranging from topicals including 5-fluorouracil and imiquimod to systemic medications including acitretin and interferon.³ Photodynamic therapy can be used for extensive EV. Surgical modalities and other destructive methods also have been tried.⁶ 

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis often can be confused with similar dermatoses. Porokeratosis appears as annular pink papules with waferlike peripheral scales. Tinea versicolor is a dermatophyte infection caused by Malassezia furfur and presents as multiple dyspigmented, finely scaling, thin papules and plaques. Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus presents as pink, scaly, annular or psoriasiform papules and plaques most commonly on the trunk. Discoid lupus erythematosus presents as pink, hypopigmented or depigmented, atrophic plaques with a peripheral rim of erythema that indicates activity. Secondary syphilis, commonly denoted as the "great mimicker," presents as psoriasiform papules and plaques among other variable morphologies. 

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Research has shown that, compared with their urban counterparts, rural cancer patients have higher cancer-related mortality and other negative treatment outcomes.

Among other explanations, the disparity has been attributed to lower education and income levels, medical and behavioral risk factors, differences in health literacy, and lower confidence in the medical system among rural residents (JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jul;16(7):422-30).

The COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience Consortium

Ms. Daniels explained that the COVID-19 and Oncology Patient Experience (COPES) Consortium was created to investigate various aspects of the patient experience during the pandemic. Three cancer centers – Moffitt Cancer Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center – participate in COPES.

At Huntsman, investigators studied social and health behaviors of cancer patients to assess whether there was a difference between those from rural and urban areas. The researchers looked at the impact of the pandemic on psychosocial outcomes, preventive measures patients implemented, and their perceptions of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The team’s hypothesis was that rural patients might be more vulnerable than urban patients to the effects of social isolation, emotional distress, and health-adverse behaviors, but the investigators noted that there has been no prior research on the topic.
 

Assessing behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes

Between August and September 2020, the researchers surveyed 1,328 adult cancer patients who had visited Huntsman in the previous 4 years and who were enrolled in Huntsman’s Total Cancer Care or Precision Exercise Prescription studies.

Patients completed questionnaires that encompassed demographic and clinical factors, employment status, health behaviors, and infection preventive measures. Questionnaires were provided in electronic, paper, or phone-based formats. Information regarding age, race, ethnicity, and tumor stage was abstracted from Huntsman’s electronic health record.

Modifications in daily life and social interaction were assessed on a 5-point scale. Changes in exercise habits and alcohol consumption were assessed on a 3-point scale. Infection mitigation measures (the use of face masks and hand sanitizer) and perceptions about the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were measured.

The rural-urban community area codes system, which classifies U.S. census tracts by measures of population density, urbanization, and daily commuting, was utilized to categorize patients into rural and urban residences.
 

Characteristics of urban and rural cancer patients

There were 997 urban and 331 rural participants. The mean age was 60.1 years in the urban population and 62.6 years in the rural population (P = .01). There were no urban-rural differences in sex, ethnicity, cancer stage, or body mass index.

More urban than rural participants were employed full- or part-time (45% vs. 37%; P = .045). The rural counties had more patients who were not currently employed, primarily due to retirement (77% vs. 69% urban; P < .001).

“No health insurance coverage” was reported by 2% of urban and 4% of rural participants (P = .009), and 85% of all patients reported “good” to “excellent” overall health. Cancer patients in rural counties were significantly more likely to have ever smoked (37% vs. 25% urban; P = .001). In addition, alcohol consumption in the previous year was higher in rural patients. “Every day to less than once monthly” alcohol usage was reported by 44% of urban and 60% of rural patients (P < .001).
 

Changes in daily life and health-related behavior during the pandemic

Urban patients were more likely to report changes in their daily lives due to the pandemic. Specifically, 35% of urban patients and 26% of rural patients said the pandemic had changed their daily life “a lot” (P = .001).

However, there were no major differences between urban and rural patients when it came to changes in social interaction in the past month or feeling lonely in the past month (P = .45 and P = .88, respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences for changes in alcohol consumption between the groups (P = .90).

Changes in exercise habits due to the pandemic were more common among patients in urban counties (51% vs. 39% rural; P < .001), though similar percentages of patients reported exercising less (44% urban vs. 45% rural) or more frequently (24% urban vs. 20% rural).

In terms of infection mitigation measures, urban patients were more likely to use face masks “very often” (83% vs. 66% rural; P < .001), while hand sanitizer was used “very often” among 66% of urban and 57% of rural participants (P = .05).

Urban participants were more likely than were their rural counterparts to think themselves “somewhat” or “very” likely to develop COVID-19 (22% vs. 14%; P = .04).

It might be short-sighted for oncology and public health specialists to be dismissive of differences in infection mitigation behaviors and perceptions of vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those behaviors and perceptions of risk could lead to lower vaccination rates in rural areas. If that occurs, there would be major negative consequences for the long-term health of rural communities and their medically vulnerable residents.
 

Future directions

Although the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic had disparate effects on cancer patients living in rural and urban counties, the reasons for the disparities are complex and not easily explained by this study.

It is possible that sequential administration of the survey during the pandemic would have uncovered greater variances in attitude and health-related behaviors.

As Ms. Daniels noted, when the survey was performed, Utah had not experienced a high frequency of COVID-19 cases. Furthermore, different levels of restrictions were implemented on a county-by-county basis, potentially influencing patients’ behaviors, psychosocial adjustment, and perceptions of risk.

In addition, there may have been differences in unmeasured endpoints (infection rates, medical care utilization via telemedicine, hospitalization rates, late effects, and mortality) between the urban and rural populations.

As the investigators concluded, further research is needed to better characterize the pandemic’s short- and long-term effects on cancer patients in rural and urban settings and appropriate interventions. Such studies may yield insights into the various facets of the well-documented “rural health gap” in cancer outcomes and interventions that could narrow the gap in spheres beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms. Daniels reported having no relevant disclosures.
 

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

Practice Gap

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common cancer, and its incidence is on the rise.¹ The risk of this skin cancer is increased when there is a history of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or BCC.² Basal cell carcinoma often is found in sun-exposed areas, most commonly due to a history of intense sunburn.³ Other risk factors include male gender and increased age.⁴

Eighty percent to 85% of BCCs present on the head and neck⁵; however, BCC also can occur in unusual locations. When BCC presents in areas such as the perianal region, it is found to be larger than when found in more common areas,⁶ likely because neoplasms in this sensitive area often are overlooked. Literature on BCC of the intergluteal crease is limited.⁷ Being educated on the existence of BCC in this sensitive area can aid proper diagnosis.

The Technique and Case

An 83-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic for a suspicious lesion in the intergluteal crease that was tender to palpation with drainage. She first noticed this lesion and reported it to her primary care physician at a visit 6 months prior. The primary care physician did not pursue investigation of the lesion. One month later, the patient was seen by a gastroenterologist for the lesion and was referred to dermatology. The patient’s medical history included SCC and BCC on the face, both treated successfully with Mohs micrographic surgery.

Physical examination revealed a 2.6×1.1-cm, erythematous, nodular plaque in the coccygeal area of the intergluteal crease (Figure 1). A shave biopsy disclosed BCC, nodular type, ulcerated. Microscopically, there were nodular aggregates of basaloid cells with hyperchromatic nuclei and peripheral palisading, separated from mucinous stromal surroundings by artefactual clefts.

Practical Implications

Without thorough examination, this cancerous lesion would not have been seen (Figure 2). Therefore, it is important to practice thorough physical examination skills to avoid missing these cancers, particularly when examining a patient with a history of SCC or BCC. Furthermore, biopsy is recommended for suspicious lesions to rule out BCC.

Be careful not to get caught up in epidemiological or demographic considerations when making a diagnosis of this kind or when assessing the severity of a lesion. This patient, for instance, was female, which makes her less likely to present with BCC.⁸ Moreover, the cancer presented in a highly unlikely location for BCC, where there had not been significant sunburn.⁹ Patients and physicians should be educated about the incidence of BCC in unexpected areas; without a second and close look, this BCC could have been missed.

Final Thoughts

The literature continuously demonstrates the rarity of BCC in the intergluteal crease.¹⁰ However, when perianal BCC is properly identified and treated with local excision, prognosis is good.¹¹ Basal cell carcinoma has been seen to arise in other sensitive locations; vulvar, nipple, and scrotal BCC neoplasms are among the uncommon locations where BCC has appeared.¹² These areas are frequently—and easily—ignored. A total-body skin examination should be performed to ensure that these insidious-onset carcinomas are not overlooked to protect patients from the adverse consequences of untreated cancer.¹³

Practice Gap

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common cancer, and its incidence is on the rise.¹ The risk of this skin cancer is increased when there is a history of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or BCC.² Basal cell carcinoma often is found in sun-exposed areas, most commonly due to a history of intense sunburn.³ Other risk factors include male gender and increased age.⁴

Eighty percent to 85% of BCCs present on the head and neck⁵; however, BCC also can occur in unusual locations. When BCC presents in areas such as the perianal region, it is found to be larger than when found in more common areas,⁶ likely because neoplasms in this sensitive area often are overlooked. Literature on BCC of the intergluteal crease is limited.⁷ Being educated on the existence of BCC in this sensitive area can aid proper diagnosis.

The Technique and Case

An 83-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic for a suspicious lesion in the intergluteal crease that was tender to palpation with drainage. She first noticed this lesion and reported it to her primary care physician at a visit 6 months prior. The primary care physician did not pursue investigation of the lesion. One month later, the patient was seen by a gastroenterologist for the lesion and was referred to dermatology. The patient’s medical history included SCC and BCC on the face, both treated successfully with Mohs micrographic surgery.

Physical examination revealed a 2.6×1.1-cm, erythematous, nodular plaque in the coccygeal area of the intergluteal crease (Figure 1). A shave biopsy disclosed BCC, nodular type, ulcerated. Microscopically, there were nodular aggregates of basaloid cells with hyperchromatic nuclei and peripheral palisading, separated from mucinous stromal surroundings by artefactual clefts.

Practical Implications

Without thorough examination, this cancerous lesion would not have been seen (Figure 2). Therefore, it is important to practice thorough physical examination skills to avoid missing these cancers, particularly when examining a patient with a history of SCC or BCC. Furthermore, biopsy is recommended for suspicious lesions to rule out BCC.

Be careful not to get caught up in epidemiological or demographic considerations when making a diagnosis of this kind or when assessing the severity of a lesion. This patient, for instance, was female, which makes her less likely to present with BCC.⁸ Moreover, the cancer presented in a highly unlikely location for BCC, where there had not been significant sunburn.⁹ Patients and physicians should be educated about the incidence of BCC in unexpected areas; without a second and close look, this BCC could have been missed.

Final Thoughts

The literature continuously demonstrates the rarity of BCC in the intergluteal crease.¹⁰ However, when perianal BCC is properly identified and treated with local excision, prognosis is good.¹¹ Basal cell carcinoma has been seen to arise in other sensitive locations; vulvar, nipple, and scrotal BCC neoplasms are among the uncommon locations where BCC has appeared.¹² These areas are frequently—and easily—ignored. A total-body skin examination should be performed to ensure that these insidious-onset carcinomas are not overlooked to protect patients from the adverse consequences of untreated cancer.¹³

Practice Gap

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common cancer, and its incidence is on the rise.¹ The risk of this skin cancer is increased when there is a history of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or BCC.² Basal cell carcinoma often is found in sun-exposed areas, most commonly due to a history of intense sunburn.³ Other risk factors include male gender and increased age.⁴

Eighty percent to 85% of BCCs present on the head and neck⁵; however, BCC also can occur in unusual locations. When BCC presents in areas such as the perianal region, it is found to be larger than when found in more common areas,⁶ likely because neoplasms in this sensitive area often are overlooked. Literature on BCC of the intergluteal crease is limited.⁷ Being educated on the existence of BCC in this sensitive area can aid proper diagnosis.

The Technique and Case

An 83-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic for a suspicious lesion in the intergluteal crease that was tender to palpation with drainage. She first noticed this lesion and reported it to her primary care physician at a visit 6 months prior. The primary care physician did not pursue investigation of the lesion. One month later, the patient was seen by a gastroenterologist for the lesion and was referred to dermatology. The patient’s medical history included SCC and BCC on the face, both treated successfully with Mohs micrographic surgery.

Physical examination revealed a 2.6×1.1-cm, erythematous, nodular plaque in the coccygeal area of the intergluteal crease (Figure 1). A shave biopsy disclosed BCC, nodular type, ulcerated. Microscopically, there were nodular aggregates of basaloid cells with hyperchromatic nuclei and peripheral palisading, separated from mucinous stromal surroundings by artefactual clefts.

Practical Implications

Without thorough examination, this cancerous lesion would not have been seen (Figure 2). Therefore, it is important to practice thorough physical examination skills to avoid missing these cancers, particularly when examining a patient with a history of SCC or BCC. Furthermore, biopsy is recommended for suspicious lesions to rule out BCC.

Be careful not to get caught up in epidemiological or demographic considerations when making a diagnosis of this kind or when assessing the severity of a lesion. This patient, for instance, was female, which makes her less likely to present with BCC.⁸ Moreover, the cancer presented in a highly unlikely location for BCC, where there had not been significant sunburn.⁹ Patients and physicians should be educated about the incidence of BCC in unexpected areas; without a second and close look, this BCC could have been missed.

Final Thoughts

The literature continuously demonstrates the rarity of BCC in the intergluteal crease.¹⁰ However, when perianal BCC is properly identified and treated with local excision, prognosis is good.¹¹ Basal cell carcinoma has been seen to arise in other sensitive locations; vulvar, nipple, and scrotal BCC neoplasms are among the uncommon locations where BCC has appeared.¹² These areas are frequently—and easily—ignored. A total-body skin examination should be performed to ensure that these insidious-onset carcinomas are not overlooked to protect patients from the adverse consequences of untreated cancer.¹³

The Food and Drug Administration has approved cemiplimab-rwlc (Libtayo) as the first immunotherapy to treat patients with locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC) previously treated with a hedgehog pathway inhibitor or in whom an HHI is inappropriate.

The FDA granted full approval for the locally advanced BCC indication and accelerated approval for the metastatic BCC indication, according to a press release from Regeneron and Sanofi, the companies jointly developing cemiplimab.

Cemiplimab is a programmed death–1 inhibitor that was first FDA approved in 2018 for locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma not eligible for curative surgery or radiation.

The new approval “will change the treatment paradigm for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma,” according to Karl Lewis, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and an investigator on the phase 2 trial of cemiplimab.

“While the primary systemic treatment options are hedgehog inhibitors, many patients will eventually progress on or become intolerant to this therapy,” Dr. Lewis said in the press release. “With Libtayo [cemiplimab], these patients now have a new immunotherapy option.”

The approval of cemiplimab in BCC was based on an open-label, phase 2 trial of 132 patients with advanced BCC. Patients could not tolerate, had progressed on, or had not responded to HHIs after 9 months of treatment.

Cemiplimab was given at 350 mg every 3 weeks. The study was not placebo controlled and has not been published, a Regeneron spokesperson said.

There were 112 patients in the efficacy analysis. The overall response rate was 21% (6/28) in metastatic BCC patients, with no complete responders. In locally advanced BCC patients, the objective response rate was 29% (24/84), with five complete responders.

The median duration of response was not reached in either group but was at least 6 months long in all metastatic patients and in 79% (19/84) of the locally advanced BCC patients.

The most common adverse events among the 132 subjects evaluable for safety were fatigue (49%), musculoskeletal pain (33%), diarrhea (25%), rash (22%), pruritus (20%), and upper respiratory tract infection (15%).

Serious adverse events occurred in 32% of patients, including colitis, acute kidney injury, adrenal insufficiency, and anemia. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 13% of patients, most often for colitis and general physical health deterioration.

For more details on cemiplimab, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved cemiplimab-rwlc (Libtayo) as the first immunotherapy to treat patients with locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC) previously treated with a hedgehog pathway inhibitor or in whom an HHI is inappropriate.

The FDA granted full approval for the locally advanced BCC indication and accelerated approval for the metastatic BCC indication, according to a press release from Regeneron and Sanofi, the companies jointly developing cemiplimab.

Cemiplimab is a programmed death–1 inhibitor that was first FDA approved in 2018 for locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma not eligible for curative surgery or radiation.

The new approval “will change the treatment paradigm for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma,” according to Karl Lewis, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and an investigator on the phase 2 trial of cemiplimab.

“While the primary systemic treatment options are hedgehog inhibitors, many patients will eventually progress on or become intolerant to this therapy,” Dr. Lewis said in the press release. “With Libtayo [cemiplimab], these patients now have a new immunotherapy option.”

The approval of cemiplimab in BCC was based on an open-label, phase 2 trial of 132 patients with advanced BCC. Patients could not tolerate, had progressed on, or had not responded to HHIs after 9 months of treatment.

Cemiplimab was given at 350 mg every 3 weeks. The study was not placebo controlled and has not been published, a Regeneron spokesperson said.

There were 112 patients in the efficacy analysis. The overall response rate was 21% (6/28) in metastatic BCC patients, with no complete responders. In locally advanced BCC patients, the objective response rate was 29% (24/84), with five complete responders.

The median duration of response was not reached in either group but was at least 6 months long in all metastatic patients and in 79% (19/84) of the locally advanced BCC patients.

The most common adverse events among the 132 subjects evaluable for safety were fatigue (49%), musculoskeletal pain (33%), diarrhea (25%), rash (22%), pruritus (20%), and upper respiratory tract infection (15%).

Serious adverse events occurred in 32% of patients, including colitis, acute kidney injury, adrenal insufficiency, and anemia. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 13% of patients, most often for colitis and general physical health deterioration.

For more details on cemiplimab, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved cemiplimab-rwlc (Libtayo) as the first immunotherapy to treat patients with locally advanced or metastatic basal cell carcinoma (BCC) previously treated with a hedgehog pathway inhibitor or in whom an HHI is inappropriate.

The FDA granted full approval for the locally advanced BCC indication and accelerated approval for the metastatic BCC indication, according to a press release from Regeneron and Sanofi, the companies jointly developing cemiplimab.

Cemiplimab is a programmed death–1 inhibitor that was first FDA approved in 2018 for locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma not eligible for curative surgery or radiation.

The new approval “will change the treatment paradigm for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma,” according to Karl Lewis, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and an investigator on the phase 2 trial of cemiplimab.

“While the primary systemic treatment options are hedgehog inhibitors, many patients will eventually progress on or become intolerant to this therapy,” Dr. Lewis said in the press release. “With Libtayo [cemiplimab], these patients now have a new immunotherapy option.”

The approval of cemiplimab in BCC was based on an open-label, phase 2 trial of 132 patients with advanced BCC. Patients could not tolerate, had progressed on, or had not responded to HHIs after 9 months of treatment.

Cemiplimab was given at 350 mg every 3 weeks. The study was not placebo controlled and has not been published, a Regeneron spokesperson said.

There were 112 patients in the efficacy analysis. The overall response rate was 21% (6/28) in metastatic BCC patients, with no complete responders. In locally advanced BCC patients, the objective response rate was 29% (24/84), with five complete responders.

The median duration of response was not reached in either group but was at least 6 months long in all metastatic patients and in 79% (19/84) of the locally advanced BCC patients.

The most common adverse events among the 132 subjects evaluable for safety were fatigue (49%), musculoskeletal pain (33%), diarrhea (25%), rash (22%), pruritus (20%), and upper respiratory tract infection (15%).

Serious adverse events occurred in 32% of patients, including colitis, acute kidney injury, adrenal insufficiency, and anemia. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 13% of patients, most often for colitis and general physical health deterioration.

For more details on cemiplimab, see the full prescribing information.

[email protected]

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

In women, breast cancer is the leading cancer diagnosis and the second leading cause of cancer-related death,¹ as well as the most common malignancy to metastasize to the skin.² Cutaneous breast carcinoma may present as cutaneous metastasis or can occur secondary to direct tumor extension. Five percent to 10% of women with breast cancer will present clinically with metastatic cutaneous disease, most commonly as a recurrence of early-stage breast carcinoma.²

In a published meta-analysis that investigated the incidence of tumors most commonly found to metastasize to the skin, Krathen et al³ found that cutaneous metastases occurred in 24% of patients with breast cancer (N=1903). In 2 large retrospective studies from tumor registry data, breast cancer was found to be the most common tumor involving metastasis to the skin, and 3.5% of the breast cancer cases identified in the registry had cutaneous metastasis as the presenting sign (n=35) at time of diagnosis.⁴

We report an unusual presentation of cutaneous metastatic lobular breast carcinoma that involved diffuse cutaneous lesions and rapid progression from onset of the breast mass to development of clinically apparent metastatic skin lesions.

Case Report

A 59-year-old woman with an unremarkable medical history presented to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of new widespread lesions that developed over a period of months. The eruption was asymptomatic and consisted of numerous bumpy lesions that reportedly started on the patient’s neck and progressively spread to involve the trunk. Physical examination revealed multiple flesh-colored, firm nodules scattered across the upper back, neck, and chest (Figure 1). Bilateral cervical and axillary lymphadenopathy also was noted. Upon questioning regarding family history of malignancy, the patient reported that her brother had been diagnosed with colon cancer. Although she was not up to date on age-appropriate malignancy screenings, she did report having a diagnostic mammogram 1 year prior that revealed a suspicious lesion on the left breast. A repeat mammogram of the left breast 6 months later was read as unremarkable.

Two 3-mm representative punch biopsies were performed. Hematoxylin and eosin staining revealed a basket-weave stratum corneum with underlying epidermal atrophy. A relatively monomorphic epithelioid cell infiltrate extending from the superficial reticular dermis into the deep dermis and displaying an open chromatin pattern and pink cytoplasm was observed, as well as dermal collagen thickening. Linear, single-filing cells along with focal irregular nests and scattered cells were observed (Figure 2). Immunohistochemical staining was positive for cytokeratin 7 (Figure 3A), epithelial membrane antigen, and estrogen receptor (Figure 3B) along with gross cystic disease fluid protein 15; focal progesterone receptor positivity also was present. Cytokeratin 20, cytokeratin 5/6, carcinoembryonic antigen, p63, CDX2, paired box gene 8, thyroid transcription factor 1, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu stains were negative. Findings identified in both biopsies were consistent with metastatic cutaneous lobular breast carcinoma.

A complete blood cell count and complete metabolic panels were within normal limits, aside from a mildly elevated alkaline phosphatase level. Breast ultrasonography was unremarkable. Stereotactic breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a 9.4-cm mass in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast as well as enlarged lymph nodes 2.2 cm from the left axilla. A subsequent bone scan demonstrated focal activity in the left lateral fourth rib, left costochondral junction, and right anterolateral fifth rib—it was unclear whether these lesions were metastatic or secondary to trauma from a fall the patient reportedly had sustained 2 weeks prior. Lumbar MRI without gadolinium contrast revealed extensive abnormal heterogeneous signal intensity of osseous structures consistent with osseous metastasis.

Subsequent diagnostic bilateral breast ultrasonography and percutaneous left lymph node biopsy revealed pathology consistent with metastatic lobular breast carcinoma with near total effacement of the lymph node and extracapsular extension concordant with previous MRI findings. The mass in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast that previously was observed on MRI was not identifiable on this ultrasound. It was recommended that the patient pursue MRI-guided breast biopsy to have the breast lesion further characterized. She was referred to surgical oncology at a tertiary center for management; however, the patient was lost to follow-up, and there are no records available indicating the patient pursued any treatment. Although we were unable to confirm the patient’s breast lesion that previously was seen on MRI was the cause of the metastatic disease, the overall clinical picture supported metastatic lobular breast carcinoma.

Comment

Tumor metastasis to the skin accounts for approximately 2% of all skin cancers⁵ and typically is observed in advanced stages of cancer. In women, breast carcinoma is the most common type of cancer to exhibit this behavior.² Invasive ductal carcinoma represents the most common histologic subtype of breast cancer overall,^6,7 and breast adenocarcinomas, including lobular and ductal breast carcinomas, are the most common histologic subtypes to exhibit metastatic cutaneous lesions.⁸

Invasive lobular breast carcinoma represents approximately 10% of invasive breast cancer cases. Compared to invasive ductal carcinoma, there tends to be a delay in diagnosis often leading to larger tumor sizes relative to the former upon detection and with lymph node invasion. These findings may be explained by the greater difficulty of detecting invasive lobular carcinomas by mammography and clinical breast examination compared to invasive ductal carcinomas.^9-11 Additionally, invasive lobular carcinomas are more likely to be positive for estrogen and progesterone receptors compared to invasive ductal carcinomas,¹² which also was consistent in our case.

Cutaneous metastases of breast cancer most commonly are found on the anterior chest wall and can present as a wide spectrum of lesions, with nodules as the most common primary dermatologic manifestation.¹³ Cutaneous metastatic lesions commonly have been described as firm, mobile, round or oval, solitary or grouped nodules. The color of the nodules varies and may be flesh-colored, brown, blue, black, pink, and/or red-brown. The lesions often are asymptomatic but may ulcerate.²

In our case, the distribution of lesions was a unique aspect that is not typical of most cases of metastatic cutaneous breast carcinoma. The nodules appeared more scattered and involved multiple body regions, including the back, neck, and chest. Although cutaneous breast cancer metastases have been documented to extend to these body regions, a review of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms cutaneous metastatic lobular breast carcinoma, breast carcinoma, and metastatic breast cancer suggested that it is uncommon for these multiple areas to be simultaneously affected.^4,14 Rather, the more common clinical presentation of cutaneous metastatic breast carcinoma is as a solitary nodule or group of nodules localized to a single anatomic region.¹⁴

Another notable feature of our case was the rapid development of the cutaneous lesions relative to the primary tumor. This patient developed diffuse lesions over a period of several months, and given that her mammogram performed the previous year was negative for any abnormalities, one could suggest that the metastatic lesions developed less than a year from onset of the primary tumor. A previous study involving 41 patients with a known clinical primary visceral malignancy (ie, breast, lung, colon, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, kidney, thyroid, prostate, or ovarian origin) found that it takes approximately 3 years on average for cutaneous metastases to develop from the onset of cancer diagnosis (range, 1–177 months).¹⁴ In the aforementioned study, 94% of patients had stage III or IV disease at time of skin metastasis, with the majority of those demonstrating stage IV disease. However, it also is possible that these breast tumors evaded detection or were too small to be identified on prior imaging.¹⁴ A review of our patient’s medical records did not indicate documentation of any visual or palpable breast changes prior to the onset of the clinically detected metastatic nodules.

Conclusion

Biopsy with immunohistochemical staining ultimately yielded the diagnosis of metastatic lobular breast carcinoma in our patient. Providers should be aware of the varying clinical presentations that may arise in the setting of cutaneous metastasis. When faced with lesions suspicious for cutaneous metastasis, biopsy is warranted to determine the correct diagnosis and ensure appropriate management. Upon diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis, prompt coordination with the primary care provider and appropriate referral to multidisciplinary teams is necessary. Clinical providers also should maintain a high index of suspicion when evaluating patients with cutaneous metastasis who have a history of normal malignancy screenings.

In women, breast cancer is the leading cancer diagnosis and the second leading cause of cancer-related death,¹ as well as the most common malignancy to metastasize to the skin.² Cutaneous breast carcinoma may present as cutaneous metastasis or can occur secondary to direct tumor extension. Five percent to 10% of women with breast cancer will present clinically with metastatic cutaneous disease, most commonly as a recurrence of early-stage breast carcinoma.²

In a published meta-analysis that investigated the incidence of tumors most commonly found to metastasize to the skin, Krathen et al³ found that cutaneous metastases occurred in 24% of patients with breast cancer (N=1903). In 2 large retrospective studies from tumor registry data, breast cancer was found to be the most common tumor involving metastasis to the skin, and 3.5% of the breast cancer cases identified in the registry had cutaneous metastasis as the presenting sign (n=35) at time of diagnosis.⁴

We report an unusual presentation of cutaneous metastatic lobular breast carcinoma that involved diffuse cutaneous lesions and rapid progression from onset of the breast mass to development of clinically apparent metastatic skin lesions.

Case Report

A 59-year-old woman with an unremarkable medical history presented to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of new widespread lesions that developed over a period of months. The eruption was asymptomatic and consisted of numerous bumpy lesions that reportedly started on the patient’s neck and progressively spread to involve the trunk. Physical examination revealed multiple flesh-colored, firm nodules scattered across the upper back, neck, and chest (Figure 1). Bilateral cervical and axillary lymphadenopathy also was noted. Upon questioning regarding family history of malignancy, the patient reported that her brother had been diagnosed with colon cancer. Although she was not up to date on age-appropriate malignancy screenings, she did report having a diagnostic mammogram 1 year prior that revealed a suspicious lesion on the left breast. A repeat mammogram of the left breast 6 months later was read as unremarkable.

Two 3-mm representative punch biopsies were performed. Hematoxylin and eosin staining revealed a basket-weave stratum corneum with underlying epidermal atrophy. A relatively monomorphic epithelioid cell infiltrate extending from the superficial reticular dermis into the deep dermis and displaying an open chromatin pattern and pink cytoplasm was observed, as well as dermal collagen thickening. Linear, single-filing cells along with focal irregular nests and scattered cells were observed (Figure 2). Immunohistochemical staining was positive for cytokeratin 7 (Figure 3A), epithelial membrane antigen, and estrogen receptor (Figure 3B) along with gross cystic disease fluid protein 15; focal progesterone receptor positivity also was present. Cytokeratin 20, cytokeratin 5/6, carcinoembryonic antigen, p63, CDX2, paired box gene 8, thyroid transcription factor 1, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu stains were negative. Findings identified in both biopsies were consistent with metastatic cutaneous lobular breast carcinoma.

A complete blood cell count and complete metabolic panels were within normal limits, aside from a mildly elevated alkaline phosphatase level. Breast ultrasonography was unremarkable. Stereotactic breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a 9.4-cm mass in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast as well as enlarged lymph nodes 2.2 cm from the left axilla. A subsequent bone scan demonstrated focal activity in the left lateral fourth rib, left costochondral junction, and right anterolateral fifth rib—it was unclear whether these lesions were metastatic or secondary to trauma from a fall the patient reportedly had sustained 2 weeks prior. Lumbar MRI without gadolinium contrast revealed extensive abnormal heterogeneous signal intensity of osseous structures consistent with osseous metastasis.

Subsequent diagnostic bilateral breast ultrasonography and percutaneous left lymph node biopsy revealed pathology consistent with metastatic lobular breast carcinoma with near total effacement of the lymph node and extracapsular extension concordant with previous MRI findings. The mass in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast that previously was observed on MRI was not identifiable on this ultrasound. It was recommended that the patient pursue MRI-guided breast biopsy to have the breast lesion further characterized. She was referred to surgical oncology at a tertiary center for management; however, the patient was lost to follow-up, and there are no records available indicating the patient pursued any treatment. Although we were unable to confirm the patient’s breast lesion that previously was seen on MRI was the cause of the metastatic disease, the overall clinical picture supported metastatic lobular breast carcinoma.

Comment

Tumor metastasis to the skin accounts for approximately 2% of all skin cancers⁵ and typically is observed in advanced stages of cancer. In women, breast carcinoma is the most common type of cancer to exhibit this behavior.² Invasive ductal carcinoma represents the most common histologic subtype of breast cancer overall,^6,7 and breast adenocarcinomas, including lobular and ductal breast carcinomas, are the most common histologic subtypes to exhibit metastatic cutaneous lesions.⁸

Invasive lobular breast carcinoma represents approximately 10% of invasive breast cancer cases. Compared to invasive ductal carcinoma, there tends to be a delay in diagnosis often leading to larger tumor sizes relative to the former upon detection and with lymph node invasion. These findings may be explained by the greater difficulty of detecting invasive lobular carcinomas by mammography and clinical breast examination compared to invasive ductal carcinomas.^9-11 Additionally, invasive lobular carcinomas are more likely to be positive for estrogen and progesterone receptors compared to invasive ductal carcinomas,¹² which also was consistent in our case.

Cutaneous metastases of breast cancer most commonly are found on the anterior chest wall and can present as a wide spectrum of lesions, with nodules as the most common primary dermatologic manifestation.¹³ Cutaneous metastatic lesions commonly have been described as firm, mobile, round or oval, solitary or grouped nodules. The color of the nodules varies and may be flesh-colored, brown, blue, black, pink, and/or red-brown. The lesions often are asymptomatic but may ulcerate.²

In our case, the distribution of lesions was a unique aspect that is not typical of most cases of metastatic cutaneous breast carcinoma. The nodules appeared more scattered and involved multiple body regions, including the back, neck, and chest. Although cutaneous breast cancer metastases have been documented to extend to these body regions, a review of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms cutaneous metastatic lobular breast carcinoma, breast carcinoma, and metastatic breast cancer suggested that it is uncommon for these multiple areas to be simultaneously affected.^4,14 Rather, the more common clinical presentation of cutaneous metastatic breast carcinoma is as a solitary nodule or group of nodules localized to a single anatomic region.¹⁴

Another notable feature of our case was the rapid development of the cutaneous lesions relative to the primary tumor. This patient developed diffuse lesions over a period of several months, and given that her mammogram performed the previous year was negative for any abnormalities, one could suggest that the metastatic lesions developed less than a year from onset of the primary tumor. A previous study involving 41 patients with a known clinical primary visceral malignancy (ie, breast, lung, colon, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, kidney, thyroid, prostate, or ovarian origin) found that it takes approximately 3 years on average for cutaneous metastases to develop from the onset of cancer diagnosis (range, 1–177 months).¹⁴ In the aforementioned study, 94% of patients had stage III or IV disease at time of skin metastasis, with the majority of those demonstrating stage IV disease. However, it also is possible that these breast tumors evaded detection or were too small to be identified on prior imaging.¹⁴ A review of our patient’s medical records did not indicate documentation of any visual or palpable breast changes prior to the onset of the clinically detected metastatic nodules.

Conclusion

Biopsy with immunohistochemical staining ultimately yielded the diagnosis of metastatic lobular breast carcinoma in our patient. Providers should be aware of the varying clinical presentations that may arise in the setting of cutaneous metastasis. When faced with lesions suspicious for cutaneous metastasis, biopsy is warranted to determine the correct diagnosis and ensure appropriate management. Upon diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis, prompt coordination with the primary care provider and appropriate referral to multidisciplinary teams is necessary. Clinical providers also should maintain a high index of suspicion when evaluating patients with cutaneous metastasis who have a history of normal malignancy screenings.

In women, breast cancer is the leading cancer diagnosis and the second leading cause of cancer-related death,¹ as well as the most common malignancy to metastasize to the skin.² Cutaneous breast carcinoma may present as cutaneous metastasis or can occur secondary to direct tumor extension. Five percent to 10% of women with breast cancer will present clinically with metastatic cutaneous disease, most commonly as a recurrence of early-stage breast carcinoma.²

In a published meta-analysis that investigated the incidence of tumors most commonly found to metastasize to the skin, Krathen et al³ found that cutaneous metastases occurred in 24% of patients with breast cancer (N=1903). In 2 large retrospective studies from tumor registry data, breast cancer was found to be the most common tumor involving metastasis to the skin, and 3.5% of the breast cancer cases identified in the registry had cutaneous metastasis as the presenting sign (n=35) at time of diagnosis.⁴

We report an unusual presentation of cutaneous metastatic lobular breast carcinoma that involved diffuse cutaneous lesions and rapid progression from onset of the breast mass to development of clinically apparent metastatic skin lesions.

Case Report

A 59-year-old woman with an unremarkable medical history presented to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of new widespread lesions that developed over a period of months. The eruption was asymptomatic and consisted of numerous bumpy lesions that reportedly started on the patient’s neck and progressively spread to involve the trunk. Physical examination revealed multiple flesh-colored, firm nodules scattered across the upper back, neck, and chest (Figure 1). Bilateral cervical and axillary lymphadenopathy also was noted. Upon questioning regarding family history of malignancy, the patient reported that her brother had been diagnosed with colon cancer. Although she was not up to date on age-appropriate malignancy screenings, she did report having a diagnostic mammogram 1 year prior that revealed a suspicious lesion on the left breast. A repeat mammogram of the left breast 6 months later was read as unremarkable.

Two 3-mm representative punch biopsies were performed. Hematoxylin and eosin staining revealed a basket-weave stratum corneum with underlying epidermal atrophy. A relatively monomorphic epithelioid cell infiltrate extending from the superficial reticular dermis into the deep dermis and displaying an open chromatin pattern and pink cytoplasm was observed, as well as dermal collagen thickening. Linear, single-filing cells along with focal irregular nests and scattered cells were observed (Figure 2). Immunohistochemical staining was positive for cytokeratin 7 (Figure 3A), epithelial membrane antigen, and estrogen receptor (Figure 3B) along with gross cystic disease fluid protein 15; focal progesterone receptor positivity also was present. Cytokeratin 20, cytokeratin 5/6, carcinoembryonic antigen, p63, CDX2, paired box gene 8, thyroid transcription factor 1, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu stains were negative. Findings identified in both biopsies were consistent with metastatic cutaneous lobular breast carcinoma.

A complete blood cell count and complete metabolic panels were within normal limits, aside from a mildly elevated alkaline phosphatase level. Breast ultrasonography was unremarkable. Stereotactic breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a 9.4-cm mass in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast as well as enlarged lymph nodes 2.2 cm from the left axilla. A subsequent bone scan demonstrated focal activity in the left lateral fourth rib, left costochondral junction, and right anterolateral fifth rib—it was unclear whether these lesions were metastatic or secondary to trauma from a fall the patient reportedly had sustained 2 weeks prior. Lumbar MRI without gadolinium contrast revealed extensive abnormal heterogeneous signal intensity of osseous structures consistent with osseous metastasis.

Subsequent diagnostic bilateral breast ultrasonography and percutaneous left lymph node biopsy revealed pathology consistent with metastatic lobular breast carcinoma with near total effacement of the lymph node and extracapsular extension concordant with previous MRI findings. The mass in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast that previously was observed on MRI was not identifiable on this ultrasound. It was recommended that the patient pursue MRI-guided breast biopsy to have the breast lesion further characterized. She was referred to surgical oncology at a tertiary center for management; however, the patient was lost to follow-up, and there are no records available indicating the patient pursued any treatment. Although we were unable to confirm the patient’s breast lesion that previously was seen on MRI was the cause of the metastatic disease, the overall clinical picture supported metastatic lobular breast carcinoma.

Comment

Tumor metastasis to the skin accounts for approximately 2% of all skin cancers⁵ and typically is observed in advanced stages of cancer. In women, breast carcinoma is the most common type of cancer to exhibit this behavior.² Invasive ductal carcinoma represents the most common histologic subtype of breast cancer overall,^6,7 and breast adenocarcinomas, including lobular and ductal breast carcinomas, are the most common histologic subtypes to exhibit metastatic cutaneous lesions.⁸

Invasive lobular breast carcinoma represents approximately 10% of invasive breast cancer cases. Compared to invasive ductal carcinoma, there tends to be a delay in diagnosis often leading to larger tumor sizes relative to the former upon detection and with lymph node invasion. These findings may be explained by the greater difficulty of detecting invasive lobular carcinomas by mammography and clinical breast examination compared to invasive ductal carcinomas.^9-11 Additionally, invasive lobular carcinomas are more likely to be positive for estrogen and progesterone receptors compared to invasive ductal carcinomas,¹² which also was consistent in our case.

Cutaneous metastases of breast cancer most commonly are found on the anterior chest wall and can present as a wide spectrum of lesions, with nodules as the most common primary dermatologic manifestation.¹³ Cutaneous metastatic lesions commonly have been described as firm, mobile, round or oval, solitary or grouped nodules. The color of the nodules varies and may be flesh-colored, brown, blue, black, pink, and/or red-brown. The lesions often are asymptomatic but may ulcerate.²

In our case, the distribution of lesions was a unique aspect that is not typical of most cases of metastatic cutaneous breast carcinoma. The nodules appeared more scattered and involved multiple body regions, including the back, neck, and chest. Although cutaneous breast cancer metastases have been documented to extend to these body regions, a review of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms cutaneous metastatic lobular breast carcinoma, breast carcinoma, and metastatic breast cancer suggested that it is uncommon for these multiple areas to be simultaneously affected.^4,14 Rather, the more common clinical presentation of cutaneous metastatic breast carcinoma is as a solitary nodule or group of nodules localized to a single anatomic region.¹⁴

Another notable feature of our case was the rapid development of the cutaneous lesions relative to the primary tumor. This patient developed diffuse lesions over a period of several months, and given that her mammogram performed the previous year was negative for any abnormalities, one could suggest that the metastatic lesions developed less than a year from onset of the primary tumor. A previous study involving 41 patients with a known clinical primary visceral malignancy (ie, breast, lung, colon, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, kidney, thyroid, prostate, or ovarian origin) found that it takes approximately 3 years on average for cutaneous metastases to develop from the onset of cancer diagnosis (range, 1–177 months).¹⁴ In the aforementioned study, 94% of patients had stage III or IV disease at time of skin metastasis, with the majority of those demonstrating stage IV disease. However, it also is possible that these breast tumors evaded detection or were too small to be identified on prior imaging.¹⁴ A review of our patient’s medical records did not indicate documentation of any visual or palpable breast changes prior to the onset of the clinically detected metastatic nodules.

Conclusion

Biopsy with immunohistochemical staining ultimately yielded the diagnosis of metastatic lobular breast carcinoma in our patient. Providers should be aware of the varying clinical presentations that may arise in the setting of cutaneous metastasis. When faced with lesions suspicious for cutaneous metastasis, biopsy is warranted to determine the correct diagnosis and ensure appropriate management. Upon diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis, prompt coordination with the primary care provider and appropriate referral to multidisciplinary teams is necessary. Clinical providers also should maintain a high index of suspicion when evaluating patients with cutaneous metastasis who have a history of normal malignancy screenings.

The Diagnosis: Bazex‐Dupré‐Christol Syndrome

Bazex‐Dupré‐Christol syndrome (BDCS) is a rare X-linked dominant genodermatosis characterized by a triad of hypotrichosis, follicular atrophoderma, and multiple basal cell carcinomas (BCCs). Since first being described in 1964,¹ there have been fewer than 200 reported cases of BDCS.² Although a causative gene has not yet been identified, the mutation has been mapped to an 11.4-Mb interval in the Xq25-27.1 region of the X chromosome.³

Classically, congenital hypotrichosis is the first observed symptom and can present shortly after birth.⁴ It typically is widespread, though sometimes it may be confined to the eyebrows, eyelashes, and scalp. Follicular atrophoderma, which occurs due to a laxation and deepening of the follicular ostia, is seen in 80% of cases and typically presents in early childhood as depressions lacking hair.² It commonly is found on the face, extensor surfaces of the elbows and knees, and dorsal aspects of the hands and feet. Physical examination of our patient revealed follicular atrophoderma on both the dorsal surfaces of the hands and the extensor surfaces of the elbows. Hair shaft anomalies including pili torti, pili bifurcati, and trichorrhexis nodosa are infrequently observed symptoms of BDCS.²

Basal cell carcinoma often manifests in the second or third decades of life, though there are reports of BCC developing in BDCS patients as young as 3 years. Basal cell carcinoma typically arises on sun-exposed areas, especially the face, neck, and chest. These lesions can be pigmented or nonpigmented and range from 2 to 20 mm in diameter.⁴ Our patient presented with a BCC on the forehead (Figure 1). Histopathologic evaluation showed a proliferation of basaloid cells with peripheral palisading (Figure 2), confirming the diagnosis of BCC.

Milia, which are not considered part of the classic BDCS triad, are seen in 70% of cases.² They commonly are found on the face and often diminish with age. Milia may precede the formation of follicular atrophoderma and BCC. Hypohidrosis most commonly occurs on the forehead but can be widespread.² Other less commonly observed features include epidermal cysts, hyperpigmentation of the face, and trichoepitheliomas.⁴ The management of BDCS involves frequent clinical examinations, BCC treatment, genetic counseling, and photoprotection.^2,4

Nevoid BCC syndrome (NBCCS), also known as Gorlin-Goltz syndrome, is an autosomal-dominant disease characterized by multiple nevoid BCCs, macrocephaly with a large forehead, cleft lip or palate, jaw keratocysts, palmar and plantar pits, and calcification of the falx cerebri.⁵ Nevoid BCC syndrome is caused by a mutation in the PTCH1 gene in the hedgehog signaling pathway.⁶ The absence of common symptoms of NBCCS including macrocephaly, palmar or plantar pits, and cleft lip or palate, as well as negative genetic testing, suggested that our patient did not have NBCCS.

Rombo syndrome shares features with BDCS. Similar to BDCS, symptoms of Rombo syndrome include follicular atrophy, milialike papules, and BCC. Patients with Rombo syndrome typically present with atrophoderma vermiculatum on the cheeks and forehead in childhood.⁷ This atrophoderma presents with a pitted atrophic appearance in a reticular pattern on sun-exposed areas. Other distinguishing features from BDCS include cyanotic redness of sun-exposed skin and telangiectatic vessels.⁸

Multiple hereditary infundibulocystic BCC is another rare genodermatosis that is characterized by the presence of multiple infundibulocystic BCCs on the face and genitals. Infundibulocystic BCC is a well-differentiated subtype of BCC characterized by buds and cords of basaloid cells with scant stroma. Multiple hereditary infundibulocystic BCC is inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion and has been linked to ^SUFU mutation in the sonic hedgehog pathway.⁹

Rothmund-Thomson syndrome is an autosomalrecessive disorder characterized by sparse hair, skeletal and dental abnormalities, and a high risk for developing keratinocyte carcinomas. It is differentiated from BDCS clinically by the presence of erythema, edema, and blistering, resulting in poikiloderma, plantar hyperkeratotic lesions, and bone defects.¹⁰

The Diagnosis: Bazex‐Dupré‐Christol Syndrome

Bazex‐Dupré‐Christol syndrome (BDCS) is a rare X-linked dominant genodermatosis characterized by a triad of hypotrichosis, follicular atrophoderma, and multiple basal cell carcinomas (BCCs). Since first being described in 1964,¹ there have been fewer than 200 reported cases of BDCS.² Although a causative gene has not yet been identified, the mutation has been mapped to an 11.4-Mb interval in the Xq25-27.1 region of the X chromosome.³

Classically, congenital hypotrichosis is the first observed symptom and can present shortly after birth.⁴ It typically is widespread, though sometimes it may be confined to the eyebrows, eyelashes, and scalp. Follicular atrophoderma, which occurs due to a laxation and deepening of the follicular ostia, is seen in 80% of cases and typically presents in early childhood as depressions lacking hair.² It commonly is found on the face, extensor surfaces of the elbows and knees, and dorsal aspects of the hands and feet. Physical examination of our patient revealed follicular atrophoderma on both the dorsal surfaces of the hands and the extensor surfaces of the elbows. Hair shaft anomalies including pili torti, pili bifurcati, and trichorrhexis nodosa are infrequently observed symptoms of BDCS.²

Basal cell carcinoma often manifests in the second or third decades of life, though there are reports of BCC developing in BDCS patients as young as 3 years. Basal cell carcinoma typically arises on sun-exposed areas, especially the face, neck, and chest. These lesions can be pigmented or nonpigmented and range from 2 to 20 mm in diameter.⁴ Our patient presented with a BCC on the forehead (Figure 1). Histopathologic evaluation showed a proliferation of basaloid cells with peripheral palisading (Figure 2), confirming the diagnosis of BCC.

Milia, which are not considered part of the classic BDCS triad, are seen in 70% of cases.² They commonly are found on the face and often diminish with age. Milia may precede the formation of follicular atrophoderma and BCC. Hypohidrosis most commonly occurs on the forehead but can be widespread.² Other less commonly observed features include epidermal cysts, hyperpigmentation of the face, and trichoepitheliomas.⁴ The management of BDCS involves frequent clinical examinations, BCC treatment, genetic counseling, and photoprotection.^2,4

Nevoid BCC syndrome (NBCCS), also known as Gorlin-Goltz syndrome, is an autosomal-dominant disease characterized by multiple nevoid BCCs, macrocephaly with a large forehead, cleft lip or palate, jaw keratocysts, palmar and plantar pits, and calcification of the falx cerebri.⁵ Nevoid BCC syndrome is caused by a mutation in the PTCH1 gene in the hedgehog signaling pathway.⁶ The absence of common symptoms of NBCCS including macrocephaly, palmar or plantar pits, and cleft lip or palate, as well as negative genetic testing, suggested that our patient did not have NBCCS.

Rombo syndrome shares features with BDCS. Similar to BDCS, symptoms of Rombo syndrome include follicular atrophy, milialike papules, and BCC. Patients with Rombo syndrome typically present with atrophoderma vermiculatum on the cheeks and forehead in childhood.⁷ This atrophoderma presents with a pitted atrophic appearance in a reticular pattern on sun-exposed areas. Other distinguishing features from BDCS include cyanotic redness of sun-exposed skin and telangiectatic vessels.⁸

Multiple hereditary infundibulocystic BCC is another rare genodermatosis that is characterized by the presence of multiple infundibulocystic BCCs on the face and genitals. Infundibulocystic BCC is a well-differentiated subtype of BCC characterized by buds and cords of basaloid cells with scant stroma. Multiple hereditary infundibulocystic BCC is inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion and has been linked to ^SUFU mutation in the sonic hedgehog pathway.⁹

Rothmund-Thomson syndrome is an autosomalrecessive disorder characterized by sparse hair, skeletal and dental abnormalities, and a high risk for developing keratinocyte carcinomas. It is differentiated from BDCS clinically by the presence of erythema, edema, and blistering, resulting in poikiloderma, plantar hyperkeratotic lesions, and bone defects.¹⁰

The Diagnosis: Bazex‐Dupré‐Christol Syndrome

Bazex‐Dupré‐Christol syndrome (BDCS) is a rare X-linked dominant genodermatosis characterized by a triad of hypotrichosis, follicular atrophoderma, and multiple basal cell carcinomas (BCCs). Since first being described in 1964,¹ there have been fewer than 200 reported cases of BDCS.² Although a causative gene has not yet been identified, the mutation has been mapped to an 11.4-Mb interval in the Xq25-27.1 region of the X chromosome.³

Classically, congenital hypotrichosis is the first observed symptom and can present shortly after birth.⁴ It typically is widespread, though sometimes it may be confined to the eyebrows, eyelashes, and scalp. Follicular atrophoderma, which occurs due to a laxation and deepening of the follicular ostia, is seen in 80% of cases and typically presents in early childhood as depressions lacking hair.² It commonly is found on the face, extensor surfaces of the elbows and knees, and dorsal aspects of the hands and feet. Physical examination of our patient revealed follicular atrophoderma on both the dorsal surfaces of the hands and the extensor surfaces of the elbows. Hair shaft anomalies including pili torti, pili bifurcati, and trichorrhexis nodosa are infrequently observed symptoms of BDCS.²

Basal cell carcinoma often manifests in the second or third decades of life, though there are reports of BCC developing in BDCS patients as young as 3 years. Basal cell carcinoma typically arises on sun-exposed areas, especially the face, neck, and chest. These lesions can be pigmented or nonpigmented and range from 2 to 20 mm in diameter.⁴ Our patient presented with a BCC on the forehead (Figure 1). Histopathologic evaluation showed a proliferation of basaloid cells with peripheral palisading (Figure 2), confirming the diagnosis of BCC.

Milia, which are not considered part of the classic BDCS triad, are seen in 70% of cases.² They commonly are found on the face and often diminish with age. Milia may precede the formation of follicular atrophoderma and BCC. Hypohidrosis most commonly occurs on the forehead but can be widespread.² Other less commonly observed features include epidermal cysts, hyperpigmentation of the face, and trichoepitheliomas.⁴ The management of BDCS involves frequent clinical examinations, BCC treatment, genetic counseling, and photoprotection.^2,4

Nevoid BCC syndrome (NBCCS), also known as Gorlin-Goltz syndrome, is an autosomal-dominant disease characterized by multiple nevoid BCCs, macrocephaly with a large forehead, cleft lip or palate, jaw keratocysts, palmar and plantar pits, and calcification of the falx cerebri.⁵ Nevoid BCC syndrome is caused by a mutation in the PTCH1 gene in the hedgehog signaling pathway.⁶ The absence of common symptoms of NBCCS including macrocephaly, palmar or plantar pits, and cleft lip or palate, as well as negative genetic testing, suggested that our patient did not have NBCCS.

Rombo syndrome shares features with BDCS. Similar to BDCS, symptoms of Rombo syndrome include follicular atrophy, milialike papules, and BCC. Patients with Rombo syndrome typically present with atrophoderma vermiculatum on the cheeks and forehead in childhood.⁷ This atrophoderma presents with a pitted atrophic appearance in a reticular pattern on sun-exposed areas. Other distinguishing features from BDCS include cyanotic redness of sun-exposed skin and telangiectatic vessels.⁸

Multiple hereditary infundibulocystic BCC is another rare genodermatosis that is characterized by the presence of multiple infundibulocystic BCCs on the face and genitals. Infundibulocystic BCC is a well-differentiated subtype of BCC characterized by buds and cords of basaloid cells with scant stroma. Multiple hereditary infundibulocystic BCC is inherited in an autosomal-dominant fashion and has been linked to ^SUFU mutation in the sonic hedgehog pathway.⁹

Rothmund-Thomson syndrome is an autosomalrecessive disorder characterized by sparse hair, skeletal and dental abnormalities, and a high risk for developing keratinocyte carcinomas. It is differentiated from BDCS clinically by the presence of erythema, edema, and blistering, resulting in poikiloderma, plantar hyperkeratotic lesions, and bone defects.¹⁰

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

Emerging data support the clinical validity and use of DecisionDx-SCC as a prognostic 40-gene expression profile test for patients with high-risk squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), according to Anna A. Bar, MD.

“The incidence of SCC has been growing rapidly, and the disease-related mortality is actually more than that of melanoma,” Dr. Bar, associate professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said during a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

“Like many cancers, SCC management plans are guided by the risk of metastasis. The current staging systems, like NCCN, AJCC, or Brigham and Women’s systems, struggle to provide accurate data of the metastatic potential of an individual’s SCC,” she said. “Furthermore, the predictive accuracy of these systems in SCC is variable, and many patients who have high risk factors do not experience poor outcomes, while others initially classified as having less concerning tumors will go on to have metastatic disease. That is where new gene expression tests come into play.”

Developed by and commercially available from Castle Biosciences, DecisionDx-SCC classifies an individual SCC patient’s tumor into one of the categories: low (class 1), moderate (class 2A), or high (class 2B) biologic risk of metastasis. “We’re hoping that DecisionDx results can help make management decisions within established guidelines,” Dr. Bar said. The test is indicated for patients with high-risk features including tumor size greater than 2 cm; tumor location on the head, neck, hands, genitals, feet, or pretibial surface; immunosuppression; a rapidly growing tumor; a tumor with poorly defined borders; a tumor at the site of prior radiation or chronic inflammation; perineural invasion; poorly defined tumor grade, and a deep tumor beyond the subcutaneous fat.

One validity study and three clinical utility studies of DecisionDx-SCC have been published that include data from more than 1,100 patients (see Curr Med Res Opin. 2020 Aug;36[8]:1301-7; Curr Med Res Opin. 2020 Aug;36[8]:1295-1300, and J Drugs Dermatol. 2019 Oct 1;18[10]:980-4). “This is a work in progress,” said Dr. Bar, director of the university’s Mohs micrographic surgery and cutaneous oncology fellowship.

The test was validated in an another study, which was prospectively designed and used archival tissue from 33 independent academic and community centers, including Oregon Health & Science University. All 420 patients in the clinical validation study had one or more high-risk factors, meeting the definition of high risk by NCCN or Mohs Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC). Their mean age was 71 years, 73% were male, 99% were White, and 25% were immune deficient.

Of the 420 patients, 63 had metastasis, and 86% of metastases were located on the head and neck. About 30% of metastasized lesions had perineural involvement, 27% had invasion beyond subcutaneous fat, and metastasized lesions were about 1 cm wider compared with lesions that were not. The overall metastasis rate at 3 years was 15%, “which is similar to that seen in the medical literature for high-risk populations,” Dr. Bar said.

The median time to metastasis was 0.9 years and the 95th percentile was 2.7 years. “This means that the 3-year horizon for identifying events in this study enabled identification of most patients who eventually experienced metastatic events,” she said. In this cohort, approximately half of the metastatic events occurred around 11 months post diagnosis, which “may provide guidance about the timeline and duration of high-intensity follow-up with frequency of clinical visits and imaging for patients at highest risk within the first year.”

The positive predictive value of the DecisionDx-SCC is 52%, meaning that half of class 2B lesions will metastasize. “This compares favorably when you look at the lower positive predictive value of the other staging systems,” Dr. Bar said. “The negative predictive value is 93%, meaning there are not a lot of false negatives. This also compares favorably to the other staging systems.”

Kaplan-Meier analysis of metastasis-free survival showed strong separation between patients with class 1, class 2A, and class 2B results, Dr. Bar said. While the overall risk of metastasis in this patient cohort was 15%, the risk among those with a class 1 result was less than half of that. “Patients with a class 2A result behave similarly to those with traditional risk factors such as deep invasion and poor differentiation, having about a 20% risk of metastasis,” she said. “The class 2B result identifies the most worrisome SCCs, with a greater than 50% risk of metastasis. While the results distribution from routine clinical testing is not yet known, this large validation study of high-risk SCC revealed that approximately half of the patients were class 1, less than half were class 2A, and about 1 in 18 had a class 2B result.”

On univariate analyses with traditional risk factors and use of the Brigham and Women’s staging system, the hazard ratio (HR) for class 2A lesions was 3.2, “which is similar to deep invasion, poor differentiation, or perineural involvement,” Dr. Bar said. At the same time, the HR for class 2B lesions was 11.6, “so class 2B is the strongest predictor of metastasis. The class 2B HR remained statistically significant in the multivariate analysis and is three times higher than that of the next highest HR in this cohort. For example, a high-risk SCC with deep invasion is already two times more likely to metastasize. Adding a class 2B score would be over 14 times more likely to metastasize than a tumor with a class 1 result.”

DecisionDx-SCC test results can inform management decisions within established guidelines. For example, for a high-risk SCC patient who has a class 1 result, or low risk of metastasis, “you may proceed with surgery and clinical nodal exam, and then follow up a couple of times a year,” Dr. Bar said. “For a high-risk patient with a 2A or moderate risk result, you might proceed with surgical treatment plus consider imaging studies such as ultrasound, CT, PET CT, and consider referral to other specialties.”

For a high-risk patient with a 2B or high risk result, she continued, “you may want to proceed with imaging studies right away in addition to surgery and consider consultation with radiation oncology or medical oncology, as well as more frequent follow-up with nodal exams, because the class 2B patients have been shown to have a greater than 50% risk of metastasis.”

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Bar disclosed that Oregon Health & Science University has received research funding from Castle Biosciences.

[email protected]

Emerging data support the clinical validity and use of DecisionDx-SCC as a prognostic 40-gene expression profile test for patients with high-risk squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), according to Anna A. Bar, MD.

“The incidence of SCC has been growing rapidly, and the disease-related mortality is actually more than that of melanoma,” Dr. Bar, associate professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said during a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

“Like many cancers, SCC management plans are guided by the risk of metastasis. The current staging systems, like NCCN, AJCC, or Brigham and Women’s systems, struggle to provide accurate data of the metastatic potential of an individual’s SCC,” she said. “Furthermore, the predictive accuracy of these systems in SCC is variable, and many patients who have high risk factors do not experience poor outcomes, while others initially classified as having less concerning tumors will go on to have metastatic disease. That is where new gene expression tests come into play.”

Developed by and commercially available from Castle Biosciences, DecisionDx-SCC classifies an individual SCC patient’s tumor into one of the categories: low (class 1), moderate (class 2A), or high (class 2B) biologic risk of metastasis. “We’re hoping that DecisionDx results can help make management decisions within established guidelines,” Dr. Bar said. The test is indicated for patients with high-risk features including tumor size greater than 2 cm; tumor location on the head, neck, hands, genitals, feet, or pretibial surface; immunosuppression; a rapidly growing tumor; a tumor with poorly defined borders; a tumor at the site of prior radiation or chronic inflammation; perineural invasion; poorly defined tumor grade, and a deep tumor beyond the subcutaneous fat.

One validity study and three clinical utility studies of DecisionDx-SCC have been published that include data from more than 1,100 patients (see Curr Med Res Opin. 2020 Aug;36[8]:1301-7; Curr Med Res Opin. 2020 Aug;36[8]:1295-1300, and J Drugs Dermatol. 2019 Oct 1;18[10]:980-4). “This is a work in progress,” said Dr. Bar, director of the university’s Mohs micrographic surgery and cutaneous oncology fellowship.

The test was validated in an another study, which was prospectively designed and used archival tissue from 33 independent academic and community centers, including Oregon Health & Science University. All 420 patients in the clinical validation study had one or more high-risk factors, meeting the definition of high risk by NCCN or Mohs Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC). Their mean age was 71 years, 73% were male, 99% were White, and 25% were immune deficient.

Of the 420 patients, 63 had metastasis, and 86% of metastases were located on the head and neck. About 30% of metastasized lesions had perineural involvement, 27% had invasion beyond subcutaneous fat, and metastasized lesions were about 1 cm wider compared with lesions that were not. The overall metastasis rate at 3 years was 15%, “which is similar to that seen in the medical literature for high-risk populations,” Dr. Bar said.

The median time to metastasis was 0.9 years and the 95th percentile was 2.7 years. “This means that the 3-year horizon for identifying events in this study enabled identification of most patients who eventually experienced metastatic events,” she said. In this cohort, approximately half of the metastatic events occurred around 11 months post diagnosis, which “may provide guidance about the timeline and duration of high-intensity follow-up with frequency of clinical visits and imaging for patients at highest risk within the first year.”

The positive predictive value of the DecisionDx-SCC is 52%, meaning that half of class 2B lesions will metastasize. “This compares favorably when you look at the lower positive predictive value of the other staging systems,” Dr. Bar said. “The negative predictive value is 93%, meaning there are not a lot of false negatives. This also compares favorably to the other staging systems.”

Kaplan-Meier analysis of metastasis-free survival showed strong separation between patients with class 1, class 2A, and class 2B results, Dr. Bar said. While the overall risk of metastasis in this patient cohort was 15%, the risk among those with a class 1 result was less than half of that. “Patients with a class 2A result behave similarly to those with traditional risk factors such as deep invasion and poor differentiation, having about a 20% risk of metastasis,” she said. “The class 2B result identifies the most worrisome SCCs, with a greater than 50% risk of metastasis. While the results distribution from routine clinical testing is not yet known, this large validation study of high-risk SCC revealed that approximately half of the patients were class 1, less than half were class 2A, and about 1 in 18 had a class 2B result.”

On univariate analyses with traditional risk factors and use of the Brigham and Women’s staging system, the hazard ratio (HR) for class 2A lesions was 3.2, “which is similar to deep invasion, poor differentiation, or perineural involvement,” Dr. Bar said. At the same time, the HR for class 2B lesions was 11.6, “so class 2B is the strongest predictor of metastasis. The class 2B HR remained statistically significant in the multivariate analysis and is three times higher than that of the next highest HR in this cohort. For example, a high-risk SCC with deep invasion is already two times more likely to metastasize. Adding a class 2B score would be over 14 times more likely to metastasize than a tumor with a class 1 result.”

DecisionDx-SCC test results can inform management decisions within established guidelines. For example, for a high-risk SCC patient who has a class 1 result, or low risk of metastasis, “you may proceed with surgery and clinical nodal exam, and then follow up a couple of times a year,” Dr. Bar said. “For a high-risk patient with a 2A or moderate risk result, you might proceed with surgical treatment plus consider imaging studies such as ultrasound, CT, PET CT, and consider referral to other specialties.”

For a high-risk patient with a 2B or high risk result, she continued, “you may want to proceed with imaging studies right away in addition to surgery and consider consultation with radiation oncology or medical oncology, as well as more frequent follow-up with nodal exams, because the class 2B patients have been shown to have a greater than 50% risk of metastasis.”

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Bar disclosed that Oregon Health & Science University has received research funding from Castle Biosciences.

[email protected]

Emerging data support the clinical validity and use of DecisionDx-SCC as a prognostic 40-gene expression profile test for patients with high-risk squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), according to Anna A. Bar, MD.

“The incidence of SCC has been growing rapidly, and the disease-related mortality is actually more than that of melanoma,” Dr. Bar, associate professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said during a virtual forum on cutaneous malignancies jointly presented by Postgraduate Institute for Medicine and Global Academy for Medical Education.

“Like many cancers, SCC management plans are guided by the risk of metastasis. The current staging systems, like NCCN, AJCC, or Brigham and Women’s systems, struggle to provide accurate data of the metastatic potential of an individual’s SCC,” she said. “Furthermore, the predictive accuracy of these systems in SCC is variable, and many patients who have high risk factors do not experience poor outcomes, while others initially classified as having less concerning tumors will go on to have metastatic disease. That is where new gene expression tests come into play.”

Developed by and commercially available from Castle Biosciences, DecisionDx-SCC classifies an individual SCC patient’s tumor into one of the categories: low (class 1), moderate (class 2A), or high (class 2B) biologic risk of metastasis. “We’re hoping that DecisionDx results can help make management decisions within established guidelines,” Dr. Bar said. The test is indicated for patients with high-risk features including tumor size greater than 2 cm; tumor location on the head, neck, hands, genitals, feet, or pretibial surface; immunosuppression; a rapidly growing tumor; a tumor with poorly defined borders; a tumor at the site of prior radiation or chronic inflammation; perineural invasion; poorly defined tumor grade, and a deep tumor beyond the subcutaneous fat.

One validity study and three clinical utility studies of DecisionDx-SCC have been published that include data from more than 1,100 patients (see Curr Med Res Opin. 2020 Aug;36[8]:1301-7; Curr Med Res Opin. 2020 Aug;36[8]:1295-1300, and J Drugs Dermatol. 2019 Oct 1;18[10]:980-4). “This is a work in progress,” said Dr. Bar, director of the university’s Mohs micrographic surgery and cutaneous oncology fellowship.

The test was validated in an another study, which was prospectively designed and used archival tissue from 33 independent academic and community centers, including Oregon Health & Science University. All 420 patients in the clinical validation study had one or more high-risk factors, meeting the definition of high risk by NCCN or Mohs Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC). Their mean age was 71 years, 73% were male, 99% were White, and 25% were immune deficient.

Of the 420 patients, 63 had metastasis, and 86% of metastases were located on the head and neck. About 30% of metastasized lesions had perineural involvement, 27% had invasion beyond subcutaneous fat, and metastasized lesions were about 1 cm wider compared with lesions that were not. The overall metastasis rate at 3 years was 15%, “which is similar to that seen in the medical literature for high-risk populations,” Dr. Bar said.

The median time to metastasis was 0.9 years and the 95th percentile was 2.7 years. “This means that the 3-year horizon for identifying events in this study enabled identification of most patients who eventually experienced metastatic events,” she said. In this cohort, approximately half of the metastatic events occurred around 11 months post diagnosis, which “may provide guidance about the timeline and duration of high-intensity follow-up with frequency of clinical visits and imaging for patients at highest risk within the first year.”

The positive predictive value of the DecisionDx-SCC is 52%, meaning that half of class 2B lesions will metastasize. “This compares favorably when you look at the lower positive predictive value of the other staging systems,” Dr. Bar said. “The negative predictive value is 93%, meaning there are not a lot of false negatives. This also compares favorably to the other staging systems.”

Kaplan-Meier analysis of metastasis-free survival showed strong separation between patients with class 1, class 2A, and class 2B results, Dr. Bar said. While the overall risk of metastasis in this patient cohort was 15%, the risk among those with a class 1 result was less than half of that. “Patients with a class 2A result behave similarly to those with traditional risk factors such as deep invasion and poor differentiation, having about a 20% risk of metastasis,” she said. “The class 2B result identifies the most worrisome SCCs, with a greater than 50% risk of metastasis. While the results distribution from routine clinical testing is not yet known, this large validation study of high-risk SCC revealed that approximately half of the patients were class 1, less than half were class 2A, and about 1 in 18 had a class 2B result.”

On univariate analyses with traditional risk factors and use of the Brigham and Women’s staging system, the hazard ratio (HR) for class 2A lesions was 3.2, “which is similar to deep invasion, poor differentiation, or perineural involvement,” Dr. Bar said. At the same time, the HR for class 2B lesions was 11.6, “so class 2B is the strongest predictor of metastasis. The class 2B HR remained statistically significant in the multivariate analysis and is three times higher than that of the next highest HR in this cohort. For example, a high-risk SCC with deep invasion is already two times more likely to metastasize. Adding a class 2B score would be over 14 times more likely to metastasize than a tumor with a class 1 result.”

DecisionDx-SCC test results can inform management decisions within established guidelines. For example, for a high-risk SCC patient who has a class 1 result, or low risk of metastasis, “you may proceed with surgery and clinical nodal exam, and then follow up a couple of times a year,” Dr. Bar said. “For a high-risk patient with a 2A or moderate risk result, you might proceed with surgical treatment plus consider imaging studies such as ultrasound, CT, PET CT, and consider referral to other specialties.”

For a high-risk patient with a 2B or high risk result, she continued, “you may want to proceed with imaging studies right away in addition to surgery and consider consultation with radiation oncology or medical oncology, as well as more frequent follow-up with nodal exams, because the class 2B patients have been shown to have a greater than 50% risk of metastasis.”

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Bar disclosed that Oregon Health & Science University has received research funding from Castle Biosciences.

[email protected]

Even in the most experienced hands, dermoscopy poses a challenge when the usual pigment clues are lacking to help distinguish melanoma from amelanotic melanoma and pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC) from nonpigmented BCC.

Copyright Dr. Jennifer A. Stein

“For me, pink lesions are challenging,” Jennifer A. Stein, MD, PhD, said during the virtual Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “How can dermoscopy help us distinguish between Spitz nevus, melanoma, clear cell acanthoma, psoriasis, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma?”

Dr. Stein, professor of dermatology at New York University, offered four tips. First, look for the shiny white perpendicular lines, otherwise known as the chrysalis or crystalline pattern. “You can only see this feature when you’re looking with polarized light,” she said. “This is why you want a dermatoscope that has polarized light, and better yet, one that you’re able to turn on and off, the hybrid kind, because then you can convince yourself that you’re looking at this feature, because it blinks on and off.”

The differential diagnosis for white shiny perpendicular lines includes dermatofibroma/scars (which is most common), Spitz and atypical genital nevi, BCC, and melanoma. “Dermatofibromas sometimes have white circles or rings in the center,” Dr. Stein said. “In BCC, the lines aren’t always perpendicular. Sometimes it’s more of a blotch or strands.”

A second tip for managing a pink lesion on dermoscopy is to look for any brown color. “When you see that combo together you have to worry,” she said. “When you see pigment network on dermoscopy, you have to put melanoma in your differential. If you see shiny white lines in something that is melanocytic, there’s a 98% specificity for melanoma.”

A third tip she offered for managing pink lesions is to check the blood vessels for clues. “For years, I was just naming the vessels based on making the diagnosis and then deciding, ‘that’s a basal cell carcinoma; those must be branching vessels,’ ” said Dr. Stein, who manages NYU’s medical dermatology faculty group practice.

However, blood vessel patterns differ. For example, branching or arborizing vessels are suggestive of BCC. “These vessels are very crisp-looking on dermoscopy,” she said. “They’re all in the same plane of focus and they look like they were drawn in with a fine point marker. That’s different from other blood vessel patterns.” She also pointed out that superficial basal cells have short, fine telangiectasias. “When you put on the polarized light, the clue is the white, shiny structures,” she said.

Dotted vessels, meanwhile, appear on dermoscopy as small red dots aligned perpendicular to the skin surface. The differential includes inflammatory lesions like psoriasis, stasis, and trauma; clear cell acanthoma (characterized by a “string of pearls” arrangement), nevi, and melanoma. “I find dermoscopy most useful in diagnosing SCC – especially squamous cell in situ,” she said. “Important clinical clues suggestive of SCC or melanoma include a solitary lesion, it’s new, it’s growing, and it’s not going away with a topical steroid.”

An additional pattern to be aware of are hairpin vessels, which are looped and feature a sharp bend at one end. These are often seen in seborrheic keratoses. “You can’t count on the hairpin vessels alone, because you can see this in anything keratotic, such as in keratoacanthoma (at the periphery with a yellow keratotic center), warts, SCC, BCC, as well as in dermal nevi and Spitz nevi,” said Dr. Stein, who recommended dermoscopedia.org as resource.

Comma vessels, meanwhile, appear in dermal or compound nevi. She described these as “slightly curved vessels that are much less in focus than branched vessels, because they come in and out of the plane of focus,” she said. “If you put your dermatoscope on top of the nevus and wobble it around you can appreciate the curve. If you look at it from the side, it looks like a curve. If you look at it straight on it will look more like a line. If you look at from the end it will look like a dot.”

Another vessel type she discussed are linear irregular and polymorphous vessels, which she described as “any combination of different types of vessels. We get most worried when we see dotted and linear irregular vessels together. In that case, you worry about melanoma. These can also be seen in nevi and other tumors, such as BCC.”

Dr. Stein’s fourth tip of the presentation was a reminder to consider dermoscopy as one piece of the clinical exam. “Always think about the lesion in context of the rest of the clinical picture and history,” she said. “Don’t get discouraged if it’s hard; just keep practicing. Look for any brown and use your clinical clues to put together to make the right decision.”

She disclosed that NYU receives compensation from MoleSafe for her telemedicine dermoscopic diagnoses.

[email protected]

Even in the most experienced hands, dermoscopy poses a challenge when the usual pigment clues are lacking to help distinguish melanoma from amelanotic melanoma and pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC) from nonpigmented BCC.

Copyright Dr. Jennifer A. Stein

“For me, pink lesions are challenging,” Jennifer A. Stein, MD, PhD, said during the virtual Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “How can dermoscopy help us distinguish between Spitz nevus, melanoma, clear cell acanthoma, psoriasis, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma?”

Dr. Stein, professor of dermatology at New York University, offered four tips. First, look for the shiny white perpendicular lines, otherwise known as the chrysalis or crystalline pattern. “You can only see this feature when you’re looking with polarized light,” she said. “This is why you want a dermatoscope that has polarized light, and better yet, one that you’re able to turn on and off, the hybrid kind, because then you can convince yourself that you’re looking at this feature, because it blinks on and off.”

The differential diagnosis for white shiny perpendicular lines includes dermatofibroma/scars (which is most common), Spitz and atypical genital nevi, BCC, and melanoma. “Dermatofibromas sometimes have white circles or rings in the center,” Dr. Stein said. “In BCC, the lines aren’t always perpendicular. Sometimes it’s more of a blotch or strands.”

A second tip for managing a pink lesion on dermoscopy is to look for any brown color. “When you see that combo together you have to worry,” she said. “When you see pigment network on dermoscopy, you have to put melanoma in your differential. If you see shiny white lines in something that is melanocytic, there’s a 98% specificity for melanoma.”

A third tip she offered for managing pink lesions is to check the blood vessels for clues. “For years, I was just naming the vessels based on making the diagnosis and then deciding, ‘that’s a basal cell carcinoma; those must be branching vessels,’ ” said Dr. Stein, who manages NYU’s medical dermatology faculty group practice.

However, blood vessel patterns differ. For example, branching or arborizing vessels are suggestive of BCC. “These vessels are very crisp-looking on dermoscopy,” she said. “They’re all in the same plane of focus and they look like they were drawn in with a fine point marker. That’s different from other blood vessel patterns.” She also pointed out that superficial basal cells have short, fine telangiectasias. “When you put on the polarized light, the clue is the white, shiny structures,” she said.

Dotted vessels, meanwhile, appear on dermoscopy as small red dots aligned perpendicular to the skin surface. The differential includes inflammatory lesions like psoriasis, stasis, and trauma; clear cell acanthoma (characterized by a “string of pearls” arrangement), nevi, and melanoma. “I find dermoscopy most useful in diagnosing SCC – especially squamous cell in situ,” she said. “Important clinical clues suggestive of SCC or melanoma include a solitary lesion, it’s new, it’s growing, and it’s not going away with a topical steroid.”

An additional pattern to be aware of are hairpin vessels, which are looped and feature a sharp bend at one end. These are often seen in seborrheic keratoses. “You can’t count on the hairpin vessels alone, because you can see this in anything keratotic, such as in keratoacanthoma (at the periphery with a yellow keratotic center), warts, SCC, BCC, as well as in dermal nevi and Spitz nevi,” said Dr. Stein, who recommended dermoscopedia.org as resource.

Comma vessels, meanwhile, appear in dermal or compound nevi. She described these as “slightly curved vessels that are much less in focus than branched vessels, because they come in and out of the plane of focus,” she said. “If you put your dermatoscope on top of the nevus and wobble it around you can appreciate the curve. If you look at it from the side, it looks like a curve. If you look at it straight on it will look more like a line. If you look at from the end it will look like a dot.”

Another vessel type she discussed are linear irregular and polymorphous vessels, which she described as “any combination of different types of vessels. We get most worried when we see dotted and linear irregular vessels together. In that case, you worry about melanoma. These can also be seen in nevi and other tumors, such as BCC.”

Dr. Stein’s fourth tip of the presentation was a reminder to consider dermoscopy as one piece of the clinical exam. “Always think about the lesion in context of the rest of the clinical picture and history,” she said. “Don’t get discouraged if it’s hard; just keep practicing. Look for any brown and use your clinical clues to put together to make the right decision.”

She disclosed that NYU receives compensation from MoleSafe for her telemedicine dermoscopic diagnoses.

[email protected]

Even in the most experienced hands, dermoscopy poses a challenge when the usual pigment clues are lacking to help distinguish melanoma from amelanotic melanoma and pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC) from nonpigmented BCC.

Copyright Dr. Jennifer A. Stein

“For me, pink lesions are challenging,” Jennifer A. Stein, MD, PhD, said during the virtual Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “How can dermoscopy help us distinguish between Spitz nevus, melanoma, clear cell acanthoma, psoriasis, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma?”

Dr. Stein, professor of dermatology at New York University, offered four tips. First, look for the shiny white perpendicular lines, otherwise known as the chrysalis or crystalline pattern. “You can only see this feature when you’re looking with polarized light,” she said. “This is why you want a dermatoscope that has polarized light, and better yet, one that you’re able to turn on and off, the hybrid kind, because then you can convince yourself that you’re looking at this feature, because it blinks on and off.”

The differential diagnosis for white shiny perpendicular lines includes dermatofibroma/scars (which is most common), Spitz and atypical genital nevi, BCC, and melanoma. “Dermatofibromas sometimes have white circles or rings in the center,” Dr. Stein said. “In BCC, the lines aren’t always perpendicular. Sometimes it’s more of a blotch or strands.”

A second tip for managing a pink lesion on dermoscopy is to look for any brown color. “When you see that combo together you have to worry,” she said. “When you see pigment network on dermoscopy, you have to put melanoma in your differential. If you see shiny white lines in something that is melanocytic, there’s a 98% specificity for melanoma.”

A third tip she offered for managing pink lesions is to check the blood vessels for clues. “For years, I was just naming the vessels based on making the diagnosis and then deciding, ‘that’s a basal cell carcinoma; those must be branching vessels,’ ” said Dr. Stein, who manages NYU’s medical dermatology faculty group practice.

However, blood vessel patterns differ. For example, branching or arborizing vessels are suggestive of BCC. “These vessels are very crisp-looking on dermoscopy,” she said. “They’re all in the same plane of focus and they look like they were drawn in with a fine point marker. That’s different from other blood vessel patterns.” She also pointed out that superficial basal cells have short, fine telangiectasias. “When you put on the polarized light, the clue is the white, shiny structures,” she said.

Dotted vessels, meanwhile, appear on dermoscopy as small red dots aligned perpendicular to the skin surface. The differential includes inflammatory lesions like psoriasis, stasis, and trauma; clear cell acanthoma (characterized by a “string of pearls” arrangement), nevi, and melanoma. “I find dermoscopy most useful in diagnosing SCC – especially squamous cell in situ,” she said. “Important clinical clues suggestive of SCC or melanoma include a solitary lesion, it’s new, it’s growing, and it’s not going away with a topical steroid.”

An additional pattern to be aware of are hairpin vessels, which are looped and feature a sharp bend at one end. These are often seen in seborrheic keratoses. “You can’t count on the hairpin vessels alone, because you can see this in anything keratotic, such as in keratoacanthoma (at the periphery with a yellow keratotic center), warts, SCC, BCC, as well as in dermal nevi and Spitz nevi,” said Dr. Stein, who recommended dermoscopedia.org as resource.

Comma vessels, meanwhile, appear in dermal or compound nevi. She described these as “slightly curved vessels that are much less in focus than branched vessels, because they come in and out of the plane of focus,” she said. “If you put your dermatoscope on top of the nevus and wobble it around you can appreciate the curve. If you look at it from the side, it looks like a curve. If you look at it straight on it will look more like a line. If you look at from the end it will look like a dot.”

Another vessel type she discussed are linear irregular and polymorphous vessels, which she described as “any combination of different types of vessels. We get most worried when we see dotted and linear irregular vessels together. In that case, you worry about melanoma. These can also be seen in nevi and other tumors, such as BCC.”

Dr. Stein’s fourth tip of the presentation was a reminder to consider dermoscopy as one piece of the clinical exam. “Always think about the lesion in context of the rest of the clinical picture and history,” she said. “Don’t get discouraged if it’s hard; just keep practicing. Look for any brown and use your clinical clues to put together to make the right decision.”

She disclosed that NYU receives compensation from MoleSafe for her telemedicine dermoscopic diagnoses.

[email protected]