Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

To the Editor:

A recent Cutis article, “Merkel Cell Carcinoma in a Vein Graft Donor Site” (Cutis. 2016;97:364-367), highlighted the localization of a Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) within a well-healed scar resulting from a vein harvesting procedure performed 18 years prior to presentation. Their discussion focused on factors that may have contributed to the development of the MCC at that specific location. As noted by the authors, this case does not classically fit under the umbrella of a Marjolin ulcer given the stable, well-healed clinical appearance of the scar. We agree and believe it is not secondary to chance either but consistent with Wolf isotopic response.

This concept was originally described by Wyburn-Mason in 1955¹ and later revived by Wolf et al.² Wolf isotopic response describes the development of dermatologic disorders that localize to a site of another distinct and clinically healed skin disorder. Originally, it was reserved for infections, malignancies, and immune conditions restricted to a site of a prior herpetic infection but recently has been expanded to encompass other primary nonherpesvirus-related skin disorders. The pathophysiology behind this phenomenon is unknown but thought to be the interplay of several key elements including immune dysregulation, neural, vascular, and locus minoris resistentiae (ie, a site of lessened resistance).³ Immunosuppression is a known risk factor in the development of MCCs,⁴ thus the proposed local immune dysregulation within a scar may alter the virus-host balance and foster the oncogenic nature of the MCC polyomavirus. A recent article describes another case of an MCC arising within a sternotomy scar,⁵ lending further credibility to a skin vulnerability philosophy. These cases provide further insight into the pathomechanisms involved in the development of this rare and aggressive neoplasm and sheds light on an intriguing dermatologic phenomenon.

To the Editor:

A recent Cutis article, “Merkel Cell Carcinoma in a Vein Graft Donor Site” (Cutis. 2016;97:364-367), highlighted the localization of a Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) within a well-healed scar resulting from a vein harvesting procedure performed 18 years prior to presentation. Their discussion focused on factors that may have contributed to the development of the MCC at that specific location. As noted by the authors, this case does not classically fit under the umbrella of a Marjolin ulcer given the stable, well-healed clinical appearance of the scar. We agree and believe it is not secondary to chance either but consistent with Wolf isotopic response.

This concept was originally described by Wyburn-Mason in 1955¹ and later revived by Wolf et al.² Wolf isotopic response describes the development of dermatologic disorders that localize to a site of another distinct and clinically healed skin disorder. Originally, it was reserved for infections, malignancies, and immune conditions restricted to a site of a prior herpetic infection but recently has been expanded to encompass other primary nonherpesvirus-related skin disorders. The pathophysiology behind this phenomenon is unknown but thought to be the interplay of several key elements including immune dysregulation, neural, vascular, and locus minoris resistentiae (ie, a site of lessened resistance).³ Immunosuppression is a known risk factor in the development of MCCs,⁴ thus the proposed local immune dysregulation within a scar may alter the virus-host balance and foster the oncogenic nature of the MCC polyomavirus. A recent article describes another case of an MCC arising within a sternotomy scar,⁵ lending further credibility to a skin vulnerability philosophy. These cases provide further insight into the pathomechanisms involved in the development of this rare and aggressive neoplasm and sheds light on an intriguing dermatologic phenomenon.

To the Editor:

A recent Cutis article, “Merkel Cell Carcinoma in a Vein Graft Donor Site” (Cutis. 2016;97:364-367), highlighted the localization of a Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) within a well-healed scar resulting from a vein harvesting procedure performed 18 years prior to presentation. Their discussion focused on factors that may have contributed to the development of the MCC at that specific location. As noted by the authors, this case does not classically fit under the umbrella of a Marjolin ulcer given the stable, well-healed clinical appearance of the scar. We agree and believe it is not secondary to chance either but consistent with Wolf isotopic response.

This concept was originally described by Wyburn-Mason in 1955¹ and later revived by Wolf et al.² Wolf isotopic response describes the development of dermatologic disorders that localize to a site of another distinct and clinically healed skin disorder. Originally, it was reserved for infections, malignancies, and immune conditions restricted to a site of a prior herpetic infection but recently has been expanded to encompass other primary nonherpesvirus-related skin disorders. The pathophysiology behind this phenomenon is unknown but thought to be the interplay of several key elements including immune dysregulation, neural, vascular, and locus minoris resistentiae (ie, a site of lessened resistance).³ Immunosuppression is a known risk factor in the development of MCCs,⁴ thus the proposed local immune dysregulation within a scar may alter the virus-host balance and foster the oncogenic nature of the MCC polyomavirus. A recent article describes another case of an MCC arising within a sternotomy scar,⁵ lending further credibility to a skin vulnerability philosophy. These cases provide further insight into the pathomechanisms involved in the development of this rare and aggressive neoplasm and sheds light on an intriguing dermatologic phenomenon.

To the Editor:

A 34-year-old man presented with fever, easy bruising, and pancytopenia with increased peripheral blasts of 77%. Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with 80% to 90% involvement by acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) with complex cytogenetics: 47,XY,t(4;17;18)(p16;q21,q25;q21.1),+8, ins(15;17)(q22;q21q25). He underwent induction chemotherapy with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and idarubicin, which was complicated by differentiation syndrome that presented with fever and fluid retention. Discontinuation of ATRA and initiation of dexamethasone led to resolution of the symptoms. Complete hematologic and molecular remission was achieved after the induction chemotherapy.

Following a risk-adapted treatment protocol for consolidation therapy,¹ he underwent an uneventful first cycle of consolidation therapy. On day 15 of the second cycle of consolidation therapy with ATRA and mitoxantrone he was hospitalized with a fever (temperature, 38°C) in a setting of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC], 0/µL [reference range, 1500–7200/µL]). He was empirically treated with ceftazidime and vancomycin and maintained on prophylactic acyclovir and fluconazole. Routine workup was negative for infection. He became afebrile within 24 hours. With negative infectious workup, vancomycin was discontinued on day 17. On day 33 he again developed a fever (temperature, 38.8°C) when the ANC started to recover (570/µL). A new skin rash was noted at this time. Physical examination revealed generalized, nonpruritic, tender, pink papules and plaques with dusky centers and central pustules on the trunk as well as the upper and lower extremities. The palms and soles were spared. The rash was somewhat reminiscent of Sweet syndrome (SS). No vesicles, bullae, or erosions were seen (Figure 1). Repeat blood and urine cultures and chest radiograph were unremarkable. Ceftazidime was discontinued due to concern of drug-associated rash. Within the next 48 hours, the patient developed rigors and a worsening rash that led to reinitiation of broad-spectrum antibiotic coverage with meropenem and vancomycin. Computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis did not show any evidence of infection or other abnormalities. Skin biopsy showed an acute folliculitis and multiple foci of mixed granulomatous inflammation consisting of histiocytes, lymphocytes, and neutrophils with focal necrosis present in the dermis, dermis-subcutis junction, and subcutis (Figure 2). Diagnostic features of vasculitis were not seen. Viral cytopathic features were not identified. Tissue culture and special stains including Gram, acid-fast bacteria, and Grocott methenamine silver stains were negative for infectious organisms in the biopsy. Both direct fluorescent antibody study and cell cultures for varicella-zoster virus, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus also were negative.

In the absence of microorganisms on skin biopsy and low clinical suspicion of infection, vancomycin and meropenem were discontinued on day 35 and empiric treatment with oral prednisone 40 mg daily was initiated on day 38, which resulted in a rapid improvement of the patient’s rash within 24 hours with complete resolution after a 7-day course of prednisone. Notably, the patient manifested concomitant recovery of the ANC. The patient completed his last cycle of consolidation therapy with ATRA and idarubicin without further complications and remains in molecular remission.

Neutrophilic dermatoses (NDs) are a group of disorders characterized by neutrophilic cutaneous infiltration without evidence of infection. These entities include SS, pyoderma gangrenosum, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, erythema elevatum diutinum, and neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis.² Neutrophilic dermatoses commonly present with acute onset of skin lesions and fever. Underlying systemic disease such as malignancy, inflammatory disease, autoimmune disease, pregnancy, and medications are known to be associated with ND. Although the rash clinically was reminiscent of SS, the histopathologic features were inconsistent with SS. Sweet syndrome typically presents with extensive monotonous neutrophilic infiltrates in the dermis. In this case, the neutrophilic infiltrates were localized and associated with the hair follicle, in the dermis and subcutis, and were accompanied by a granulomatous inflammation. Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis clinically is similar to SS and the distinction usually is made on the basis of histopathologic examination. Lack of the neutrophilic infiltrates within the eccrine secretary coils in our case did not support the diagnosis of neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis.

Although the histopathologic features of the presented case were inconsistent with a particular subtype of ND, the clinical presentation and response to corticosteroids suggested that this unusual mixed inflammatory skin reaction might share a similar pathophysiologic mechanism.

A review of 20 patients with sterile neutrophilic folliculitis demonstrated an association with systemic diseases including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, monoclonal gammopathy, Crohn disease, and autoimmune disorders.³ In acute myeloid leukemia, sterile neutrophilic folliculitis may be part of the initial presentation and responds to induction chemotherapy.⁴ An extensive search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms folliculitis, APL, and neutrophilic dermatoses did not reveal any prior reports of isolated neutrophilic folliculitis or mixed granulomatous reaction in patients with APL in molecular remission.

Although rare, cases of ATRA-induced SS have been reported. Some authors believe that SS in APL may represent a partial form of differentiation syndrome.⁵ Those cases usually occur during first induction. However, a recurrent episode of differentiation syndrome cannot be excluded in this patient.

A cutaneous reaction to chemotherapy with mitoxantrone as a cause also should be considered, given that the rash occurred only during the second cycle of consolidation therapy when mitoxantrone was used. However, this rash is rare in patients receiving mitoxantrone. The late onset of the rash from the time of last mitoxantrone administration argues against this diagnosis.

In summary, we describe an unusual presentation of a sterile mixed inflammatory skin reaction that occurred in a setting of neutrophil recovery following a second cycle of induction chemotherapy with ATRA and mitoxantrone for APL.

To the Editor:

A 34-year-old man presented with fever, easy bruising, and pancytopenia with increased peripheral blasts of 77%. Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with 80% to 90% involvement by acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) with complex cytogenetics: 47,XY,t(4;17;18)(p16;q21,q25;q21.1),+8, ins(15;17)(q22;q21q25). He underwent induction chemotherapy with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and idarubicin, which was complicated by differentiation syndrome that presented with fever and fluid retention. Discontinuation of ATRA and initiation of dexamethasone led to resolution of the symptoms. Complete hematologic and molecular remission was achieved after the induction chemotherapy.

Following a risk-adapted treatment protocol for consolidation therapy,¹ he underwent an uneventful first cycle of consolidation therapy. On day 15 of the second cycle of consolidation therapy with ATRA and mitoxantrone he was hospitalized with a fever (temperature, 38°C) in a setting of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC], 0/µL [reference range, 1500–7200/µL]). He was empirically treated with ceftazidime and vancomycin and maintained on prophylactic acyclovir and fluconazole. Routine workup was negative for infection. He became afebrile within 24 hours. With negative infectious workup, vancomycin was discontinued on day 17. On day 33 he again developed a fever (temperature, 38.8°C) when the ANC started to recover (570/µL). A new skin rash was noted at this time. Physical examination revealed generalized, nonpruritic, tender, pink papules and plaques with dusky centers and central pustules on the trunk as well as the upper and lower extremities. The palms and soles were spared. The rash was somewhat reminiscent of Sweet syndrome (SS). No vesicles, bullae, or erosions were seen (Figure 1). Repeat blood and urine cultures and chest radiograph were unremarkable. Ceftazidime was discontinued due to concern of drug-associated rash. Within the next 48 hours, the patient developed rigors and a worsening rash that led to reinitiation of broad-spectrum antibiotic coverage with meropenem and vancomycin. Computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis did not show any evidence of infection or other abnormalities. Skin biopsy showed an acute folliculitis and multiple foci of mixed granulomatous inflammation consisting of histiocytes, lymphocytes, and neutrophils with focal necrosis present in the dermis, dermis-subcutis junction, and subcutis (Figure 2). Diagnostic features of vasculitis were not seen. Viral cytopathic features were not identified. Tissue culture and special stains including Gram, acid-fast bacteria, and Grocott methenamine silver stains were negative for infectious organisms in the biopsy. Both direct fluorescent antibody study and cell cultures for varicella-zoster virus, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus also were negative.

In the absence of microorganisms on skin biopsy and low clinical suspicion of infection, vancomycin and meropenem were discontinued on day 35 and empiric treatment with oral prednisone 40 mg daily was initiated on day 38, which resulted in a rapid improvement of the patient’s rash within 24 hours with complete resolution after a 7-day course of prednisone. Notably, the patient manifested concomitant recovery of the ANC. The patient completed his last cycle of consolidation therapy with ATRA and idarubicin without further complications and remains in molecular remission.

Neutrophilic dermatoses (NDs) are a group of disorders characterized by neutrophilic cutaneous infiltration without evidence of infection. These entities include SS, pyoderma gangrenosum, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, erythema elevatum diutinum, and neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis.² Neutrophilic dermatoses commonly present with acute onset of skin lesions and fever. Underlying systemic disease such as malignancy, inflammatory disease, autoimmune disease, pregnancy, and medications are known to be associated with ND. Although the rash clinically was reminiscent of SS, the histopathologic features were inconsistent with SS. Sweet syndrome typically presents with extensive monotonous neutrophilic infiltrates in the dermis. In this case, the neutrophilic infiltrates were localized and associated with the hair follicle, in the dermis and subcutis, and were accompanied by a granulomatous inflammation. Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis clinically is similar to SS and the distinction usually is made on the basis of histopathologic examination. Lack of the neutrophilic infiltrates within the eccrine secretary coils in our case did not support the diagnosis of neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis.

Although the histopathologic features of the presented case were inconsistent with a particular subtype of ND, the clinical presentation and response to corticosteroids suggested that this unusual mixed inflammatory skin reaction might share a similar pathophysiologic mechanism.

A review of 20 patients with sterile neutrophilic folliculitis demonstrated an association with systemic diseases including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, monoclonal gammopathy, Crohn disease, and autoimmune disorders.³ In acute myeloid leukemia, sterile neutrophilic folliculitis may be part of the initial presentation and responds to induction chemotherapy.⁴ An extensive search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms folliculitis, APL, and neutrophilic dermatoses did not reveal any prior reports of isolated neutrophilic folliculitis or mixed granulomatous reaction in patients with APL in molecular remission.

Although rare, cases of ATRA-induced SS have been reported. Some authors believe that SS in APL may represent a partial form of differentiation syndrome.⁵ Those cases usually occur during first induction. However, a recurrent episode of differentiation syndrome cannot be excluded in this patient.

A cutaneous reaction to chemotherapy with mitoxantrone as a cause also should be considered, given that the rash occurred only during the second cycle of consolidation therapy when mitoxantrone was used. However, this rash is rare in patients receiving mitoxantrone. The late onset of the rash from the time of last mitoxantrone administration argues against this diagnosis.

In summary, we describe an unusual presentation of a sterile mixed inflammatory skin reaction that occurred in a setting of neutrophil recovery following a second cycle of induction chemotherapy with ATRA and mitoxantrone for APL.

To the Editor:

A 34-year-old man presented with fever, easy bruising, and pancytopenia with increased peripheral blasts of 77%. Bone marrow biopsy showed hypercellular marrow with 80% to 90% involvement by acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) with complex cytogenetics: 47,XY,t(4;17;18)(p16;q21,q25;q21.1),+8, ins(15;17)(q22;q21q25). He underwent induction chemotherapy with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and idarubicin, which was complicated by differentiation syndrome that presented with fever and fluid retention. Discontinuation of ATRA and initiation of dexamethasone led to resolution of the symptoms. Complete hematologic and molecular remission was achieved after the induction chemotherapy.

Following a risk-adapted treatment protocol for consolidation therapy,¹ he underwent an uneventful first cycle of consolidation therapy. On day 15 of the second cycle of consolidation therapy with ATRA and mitoxantrone he was hospitalized with a fever (temperature, 38°C) in a setting of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC], 0/µL [reference range, 1500–7200/µL]). He was empirically treated with ceftazidime and vancomycin and maintained on prophylactic acyclovir and fluconazole. Routine workup was negative for infection. He became afebrile within 24 hours. With negative infectious workup, vancomycin was discontinued on day 17. On day 33 he again developed a fever (temperature, 38.8°C) when the ANC started to recover (570/µL). A new skin rash was noted at this time. Physical examination revealed generalized, nonpruritic, tender, pink papules and plaques with dusky centers and central pustules on the trunk as well as the upper and lower extremities. The palms and soles were spared. The rash was somewhat reminiscent of Sweet syndrome (SS). No vesicles, bullae, or erosions were seen (Figure 1). Repeat blood and urine cultures and chest radiograph were unremarkable. Ceftazidime was discontinued due to concern of drug-associated rash. Within the next 48 hours, the patient developed rigors and a worsening rash that led to reinitiation of broad-spectrum antibiotic coverage with meropenem and vancomycin. Computed tomography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis did not show any evidence of infection or other abnormalities. Skin biopsy showed an acute folliculitis and multiple foci of mixed granulomatous inflammation consisting of histiocytes, lymphocytes, and neutrophils with focal necrosis present in the dermis, dermis-subcutis junction, and subcutis (Figure 2). Diagnostic features of vasculitis were not seen. Viral cytopathic features were not identified. Tissue culture and special stains including Gram, acid-fast bacteria, and Grocott methenamine silver stains were negative for infectious organisms in the biopsy. Both direct fluorescent antibody study and cell cultures for varicella-zoster virus, cytomegalovirus, and herpes simplex virus also were negative.

In the absence of microorganisms on skin biopsy and low clinical suspicion of infection, vancomycin and meropenem were discontinued on day 35 and empiric treatment with oral prednisone 40 mg daily was initiated on day 38, which resulted in a rapid improvement of the patient’s rash within 24 hours with complete resolution after a 7-day course of prednisone. Notably, the patient manifested concomitant recovery of the ANC. The patient completed his last cycle of consolidation therapy with ATRA and idarubicin without further complications and remains in molecular remission.

Neutrophilic dermatoses (NDs) are a group of disorders characterized by neutrophilic cutaneous infiltration without evidence of infection. These entities include SS, pyoderma gangrenosum, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, erythema elevatum diutinum, and neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis.² Neutrophilic dermatoses commonly present with acute onset of skin lesions and fever. Underlying systemic disease such as malignancy, inflammatory disease, autoimmune disease, pregnancy, and medications are known to be associated with ND. Although the rash clinically was reminiscent of SS, the histopathologic features were inconsistent with SS. Sweet syndrome typically presents with extensive monotonous neutrophilic infiltrates in the dermis. In this case, the neutrophilic infiltrates were localized and associated with the hair follicle, in the dermis and subcutis, and were accompanied by a granulomatous inflammation. Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis clinically is similar to SS and the distinction usually is made on the basis of histopathologic examination. Lack of the neutrophilic infiltrates within the eccrine secretary coils in our case did not support the diagnosis of neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis.

Although the histopathologic features of the presented case were inconsistent with a particular subtype of ND, the clinical presentation and response to corticosteroids suggested that this unusual mixed inflammatory skin reaction might share a similar pathophysiologic mechanism.

A review of 20 patients with sterile neutrophilic folliculitis demonstrated an association with systemic diseases including cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, monoclonal gammopathy, Crohn disease, and autoimmune disorders.³ In acute myeloid leukemia, sterile neutrophilic folliculitis may be part of the initial presentation and responds to induction chemotherapy.⁴ An extensive search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using the search terms folliculitis, APL, and neutrophilic dermatoses did not reveal any prior reports of isolated neutrophilic folliculitis or mixed granulomatous reaction in patients with APL in molecular remission.

Although rare, cases of ATRA-induced SS have been reported. Some authors believe that SS in APL may represent a partial form of differentiation syndrome.⁵ Those cases usually occur during first induction. However, a recurrent episode of differentiation syndrome cannot be excluded in this patient.

A cutaneous reaction to chemotherapy with mitoxantrone as a cause also should be considered, given that the rash occurred only during the second cycle of consolidation therapy when mitoxantrone was used. However, this rash is rare in patients receiving mitoxantrone. The late onset of the rash from the time of last mitoxantrone administration argues against this diagnosis.

In summary, we describe an unusual presentation of a sterile mixed inflammatory skin reaction that occurred in a setting of neutrophil recovery following a second cycle of induction chemotherapy with ATRA and mitoxantrone for APL.

To the Editor:

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis (EV) is a rare autosomal-recessive genodermatosis characterized by widespread infection with specific strains of human papillomavirus (HPV). Patients with EV have a unique susceptibility to acquire HPV due to defects in cellular immunity to the presenting antigens.¹ These defects may be related to mutations of the EVER genes or due to acquisition of an immunosuppressive condition.^2,3 Infections with HPV-3 and HPV-10 do not lead to the development of malignancies. However, infection with HPV-5, HPV-8, and HPV-14 can lead to the development of nonmelanoma skin cancers, usually squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs), in approximately 60% of patients.^3,4 This viral condition lasts throughout the patient’s lifetime and presents as tinea versicolor–like macules and patches. These lesions may be confused with seborrheic keratosis or verruca plana.⁵ Lesions typically are hypopigmented but occasionally may be hyperpigmented or erythematous. They often are found on the trunk, but lesions on the face, arms, palms, legs, and soles have been reported.⁵ Mucous membranes are always spared. Epidermodysplasia verruciformis often presents in childhood, except in cases related to acquired immunosuppression. The condition has no sex or racial predilection and no geographical preference.⁵

A 7-year-old boy (Fitzpatrick skin type V) presented with an asymptomatic rash on the trunk (Figure 1), dorsal aspect of the hands, and forehead. The lesions first appeared 5 years prior on the upper back and upper chest and had recently spread to the forehead and frontal aspect of the scalp. The patient had a history of myelomeningocele, which was corrected at birth with surgical placement of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. The patient was otherwise healthy and met all appropriate developmental milestones for his age group. Family history revealed consanguinity of the patient’s paternal grandparents who were first cousins. The patient’s mother denied any other family member having similar rashes or lesions.

The patient had been treated for pityriasis versicolor on and off for 2 years by another dermatologist. His mother reported faithfully applying ketoconazole cream twice daily for several months with no improvement. She also reported using topical steroids, which did not provide any benefit. The patient and mother denied any associated pruritus, bleeding, burning, or physical discomfort.

Skin examination revealed diffuse, flat, polymorphous, hypopigmented and salmon-colored hyperkeratotic macules and patches with mild scaling on the upper region of the anterior aspect of the chest and upper back (Figure 2A). Additionally, the patient had an extensive number of lesions on the forehead and frontal aspect of the scalp (Figure 2B).

A shave biopsy demonstrated a thick basket weave stratum corneum, koilocytes, and large pale keratinocytes with characteristic blue cytoplasm. These findings were characteristic for EV.

At the patient’s 3-month follow-up visit, he again denied any symptoms associated with the lesions and reported that the appearance was diminishing in severity. On examination there was no evidence of SCC. The mother was advised to discontinue all topical treatments for the patient and return to the office every 3 to 6 months for regular skin surveillance. The mother was further advised to protect the patient from UV radiation with sunscreen and sun-protective clothing.

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis was first reported by Lewandowsky and Lutz⁶ in 1922. This rare condition often presents in childhood and is characterized by a persistent HPV infection and an autosomal-recessive inheritance pattern. Reports in the literature frequently involve kindreds. Often, patients with EV have a family history of first-degree or second-degree consanguinity.⁷

The clinical presentation of EV often resembles a pityriasis versicolor–like eruption. However, pityriasis versicolor is less commonly seen in childhood and is more prevalent in patients aged 21 to 30 years, likely due to increased sebum production and changing hormone levels. Furthermore, it is unusual to see pityriasis versicolor affect the face and scalp.⁸ Lesions of EV vary from hypopigmented and pinkish red macules to confluent patches and hyperkeratotic verrucalike lesions.³ Clinical characteristics also may include dyschromic patches; lesions that resemble flat warts on the trunk, face, and distal arms; and/or lesions that appear similar to seborrheic keratoses on the dorsal aspect of the hands.^9,10

Mutations of the EVER gene downregulate a cell’s ability to adequately attack the HPV antigens.¹¹ Although some patients with EV are found to have mutations of the EVER1 and EVER2 genes, a notable portion of patients with EV lack these mutations. Three other causes of EV include acquisition of immunosuppressive conditions including lymphoma, solid organ transplant, and human immunodeficiency virus. If one suspects autosomal-recessive inheritance of EV, genetic testing such as polymerase chain reaction DNA fragment analysis can be performed to determine if there are mutations on the EVER1 or EVER2 genes.¹²

The inability of patients with EV to mount an immune response to multiple types of HPV increases the risk for developing cutaneous malignancies.⁷ Additionally, it is known that UV radiation diminishes skin cell immunity, and the combination of EV and UV radiation further increases the risk for developing SCCs.¹¹ The development of nonmelanoma skin cancers usually occurs on sun-exposed skin 20 to 30 years after the onset of lesions, with the highest occurrence of SCCs presenting in the fourth decade of life.¹

Protection from UV light exposure is critical to reduce the risk for malignancy. Treatment options for EV lesions have included topical imiquimod 5%, 5-fluorouracil, oral isotretinoin, and intralesional interferon alfa, but patients are often refractory to these interventions. Curettage, surgical excision, electrosurgery, and laser ablation can be effective for individual lesions but carry a greater risk for scarring.¹ Photodynamic therapy with aminolevulinic acid and blue light represents a promising option that deserves further study.

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis should be considered as a differential diagnosis in all patients presenting with disseminated lesions resembling pityriasis versicolor that are unresponsive to treatment. A biopsy will help to establish the diagnosis. Patients should minimize sun exposure and report any skin lesions that are changing in appearance.

To the Editor:

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis (EV) is a rare autosomal-recessive genodermatosis characterized by widespread infection with specific strains of human papillomavirus (HPV). Patients with EV have a unique susceptibility to acquire HPV due to defects in cellular immunity to the presenting antigens.¹ These defects may be related to mutations of the EVER genes or due to acquisition of an immunosuppressive condition.^2,3 Infections with HPV-3 and HPV-10 do not lead to the development of malignancies. However, infection with HPV-5, HPV-8, and HPV-14 can lead to the development of nonmelanoma skin cancers, usually squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs), in approximately 60% of patients.^3,4 This viral condition lasts throughout the patient’s lifetime and presents as tinea versicolor–like macules and patches. These lesions may be confused with seborrheic keratosis or verruca plana.⁵ Lesions typically are hypopigmented but occasionally may be hyperpigmented or erythematous. They often are found on the trunk, but lesions on the face, arms, palms, legs, and soles have been reported.⁵ Mucous membranes are always spared. Epidermodysplasia verruciformis often presents in childhood, except in cases related to acquired immunosuppression. The condition has no sex or racial predilection and no geographical preference.⁵

A 7-year-old boy (Fitzpatrick skin type V) presented with an asymptomatic rash on the trunk (Figure 1), dorsal aspect of the hands, and forehead. The lesions first appeared 5 years prior on the upper back and upper chest and had recently spread to the forehead and frontal aspect of the scalp. The patient had a history of myelomeningocele, which was corrected at birth with surgical placement of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. The patient was otherwise healthy and met all appropriate developmental milestones for his age group. Family history revealed consanguinity of the patient’s paternal grandparents who were first cousins. The patient’s mother denied any other family member having similar rashes or lesions.

The patient had been treated for pityriasis versicolor on and off for 2 years by another dermatologist. His mother reported faithfully applying ketoconazole cream twice daily for several months with no improvement. She also reported using topical steroids, which did not provide any benefit. The patient and mother denied any associated pruritus, bleeding, burning, or physical discomfort.

Skin examination revealed diffuse, flat, polymorphous, hypopigmented and salmon-colored hyperkeratotic macules and patches with mild scaling on the upper region of the anterior aspect of the chest and upper back (Figure 2A). Additionally, the patient had an extensive number of lesions on the forehead and frontal aspect of the scalp (Figure 2B).

A shave biopsy demonstrated a thick basket weave stratum corneum, koilocytes, and large pale keratinocytes with characteristic blue cytoplasm. These findings were characteristic for EV.

At the patient’s 3-month follow-up visit, he again denied any symptoms associated with the lesions and reported that the appearance was diminishing in severity. On examination there was no evidence of SCC. The mother was advised to discontinue all topical treatments for the patient and return to the office every 3 to 6 months for regular skin surveillance. The mother was further advised to protect the patient from UV radiation with sunscreen and sun-protective clothing.

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis was first reported by Lewandowsky and Lutz⁶ in 1922. This rare condition often presents in childhood and is characterized by a persistent HPV infection and an autosomal-recessive inheritance pattern. Reports in the literature frequently involve kindreds. Often, patients with EV have a family history of first-degree or second-degree consanguinity.⁷

The clinical presentation of EV often resembles a pityriasis versicolor–like eruption. However, pityriasis versicolor is less commonly seen in childhood and is more prevalent in patients aged 21 to 30 years, likely due to increased sebum production and changing hormone levels. Furthermore, it is unusual to see pityriasis versicolor affect the face and scalp.⁸ Lesions of EV vary from hypopigmented and pinkish red macules to confluent patches and hyperkeratotic verrucalike lesions.³ Clinical characteristics also may include dyschromic patches; lesions that resemble flat warts on the trunk, face, and distal arms; and/or lesions that appear similar to seborrheic keratoses on the dorsal aspect of the hands.^9,10

Mutations of the EVER gene downregulate a cell’s ability to adequately attack the HPV antigens.¹¹ Although some patients with EV are found to have mutations of the EVER1 and EVER2 genes, a notable portion of patients with EV lack these mutations. Three other causes of EV include acquisition of immunosuppressive conditions including lymphoma, solid organ transplant, and human immunodeficiency virus. If one suspects autosomal-recessive inheritance of EV, genetic testing such as polymerase chain reaction DNA fragment analysis can be performed to determine if there are mutations on the EVER1 or EVER2 genes.¹²

The inability of patients with EV to mount an immune response to multiple types of HPV increases the risk for developing cutaneous malignancies.⁷ Additionally, it is known that UV radiation diminishes skin cell immunity, and the combination of EV and UV radiation further increases the risk for developing SCCs.¹¹ The development of nonmelanoma skin cancers usually occurs on sun-exposed skin 20 to 30 years after the onset of lesions, with the highest occurrence of SCCs presenting in the fourth decade of life.¹

Protection from UV light exposure is critical to reduce the risk for malignancy. Treatment options for EV lesions have included topical imiquimod 5%, 5-fluorouracil, oral isotretinoin, and intralesional interferon alfa, but patients are often refractory to these interventions. Curettage, surgical excision, electrosurgery, and laser ablation can be effective for individual lesions but carry a greater risk for scarring.¹ Photodynamic therapy with aminolevulinic acid and blue light represents a promising option that deserves further study.

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis should be considered as a differential diagnosis in all patients presenting with disseminated lesions resembling pityriasis versicolor that are unresponsive to treatment. A biopsy will help to establish the diagnosis. Patients should minimize sun exposure and report any skin lesions that are changing in appearance.

To the Editor:

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis (EV) is a rare autosomal-recessive genodermatosis characterized by widespread infection with specific strains of human papillomavirus (HPV). Patients with EV have a unique susceptibility to acquire HPV due to defects in cellular immunity to the presenting antigens.¹ These defects may be related to mutations of the EVER genes or due to acquisition of an immunosuppressive condition.^2,3 Infections with HPV-3 and HPV-10 do not lead to the development of malignancies. However, infection with HPV-5, HPV-8, and HPV-14 can lead to the development of nonmelanoma skin cancers, usually squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs), in approximately 60% of patients.^3,4 This viral condition lasts throughout the patient’s lifetime and presents as tinea versicolor–like macules and patches. These lesions may be confused with seborrheic keratosis or verruca plana.⁵ Lesions typically are hypopigmented but occasionally may be hyperpigmented or erythematous. They often are found on the trunk, but lesions on the face, arms, palms, legs, and soles have been reported.⁵ Mucous membranes are always spared. Epidermodysplasia verruciformis often presents in childhood, except in cases related to acquired immunosuppression. The condition has no sex or racial predilection and no geographical preference.⁵

A 7-year-old boy (Fitzpatrick skin type V) presented with an asymptomatic rash on the trunk (Figure 1), dorsal aspect of the hands, and forehead. The lesions first appeared 5 years prior on the upper back and upper chest and had recently spread to the forehead and frontal aspect of the scalp. The patient had a history of myelomeningocele, which was corrected at birth with surgical placement of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. The patient was otherwise healthy and met all appropriate developmental milestones for his age group. Family history revealed consanguinity of the patient’s paternal grandparents who were first cousins. The patient’s mother denied any other family member having similar rashes or lesions.

The patient had been treated for pityriasis versicolor on and off for 2 years by another dermatologist. His mother reported faithfully applying ketoconazole cream twice daily for several months with no improvement. She also reported using topical steroids, which did not provide any benefit. The patient and mother denied any associated pruritus, bleeding, burning, or physical discomfort.

Skin examination revealed diffuse, flat, polymorphous, hypopigmented and salmon-colored hyperkeratotic macules and patches with mild scaling on the upper region of the anterior aspect of the chest and upper back (Figure 2A). Additionally, the patient had an extensive number of lesions on the forehead and frontal aspect of the scalp (Figure 2B).

A shave biopsy demonstrated a thick basket weave stratum corneum, koilocytes, and large pale keratinocytes with characteristic blue cytoplasm. These findings were characteristic for EV.

At the patient’s 3-month follow-up visit, he again denied any symptoms associated with the lesions and reported that the appearance was diminishing in severity. On examination there was no evidence of SCC. The mother was advised to discontinue all topical treatments for the patient and return to the office every 3 to 6 months for regular skin surveillance. The mother was further advised to protect the patient from UV radiation with sunscreen and sun-protective clothing.

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis was first reported by Lewandowsky and Lutz⁶ in 1922. This rare condition often presents in childhood and is characterized by a persistent HPV infection and an autosomal-recessive inheritance pattern. Reports in the literature frequently involve kindreds. Often, patients with EV have a family history of first-degree or second-degree consanguinity.⁷

The clinical presentation of EV often resembles a pityriasis versicolor–like eruption. However, pityriasis versicolor is less commonly seen in childhood and is more prevalent in patients aged 21 to 30 years, likely due to increased sebum production and changing hormone levels. Furthermore, it is unusual to see pityriasis versicolor affect the face and scalp.⁸ Lesions of EV vary from hypopigmented and pinkish red macules to confluent patches and hyperkeratotic verrucalike lesions.³ Clinical characteristics also may include dyschromic patches; lesions that resemble flat warts on the trunk, face, and distal arms; and/or lesions that appear similar to seborrheic keratoses on the dorsal aspect of the hands.^9,10

Mutations of the EVER gene downregulate a cell’s ability to adequately attack the HPV antigens.¹¹ Although some patients with EV are found to have mutations of the EVER1 and EVER2 genes, a notable portion of patients with EV lack these mutations. Three other causes of EV include acquisition of immunosuppressive conditions including lymphoma, solid organ transplant, and human immunodeficiency virus. If one suspects autosomal-recessive inheritance of EV, genetic testing such as polymerase chain reaction DNA fragment analysis can be performed to determine if there are mutations on the EVER1 or EVER2 genes.¹²

The inability of patients with EV to mount an immune response to multiple types of HPV increases the risk for developing cutaneous malignancies.⁷ Additionally, it is known that UV radiation diminishes skin cell immunity, and the combination of EV and UV radiation further increases the risk for developing SCCs.¹¹ The development of nonmelanoma skin cancers usually occurs on sun-exposed skin 20 to 30 years after the onset of lesions, with the highest occurrence of SCCs presenting in the fourth decade of life.¹

Protection from UV light exposure is critical to reduce the risk for malignancy. Treatment options for EV lesions have included topical imiquimod 5%, 5-fluorouracil, oral isotretinoin, and intralesional interferon alfa, but patients are often refractory to these interventions. Curettage, surgical excision, electrosurgery, and laser ablation can be effective for individual lesions but carry a greater risk for scarring.¹ Photodynamic therapy with aminolevulinic acid and blue light represents a promising option that deserves further study.

Epidermodysplasia verruciformis should be considered as a differential diagnosis in all patients presenting with disseminated lesions resembling pityriasis versicolor that are unresponsive to treatment. A biopsy will help to establish the diagnosis. Patients should minimize sun exposure and report any skin lesions that are changing in appearance.

CD30⁺ primary cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders (pcLPDs) are the second most common cause of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, accounting for approximately 25% to 30% of cases.¹ These disorders comprise a spectrum that includes primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (pcALCL); lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP); and borderline lesions, which share clinicopathologic features of both pcALCL and LyP. Lymphomatoid papulosis is characterized as chronic, recurrent, papular or papulonodular skin lesions that typically are multifocal and regress spontaneously within weeks to months, only leaving small scars with atrophy and/or hyperpigmentation.² Cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma typically presents as solitary or grouped nodules or tumors that may undergo spontaneous partial or complete regression in approximately 25% of cases³ but often persist if not treated. Patients may have an array of lesions comprising the spectrum of CD30 pcLPDs.⁴

There is no curative therapy for CD30⁺ pcLPDs. Although active treatment is not necessary for LyP, low-dose methotrexate (MTX)(10–50 mg weekly) or phototherapy are the preferred initial suppressive therapies for symptomatic patients with scarring, facial lesions, or multiple symptomatic lesions.⁵ Observation with expectant follow-up is an option in pcALCL, though spontaneous regression is less likely than in LyP. For single or grouped pcALCL lesions, local radiation is the first-line therapy.⁶ Multifocal pcALCL lesions also can be treated with low-dose MTX,^2,5 as in LyP, or local radiation to selected areas. Although local radiotherapy is considered a first-line treatment in pcALCL, there is limited evidence on its clinical efficacy as well as the optimal dose and technique. We report the complete response of refractory pcALCL lesions to low-dose radiation while remaining on MTX weekly without any adverse effects.

Case Report

A 51-year-old woman presented with a 3-year history of CD30⁺ pcLPD manifesting primarily as pcALCL involving the head and neck, as well as LyP involving the head, arms, and trunk (T3N0M0). For 2 years her treatment regimen included clobetasol propionate cream 0.05% as needed for new lesions and 2 courses of standard-dose localized external beam radiation for larger pcALCL tumors on the right cheek and right side of the chin (Figure 1)(total dose for each course of treatment was 20 Gy and 36 Gy, respectively, each administered over 2–3 weeks). Because new unsightly papulonodules continued to develop on the patient’s face, she subsequently required low-dose oral MTX 30 mg once weekly for suppression of new lesions and was stable on this regimen for a year. However, she experienced an increase in LyP/pcALCL activity on the face during a 2-week break from MTX when she developed a herpes zoster infection on the right side of the forehead.

On physical examination 1 month later, 5 tiny pink papules scattered on the left eyebrow, left cheek, and left side of the chin were noted. She was advised to continue applying the clobetasol cream as needed and was restarted on MTX 10 mg once weekly. However, she developed 2 additional 1-cm nodules on the left side of the chin, neck, and shoulder. Methotrexate was increased to 30 mg once weekly over 2 weeks, which was the original dose prior to interruption, but the nodules grew to 1.5-cm in diameter. Due to their clinical appearance, the nodules were believed to be early pcALCL lesions (Figure 2A). Given the cosmetically sensitive location of the nodules, palliative radiotherapy was recommended rather than observe for possible regression. Based on a prior report by Neelis et al⁷ demonstrating efficacy of low-dose radiotherapy for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and cutaneous B-cell lymphoma, we recommended starting with low radiation doses. Our patient was treated with 400 cGy twice to the left side of the chin and left side of the neck (800 cGy total at each site) while remaining on MTX 30 mg once weekly. This treatment was well tolerated without side effects and no evidence of radiation dermatitis. On follow-up examination 1 week later, the nodules had regressed and no new lesions were present (Figure 2B).

The patient has stayed on oral MTX and occasionally develops small lesions that quickly resolve with clobetasol cream. She has been followed for 3 years after radiotherapy and all 3 previously irradiated sites have remained recurrence free. Furthermore, she has not developed any new larger nodules or tumors and her MTX dose has been decreased to 15 mg once weekly.

Comment

Local radiotherapy is considered a first-line treatment of pcALCL; however, there is limited evidence on its clinical efficacy as well as the optimal dose and technique. Although no standard dose exists for pcALCL, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines⁸ recommend doses of 12 to 36 Gy in mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome subtypes of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, which are consistent with guidelines published by the European Society for Medical Oncology.⁹ High complete response rates have been demonstrated in pcALCL at doses of 34 to 44 Gy⁶; however, lesions tend to recur elsewhere on the skin in 36% to 41% of patients despite treatment.^2,10 Lower doses of radiation therapy would provide several advantages over higher-dose therapy if a complete response could be achieved without greatly increasing the local recurrence rate. In cases of local recurrence, low-dose radiation would more easily permit retreatment of lesions compared to higher doses of radiation. Similarly, in patients with multifocal pcALCL, lower doses of radiotherapy may allow for treatment of larger skin areas while limiting potential treatment risks. Furthermore, low-dose therapy would allow for treatments to be delivered more quickly and with less inconvenience to the patient who is likely to need multiple future treatments to other areas. Low-dose radiation has been described with a favorable efficacy profile for mycosis fungoides^7,11 but has not been studied in patients with CD30⁺ pcLPDs.

Our case is notable because the patient remained on MTX during radiation therapy. Because MTX can act as a radiosensitizer, current standard practice is to stop MTX while administering radiation therapy. High oncologic doses of MTX can occasionally produce severe skin reactions at the irradiated site^12-14; however, reports of the use of lower weekly doses in combination with radiation are sparse. Our patient had refractory disfiguring facial lesions that would immediately recur once MTX was stopped. Low-dose radiation therapy was administered while she remained on her weekly MTX doses. With this treatment, she achieved a complete response, developed no radiation dermatitis, and had no further new skin lesions appear.

Conclusion

We reported the use of low-dose radiation therapy for the treatment of localized pcALCL in a patient who remained on low-dose oral MTX. Additional studies will be necessary to more fully evaluate the efficacy of using low-dose radiation both as monotherapy and in combination with MTX for pcALCL.

CD30⁺ primary cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders (pcLPDs) are the second most common cause of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, accounting for approximately 25% to 30% of cases.¹ These disorders comprise a spectrum that includes primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (pcALCL); lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP); and borderline lesions, which share clinicopathologic features of both pcALCL and LyP. Lymphomatoid papulosis is characterized as chronic, recurrent, papular or papulonodular skin lesions that typically are multifocal and regress spontaneously within weeks to months, only leaving small scars with atrophy and/or hyperpigmentation.² Cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma typically presents as solitary or grouped nodules or tumors that may undergo spontaneous partial or complete regression in approximately 25% of cases³ but often persist if not treated. Patients may have an array of lesions comprising the spectrum of CD30 pcLPDs.⁴

There is no curative therapy for CD30⁺ pcLPDs. Although active treatment is not necessary for LyP, low-dose methotrexate (MTX)(10–50 mg weekly) or phototherapy are the preferred initial suppressive therapies for symptomatic patients with scarring, facial lesions, or multiple symptomatic lesions.⁵ Observation with expectant follow-up is an option in pcALCL, though spontaneous regression is less likely than in LyP. For single or grouped pcALCL lesions, local radiation is the first-line therapy.⁶ Multifocal pcALCL lesions also can be treated with low-dose MTX,^2,5 as in LyP, or local radiation to selected areas. Although local radiotherapy is considered a first-line treatment in pcALCL, there is limited evidence on its clinical efficacy as well as the optimal dose and technique. We report the complete response of refractory pcALCL lesions to low-dose radiation while remaining on MTX weekly without any adverse effects.

Case Report

A 51-year-old woman presented with a 3-year history of CD30⁺ pcLPD manifesting primarily as pcALCL involving the head and neck, as well as LyP involving the head, arms, and trunk (T3N0M0). For 2 years her treatment regimen included clobetasol propionate cream 0.05% as needed for new lesions and 2 courses of standard-dose localized external beam radiation for larger pcALCL tumors on the right cheek and right side of the chin (Figure 1)(total dose for each course of treatment was 20 Gy and 36 Gy, respectively, each administered over 2–3 weeks). Because new unsightly papulonodules continued to develop on the patient’s face, she subsequently required low-dose oral MTX 30 mg once weekly for suppression of new lesions and was stable on this regimen for a year. However, she experienced an increase in LyP/pcALCL activity on the face during a 2-week break from MTX when she developed a herpes zoster infection on the right side of the forehead.

On physical examination 1 month later, 5 tiny pink papules scattered on the left eyebrow, left cheek, and left side of the chin were noted. She was advised to continue applying the clobetasol cream as needed and was restarted on MTX 10 mg once weekly. However, she developed 2 additional 1-cm nodules on the left side of the chin, neck, and shoulder. Methotrexate was increased to 30 mg once weekly over 2 weeks, which was the original dose prior to interruption, but the nodules grew to 1.5-cm in diameter. Due to their clinical appearance, the nodules were believed to be early pcALCL lesions (Figure 2A). Given the cosmetically sensitive location of the nodules, palliative radiotherapy was recommended rather than observe for possible regression. Based on a prior report by Neelis et al⁷ demonstrating efficacy of low-dose radiotherapy for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and cutaneous B-cell lymphoma, we recommended starting with low radiation doses. Our patient was treated with 400 cGy twice to the left side of the chin and left side of the neck (800 cGy total at each site) while remaining on MTX 30 mg once weekly. This treatment was well tolerated without side effects and no evidence of radiation dermatitis. On follow-up examination 1 week later, the nodules had regressed and no new lesions were present (Figure 2B).

The patient has stayed on oral MTX and occasionally develops small lesions that quickly resolve with clobetasol cream. She has been followed for 3 years after radiotherapy and all 3 previously irradiated sites have remained recurrence free. Furthermore, she has not developed any new larger nodules or tumors and her MTX dose has been decreased to 15 mg once weekly.

Comment

Local radiotherapy is considered a first-line treatment of pcALCL; however, there is limited evidence on its clinical efficacy as well as the optimal dose and technique. Although no standard dose exists for pcALCL, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines⁸ recommend doses of 12 to 36 Gy in mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome subtypes of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, which are consistent with guidelines published by the European Society for Medical Oncology.⁹ High complete response rates have been demonstrated in pcALCL at doses of 34 to 44 Gy⁶; however, lesions tend to recur elsewhere on the skin in 36% to 41% of patients despite treatment.^2,10 Lower doses of radiation therapy would provide several advantages over higher-dose therapy if a complete response could be achieved without greatly increasing the local recurrence rate. In cases of local recurrence, low-dose radiation would more easily permit retreatment of lesions compared to higher doses of radiation. Similarly, in patients with multifocal pcALCL, lower doses of radiotherapy may allow for treatment of larger skin areas while limiting potential treatment risks. Furthermore, low-dose therapy would allow for treatments to be delivered more quickly and with less inconvenience to the patient who is likely to need multiple future treatments to other areas. Low-dose radiation has been described with a favorable efficacy profile for mycosis fungoides^7,11 but has not been studied in patients with CD30⁺ pcLPDs.

Our case is notable because the patient remained on MTX during radiation therapy. Because MTX can act as a radiosensitizer, current standard practice is to stop MTX while administering radiation therapy. High oncologic doses of MTX can occasionally produce severe skin reactions at the irradiated site^12-14; however, reports of the use of lower weekly doses in combination with radiation are sparse. Our patient had refractory disfiguring facial lesions that would immediately recur once MTX was stopped. Low-dose radiation therapy was administered while she remained on her weekly MTX doses. With this treatment, she achieved a complete response, developed no radiation dermatitis, and had no further new skin lesions appear.

Conclusion

We reported the use of low-dose radiation therapy for the treatment of localized pcALCL in a patient who remained on low-dose oral MTX. Additional studies will be necessary to more fully evaluate the efficacy of using low-dose radiation both as monotherapy and in combination with MTX for pcALCL.

CD30⁺ primary cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders (pcLPDs) are the second most common cause of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, accounting for approximately 25% to 30% of cases.¹ These disorders comprise a spectrum that includes primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (pcALCL); lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP); and borderline lesions, which share clinicopathologic features of both pcALCL and LyP. Lymphomatoid papulosis is characterized as chronic, recurrent, papular or papulonodular skin lesions that typically are multifocal and regress spontaneously within weeks to months, only leaving small scars with atrophy and/or hyperpigmentation.² Cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma typically presents as solitary or grouped nodules or tumors that may undergo spontaneous partial or complete regression in approximately 25% of cases³ but often persist if not treated. Patients may have an array of lesions comprising the spectrum of CD30 pcLPDs.⁴

There is no curative therapy for CD30⁺ pcLPDs. Although active treatment is not necessary for LyP, low-dose methotrexate (MTX)(10–50 mg weekly) or phototherapy are the preferred initial suppressive therapies for symptomatic patients with scarring, facial lesions, or multiple symptomatic lesions.⁵ Observation with expectant follow-up is an option in pcALCL, though spontaneous regression is less likely than in LyP. For single or grouped pcALCL lesions, local radiation is the first-line therapy.⁶ Multifocal pcALCL lesions also can be treated with low-dose MTX,^2,5 as in LyP, or local radiation to selected areas. Although local radiotherapy is considered a first-line treatment in pcALCL, there is limited evidence on its clinical efficacy as well as the optimal dose and technique. We report the complete response of refractory pcALCL lesions to low-dose radiation while remaining on MTX weekly without any adverse effects.

Case Report

A 51-year-old woman presented with a 3-year history of CD30⁺ pcLPD manifesting primarily as pcALCL involving the head and neck, as well as LyP involving the head, arms, and trunk (T3N0M0). For 2 years her treatment regimen included clobetasol propionate cream 0.05% as needed for new lesions and 2 courses of standard-dose localized external beam radiation for larger pcALCL tumors on the right cheek and right side of the chin (Figure 1)(total dose for each course of treatment was 20 Gy and 36 Gy, respectively, each administered over 2–3 weeks). Because new unsightly papulonodules continued to develop on the patient’s face, she subsequently required low-dose oral MTX 30 mg once weekly for suppression of new lesions and was stable on this regimen for a year. However, she experienced an increase in LyP/pcALCL activity on the face during a 2-week break from MTX when she developed a herpes zoster infection on the right side of the forehead.

On physical examination 1 month later, 5 tiny pink papules scattered on the left eyebrow, left cheek, and left side of the chin were noted. She was advised to continue applying the clobetasol cream as needed and was restarted on MTX 10 mg once weekly. However, she developed 2 additional 1-cm nodules on the left side of the chin, neck, and shoulder. Methotrexate was increased to 30 mg once weekly over 2 weeks, which was the original dose prior to interruption, but the nodules grew to 1.5-cm in diameter. Due to their clinical appearance, the nodules were believed to be early pcALCL lesions (Figure 2A). Given the cosmetically sensitive location of the nodules, palliative radiotherapy was recommended rather than observe for possible regression. Based on a prior report by Neelis et al⁷ demonstrating efficacy of low-dose radiotherapy for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and cutaneous B-cell lymphoma, we recommended starting with low radiation doses. Our patient was treated with 400 cGy twice to the left side of the chin and left side of the neck (800 cGy total at each site) while remaining on MTX 30 mg once weekly. This treatment was well tolerated without side effects and no evidence of radiation dermatitis. On follow-up examination 1 week later, the nodules had regressed and no new lesions were present (Figure 2B).

The patient has stayed on oral MTX and occasionally develops small lesions that quickly resolve with clobetasol cream. She has been followed for 3 years after radiotherapy and all 3 previously irradiated sites have remained recurrence free. Furthermore, she has not developed any new larger nodules or tumors and her MTX dose has been decreased to 15 mg once weekly.

Comment

Local radiotherapy is considered a first-line treatment of pcALCL; however, there is limited evidence on its clinical efficacy as well as the optimal dose and technique. Although no standard dose exists for pcALCL, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines⁸ recommend doses of 12 to 36 Gy in mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome subtypes of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, which are consistent with guidelines published by the European Society for Medical Oncology.⁹ High complete response rates have been demonstrated in pcALCL at doses of 34 to 44 Gy⁶; however, lesions tend to recur elsewhere on the skin in 36% to 41% of patients despite treatment.^2,10 Lower doses of radiation therapy would provide several advantages over higher-dose therapy if a complete response could be achieved without greatly increasing the local recurrence rate. In cases of local recurrence, low-dose radiation would more easily permit retreatment of lesions compared to higher doses of radiation. Similarly, in patients with multifocal pcALCL, lower doses of radiotherapy may allow for treatment of larger skin areas while limiting potential treatment risks. Furthermore, low-dose therapy would allow for treatments to be delivered more quickly and with less inconvenience to the patient who is likely to need multiple future treatments to other areas. Low-dose radiation has been described with a favorable efficacy profile for mycosis fungoides^7,11 but has not been studied in patients with CD30⁺ pcLPDs.

Our case is notable because the patient remained on MTX during radiation therapy. Because MTX can act as a radiosensitizer, current standard practice is to stop MTX while administering radiation therapy. High oncologic doses of MTX can occasionally produce severe skin reactions at the irradiated site^12-14; however, reports of the use of lower weekly doses in combination with radiation are sparse. Our patient had refractory disfiguring facial lesions that would immediately recur once MTX was stopped. Low-dose radiation therapy was administered while she remained on her weekly MTX doses. With this treatment, she achieved a complete response, developed no radiation dermatitis, and had no further new skin lesions appear.

Conclusion

We reported the use of low-dose radiation therapy for the treatment of localized pcALCL in a patient who remained on low-dose oral MTX. Additional studies will be necessary to more fully evaluate the efficacy of using low-dose radiation both as monotherapy and in combination with MTX for pcALCL.

Cutaneous Metastasis of Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma

Cutaneous metastasis of pulmonary adenocarcinoma (CMPA) is a rare phenomenon with an overall survival rate of less than 5 months.1,2 Often, CMPA can be the heralding feature of an aggressive systemic malignancy in 2.8% to 22% of reported cases.^2-4 Clinically, CMPAs often present as fixed, violaceous, ulcerated nodules on the chest wall, scalp, or site of a prior procedure.^3,5,6 Other clinical presentations have been described including zosteriform and inflammatory carcinomalike CMPA and CMPA on the tip of the nose.⁷ Histologically, CMPA presents as a subdermal collection of atypical glands arranged as clustered aggregates of infiltrative glands penetrating the dermal stroma (quiz image). The atypical glands have large oval nuclei with high nuclear to cytoplasm ratios with scant pale cytoplasm.

Cutaneous metastasis of pulmonary adenocarcinoma is difficult to distinguish from other metastatic or primary glandular malignancies based on histology alone. Immunohistochemical analysis can aid in the diagnosis of the primary tumor. Pulmonary adenocarcinomas are positive for cytokeratin (CK) 7 and thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF-1), and they are negative for CK5/6 and CK20.⁷ The differential diagnosis for CMPA includes other internal malignancies such as invasive ductal adenocarcinoma of the breast and gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas (eg, gastric or colorectal carcinoma [CRC]). Additionally, endometriosis and primary sebaceous carcinomas can mimic cutaneous metastatic adenocarcinomas.

Endometriosis can mimic adenocarcinoma, especially when presenting as a subdermal nodule. However, the scattered dermal glands are cytologically banal and are surrounded by uterine-type stroma and extravasated hemorrhage, a classic presentation of endometriosis (Figure 1).

Primary sebaceous carcinoma also can mimic metastatic adenocarcinoma within the skin and is histologically similar to metastatic adenocarcinomas. The most distinguishing feature is sebaceous differentiation characterized by sebocytes, which have a vacuolated cytoplasm giving the nucleus a scalloped appearance, frequently with adjacent ductlike structures (Figure 5). Epidermotropism sometimes is present in sebaceous carcinomas but cannot be relied on as a distinguishing feature. Immunohistochemical analysis also is a helpful tool; these tumors typically are positive for p63 and podoplanin, distinguishing them from negative-staining metastatic adenocarcinomas.^10,11 

Cutaneous Metastasis of Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma

Cutaneous metastasis of pulmonary adenocarcinoma (CMPA) is a rare phenomenon with an overall survival rate of less than 5 months.1,2 Often, CMPA can be the heralding feature of an aggressive systemic malignancy in 2.8% to 22% of reported cases.^2-4 Clinically, CMPAs often present as fixed, violaceous, ulcerated nodules on the chest wall, scalp, or site of a prior procedure.^3,5,6 Other clinical presentations have been described including zosteriform and inflammatory carcinomalike CMPA and CMPA on the tip of the nose.⁷ Histologically, CMPA presents as a subdermal collection of atypical glands arranged as clustered aggregates of infiltrative glands penetrating the dermal stroma (quiz image). The atypical glands have large oval nuclei with high nuclear to cytoplasm ratios with scant pale cytoplasm.

Cutaneous metastasis of pulmonary adenocarcinoma is difficult to distinguish from other metastatic or primary glandular malignancies based on histology alone. Immunohistochemical analysis can aid in the diagnosis of the primary tumor. Pulmonary adenocarcinomas are positive for cytokeratin (CK) 7 and thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF-1), and they are negative for CK5/6 and CK20.⁷ The differential diagnosis for CMPA includes other internal malignancies such as invasive ductal adenocarcinoma of the breast and gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas (eg, gastric or colorectal carcinoma [CRC]). Additionally, endometriosis and primary sebaceous carcinomas can mimic cutaneous metastatic adenocarcinomas.

Endometriosis can mimic adenocarcinoma, especially when presenting as a subdermal nodule. However, the scattered dermal glands are cytologically banal and are surrounded by uterine-type stroma and extravasated hemorrhage, a classic presentation of endometriosis (Figure 1).

Primary sebaceous carcinoma also can mimic metastatic adenocarcinoma within the skin and is histologically similar to metastatic adenocarcinomas. The most distinguishing feature is sebaceous differentiation characterized by sebocytes, which have a vacuolated cytoplasm giving the nucleus a scalloped appearance, frequently with adjacent ductlike structures (Figure 5). Epidermotropism sometimes is present in sebaceous carcinomas but cannot be relied on as a distinguishing feature. Immunohistochemical analysis also is a helpful tool; these tumors typically are positive for p63 and podoplanin, distinguishing them from negative-staining metastatic adenocarcinomas.^10,11 

Cutaneous Metastasis of Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma

Cutaneous metastasis of pulmonary adenocarcinoma (CMPA) is a rare phenomenon with an overall survival rate of less than 5 months.1,2 Often, CMPA can be the heralding feature of an aggressive systemic malignancy in 2.8% to 22% of reported cases.^2-4 Clinically, CMPAs often present as fixed, violaceous, ulcerated nodules on the chest wall, scalp, or site of a prior procedure.^3,5,6 Other clinical presentations have been described including zosteriform and inflammatory carcinomalike CMPA and CMPA on the tip of the nose.⁷ Histologically, CMPA presents as a subdermal collection of atypical glands arranged as clustered aggregates of infiltrative glands penetrating the dermal stroma (quiz image). The atypical glands have large oval nuclei with high nuclear to cytoplasm ratios with scant pale cytoplasm.

Cutaneous metastasis of pulmonary adenocarcinoma is difficult to distinguish from other metastatic or primary glandular malignancies based on histology alone. Immunohistochemical analysis can aid in the diagnosis of the primary tumor. Pulmonary adenocarcinomas are positive for cytokeratin (CK) 7 and thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF-1), and they are negative for CK5/6 and CK20.⁷ The differential diagnosis for CMPA includes other internal malignancies such as invasive ductal adenocarcinoma of the breast and gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas (eg, gastric or colorectal carcinoma [CRC]). Additionally, endometriosis and primary sebaceous carcinomas can mimic cutaneous metastatic adenocarcinomas.

Endometriosis can mimic adenocarcinoma, especially when presenting as a subdermal nodule. However, the scattered dermal glands are cytologically banal and are surrounded by uterine-type stroma and extravasated hemorrhage, a classic presentation of endometriosis (Figure 1).

Primary sebaceous carcinoma also can mimic metastatic adenocarcinoma within the skin and is histologically similar to metastatic adenocarcinomas. The most distinguishing feature is sebaceous differentiation characterized by sebocytes, which have a vacuolated cytoplasm giving the nucleus a scalloped appearance, frequently with adjacent ductlike structures (Figure 5). Epidermotropism sometimes is present in sebaceous carcinomas but cannot be relied on as a distinguishing feature. Immunohistochemical analysis also is a helpful tool; these tumors typically are positive for p63 and podoplanin, distinguishing them from negative-staining metastatic adenocarcinomas.^10,11 

Spectators at baseball games may be exposed to excess solar UV radiation (UVR), which has been linked to the development of both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers.^1,2 Although baseball hats traditionally are worn to demonstrate team support, they also may provide some sun protection for the head and face where skin cancers are commonly found.

The importance of protecting the skin from solar UVR has led to sun-protection programs and community education as well as efforts to evaluate the impact of these programs. Major League Baseball (MLB) has partnered with the American Academy of Dermatology since 1999 to promote the importance of sun protection and raise skin cancer awareness through its Play Sun Smart program.³ A study conducted 10 years ago (N=2030) evaluated hat use in spectators at MLB games and noted that less than half of all spectators in seating sections exposed to direct sunlight wore hats.⁴ The purpose of the current study was to evaluate how public education about sun protection has impacted the use of hats by spectators at MLB games in 2015 compared to the prior study in 2006.

Methods

Data were collected during a 3-game series (2 day games, 1 night game) in August 2015 in New York, New York. During one of the day games, 18,000 fans received a free wide-brimmed hat. High-resolution digital photographs of seating sections were obtained using a camera with a 300-mm lens. Using the same methodology as the prior study,⁴ sunny and shaded seating sections were photographed during all 3 games (Figure). Photographs of each section were analyzed by an independent reviewer using a high-resolution computer screen. Spectators wearing head coverings—baseball hats, visors, or hats with circumferential brims—were defined as using hats. The number of spectators wearing hats versus not wearing hats was recorded for all identical sections of interest. Bleacher seating was analyzed separately, as spectators presumably knew in advance of the continuous direct sun exposure during day games, and a subset of young children in the bleachers (<10 years of age) also was assessed. A continuously sunny section also was evaluated at the second and sixth innings to see if hats were presumably purchased during exposure. Statistical significance was determined using χ² tests with P<.05 indicating statistical significance.

Results

This analysis consisted of 3539 spectators. In both the sunny and shaded sections of a day game, there were more spectators wearing hats (49% and 37%, respectively)(P<.001) than in the same sections at night games (35% and 29%, respectively)(Table 1). During the day game, more spectators wore hats in the sunny section than in the adjacent shaded section (49% vs 37%; P<.001). Analysis of the same 2 sections during the night game revealed no significant differences.

Spectators sitting in the bleachers during a day game who presumably knew to anticipate direct sun exposure showed no significant differences in hat-wearing patterns versus the sunny section (44% vs 49%) but were more likely to wear hats compared to those sitting in the bleachers at the night game (44% vs 33%)(P<.001)(Table 1). There was no significant difference in the number of hats worn by spectators in the sunny section in the second inning (43%) versus the same section after continuous sun exposure at the sixth inning (44%)(Table 2). Significantly more children seated in the bleachers during the day game wore hats compared to adults in the same section (64% vs 42%; P<.001)(Table 3). During the hat giveaway day, significantly more spectators wore hats (the majority of which were the free giveaway hats) across all sections studied (P<.001)(Table 4).

Comment

More than 23 million spectators attended daytime MLB games in 2015, with millions more attending minor league and amateur events.⁵Although sun-protection messages tend to be well understood and received by society, many choose to ignore them.⁶

In partnership with the American Academy of Dermatology, the MLB’s Play Sun Smart program has promoted UVR risk awareness at sporting events since 1999.³ Those affiliated with MLB teams also receive annual skin cancer screenings in conjunction with a public education effort in May of each season. However, despite the years of sun-protection education, our study found that less than half of attendees wore hats for UVR protection. In fact, there were no significant differences noted across all of the hat-wearing parameters studied (day vs night game, sunny vs shaded section, sunny section over course of game) between the current study compared to the results from 10 years prior⁴ (Tables 1 and 2). For spectators in the bleacher section, even presumably knowing in advance that seating would be in the sun did not significantly increase hat-wearing behavior. Although skin cancer rates continue to rise, hat-wearing trends remain stable, revealing a concerning trend.

Increased availability of sunscreen has led to improved sun-protective behaviors in many populations.⁷ In our study, the free hat giveaway had the greatest impact on hat wearing, which suggests that improved availability and access to hats can lead to an important opportunity for sun-protection programs to partner with hat manufacturers to augment their use and protective impact.

Sun avoidance during childhood and adolescence has been shown to decrease the risk for melanoma.¹ Young children had the highest rate of hat usage in the current study, possibly due to parental example or dictates. Research has shown the importance of role models in promoting sun safety to young children,^8,9 so perhaps use of hats by parents or MLB players contributed to the hat-wearing behavior observed in this subpopulation.

Given the limited change observed in hat-wearing behaviors over the last decade, a knowledge and behavioral gap appears to exist that may be able to be exploited to enhance future sun protection. Also, based on our findings, the MLB and other sun-protection education campaigns may wish to augment their UVR protective messages by offering hat giveaways, which appear to have a notable impact.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Jessie Skapik, BS (New York, New York), for her independent review of the spectator photographs.

Spectators at baseball games may be exposed to excess solar UV radiation (UVR), which has been linked to the development of both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers.^1,2 Although baseball hats traditionally are worn to demonstrate team support, they also may provide some sun protection for the head and face where skin cancers are commonly found.

The importance of protecting the skin from solar UVR has led to sun-protection programs and community education as well as efforts to evaluate the impact of these programs. Major League Baseball (MLB) has partnered with the American Academy of Dermatology since 1999 to promote the importance of sun protection and raise skin cancer awareness through its Play Sun Smart program.³ A study conducted 10 years ago (N=2030) evaluated hat use in spectators at MLB games and noted that less than half of all spectators in seating sections exposed to direct sunlight wore hats.⁴ The purpose of the current study was to evaluate how public education about sun protection has impacted the use of hats by spectators at MLB games in 2015 compared to the prior study in 2006.

Methods

Data were collected during a 3-game series (2 day games, 1 night game) in August 2015 in New York, New York. During one of the day games, 18,000 fans received a free wide-brimmed hat. High-resolution digital photographs of seating sections were obtained using a camera with a 300-mm lens. Using the same methodology as the prior study,⁴ sunny and shaded seating sections were photographed during all 3 games (Figure). Photographs of each section were analyzed by an independent reviewer using a high-resolution computer screen. Spectators wearing head coverings—baseball hats, visors, or hats with circumferential brims—were defined as using hats. The number of spectators wearing hats versus not wearing hats was recorded for all identical sections of interest. Bleacher seating was analyzed separately, as spectators presumably knew in advance of the continuous direct sun exposure during day games, and a subset of young children in the bleachers (<10 years of age) also was assessed. A continuously sunny section also was evaluated at the second and sixth innings to see if hats were presumably purchased during exposure. Statistical significance was determined using χ² tests with P<.05 indicating statistical significance.

Results

This analysis consisted of 3539 spectators. In both the sunny and shaded sections of a day game, there were more spectators wearing hats (49% and 37%, respectively)(P<.001) than in the same sections at night games (35% and 29%, respectively)(Table 1). During the day game, more spectators wore hats in the sunny section than in the adjacent shaded section (49% vs 37%; P<.001). Analysis of the same 2 sections during the night game revealed no significant differences.

Spectators sitting in the bleachers during a day game who presumably knew to anticipate direct sun exposure showed no significant differences in hat-wearing patterns versus the sunny section (44% vs 49%) but were more likely to wear hats compared to those sitting in the bleachers at the night game (44% vs 33%)(P<.001)(Table 1). There was no significant difference in the number of hats worn by spectators in the sunny section in the second inning (43%) versus the same section after continuous sun exposure at the sixth inning (44%)(Table 2). Significantly more children seated in the bleachers during the day game wore hats compared to adults in the same section (64% vs 42%; P<.001)(Table 3). During the hat giveaway day, significantly more spectators wore hats (the majority of which were the free giveaway hats) across all sections studied (P<.001)(Table 4).

Comment

More than 23 million spectators attended daytime MLB games in 2015, with millions more attending minor league and amateur events.⁵Although sun-protection messages tend to be well understood and received by society, many choose to ignore them.⁶

In partnership with the American Academy of Dermatology, the MLB’s Play Sun Smart program has promoted UVR risk awareness at sporting events since 1999.³ Those affiliated with MLB teams also receive annual skin cancer screenings in conjunction with a public education effort in May of each season. However, despite the years of sun-protection education, our study found that less than half of attendees wore hats for UVR protection. In fact, there were no significant differences noted across all of the hat-wearing parameters studied (day vs night game, sunny vs shaded section, sunny section over course of game) between the current study compared to the results from 10 years prior⁴ (Tables 1 and 2). For spectators in the bleacher section, even presumably knowing in advance that seating would be in the sun did not significantly increase hat-wearing behavior. Although skin cancer rates continue to rise, hat-wearing trends remain stable, revealing a concerning trend.

Increased availability of sunscreen has led to improved sun-protective behaviors in many populations.⁷ In our study, the free hat giveaway had the greatest impact on hat wearing, which suggests that improved availability and access to hats can lead to an important opportunity for sun-protection programs to partner with hat manufacturers to augment their use and protective impact.

Sun avoidance during childhood and adolescence has been shown to decrease the risk for melanoma.¹ Young children had the highest rate of hat usage in the current study, possibly due to parental example or dictates. Research has shown the importance of role models in promoting sun safety to young children,^8,9 so perhaps use of hats by parents or MLB players contributed to the hat-wearing behavior observed in this subpopulation.

Given the limited change observed in hat-wearing behaviors over the last decade, a knowledge and behavioral gap appears to exist that may be able to be exploited to enhance future sun protection. Also, based on our findings, the MLB and other sun-protection education campaigns may wish to augment their UVR protective messages by offering hat giveaways, which appear to have a notable impact.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Jessie Skapik, BS (New York, New York), for her independent review of the spectator photographs.

Spectators at baseball games may be exposed to excess solar UV radiation (UVR), which has been linked to the development of both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers.^1,2 Although baseball hats traditionally are worn to demonstrate team support, they also may provide some sun protection for the head and face where skin cancers are commonly found.

The importance of protecting the skin from solar UVR has led to sun-protection programs and community education as well as efforts to evaluate the impact of these programs. Major League Baseball (MLB) has partnered with the American Academy of Dermatology since 1999 to promote the importance of sun protection and raise skin cancer awareness through its Play Sun Smart program.³ A study conducted 10 years ago (N=2030) evaluated hat use in spectators at MLB games and noted that less than half of all spectators in seating sections exposed to direct sunlight wore hats.⁴ The purpose of the current study was to evaluate how public education about sun protection has impacted the use of hats by spectators at MLB games in 2015 compared to the prior study in 2006.

Methods

Data were collected during a 3-game series (2 day games, 1 night game) in August 2015 in New York, New York. During one of the day games, 18,000 fans received a free wide-brimmed hat. High-resolution digital photographs of seating sections were obtained using a camera with a 300-mm lens. Using the same methodology as the prior study,⁴ sunny and shaded seating sections were photographed during all 3 games (Figure). Photographs of each section were analyzed by an independent reviewer using a high-resolution computer screen. Spectators wearing head coverings—baseball hats, visors, or hats with circumferential brims—were defined as using hats. The number of spectators wearing hats versus not wearing hats was recorded for all identical sections of interest. Bleacher seating was analyzed separately, as spectators presumably knew in advance of the continuous direct sun exposure during day games, and a subset of young children in the bleachers (<10 years of age) also was assessed. A continuously sunny section also was evaluated at the second and sixth innings to see if hats were presumably purchased during exposure. Statistical significance was determined using χ² tests with P<.05 indicating statistical significance.

Results

This analysis consisted of 3539 spectators. In both the sunny and shaded sections of a day game, there were more spectators wearing hats (49% and 37%, respectively)(P<.001) than in the same sections at night games (35% and 29%, respectively)(Table 1). During the day game, more spectators wore hats in the sunny section than in the adjacent shaded section (49% vs 37%; P<.001). Analysis of the same 2 sections during the night game revealed no significant differences.

Spectators sitting in the bleachers during a day game who presumably knew to anticipate direct sun exposure showed no significant differences in hat-wearing patterns versus the sunny section (44% vs 49%) but were more likely to wear hats compared to those sitting in the bleachers at the night game (44% vs 33%)(P<.001)(Table 1). There was no significant difference in the number of hats worn by spectators in the sunny section in the second inning (43%) versus the same section after continuous sun exposure at the sixth inning (44%)(Table 2). Significantly more children seated in the bleachers during the day game wore hats compared to adults in the same section (64% vs 42%; P<.001)(Table 3). During the hat giveaway day, significantly more spectators wore hats (the majority of which were the free giveaway hats) across all sections studied (P<.001)(Table 4).

Comment

More than 23 million spectators attended daytime MLB games in 2015, with millions more attending minor league and amateur events.⁵Although sun-protection messages tend to be well understood and received by society, many choose to ignore them.⁶

In partnership with the American Academy of Dermatology, the MLB’s Play Sun Smart program has promoted UVR risk awareness at sporting events since 1999.³ Those affiliated with MLB teams also receive annual skin cancer screenings in conjunction with a public education effort in May of each season. However, despite the years of sun-protection education, our study found that less than half of attendees wore hats for UVR protection. In fact, there were no significant differences noted across all of the hat-wearing parameters studied (day vs night game, sunny vs shaded section, sunny section over course of game) between the current study compared to the results from 10 years prior⁴ (Tables 1 and 2). For spectators in the bleacher section, even presumably knowing in advance that seating would be in the sun did not significantly increase hat-wearing behavior. Although skin cancer rates continue to rise, hat-wearing trends remain stable, revealing a concerning trend.

Increased availability of sunscreen has led to improved sun-protective behaviors in many populations.⁷ In our study, the free hat giveaway had the greatest impact on hat wearing, which suggests that improved availability and access to hats can lead to an important opportunity for sun-protection programs to partner with hat manufacturers to augment their use and protective impact.

Sun avoidance during childhood and adolescence has been shown to decrease the risk for melanoma.¹ Young children had the highest rate of hat usage in the current study, possibly due to parental example or dictates. Research has shown the importance of role models in promoting sun safety to young children,^8,9 so perhaps use of hats by parents or MLB players contributed to the hat-wearing behavior observed in this subpopulation.

Given the limited change observed in hat-wearing behaviors over the last decade, a knowledge and behavioral gap appears to exist that may be able to be exploited to enhance future sun protection. Also, based on our findings, the MLB and other sun-protection education campaigns may wish to augment their UVR protective messages by offering hat giveaways, which appear to have a notable impact.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Jessie Skapik, BS (New York, New York), for her independent review of the spectator photographs.

The Diagnosis: Radiation-Associated Angiosarcoma

At the time of presentation, a 4-mm lesional punch biopsy was obtained (Figure), which revealed an epithelioid neoplasm within the dermis expressing CD31 and CD34, and staining negatively for S-100, CD45, and estrogen and progesterone receptors. The histologic and immunophenotypic findings were compatible with the diagnosis of angiosarcoma. Given the patient’s history of radiation for breast carcinoma several years ago, this tumor was consistent with radiation-associated angiosarcoma (RAAS).

Development of secondary angiosarcoma has been linked to both prior radiation (RAAS) and chronic lymphedema (Stewart-Treves syndrome).¹ Radiation-associated angiosarcoma is defined as a “pathologically confirmed breast or chest wall angiosarcoma arising within a previously irradiated field.”² The incidence of RAAS is estimated to be 0.9 per 1000 individuals following radiation treatment of breast cancer over the subsequent 15 years and a mean time from radiation to development of 7 years.¹ Incidence is expected to increase in the future due to improved likelihood of surviving early-stage breast carcinoma and the increased use of external beam radiation therapy for management of breast cancer.

Differentiating between primary and secondary angiosarcoma of the breast is important. Although primary breast angiosarcoma usually arises in women aged 30 to 40 years, RAAS tends to arise in older women (mean age, 68 years) and is seen only in those women with prior radiation.² Additionally, high-level amplification of MYC, a known photo-oncogene, on chromosome 8 is a key genetic alteration of RAAS that helps to distinguish it from primary angiosarcoma, though this variance may be present in only half of RAAS cases.³ Immunohistochemical analysis of tumor cells for MYC expression correlates well with this amplification and also is helpful in distinguishing atypical vascular lesions from RAAS.⁴ Atypical vascular lesions, similar to RAAS, occur years after radiation exposure and may have a similar clinical presentation. Atypical vascular lesions do not progress to angiosarcoma in reported cases, but clinical and histologic overlap with RAAS make the diagnosis difficult.⁵ In these cases, analysis with fluorescence in situ hybridization or immunohistochemistry for the MYC amplification is important to differentiate these tumors.⁶

At the time of presentation, the majority of patients with RAAS of the breast have localized disease, often with a variable presentation. In all known cases, there have been skin changes present, emphasizing the importance of both patient and clinician vigilance on a regular basis in at-risk individuals. In one study, the most common presentation was breast ecchymosis, which was observed in 55% of patients.⁷ These lesions involve the dermis and are commonly mistaken for benign conditions such as infection or hemorrhage.² In 2 other studies, RAAS most often manifested as a skin nodule or apparent tumor, closely followed by either a rash or bruiselike presentation.^1,2

The overall recommendation for management of patients with ecchymotic skin lesions in previously irradiated regions is to obtain a biopsy specimen for tissue diagnosis. Although there is no standard of care for the management of RAAS, a multidisciplinary approach involving specialists from oncology, surgical oncology, and radiation oncology is recommended. Most often, radical surgery encompassing both the breast parenchyma and the at-risk radiated skin is performed. Extensive surgery has demonstrated the best survival benefits compared to mastectomy alone.⁷ Chemotherapeutics also may be used as adjuncts to surgery, which have been determined to decrease local recurrence rates but have no proven survival benefits.² Adverse prognostic factors for survival are tumor size greater than 10 cm and development of local and/or distant metastases.² Following the diagnosis of RAAS, our patient underwent radical mastectomy with adjuvant chemotherapy and remained disease free 6 months after surgery.

In summary, RAAS is a well-known, albeit relatively uncommon, consequence of radiation therapy. Dermatologists, oncologists, and primary care providers play an important role in recognizing this entity when evaluating patients with ecchymotic lesions as well as nodules or tumors within an irradiated field. Biopsy should be obtained promptly to prevent delay in diagnosis and to expedite referral to appropriate specialists for further evaluation and treatment.

The Diagnosis: Radiation-Associated Angiosarcoma

At the time of presentation, a 4-mm lesional punch biopsy was obtained (Figure), which revealed an epithelioid neoplasm within the dermis expressing CD31 and CD34, and staining negatively for S-100, CD45, and estrogen and progesterone receptors. The histologic and immunophenotypic findings were compatible with the diagnosis of angiosarcoma. Given the patient’s history of radiation for breast carcinoma several years ago, this tumor was consistent with radiation-associated angiosarcoma (RAAS).

Development of secondary angiosarcoma has been linked to both prior radiation (RAAS) and chronic lymphedema (Stewart-Treves syndrome).¹ Radiation-associated angiosarcoma is defined as a “pathologically confirmed breast or chest wall angiosarcoma arising within a previously irradiated field.”² The incidence of RAAS is estimated to be 0.9 per 1000 individuals following radiation treatment of breast cancer over the subsequent 15 years and a mean time from radiation to development of 7 years.¹ Incidence is expected to increase in the future due to improved likelihood of surviving early-stage breast carcinoma and the increased use of external beam radiation therapy for management of breast cancer.

Differentiating between primary and secondary angiosarcoma of the breast is important. Although primary breast angiosarcoma usually arises in women aged 30 to 40 years, RAAS tends to arise in older women (mean age, 68 years) and is seen only in those women with prior radiation.² Additionally, high-level amplification of MYC, a known photo-oncogene, on chromosome 8 is a key genetic alteration of RAAS that helps to distinguish it from primary angiosarcoma, though this variance may be present in only half of RAAS cases.³ Immunohistochemical analysis of tumor cells for MYC expression correlates well with this amplification and also is helpful in distinguishing atypical vascular lesions from RAAS.⁴ Atypical vascular lesions, similar to RAAS, occur years after radiation exposure and may have a similar clinical presentation. Atypical vascular lesions do not progress to angiosarcoma in reported cases, but clinical and histologic overlap with RAAS make the diagnosis difficult.⁵ In these cases, analysis with fluorescence in situ hybridization or immunohistochemistry for the MYC amplification is important to differentiate these tumors.⁶

At the time of presentation, the majority of patients with RAAS of the breast have localized disease, often with a variable presentation. In all known cases, there have been skin changes present, emphasizing the importance of both patient and clinician vigilance on a regular basis in at-risk individuals. In one study, the most common presentation was breast ecchymosis, which was observed in 55% of patients.⁷ These lesions involve the dermis and are commonly mistaken for benign conditions such as infection or hemorrhage.² In 2 other studies, RAAS most often manifested as a skin nodule or apparent tumor, closely followed by either a rash or bruiselike presentation.^1,2

The overall recommendation for management of patients with ecchymotic skin lesions in previously irradiated regions is to obtain a biopsy specimen for tissue diagnosis. Although there is no standard of care for the management of RAAS, a multidisciplinary approach involving specialists from oncology, surgical oncology, and radiation oncology is recommended. Most often, radical surgery encompassing both the breast parenchyma and the at-risk radiated skin is performed. Extensive surgery has demonstrated the best survival benefits compared to mastectomy alone.⁷ Chemotherapeutics also may be used as adjuncts to surgery, which have been determined to decrease local recurrence rates but have no proven survival benefits.² Adverse prognostic factors for survival are tumor size greater than 10 cm and development of local and/or distant metastases.² Following the diagnosis of RAAS, our patient underwent radical mastectomy with adjuvant chemotherapy and remained disease free 6 months after surgery.

In summary, RAAS is a well-known, albeit relatively uncommon, consequence of radiation therapy. Dermatologists, oncologists, and primary care providers play an important role in recognizing this entity when evaluating patients with ecchymotic lesions as well as nodules or tumors within an irradiated field. Biopsy should be obtained promptly to prevent delay in diagnosis and to expedite referral to appropriate specialists for further evaluation and treatment.

The Diagnosis: Radiation-Associated Angiosarcoma

At the time of presentation, a 4-mm lesional punch biopsy was obtained (Figure), which revealed an epithelioid neoplasm within the dermis expressing CD31 and CD34, and staining negatively for S-100, CD45, and estrogen and progesterone receptors. The histologic and immunophenotypic findings were compatible with the diagnosis of angiosarcoma. Given the patient’s history of radiation for breast carcinoma several years ago, this tumor was consistent with radiation-associated angiosarcoma (RAAS).

Development of secondary angiosarcoma has been linked to both prior radiation (RAAS) and chronic lymphedema (Stewart-Treves syndrome).¹ Radiation-associated angiosarcoma is defined as a “pathologically confirmed breast or chest wall angiosarcoma arising within a previously irradiated field.”² The incidence of RAAS is estimated to be 0.9 per 1000 individuals following radiation treatment of breast cancer over the subsequent 15 years and a mean time from radiation to development of 7 years.¹ Incidence is expected to increase in the future due to improved likelihood of surviving early-stage breast carcinoma and the increased use of external beam radiation therapy for management of breast cancer.

Differentiating between primary and secondary angiosarcoma of the breast is important. Although primary breast angiosarcoma usually arises in women aged 30 to 40 years, RAAS tends to arise in older women (mean age, 68 years) and is seen only in those women with prior radiation.² Additionally, high-level amplification of MYC, a known photo-oncogene, on chromosome 8 is a key genetic alteration of RAAS that helps to distinguish it from primary angiosarcoma, though this variance may be present in only half of RAAS cases.³ Immunohistochemical analysis of tumor cells for MYC expression correlates well with this amplification and also is helpful in distinguishing atypical vascular lesions from RAAS.⁴ Atypical vascular lesions, similar to RAAS, occur years after radiation exposure and may have a similar clinical presentation. Atypical vascular lesions do not progress to angiosarcoma in reported cases, but clinical and histologic overlap with RAAS make the diagnosis difficult.⁵ In these cases, analysis with fluorescence in situ hybridization or immunohistochemistry for the MYC amplification is important to differentiate these tumors.⁶

At the time of presentation, the majority of patients with RAAS of the breast have localized disease, often with a variable presentation. In all known cases, there have been skin changes present, emphasizing the importance of both patient and clinician vigilance on a regular basis in at-risk individuals. In one study, the most common presentation was breast ecchymosis, which was observed in 55% of patients.⁷ These lesions involve the dermis and are commonly mistaken for benign conditions such as infection or hemorrhage.² In 2 other studies, RAAS most often manifested as a skin nodule or apparent tumor, closely followed by either a rash or bruiselike presentation.^1,2

The overall recommendation for management of patients with ecchymotic skin lesions in previously irradiated regions is to obtain a biopsy specimen for tissue diagnosis. Although there is no standard of care for the management of RAAS, a multidisciplinary approach involving specialists from oncology, surgical oncology, and radiation oncology is recommended. Most often, radical surgery encompassing both the breast parenchyma and the at-risk radiated skin is performed. Extensive surgery has demonstrated the best survival benefits compared to mastectomy alone.⁷ Chemotherapeutics also may be used as adjuncts to surgery, which have been determined to decrease local recurrence rates but have no proven survival benefits.² Adverse prognostic factors for survival are tumor size greater than 10 cm and development of local and/or distant metastases.² Following the diagnosis of RAAS, our patient underwent radical mastectomy with adjuvant chemotherapy and remained disease free 6 months after surgery.

In summary, RAAS is a well-known, albeit relatively uncommon, consequence of radiation therapy. Dermatologists, oncologists, and primary care providers play an important role in recognizing this entity when evaluating patients with ecchymotic lesions as well as nodules or tumors within an irradiated field. Biopsy should be obtained promptly to prevent delay in diagnosis and to expedite referral to appropriate specialists for further evaluation and treatment.

The incidence of skin cancer, along with its effects on patients and the economy, has continued to increase and therefore requires particular attention from dermatologists. UV light has been shown to be of etiopathologic importance in the development of various types of skin cancer.^1-3 Studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between the incidence of skin cancer and average annual amounts of UV radiation exposure.³ Accordingly, in 2009 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified UV light as carcinogenic to humans.⁴ Therefore, the general public must be made aware of the danger of exposure to UV radiation.

In Australia, government initiatives to educate the population on causes of skin cancer development and its relationship to UV radiation have already caused the public to change their way of thinking and to deal with sunlight in a conscious and responsible manner.⁵ A large proportion of the Australian population with light skin is at a particularly high risk for developing skin cancer due to intense exposure to UV radiation. Numerous campaigns in Germany and other countries have attempted to sensitize the public to this issue by emphasizing a reduction in UV exposure (primary prevention) or highlighting the importance of early diagnosis (secondary prevention).^6,7

For a good prognosis, it is crucial that skin cancer, particularly melanoma, is discovered at an early or precancerous stage.⁸ For this reason, self-examination of the skin and skin cancer screening are important factors that can contribute to ensuring early and curative treatment.^9-11 Since July 1, 2008, skin cancer screenings have been included in the preventative health care program by statutory health insurance providers in Germany. As part of this program, the cost of screening once every 2 years for individuals 35 years and older is covered by statutory health insurance.¹² Several studies have shown a decline in the melanoma mortality rate since the introduction of skin cancer screening programs in Germany.^11,13,14

Employee skin cancer screening programs are an important method of examining high numbers of individuals quickly and effectively. These programs have been carried out in Germany and other countries.^15,16 Studies have shown that skin cancer screening carried out selectively on defined groups can be an effective form of secondary prevention, particularly for those who work outdoors.¹⁷

An employee skin cancer screening program was carried out as part of this study. The findings are interpreted and discussed in relation to other employee screening programs that have been reported as well as those introduced by statutory health insurance providers in Germany. The aim of this study was to determine the importance and effectiveness of employee skin cancer screening programs and the role they play in secondary prevention of skin cancer.

Methods

Study Population

Employees of a technical company in Bavaria, Germany, were offered a skin cancer screening program by the employer’s occupational health service and health insurance provider in collaboration with the Department of Dermatology at the University Hospital Erlangen (Erlangen, Germany). Skin examinations were performed exclusively by 5 trained dermatologists. Only direct employees of the company at 3 of its locations in the Erlangen area were eligible to participate. The total number of employees varied by location (1072–5126 employees). The majority of employees had a university education or had completed technical training. Family members and other individuals who were not members of the company were excluded. There were no further inclusion or exclusion criteria. Over a period of 13 days, 783 of 7823 total employees (10.0%) were examined and included in the study. The study was approved by the Responsible Ethics Commission of the Faculty of Medicine at Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany.

Study Design

Employees signed a consent form for participation in the study and completed a standardized questionnaire. The questionnaire was based on surveys used in a prior study¹⁸ and collected information on current and prior skin lesions, prior dermatological screening, personal and family history of skin tumors, frequency of UV exposure, and type of UV protection used. For the question on measures taken for protection from UV radiation, possible answers included with sunscreen cream, with suitable sun-protective clothing, and by staying in the shade, or no measures were taken. In contrast to the other questions, multiple answers were accepted for this question. Answering no automatically excluded other possible answers. Participants also were asked to assess their own Fitzpatrick skin type¹⁹; the questionnaire included explanations of each skin type (I–IV).

The participants were then called in for examination by the dermatologist at 15-minute intervals. All clothing was removed and the skin was examined. Dermatoscopes were used for closer examination of suspicious skin lesions. The clinical results of the examinations were recorded on a standardized form.

An estimation of the number of melanocytic nevi—≤20, 21–49, or ≥50—was recorded for each patient. Suspicious skin lesions were assigned to one of the following categories: nevus requiring future checkup (Nc), nevus requiring excision (Ne), suspected malignant melanoma (MM), suspected squamous cell carcinoma, suspected basal cell carcinoma (BCC), suspected other skin tumor, and precancerous lesion. Fitzpatrick skin type also was assessed for all participants and recorded by the dermatologist carrying out the examination. Each participant was assigned to a risk group—low, moderate, or high risk—based on their individual risk for developing a skin tumor. Factors that were considered when determining participants’ risk for developing skin cancer included Fitzpatrick skin type, number of melanocytic nevi, personal and family history, leisure activities, UV protection used, and current clinical diagnosis of skin lesions.

After the skin examination, participants were informed of recommended treatment but were not given any additional dermatologic advice. Participants could arrange an appointment at the Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, for the excision and histological analysis of the skin lesions. All recorded data were collected in a computerized spreadsheet program. When evaluating the questionnaires, questions that were not answered or were answered incorrectly (participant chose more than 1 answer) were ignored.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software version 16.0. The majority of the data were nominal or ordinal. Metric data were checked for normal distribution using the Shapiro-Wilk test before carrying out parametric tests. Statistical tests were carried out using the χ² test and the t test for independent samples. Non-nominal distributed data were checked using the Mann-Whitney U test. P<.05 was considered statistically significant in the exploratory data analysis.

Results

Of 783 employees included in the study, 288 (36.8%) were female and 495 (63.2%) were male (Table 1). In comparison with the total workforce, a significantly higher proportion of women than men took part in the cross-sectional study (P<.01). The average age (SD) was 42.3 (9.5) years (range, 18–64 years). Female participants (average age [SD], 39.8 [10.2] years) were significantly younger than male participants (average age [SD], 43.8 [8.8] years; P<.01). Forty-one percent of participants had a prior skin cancer screening. One percent of participants had a personal history of skin cancer, with 1 participant reporting a history of MM; 6.5% had a family history of skin cancer, of which 39.2% had a family history of MM.

The results of the clinical examinations showed that 43.8% of participants had 20 or fewer melanocytic nevi, 43.4% had 21 to 49 melanocytic nevi, and 12.8% had 50 or more melanocytic nevi. Significantly more women than men had 20 or fewer melanocytic nevi (P<.05).

Approximately 92% of participants assessed themselves as having Fitzpatrick skin types II (35.2%) or III (56.7%), while only approximately 3.6% and 4.5% assessed themselves as having skin types I and IV, respectively. The results of the Fitzpatrick skin type assessments made by dermatologists were similar: 96.9% of participants were assessed as having Fitzpatrick skin types II (43.0%) and III (53.8%); approximately 1.9% and 1.3% were assessed as having Fitzpatrick skin types I and IV, respectively. Results showed that 80.2% of all participants assessed their skin type in the same way as the dermatologist; 13.5% assessed their skin type as darker and 6.3% (49/783) assessed it as lighter. A quantitative analysis of Fitzpatrick skin type and sex showed that significantly more male participants than female participants assessed their Fitzpatrick skin type darker than their actual skin type (P<.01).

Overall, 47.6% of participants reported having had sunburn rarely in the past, while 36.9% and 14.0% had experienced sunburn once per year and several times per year, respectively. Approximately 1.4% of participants reported never having a sunburn. More of the male participants made use of comprehensive sun protection using all methods listed (34.5%; P<.05) or a combination of sunscreen and sun-protective clothing (14.9%; P<.01) than the female participants who relied more frequently on sunscreen alone (29.5%; P<.01) or a combination of sunscreen and staying in the shade (29.5%; P<.01)

In general it was clear that sunscreen, either alone or in combination with other sun-protection methods, was used most frequently (88.0%); 58.0% protected themselves by staying in the shade, while 48.0% used suitable sun-protective clothing. Only 3.6% of participants did not protect themselves using any of the suggested methods.

A total of 661 categorized skin lesions were found in 377 participants. Of these lesions, 491 were Nc and 121 were Ne. Twenty-four of the skin lesions were suspected precancerous lesions, 13 were suspected BCC, 2 were suspected MM, and 10 were suspected other skin tumor (Table 2). Overall, male participants who were diagnosed with at least 1 skin lesion (average age, 44.0 years) were significantly older than the women (average age, 39.3 years)(P<.01). Similar findings were observed in participants with at least 1 Nc (men, 43.3 years; women, 38.7 years; P<.01) and at least 1 Ne (men, 44.2 years; women, 38.0 years; P<.05). With regard to the individual risk for developing skin cancer, 32.6% of participants were considered to be at low risk, 64.9% were at moderate risk, and 2.6% were at high risk.

Approximately 61.5% of 377 participants who were diagnosed with at least 1 categorized skin lesion were advised to have a specific skin lesion checked by a dermatologist or to have a full examination for skin cancer once every 12 months. Furthermore, 22.5% were advised to follow-up biannually and 11.7% were advised to follow-up once every 2 years. Of the remaining participants who were advised to have follow-ups, 0.3% were advised to have a skin examination once every 3 months after having had MM, and 4.0% were advised to have follow-up once every 18 months. Overall, follow-up was recommended within 1 year in 84.4% of cases and within 1 to 2 years in 15.6% (Table 3).

Subsequent histological analysis of the excised tissue resulted in a diagnosis of only 21 clinically significant skin conditions. One case of Bowen disease and 1 case of BCC was confirmed. Histological analysis identified the remaining 19 excised skin lesions, which included the 2 suspected MMs, as dysplastic nevi.

Comment

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to examine the importance and effectiveness of employee skin cancer screening programs. In comparison with the total workforce, significantly more women took part than men. Female participants were significantly younger than male participants, which mirrors the findings of prior studies showing that screening programs reach women more frequently than men and that women who participate in screenings are also younger on average in comparison to men.^7-13 Men and older individuals usually are underrepresented.^7,13 The average age of participants in our study was 42.3 years, which is lower than in the SCREEN (Skin Cancer Research to Provide Evidence for Effectiveness of Screening in Northern Germany) study (average age, 49.7 years).¹³ The average age in our study also is likely to be lower than patients who undergo skin cancer screenings offered by statutory health insurance providers in Germany, which has a minimum age restriction of 35 years; however, it is comparable to the average age of participants in other employee screening programs and therefore represents the average age of individuals employed in Germany.^15,16

The employee skin cancer screening program in this study generated a high level of interest, indicated by the fact that all available appointments had been booked just 36 hours after the screening was announced. Furthermore, there was a waiting list of approximately 300 employees who were not able to undergo a skin examination. For logistical reasons, the number of participants was limited to 10% of the workforce. The high level of interest is an indication of increased awareness of the importance of recognizing skin tumors early and the associated need for information as well as the need to undergo screening for skin cancer as a precaution. This observation also can be made with regard to the skin cancer screening introduced by statutory health insurance providers in Germany. Studies published by Augustin et al²⁰ and Kornek et al^21,22 confirm that skin cancer screenings have gained wide acceptance in Germany because they were introduced by statutory health insurance providers in 2008. The number of skin cancer screenings carried out by dermatologists in Germany also is increasing.^20-22 Although approximately 19% of those eligible to participate took part in the SCREEN pilot project,¹³ approximately 31% of individuals who were eligible to participate took part in skin cancer screenings offered by statutory health insurance providers in Germany in 2012, and the percentage is rising.²³ Two important factors affecting the high level of interest in the employee screening program used in our study were undoubtedly the advantages of the examination taking place during working hours and being held on the occupational health services’ premises in the workplace, which helped participants avoid the cost of travel and wait times associated with visiting a medical practice.

Of 783 participants included in this study, 377 displayed at least 1 categorized skin lesion; the majority were suspicious melanocytic nevi. This high incidence rate suggested that regular skin cancer screenings are useful, as it has been shown that there is a correlation between higher numbers of melanocytic nevi and increased risk for developing melanoma.²⁴

In a study by Winkler et al,²⁵ a skin cancer screening of 1658 bank and insurance employees found that 33.8% of those examined displayed at least 1 atypical melanocytic nevus and 27.2% displayed more than 50 melanocytic nevi (compared to 12.8% with ≥50 melanocytic nevi in the current study). The risk for developing skin cancer was classified as intermediate or high in 54.5% (compared to 67.5% at moderate or high risk in the current study).²⁵ Therefore, the rate of suspicious skin lesions was lower in the population of the study by Winkler et al²⁵ in comparison to the population of the current study. As the overall number of melanocytic nevi and the individual risk for skin cancer, however, was underestimated by the majority of the bank and insurance employees,²⁵ employee skin cancer screening programs can be used as a potentially effective tool to make employees aware of the issue and sensitizing them to it. Employee screening in addition to a final diagnosis can contribute to ensuring suitable treatment is started. For example, in the large-scale employee screening published by Schaefer et al¹⁵ and Augustin et al,¹⁶ 48,665 and 90,880 employees, respectively, were screened for inflammatory and noninflammatory skin diseases, and 19% and 27% of participants, respectively, were diagnosed with skin lesions that required treatment.

Participants in the current study were given no further treatment or advice. Recommendations were made that participants monitor suspicious skin lesions or have them removed. With regard to future screening, 84.4% of participants with at least 1 categorized skin lesion were advised to have a regular follow-up within 1 year, while 15.6% were advised to follow-up within 1 to 2 years. Therefore, a period of 2 years before the next checkup, the period between screenings offered by statutory health insurance providers in Germany,¹² was considered too long for the majority of participants, according to the dermatologists involved with our study.

Conclusion

The high rate of suspicious skin lesions diagnosed demonstrated the effectiveness of skin cancer screenings organized in the workplace, which should be recommended for all employees, not only those who are at high risk for developing skin cancer due to the nature of their work, such as those who work outdoors. It should be noted that the study group examined in the current study was a homogeneous group of employees of a technical company only and is therefore relatively selective. Nevertheless, despite the comparatively selective and young participant group, these examinations provide evidence of the importance of skin cancer screening programs for a wider population.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Heidi Seybold, MD; Petra Wörl, MD; Sybille Thoma-Uszynski, MD; and Jens Bussmann, MD (all from Erlangen, Germany), for their support and active assistance in the practical implementation of this study.

The incidence of skin cancer, along with its effects on patients and the economy, has continued to increase and therefore requires particular attention from dermatologists. UV light has been shown to be of etiopathologic importance in the development of various types of skin cancer.^1-3 Studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between the incidence of skin cancer and average annual amounts of UV radiation exposure.³ Accordingly, in 2009 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified UV light as carcinogenic to humans.⁴ Therefore, the general public must be made aware of the danger of exposure to UV radiation.

In Australia, government initiatives to educate the population on causes of skin cancer development and its relationship to UV radiation have already caused the public to change their way of thinking and to deal with sunlight in a conscious and responsible manner.⁵ A large proportion of the Australian population with light skin is at a particularly high risk for developing skin cancer due to intense exposure to UV radiation. Numerous campaigns in Germany and other countries have attempted to sensitize the public to this issue by emphasizing a reduction in UV exposure (primary prevention) or highlighting the importance of early diagnosis (secondary prevention).^6,7

For a good prognosis, it is crucial that skin cancer, particularly melanoma, is discovered at an early or precancerous stage.⁸ For this reason, self-examination of the skin and skin cancer screening are important factors that can contribute to ensuring early and curative treatment.^9-11 Since July 1, 2008, skin cancer screenings have been included in the preventative health care program by statutory health insurance providers in Germany. As part of this program, the cost of screening once every 2 years for individuals 35 years and older is covered by statutory health insurance.¹² Several studies have shown a decline in the melanoma mortality rate since the introduction of skin cancer screening programs in Germany.^11,13,14

Employee skin cancer screening programs are an important method of examining high numbers of individuals quickly and effectively. These programs have been carried out in Germany and other countries.^15,16 Studies have shown that skin cancer screening carried out selectively on defined groups can be an effective form of secondary prevention, particularly for those who work outdoors.¹⁷

An employee skin cancer screening program was carried out as part of this study. The findings are interpreted and discussed in relation to other employee screening programs that have been reported as well as those introduced by statutory health insurance providers in Germany. The aim of this study was to determine the importance and effectiveness of employee skin cancer screening programs and the role they play in secondary prevention of skin cancer.

Methods

Study Population

Employees of a technical company in Bavaria, Germany, were offered a skin cancer screening program by the employer’s occupational health service and health insurance provider in collaboration with the Department of Dermatology at the University Hospital Erlangen (Erlangen, Germany). Skin examinations were performed exclusively by 5 trained dermatologists. Only direct employees of the company at 3 of its locations in the Erlangen area were eligible to participate. The total number of employees varied by location (1072–5126 employees). The majority of employees had a university education or had completed technical training. Family members and other individuals who were not members of the company were excluded. There were no further inclusion or exclusion criteria. Over a period of 13 days, 783 of 7823 total employees (10.0%) were examined and included in the study. The study was approved by the Responsible Ethics Commission of the Faculty of Medicine at Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany.

Study Design

Employees signed a consent form for participation in the study and completed a standardized questionnaire. The questionnaire was based on surveys used in a prior study¹⁸ and collected information on current and prior skin lesions, prior dermatological screening, personal and family history of skin tumors, frequency of UV exposure, and type of UV protection used. For the question on measures taken for protection from UV radiation, possible answers included with sunscreen cream, with suitable sun-protective clothing, and by staying in the shade, or no measures were taken. In contrast to the other questions, multiple answers were accepted for this question. Answering no automatically excluded other possible answers. Participants also were asked to assess their own Fitzpatrick skin type¹⁹; the questionnaire included explanations of each skin type (I–IV).

The participants were then called in for examination by the dermatologist at 15-minute intervals. All clothing was removed and the skin was examined. Dermatoscopes were used for closer examination of suspicious skin lesions. The clinical results of the examinations were recorded on a standardized form.

An estimation of the number of melanocytic nevi—≤20, 21–49, or ≥50—was recorded for each patient. Suspicious skin lesions were assigned to one of the following categories: nevus requiring future checkup (Nc), nevus requiring excision (Ne), suspected malignant melanoma (MM), suspected squamous cell carcinoma, suspected basal cell carcinoma (BCC), suspected other skin tumor, and precancerous lesion. Fitzpatrick skin type also was assessed for all participants and recorded by the dermatologist carrying out the examination. Each participant was assigned to a risk group—low, moderate, or high risk—based on their individual risk for developing a skin tumor. Factors that were considered when determining participants’ risk for developing skin cancer included Fitzpatrick skin type, number of melanocytic nevi, personal and family history, leisure activities, UV protection used, and current clinical diagnosis of skin lesions.

After the skin examination, participants were informed of recommended treatment but were not given any additional dermatologic advice. Participants could arrange an appointment at the Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, for the excision and histological analysis of the skin lesions. All recorded data were collected in a computerized spreadsheet program. When evaluating the questionnaires, questions that were not answered or were answered incorrectly (participant chose more than 1 answer) were ignored.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software version 16.0. The majority of the data were nominal or ordinal. Metric data were checked for normal distribution using the Shapiro-Wilk test before carrying out parametric tests. Statistical tests were carried out using the χ² test and the t test for independent samples. Non-nominal distributed data were checked using the Mann-Whitney U test. P<.05 was considered statistically significant in the exploratory data analysis.

Results

Of 783 employees included in the study, 288 (36.8%) were female and 495 (63.2%) were male (Table 1). In comparison with the total workforce, a significantly higher proportion of women than men took part in the cross-sectional study (P<.01). The average age (SD) was 42.3 (9.5) years (range, 18–64 years). Female participants (average age [SD], 39.8 [10.2] years) were significantly younger than male participants (average age [SD], 43.8 [8.8] years; P<.01). Forty-one percent of participants had a prior skin cancer screening. One percent of participants had a personal history of skin cancer, with 1 participant reporting a history of MM; 6.5% had a family history of skin cancer, of which 39.2% had a family history of MM.

The results of the clinical examinations showed that 43.8% of participants had 20 or fewer melanocytic nevi, 43.4% had 21 to 49 melanocytic nevi, and 12.8% had 50 or more melanocytic nevi. Significantly more women than men had 20 or fewer melanocytic nevi (P<.05).

Approximately 92% of participants assessed themselves as having Fitzpatrick skin types II (35.2%) or III (56.7%), while only approximately 3.6% and 4.5% assessed themselves as having skin types I and IV, respectively. The results of the Fitzpatrick skin type assessments made by dermatologists were similar: 96.9% of participants were assessed as having Fitzpatrick skin types II (43.0%) and III (53.8%); approximately 1.9% and 1.3% were assessed as having Fitzpatrick skin types I and IV, respectively. Results showed that 80.2% of all participants assessed their skin type in the same way as the dermatologist; 13.5% assessed their skin type as darker and 6.3% (49/783) assessed it as lighter. A quantitative analysis of Fitzpatrick skin type and sex showed that significantly more male participants than female participants assessed their Fitzpatrick skin type darker than their actual skin type (P<.01).

Overall, 47.6% of participants reported having had sunburn rarely in the past, while 36.9% and 14.0% had experienced sunburn once per year and several times per year, respectively. Approximately 1.4% of participants reported never having a sunburn. More of the male participants made use of comprehensive sun protection using all methods listed (34.5%; P<.05) or a combination of sunscreen and sun-protective clothing (14.9%; P<.01) than the female participants who relied more frequently on sunscreen alone (29.5%; P<.01) or a combination of sunscreen and staying in the shade (29.5%; P<.01)

In general it was clear that sunscreen, either alone or in combination with other sun-protection methods, was used most frequently (88.0%); 58.0% protected themselves by staying in the shade, while 48.0% used suitable sun-protective clothing. Only 3.6% of participants did not protect themselves using any of the suggested methods.

A total of 661 categorized skin lesions were found in 377 participants. Of these lesions, 491 were Nc and 121 were Ne. Twenty-four of the skin lesions were suspected precancerous lesions, 13 were suspected BCC, 2 were suspected MM, and 10 were suspected other skin tumor (Table 2). Overall, male participants who were diagnosed with at least 1 skin lesion (average age, 44.0 years) were significantly older than the women (average age, 39.3 years)(P<.01). Similar findings were observed in participants with at least 1 Nc (men, 43.3 years; women, 38.7 years; P<.01) and at least 1 Ne (men, 44.2 years; women, 38.0 years; P<.05). With regard to the individual risk for developing skin cancer, 32.6% of participants were considered to be at low risk, 64.9% were at moderate risk, and 2.6% were at high risk.

Approximately 61.5% of 377 participants who were diagnosed with at least 1 categorized skin lesion were advised to have a specific skin lesion checked by a dermatologist or to have a full examination for skin cancer once every 12 months. Furthermore, 22.5% were advised to follow-up biannually and 11.7% were advised to follow-up once every 2 years. Of the remaining participants who were advised to have follow-ups, 0.3% were advised to have a skin examination once every 3 months after having had MM, and 4.0% were advised to have follow-up once every 18 months. Overall, follow-up was recommended within 1 year in 84.4% of cases and within 1 to 2 years in 15.6% (Table 3).

Subsequent histological analysis of the excised tissue resulted in a diagnosis of only 21 clinically significant skin conditions. One case of Bowen disease and 1 case of BCC was confirmed. Histological analysis identified the remaining 19 excised skin lesions, which included the 2 suspected MMs, as dysplastic nevi.

Comment

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to examine the importance and effectiveness of employee skin cancer screening programs. In comparison with the total workforce, significantly more women took part than men. Female participants were significantly younger than male participants, which mirrors the findings of prior studies showing that screening programs reach women more frequently than men and that women who participate in screenings are also younger on average in comparison to men.^7-13 Men and older individuals usually are underrepresented.^7,13 The average age of participants in our study was 42.3 years, which is lower than in the SCREEN (Skin Cancer Research to Provide Evidence for Effectiveness of Screening in Northern Germany) study (average age, 49.7 years).¹³ The average age in our study also is likely to be lower than patients who undergo skin cancer screenings offered by statutory health insurance providers in Germany, which has a minimum age restriction of 35 years; however, it is comparable to the average age of participants in other employee screening programs and therefore represents the average age of individuals employed in Germany.^15,16

The employee skin cancer screening program in this study generated a high level of interest, indicated by the fact that all available appointments had been booked just 36 hours after the screening was announced. Furthermore, there was a waiting list of approximately 300 employees who were not able to undergo a skin examination. For logistical reasons, the number of participants was limited to 10% of the workforce. The high level of interest is an indication of increased awareness of the importance of recognizing skin tumors early and the associated need for information as well as the need to undergo screening for skin cancer as a precaution. This observation also can be made with regard to the skin cancer screening introduced by statutory health insurance providers in Germany. Studies published by Augustin et al²⁰ and Kornek et al^21,22 confirm that skin cancer screenings have gained wide acceptance in Germany because they were introduced by statutory health insurance providers in 2008. The number of skin cancer screenings carried out by dermatologists in Germany also is increasing.^20-22 Although approximately 19% of those eligible to participate took part in the SCREEN pilot project,¹³ approximately 31% of individuals who were eligible to participate took part in skin cancer screenings offered by statutory health insurance providers in Germany in 2012, and the percentage is rising.²³ Two important factors affecting the high level of interest in the employee screening program used in our study were undoubtedly the advantages of the examination taking place during working hours and being held on the occupational health services’ premises in the workplace, which helped participants avoid the cost of travel and wait times associated with visiting a medical practice.

Of 783 participants included in this study, 377 displayed at least 1 categorized skin lesion; the majority were suspicious melanocytic nevi. This high incidence rate suggested that regular skin cancer screenings are useful, as it has been shown that there is a correlation between higher numbers of melanocytic nevi and increased risk for developing melanoma.²⁴

In a study by Winkler et al,²⁵ a skin cancer screening of 1658 bank and insurance employees found that 33.8% of those examined displayed at least 1 atypical melanocytic nevus and 27.2% displayed more than 50 melanocytic nevi (compared to 12.8% with ≥50 melanocytic nevi in the current study). The risk for developing skin cancer was classified as intermediate or high in 54.5% (compared to 67.5% at moderate or high risk in the current study).²⁵ Therefore, the rate of suspicious skin lesions was lower in the population of the study by Winkler et al²⁵ in comparison to the population of the current study. As the overall number of melanocytic nevi and the individual risk for skin cancer, however, was underestimated by the majority of the bank and insurance employees,²⁵ employee skin cancer screening programs can be used as a potentially effective tool to make employees aware of the issue and sensitizing them to it. Employee screening in addition to a final diagnosis can contribute to ensuring suitable treatment is started. For example, in the large-scale employee screening published by Schaefer et al¹⁵ and Augustin et al,¹⁶ 48,665 and 90,880 employees, respectively, were screened for inflammatory and noninflammatory skin diseases, and 19% and 27% of participants, respectively, were diagnosed with skin lesions that required treatment.

Participants in the current study were given no further treatment or advice. Recommendations were made that participants monitor suspicious skin lesions or have them removed. With regard to future screening, 84.4% of participants with at least 1 categorized skin lesion were advised to have a regular follow-up within 1 year, while 15.6% were advised to follow-up within 1 to 2 years. Therefore, a period of 2 years before the next checkup, the period between screenings offered by statutory health insurance providers in Germany,¹² was considered too long for the majority of participants, according to the dermatologists involved with our study.

Conclusion

The high rate of suspicious skin lesions diagnosed demonstrated the effectiveness of skin cancer screenings organized in the workplace, which should be recommended for all employees, not only those who are at high risk for developing skin cancer due to the nature of their work, such as those who work outdoors. It should be noted that the study group examined in the current study was a homogeneous group of employees of a technical company only and is therefore relatively selective. Nevertheless, despite the comparatively selective and young participant group, these examinations provide evidence of the importance of skin cancer screening programs for a wider population.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Heidi Seybold, MD; Petra Wörl, MD; Sybille Thoma-Uszynski, MD; and Jens Bussmann, MD (all from Erlangen, Germany), for their support and active assistance in the practical implementation of this study.

The incidence of skin cancer, along with its effects on patients and the economy, has continued to increase and therefore requires particular attention from dermatologists. UV light has been shown to be of etiopathologic importance in the development of various types of skin cancer.^1-3 Studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between the incidence of skin cancer and average annual amounts of UV radiation exposure.³ Accordingly, in 2009 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified UV light as carcinogenic to humans.⁴ Therefore, the general public must be made aware of the danger of exposure to UV radiation.

In Australia, government initiatives to educate the population on causes of skin cancer development and its relationship to UV radiation have already caused the public to change their way of thinking and to deal with sunlight in a conscious and responsible manner.⁵ A large proportion of the Australian population with light skin is at a particularly high risk for developing skin cancer due to intense exposure to UV radiation. Numerous campaigns in Germany and other countries have attempted to sensitize the public to this issue by emphasizing a reduction in UV exposure (primary prevention) or highlighting the importance of early diagnosis (secondary prevention).^6,7

For a good prognosis, it is crucial that skin cancer, particularly melanoma, is discovered at an early or precancerous stage.⁸ For this reason, self-examination of the skin and skin cancer screening are important factors that can contribute to ensuring early and curative treatment.^9-11 Since July 1, 2008, skin cancer screenings have been included in the preventative health care program by statutory health insurance providers in Germany. As part of this program, the cost of screening once every 2 years for individuals 35 years and older is covered by statutory health insurance.¹² Several studies have shown a decline in the melanoma mortality rate since the introduction of skin cancer screening programs in Germany.^11,13,14

Employee skin cancer screening programs are an important method of examining high numbers of individuals quickly and effectively. These programs have been carried out in Germany and other countries.^15,16 Studies have shown that skin cancer screening carried out selectively on defined groups can be an effective form of secondary prevention, particularly for those who work outdoors.¹⁷

An employee skin cancer screening program was carried out as part of this study. The findings are interpreted and discussed in relation to other employee screening programs that have been reported as well as those introduced by statutory health insurance providers in Germany. The aim of this study was to determine the importance and effectiveness of employee skin cancer screening programs and the role they play in secondary prevention of skin cancer.

Methods

Study Population

Employees of a technical company in Bavaria, Germany, were offered a skin cancer screening program by the employer’s occupational health service and health insurance provider in collaboration with the Department of Dermatology at the University Hospital Erlangen (Erlangen, Germany). Skin examinations were performed exclusively by 5 trained dermatologists. Only direct employees of the company at 3 of its locations in the Erlangen area were eligible to participate. The total number of employees varied by location (1072–5126 employees). The majority of employees had a university education or had completed technical training. Family members and other individuals who were not members of the company were excluded. There were no further inclusion or exclusion criteria. Over a period of 13 days, 783 of 7823 total employees (10.0%) were examined and included in the study. The study was approved by the Responsible Ethics Commission of the Faculty of Medicine at Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany.

Study Design

Employees signed a consent form for participation in the study and completed a standardized questionnaire. The questionnaire was based on surveys used in a prior study¹⁸ and collected information on current and prior skin lesions, prior dermatological screening, personal and family history of skin tumors, frequency of UV exposure, and type of UV protection used. For the question on measures taken for protection from UV radiation, possible answers included with sunscreen cream, with suitable sun-protective clothing, and by staying in the shade, or no measures were taken. In contrast to the other questions, multiple answers were accepted for this question. Answering no automatically excluded other possible answers. Participants also were asked to assess their own Fitzpatrick skin type¹⁹; the questionnaire included explanations of each skin type (I–IV).

The participants were then called in for examination by the dermatologist at 15-minute intervals. All clothing was removed and the skin was examined. Dermatoscopes were used for closer examination of suspicious skin lesions. The clinical results of the examinations were recorded on a standardized form.

An estimation of the number of melanocytic nevi—≤20, 21–49, or ≥50—was recorded for each patient. Suspicious skin lesions were assigned to one of the following categories: nevus requiring future checkup (Nc), nevus requiring excision (Ne), suspected malignant melanoma (MM), suspected squamous cell carcinoma, suspected basal cell carcinoma (BCC), suspected other skin tumor, and precancerous lesion. Fitzpatrick skin type also was assessed for all participants and recorded by the dermatologist carrying out the examination. Each participant was assigned to a risk group—low, moderate, or high risk—based on their individual risk for developing a skin tumor. Factors that were considered when determining participants’ risk for developing skin cancer included Fitzpatrick skin type, number of melanocytic nevi, personal and family history, leisure activities, UV protection used, and current clinical diagnosis of skin lesions.

After the skin examination, participants were informed of recommended treatment but were not given any additional dermatologic advice. Participants could arrange an appointment at the Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, for the excision and histological analysis of the skin lesions. All recorded data were collected in a computerized spreadsheet program. When evaluating the questionnaires, questions that were not answered or were answered incorrectly (participant chose more than 1 answer) were ignored.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software version 16.0. The majority of the data were nominal or ordinal. Metric data were checked for normal distribution using the Shapiro-Wilk test before carrying out parametric tests. Statistical tests were carried out using the χ² test and the t test for independent samples. Non-nominal distributed data were checked using the Mann-Whitney U test. P<.05 was considered statistically significant in the exploratory data analysis.

Results

Of 783 employees included in the study, 288 (36.8%) were female and 495 (63.2%) were male (Table 1). In comparison with the total workforce, a significantly higher proportion of women than men took part in the cross-sectional study (P<.01). The average age (SD) was 42.3 (9.5) years (range, 18–64 years). Female participants (average age [SD], 39.8 [10.2] years) were significantly younger than male participants (average age [SD], 43.8 [8.8] years; P<.01). Forty-one percent of participants had a prior skin cancer screening. One percent of participants had a personal history of skin cancer, with 1 participant reporting a history of MM; 6.5% had a family history of skin cancer, of which 39.2% had a family history of MM.

The results of the clinical examinations showed that 43.8% of participants had 20 or fewer melanocytic nevi, 43.4% had 21 to 49 melanocytic nevi, and 12.8% had 50 or more melanocytic nevi. Significantly more women than men had 20 or fewer melanocytic nevi (P<.05).

Approximately 92% of participants assessed themselves as having Fitzpatrick skin types II (35.2%) or III (56.7%), while only approximately 3.6% and 4.5% assessed themselves as having skin types I and IV, respectively. The results of the Fitzpatrick skin type assessments made by dermatologists were similar: 96.9% of participants were assessed as having Fitzpatrick skin types II (43.0%) and III (53.8%); approximately 1.9% and 1.3% were assessed as having Fitzpatrick skin types I and IV, respectively. Results showed that 80.2% of all participants assessed their skin type in the same way as the dermatologist; 13.5% assessed their skin type as darker and 6.3% (49/783) assessed it as lighter. A quantitative analysis of Fitzpatrick skin type and sex showed that significantly more male participants than female participants assessed their Fitzpatrick skin type darker than their actual skin type (P<.01).

Overall, 47.6% of participants reported having had sunburn rarely in the past, while 36.9% and 14.0% had experienced sunburn once per year and several times per year, respectively. Approximately 1.4% of participants reported never having a sunburn. More of the male participants made use of comprehensive sun protection using all methods listed (34.5%; P<.05) or a combination of sunscreen and sun-protective clothing (14.9%; P<.01) than the female participants who relied more frequently on sunscreen alone (29.5%; P<.01) or a combination of sunscreen and staying in the shade (29.5%; P<.01)

In general it was clear that sunscreen, either alone or in combination with other sun-protection methods, was used most frequently (88.0%); 58.0% protected themselves by staying in the shade, while 48.0% used suitable sun-protective clothing. Only 3.6% of participants did not protect themselves using any of the suggested methods.

A total of 661 categorized skin lesions were found in 377 participants. Of these lesions, 491 were Nc and 121 were Ne. Twenty-four of the skin lesions were suspected precancerous lesions, 13 were suspected BCC, 2 were suspected MM, and 10 were suspected other skin tumor (Table 2). Overall, male participants who were diagnosed with at least 1 skin lesion (average age, 44.0 years) were significantly older than the women (average age, 39.3 years)(P<.01). Similar findings were observed in participants with at least 1 Nc (men, 43.3 years; women, 38.7 years; P<.01) and at least 1 Ne (men, 44.2 years; women, 38.0 years; P<.05). With regard to the individual risk for developing skin cancer, 32.6% of participants were considered to be at low risk, 64.9% were at moderate risk, and 2.6% were at high risk.

Approximately 61.5% of 377 participants who were diagnosed with at least 1 categorized skin lesion were advised to have a specific skin lesion checked by a dermatologist or to have a full examination for skin cancer once every 12 months. Furthermore, 22.5% were advised to follow-up biannually and 11.7% were advised to follow-up once every 2 years. Of the remaining participants who were advised to have follow-ups, 0.3% were advised to have a skin examination once every 3 months after having had MM, and 4.0% were advised to have follow-up once every 18 months. Overall, follow-up was recommended within 1 year in 84.4% of cases and within 1 to 2 years in 15.6% (Table 3).

Subsequent histological analysis of the excised tissue resulted in a diagnosis of only 21 clinically significant skin conditions. One case of Bowen disease and 1 case of BCC was confirmed. Histological analysis identified the remaining 19 excised skin lesions, which included the 2 suspected MMs, as dysplastic nevi.

Comment

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to examine the importance and effectiveness of employee skin cancer screening programs. In comparison with the total workforce, significantly more women took part than men. Female participants were significantly younger than male participants, which mirrors the findings of prior studies showing that screening programs reach women more frequently than men and that women who participate in screenings are also younger on average in comparison to men.^7-13 Men and older individuals usually are underrepresented.^7,13 The average age of participants in our study was 42.3 years, which is lower than in the SCREEN (Skin Cancer Research to Provide Evidence for Effectiveness of Screening in Northern Germany) study (average age, 49.7 years).¹³ The average age in our study also is likely to be lower than patients who undergo skin cancer screenings offered by statutory health insurance providers in Germany, which has a minimum age restriction of 35 years; however, it is comparable to the average age of participants in other employee screening programs and therefore represents the average age of individuals employed in Germany.^15,16

The employee skin cancer screening program in this study generated a high level of interest, indicated by the fact that all available appointments had been booked just 36 hours after the screening was announced. Furthermore, there was a waiting list of approximately 300 employees who were not able to undergo a skin examination. For logistical reasons, the number of participants was limited to 10% of the workforce. The high level of interest is an indication of increased awareness of the importance of recognizing skin tumors early and the associated need for information as well as the need to undergo screening for skin cancer as a precaution. This observation also can be made with regard to the skin cancer screening introduced by statutory health insurance providers in Germany. Studies published by Augustin et al²⁰ and Kornek et al^21,22 confirm that skin cancer screenings have gained wide acceptance in Germany because they were introduced by statutory health insurance providers in 2008. The number of skin cancer screenings carried out by dermatologists in Germany also is increasing.^20-22 Although approximately 19% of those eligible to participate took part in the SCREEN pilot project,¹³ approximately 31% of individuals who were eligible to participate took part in skin cancer screenings offered by statutory health insurance providers in Germany in 2012, and the percentage is rising.²³ Two important factors affecting the high level of interest in the employee screening program used in our study were undoubtedly the advantages of the examination taking place during working hours and being held on the occupational health services’ premises in the workplace, which helped participants avoid the cost of travel and wait times associated with visiting a medical practice.

Of 783 participants included in this study, 377 displayed at least 1 categorized skin lesion; the majority were suspicious melanocytic nevi. This high incidence rate suggested that regular skin cancer screenings are useful, as it has been shown that there is a correlation between higher numbers of melanocytic nevi and increased risk for developing melanoma.²⁴

In a study by Winkler et al,²⁵ a skin cancer screening of 1658 bank and insurance employees found that 33.8% of those examined displayed at least 1 atypical melanocytic nevus and 27.2% displayed more than 50 melanocytic nevi (compared to 12.8% with ≥50 melanocytic nevi in the current study). The risk for developing skin cancer was classified as intermediate or high in 54.5% (compared to 67.5% at moderate or high risk in the current study).²⁵ Therefore, the rate of suspicious skin lesions was lower in the population of the study by Winkler et al²⁵ in comparison to the population of the current study. As the overall number of melanocytic nevi and the individual risk for skin cancer, however, was underestimated by the majority of the bank and insurance employees,²⁵ employee skin cancer screening programs can be used as a potentially effective tool to make employees aware of the issue and sensitizing them to it. Employee screening in addition to a final diagnosis can contribute to ensuring suitable treatment is started. For example, in the large-scale employee screening published by Schaefer et al¹⁵ and Augustin et al,¹⁶ 48,665 and 90,880 employees, respectively, were screened for inflammatory and noninflammatory skin diseases, and 19% and 27% of participants, respectively, were diagnosed with skin lesions that required treatment.

Participants in the current study were given no further treatment or advice. Recommendations were made that participants monitor suspicious skin lesions or have them removed. With regard to future screening, 84.4% of participants with at least 1 categorized skin lesion were advised to have a regular follow-up within 1 year, while 15.6% were advised to follow-up within 1 to 2 years. Therefore, a period of 2 years before the next checkup, the period between screenings offered by statutory health insurance providers in Germany,¹² was considered too long for the majority of participants, according to the dermatologists involved with our study.

Conclusion

The high rate of suspicious skin lesions diagnosed demonstrated the effectiveness of skin cancer screenings organized in the workplace, which should be recommended for all employees, not only those who are at high risk for developing skin cancer due to the nature of their work, such as those who work outdoors. It should be noted that the study group examined in the current study was a homogeneous group of employees of a technical company only and is therefore relatively selective. Nevertheless, despite the comparatively selective and young participant group, these examinations provide evidence of the importance of skin cancer screening programs for a wider population.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Heidi Seybold, MD; Petra Wörl, MD; Sybille Thoma-Uszynski, MD; and Jens Bussmann, MD (all from Erlangen, Germany), for their support and active assistance in the practical implementation of this study.

To the Editor:

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common form of a heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas known as cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. Celiac disease (CD) is associated with increased risk for development of enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and other intraintestinal and extraintestinal non-Hodgkin lymphomas, but a firm association between CD and MF has not been established.¹ The first and second cases of concomitant MF and CD were reported in 1985 and 2009 by Coulson and Sanderson² and Moreira et al,³ respectively. Two other reports of celiac-associated dermatitis herpetiformis and MF exist.^4,5 We report a patient with a unique constellation of MF, CD, and Sjögren syndrome (SS).

A 54-year-old woman presented with a worsening nonpruritic, slightly tender, eczematous patch on the back of 19 years’ duration. She had a history of SS diagnosed by salivary gland biopsy. She also had a diagnosis of CD confirmed with positive antigliadin IgA antibodies, with a dramatic improvement in symptoms on a gluten-free diet (GFD) after having abdominal pain and diarrhea for many years. She had no evidence of dermatitis herpetiformis. Recently, more red-brown areas of confluent light pink erythema without clear-cut borders had appeared on the axillae, trunk, and thigh (Figure). The patient also noted new lesions and more erythema of the patches when not adhering to a GFD. A biopsy specimen from the left side of the lateral trunk revealed a bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate with irregular nuclear contours displaying epidermotropism with a few Pautrier microabscesses. Immunohistochemistry showed strong CD3 and CD4 positivity with loss of CD7 and scattered CD8 staining. Peripheral blood flow cytometry showed no aberrant cell populations. The patient was diagnosed with MF stage IB and treated with topical corticosteroids and natural light with improvement.

It has been hypothesized that early MF is an autoimmune process caused by dysregulation of a lymphocytic reaction against chronic exogenous or endogenous antigens.^4,5 The association of MF with CD supports the possibility of lymphocytic stimulation by a persistent antigen (ie, gluten) in the gastrointestinal tract. Porter et al⁴ suggested that in susceptible individuals, the resulting clonal T cells may migrate into the epidermis, causing MF. This theory also is supported by the finding that adherence to a GFD leads to decreased risk for malignancy and morbidity.⁶ In our patient, the chronic autoimmune stimulation in SS could be a factor in the pathogenesis of MF. Additionally, SS, CD, and MF are all strongly associated with increased incidence of specific but different HLA class II antigens. Mycosis fungoides is associated with HLA-DR5 and DQB1*03 alleles, CD with HLA-DQ2 and DQ8, and SS with HLA-DR15 and DR3. We do not know the HLA type of our patient, but she likely possessed multiple alleles, leading to the unique aggregation of diseases.

Furthermore, studies have shown that lymphocytes in CD patients display impaired regulatory T-cell function, causing increased incidence of autoimmune diseases and malignancy.^7,8 By this theory, the occurrence of MF in patients is facilitated by the inability of CD lymphocytes to control the abnormal T-cell proliferation in the skin. Interestingly, the finding of SS in our patient supports the possibility of impaired regulatory T-cell function.

Although the occurrence of both MF and CD in our patient could be coincidental, the possibility of correlation must be considered as more cases are documented.

To the Editor:

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common form of a heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas known as cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. Celiac disease (CD) is associated with increased risk for development of enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and other intraintestinal and extraintestinal non-Hodgkin lymphomas, but a firm association between CD and MF has not been established.¹ The first and second cases of concomitant MF and CD were reported in 1985 and 2009 by Coulson and Sanderson² and Moreira et al,³ respectively. Two other reports of celiac-associated dermatitis herpetiformis and MF exist.^4,5 We report a patient with a unique constellation of MF, CD, and Sjögren syndrome (SS).

A 54-year-old woman presented with a worsening nonpruritic, slightly tender, eczematous patch on the back of 19 years’ duration. She had a history of SS diagnosed by salivary gland biopsy. She also had a diagnosis of CD confirmed with positive antigliadin IgA antibodies, with a dramatic improvement in symptoms on a gluten-free diet (GFD) after having abdominal pain and diarrhea for many years. She had no evidence of dermatitis herpetiformis. Recently, more red-brown areas of confluent light pink erythema without clear-cut borders had appeared on the axillae, trunk, and thigh (Figure). The patient also noted new lesions and more erythema of the patches when not adhering to a GFD. A biopsy specimen from the left side of the lateral trunk revealed a bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate with irregular nuclear contours displaying epidermotropism with a few Pautrier microabscesses. Immunohistochemistry showed strong CD3 and CD4 positivity with loss of CD7 and scattered CD8 staining. Peripheral blood flow cytometry showed no aberrant cell populations. The patient was diagnosed with MF stage IB and treated with topical corticosteroids and natural light with improvement.

It has been hypothesized that early MF is an autoimmune process caused by dysregulation of a lymphocytic reaction against chronic exogenous or endogenous antigens.^4,5 The association of MF with CD supports the possibility of lymphocytic stimulation by a persistent antigen (ie, gluten) in the gastrointestinal tract. Porter et al⁴ suggested that in susceptible individuals, the resulting clonal T cells may migrate into the epidermis, causing MF. This theory also is supported by the finding that adherence to a GFD leads to decreased risk for malignancy and morbidity.⁶ In our patient, the chronic autoimmune stimulation in SS could be a factor in the pathogenesis of MF. Additionally, SS, CD, and MF are all strongly associated with increased incidence of specific but different HLA class II antigens. Mycosis fungoides is associated with HLA-DR5 and DQB1*03 alleles, CD with HLA-DQ2 and DQ8, and SS with HLA-DR15 and DR3. We do not know the HLA type of our patient, but she likely possessed multiple alleles, leading to the unique aggregation of diseases.

Furthermore, studies have shown that lymphocytes in CD patients display impaired regulatory T-cell function, causing increased incidence of autoimmune diseases and malignancy.^7,8 By this theory, the occurrence of MF in patients is facilitated by the inability of CD lymphocytes to control the abnormal T-cell proliferation in the skin. Interestingly, the finding of SS in our patient supports the possibility of impaired regulatory T-cell function.

Although the occurrence of both MF and CD in our patient could be coincidental, the possibility of correlation must be considered as more cases are documented.

To the Editor:

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common form of a heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas known as cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. Celiac disease (CD) is associated with increased risk for development of enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and other intraintestinal and extraintestinal non-Hodgkin lymphomas, but a firm association between CD and MF has not been established.¹ The first and second cases of concomitant MF and CD were reported in 1985 and 2009 by Coulson and Sanderson² and Moreira et al,³ respectively. Two other reports of celiac-associated dermatitis herpetiformis and MF exist.^4,5 We report a patient with a unique constellation of MF, CD, and Sjögren syndrome (SS).

A 54-year-old woman presented with a worsening nonpruritic, slightly tender, eczematous patch on the back of 19 years’ duration. She had a history of SS diagnosed by salivary gland biopsy. She also had a diagnosis of CD confirmed with positive antigliadin IgA antibodies, with a dramatic improvement in symptoms on a gluten-free diet (GFD) after having abdominal pain and diarrhea for many years. She had no evidence of dermatitis herpetiformis. Recently, more red-brown areas of confluent light pink erythema without clear-cut borders had appeared on the axillae, trunk, and thigh (Figure). The patient also noted new lesions and more erythema of the patches when not adhering to a GFD. A biopsy specimen from the left side of the lateral trunk revealed a bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate with irregular nuclear contours displaying epidermotropism with a few Pautrier microabscesses. Immunohistochemistry showed strong CD3 and CD4 positivity with loss of CD7 and scattered CD8 staining. Peripheral blood flow cytometry showed no aberrant cell populations. The patient was diagnosed with MF stage IB and treated with topical corticosteroids and natural light with improvement.

It has been hypothesized that early MF is an autoimmune process caused by dysregulation of a lymphocytic reaction against chronic exogenous or endogenous antigens.^4,5 The association of MF with CD supports the possibility of lymphocytic stimulation by a persistent antigen (ie, gluten) in the gastrointestinal tract. Porter et al⁴ suggested that in susceptible individuals, the resulting clonal T cells may migrate into the epidermis, causing MF. This theory also is supported by the finding that adherence to a GFD leads to decreased risk for malignancy and morbidity.⁶ In our patient, the chronic autoimmune stimulation in SS could be a factor in the pathogenesis of MF. Additionally, SS, CD, and MF are all strongly associated with increased incidence of specific but different HLA class II antigens. Mycosis fungoides is associated with HLA-DR5 and DQB1*03 alleles, CD with HLA-DQ2 and DQ8, and SS with HLA-DR15 and DR3. We do not know the HLA type of our patient, but she likely possessed multiple alleles, leading to the unique aggregation of diseases.

Furthermore, studies have shown that lymphocytes in CD patients display impaired regulatory T-cell function, causing increased incidence of autoimmune diseases and malignancy.^7,8 By this theory, the occurrence of MF in patients is facilitated by the inability of CD lymphocytes to control the abnormal T-cell proliferation in the skin. Interestingly, the finding of SS in our patient supports the possibility of impaired regulatory T-cell function.

Although the occurrence of both MF and CD in our patient could be coincidental, the possibility of correlation must be considered as more cases are documented.