Case Letter

To the Editor:

Mycetoma is a noncontagious chronic infection of the skin and subcutaneous tissue caused by exogenous fungi or bacteria that can involve deeper structures such as the fasciae, muscles, and bones. Clinically it is characterized by increased swelling of the affected area, fibrosis, nodules, tumefaction, formation of draining sinuses, and abscesses that drain pus-containing grains through fistulae.¹ The initiation of the infection is related to local trauma and can involve muscle, underlying bone, and adjacent organs. The feet are the most commonly affected region, and the incubation period is variable. Patients rarely report prior trauma to the affected area and only seek medical consultation when the nodules and draining sinuses become evident. The etiopathogenesis of mycetoma is associated with aerobic actinomycetes (ie, Nocardia, Actinomadura, Streptomyces), known as actinomycetoma, and fungal infections, known as eumycetomas.¹

We report the case of a 57-year-old Albanian man who was referred to the outpatient clinic of our dermatology department for diagnosis and treatment of a chronic, suppurative, subcutaneous infection on the right foot presenting as abscesses and draining sinuses. The patient was a farmer and reported that the condition appeared 4 years prior following a laceration he sustained while at work. Dermatologic examination revealed local tumefaction, fistulated nodules, and abscesses discharging a serohemorrhagic fluid on the right foot (Figure 1). Perilesional erythema and subcutaneous swelling were evident. There was no regional lymph­adenopathy. Standard laboratory examination was normal. Radiography of the right foot showed no osteolytic lesions or evidence of osteomyelitis.

A skin biopsy from a lesion on the right foot was performed, and identification of the possible etiologic agent was based on direct microscopic examination of the granules, culture isolation of the agent, and fungal microscopic morphology.² Granules were studied under direct examination with potassium hydroxide solution 20% and showed septate branching hyphae (Figure 2). The culture produced colonies that were white, yellow, and brown. Colonies were comprised of dense mycelium with melanin pigment and were grown at 37°C. A lactose tolerance test was positive.² Therefore, the strain was identified as Madurella mycetomatis, and a diagnosis of eumycetoma pedis was made.

The patient was hospitalized for 2 weeks and treated with intravenous fluconazole, then treatment with oral itraconazole 200 mg once daily was initiated. At 4-month follow-up, he had self-discontinued treatment but demonstrated partial improvement of the tumefaction, healing of sinus tracts, and functional recovery of the right foot.

One year following the initial presentation, the patient’s clinical condition worsened (Figure 3A). Radiography of the right foot showed osteolytic lesions on bones in the right foot (Figure 3B), and a repeat culture showed the presence of Staphylococcus aureus; thus, treatment with itraconazole 200 mg once daily along with antibiotics (cefuroxime and gentamicin) was started immediately. Surgical treatment was recommended, but the patient refused treatment.

Mycetomas are rare in Albania but are common in countries of tropical and subtropical regions. Known as “Madura foot” by the native people, mycetoma was recognized as a disease entity in 1842.¹ In 1860, Carter³ (who established the fungal etiology of this disorder) first proposed the term mycetoma and further proposed the terms melanoid mycetoma and ochroid mycetoma in an attempt to classify the disease into 2 varieties on the basis of the black or pale-colored granules (ie, grains, sclerotia) on histology produced by the etiologic agents.^2-4

Clinical features of eumycetoma include lesions with clear margins, few sinuses, black grains, slow progression, and long-term involvement of bone. The grains represent an aggregate of hyphae produced by fungi; thus, the characteristic feature of eumycetoma is the formation of large granules that can involve bone.¹ A critical diagnostic step is to distinguish between eumycetoma and actinomycetoma. If possible, it is important to culture the organism because treatment varies depending on the cause of the infection.

Fungal identification is crucial in the diagnosis of mycetoma. In our case, diagnosis of eumycetoma pedis was based on clinical examination and detection of fungal species by microscopic examination and culture. The color of small granules (black grains) is a parameter used to identify different pathogens on histology but is not sufficient for diagnosis.⁵ The examination by potassium hydroxide preparation is helpful to identify the hyphae; however, culture is necessary.²

Therapeutic management of eumycetoma needs a combined strategy that includes systemic treatment and surgical therapy. Eumycetomas generally are more difficult to treat then actinomycetomas. Some authors recommend a high dose of amphotericin B as the treatment of choice for eumycetoma,^6,7 but there are some that emphasize that amphotericin B is partially effective.^8,9 There also is evidence in the literature of resistance of eumycetoma to ketoconazole treatment^10,11 and successful treatment with fluconazole and itraconazole.^10-13 For this reason, we treated our patient with the latter agents. In cases of osteolysis, amputation often is required.

In conclusion, eumycetoma pedis is a rare deep fungal infection that can cause considerable morbidity. Patients should be well educated about this condition and be made aware of the risk of environmental exposure (eg, contact of broken skin with contaminated soil and water) and the need to wear protective footwear in potentially contaminated environments. Early diagnosis, correct treatment, and regular follow-up can reduce the risk of osteolytic complications and increase the possibility of complete recovery.

To the Editor:

Mycetoma is a noncontagious chronic infection of the skin and subcutaneous tissue caused by exogenous fungi or bacteria that can involve deeper structures such as the fasciae, muscles, and bones. Clinically it is characterized by increased swelling of the affected area, fibrosis, nodules, tumefaction, formation of draining sinuses, and abscesses that drain pus-containing grains through fistulae.¹ The initiation of the infection is related to local trauma and can involve muscle, underlying bone, and adjacent organs. The feet are the most commonly affected region, and the incubation period is variable. Patients rarely report prior trauma to the affected area and only seek medical consultation when the nodules and draining sinuses become evident. The etiopathogenesis of mycetoma is associated with aerobic actinomycetes (ie, Nocardia, Actinomadura, Streptomyces), known as actinomycetoma, and fungal infections, known as eumycetomas.¹

We report the case of a 57-year-old Albanian man who was referred to the outpatient clinic of our dermatology department for diagnosis and treatment of a chronic, suppurative, subcutaneous infection on the right foot presenting as abscesses and draining sinuses. The patient was a farmer and reported that the condition appeared 4 years prior following a laceration he sustained while at work. Dermatologic examination revealed local tumefaction, fistulated nodules, and abscesses discharging a serohemorrhagic fluid on the right foot (Figure 1). Perilesional erythema and subcutaneous swelling were evident. There was no regional lymph­adenopathy. Standard laboratory examination was normal. Radiography of the right foot showed no osteolytic lesions or evidence of osteomyelitis.

A skin biopsy from a lesion on the right foot was performed, and identification of the possible etiologic agent was based on direct microscopic examination of the granules, culture isolation of the agent, and fungal microscopic morphology.² Granules were studied under direct examination with potassium hydroxide solution 20% and showed septate branching hyphae (Figure 2). The culture produced colonies that were white, yellow, and brown. Colonies were comprised of dense mycelium with melanin pigment and were grown at 37°C. A lactose tolerance test was positive.² Therefore, the strain was identified as Madurella mycetomatis, and a diagnosis of eumycetoma pedis was made.

The patient was hospitalized for 2 weeks and treated with intravenous fluconazole, then treatment with oral itraconazole 200 mg once daily was initiated. At 4-month follow-up, he had self-discontinued treatment but demonstrated partial improvement of the tumefaction, healing of sinus tracts, and functional recovery of the right foot.

One year following the initial presentation, the patient’s clinical condition worsened (Figure 3A). Radiography of the right foot showed osteolytic lesions on bones in the right foot (Figure 3B), and a repeat culture showed the presence of Staphylococcus aureus; thus, treatment with itraconazole 200 mg once daily along with antibiotics (cefuroxime and gentamicin) was started immediately. Surgical treatment was recommended, but the patient refused treatment.

Mycetomas are rare in Albania but are common in countries of tropical and subtropical regions. Known as “Madura foot” by the native people, mycetoma was recognized as a disease entity in 1842.¹ In 1860, Carter³ (who established the fungal etiology of this disorder) first proposed the term mycetoma and further proposed the terms melanoid mycetoma and ochroid mycetoma in an attempt to classify the disease into 2 varieties on the basis of the black or pale-colored granules (ie, grains, sclerotia) on histology produced by the etiologic agents.^2-4

Clinical features of eumycetoma include lesions with clear margins, few sinuses, black grains, slow progression, and long-term involvement of bone. The grains represent an aggregate of hyphae produced by fungi; thus, the characteristic feature of eumycetoma is the formation of large granules that can involve bone.¹ A critical diagnostic step is to distinguish between eumycetoma and actinomycetoma. If possible, it is important to culture the organism because treatment varies depending on the cause of the infection.

Fungal identification is crucial in the diagnosis of mycetoma. In our case, diagnosis of eumycetoma pedis was based on clinical examination and detection of fungal species by microscopic examination and culture. The color of small granules (black grains) is a parameter used to identify different pathogens on histology but is not sufficient for diagnosis.⁵ The examination by potassium hydroxide preparation is helpful to identify the hyphae; however, culture is necessary.²

Therapeutic management of eumycetoma needs a combined strategy that includes systemic treatment and surgical therapy. Eumycetomas generally are more difficult to treat then actinomycetomas. Some authors recommend a high dose of amphotericin B as the treatment of choice for eumycetoma,^6,7 but there are some that emphasize that amphotericin B is partially effective.^8,9 There also is evidence in the literature of resistance of eumycetoma to ketoconazole treatment^10,11 and successful treatment with fluconazole and itraconazole.^10-13 For this reason, we treated our patient with the latter agents. In cases of osteolysis, amputation often is required.

In conclusion, eumycetoma pedis is a rare deep fungal infection that can cause considerable morbidity. Patients should be well educated about this condition and be made aware of the risk of environmental exposure (eg, contact of broken skin with contaminated soil and water) and the need to wear protective footwear in potentially contaminated environments. Early diagnosis, correct treatment, and regular follow-up can reduce the risk of osteolytic complications and increase the possibility of complete recovery.

To the Editor:

Mycetoma is a noncontagious chronic infection of the skin and subcutaneous tissue caused by exogenous fungi or bacteria that can involve deeper structures such as the fasciae, muscles, and bones. Clinically it is characterized by increased swelling of the affected area, fibrosis, nodules, tumefaction, formation of draining sinuses, and abscesses that drain pus-containing grains through fistulae.¹ The initiation of the infection is related to local trauma and can involve muscle, underlying bone, and adjacent organs. The feet are the most commonly affected region, and the incubation period is variable. Patients rarely report prior trauma to the affected area and only seek medical consultation when the nodules and draining sinuses become evident. The etiopathogenesis of mycetoma is associated with aerobic actinomycetes (ie, Nocardia, Actinomadura, Streptomyces), known as actinomycetoma, and fungal infections, known as eumycetomas.¹

We report the case of a 57-year-old Albanian man who was referred to the outpatient clinic of our dermatology department for diagnosis and treatment of a chronic, suppurative, subcutaneous infection on the right foot presenting as abscesses and draining sinuses. The patient was a farmer and reported that the condition appeared 4 years prior following a laceration he sustained while at work. Dermatologic examination revealed local tumefaction, fistulated nodules, and abscesses discharging a serohemorrhagic fluid on the right foot (Figure 1). Perilesional erythema and subcutaneous swelling were evident. There was no regional lymph­adenopathy. Standard laboratory examination was normal. Radiography of the right foot showed no osteolytic lesions or evidence of osteomyelitis.

A skin biopsy from a lesion on the right foot was performed, and identification of the possible etiologic agent was based on direct microscopic examination of the granules, culture isolation of the agent, and fungal microscopic morphology.² Granules were studied under direct examination with potassium hydroxide solution 20% and showed septate branching hyphae (Figure 2). The culture produced colonies that were white, yellow, and brown. Colonies were comprised of dense mycelium with melanin pigment and were grown at 37°C. A lactose tolerance test was positive.² Therefore, the strain was identified as Madurella mycetomatis, and a diagnosis of eumycetoma pedis was made.

The patient was hospitalized for 2 weeks and treated with intravenous fluconazole, then treatment with oral itraconazole 200 mg once daily was initiated. At 4-month follow-up, he had self-discontinued treatment but demonstrated partial improvement of the tumefaction, healing of sinus tracts, and functional recovery of the right foot.

One year following the initial presentation, the patient’s clinical condition worsened (Figure 3A). Radiography of the right foot showed osteolytic lesions on bones in the right foot (Figure 3B), and a repeat culture showed the presence of Staphylococcus aureus; thus, treatment with itraconazole 200 mg once daily along with antibiotics (cefuroxime and gentamicin) was started immediately. Surgical treatment was recommended, but the patient refused treatment.

Mycetomas are rare in Albania but are common in countries of tropical and subtropical regions. Known as “Madura foot” by the native people, mycetoma was recognized as a disease entity in 1842.¹ In 1860, Carter³ (who established the fungal etiology of this disorder) first proposed the term mycetoma and further proposed the terms melanoid mycetoma and ochroid mycetoma in an attempt to classify the disease into 2 varieties on the basis of the black or pale-colored granules (ie, grains, sclerotia) on histology produced by the etiologic agents.^2-4

Clinical features of eumycetoma include lesions with clear margins, few sinuses, black grains, slow progression, and long-term involvement of bone. The grains represent an aggregate of hyphae produced by fungi; thus, the characteristic feature of eumycetoma is the formation of large granules that can involve bone.¹ A critical diagnostic step is to distinguish between eumycetoma and actinomycetoma. If possible, it is important to culture the organism because treatment varies depending on the cause of the infection.

Fungal identification is crucial in the diagnosis of mycetoma. In our case, diagnosis of eumycetoma pedis was based on clinical examination and detection of fungal species by microscopic examination and culture. The color of small granules (black grains) is a parameter used to identify different pathogens on histology but is not sufficient for diagnosis.⁵ The examination by potassium hydroxide preparation is helpful to identify the hyphae; however, culture is necessary.²

Therapeutic management of eumycetoma needs a combined strategy that includes systemic treatment and surgical therapy. Eumycetomas generally are more difficult to treat then actinomycetomas. Some authors recommend a high dose of amphotericin B as the treatment of choice for eumycetoma,^6,7 but there are some that emphasize that amphotericin B is partially effective.^8,9 There also is evidence in the literature of resistance of eumycetoma to ketoconazole treatment^10,11 and successful treatment with fluconazole and itraconazole.^10-13 For this reason, we treated our patient with the latter agents. In cases of osteolysis, amputation often is required.

In conclusion, eumycetoma pedis is a rare deep fungal infection that can cause considerable morbidity. Patients should be well educated about this condition and be made aware of the risk of environmental exposure (eg, contact of broken skin with contaminated soil and water) and the need to wear protective footwear in potentially contaminated environments. Early diagnosis, correct treatment, and regular follow-up can reduce the risk of osteolytic complications and increase the possibility of complete recovery.

To the Editor:

Postirradiation morphea (PIM) is a rare but well-documented phenomenon that primarily occurs in breast cancer patients who have received radiation therapy; however, it also has been reported in patients who have received radiation therapy for lymphoma as well as endocervical, endometrial, and gastric carcinomas.¹ Importantly, clinicians must be able to recognize and differentiate this condition from other causes of new-onset induration and erythema of the breast, such as cancer recurrence, a new primary malignancy, or inflammatory etiologies (eg, radiation or contact dermatitis). Typically, PIM presents months to years after radiation therapy as an erythematous patch within the irradiated area that progressively becomes indurated. We report an unusual case of PIM with a reticulated appearance occurring 3 weeks after radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery for an infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the left breast.

A 62-year-old woman presented to the dermatology department with a stage IIA, lymph node–negative, estrogen and progesterone receptor–negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the left breast. She was treated with a partial mastectomy of the left breast followed by external beam radiotherapy to the entire left breast in combination with chemotherapy (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel). The patient received 15 fractions of 270 cGy (4050 cGy total) with a weekly 600-cGy boost over 21 days without any complications.

Three weeks after finishing radiation therapy, the patient developed redness and swelling of the left breast that did not encompass the entire radiation field. There was no associated pain or pruritus. She was treated by her surgical oncologist with topical calendula and 3 courses of cephalexin for suspected mastitis with only modest improvement, then was referred to dermatology 3 months later.

At the initial dermatology evaluation, the patient reported little improvement after antibiotics and topical calendula. On physical examination, there were erythematous, reticulated, dusky, indurated patches on the entire left breast. The area of most pronounced induration surrounded the surgical scar on the left superior breast. Punch biopsy for hematoxylin and eosin staining and tissue cultures was obtained at this appointment. The patient was started on doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and was instructed to apply triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily to the affected area. After 1 month of therapy, she reported slight improvement in the degree of erythema with this regimen, but the involved area continued to extend outside of the radiation field to the central chest wall and medial right breast (Figure 1). Two additional biopsies—one from the central chest and another from the right breast—were then taken over the course of 4 months, given the consistently inconclusive clinicopathologic nature and failure of the eruption to respond to antibiotics plus topical corticosteroids.

Punch biopsy from the central chest revealed a sparse perivascular infiltrate comprised predominantly of lymphocytes with occasional eosinophils (Figure 2). There were foci suggestive of early dermal sclerosis, an increased number of small blood vessels in the dermis, and scattered enlarged fibroblasts. Metastatic carcinoma was not identified. Although the histologic findings were not entirely specific, the changes were most suggestive of PIM, for which the patient was started on pentoxifylline (400 mg 3 times daily) and oral vitamin E supplementation (400 IU daily). At subsequent follow-up appointments, she showed markedly decreased skin erythema and induration.

Morphea, also known as localized scleroderma, is an inflammatory skin condition characterized by sclerosis of the dermis and subcutis leading to scarlike tissue formation. Worldwide incidence ranges from 0.4 to 2.7 cases per 100,000 individuals with a predilection for white women.² Unlike systemic scleroderma, morphea patients lack Raynaud phenomenon and visceral involvement.^3,4

There are several clinical subtypes of morphea, including plaque, linear, generalized, and pansclerotic morphea. Lesions may vary in appearance based on configuration, stage of development, and depth of involvement.⁴ During the earliest phases, morphea lesions are asymptomatic, asymmetrically distributed, erythematous to violaceous patches or subtly indurated plaques expanding centrifugally with a lilac ring. Central sclerosis with loss of follicles and sweat glands is a later finding associated with advanced disease. Moreover, some reports of early-stage morphea have suggested a reticulated or geographic vascular morphology that may be misdiagnosed for other conditions such as a port-wine stain.⁵

Local skin exposures have long been hypothesized to contribute to development of morphea, including infection, especially Borrelia burgdorferi; trauma; chronic venous insufficiency; cosmetic surgery; medications; and exposure to toxic cooking oils, silicones, silica, pesticides, organic solvents, and vinyl chloride.^2,6,7

Radiation therapy is an often overlooked cause of morphea. It was first described in 1905 but then rarely discussed until a 1989 case series of 9 patients, 7 of whom had received irradiation for breast cancer.^8,9 Today, the increasing popularity of lumpectomy plus radiation therapy for treatment of early-stage breast cancer has led to a rise in PIM incidence.¹⁰Estimates have indicated an incidence among previously irradiated breast cancer patients as high as 1 in 500 individuals, appreciably higher than that seen in the general population.¹¹ Tissue changes occur as early as weeks or as late as 32 years after radiation treatment and are commonly mistaken for mastitis, such as in our case, as well as radiation dermatitis, radiation fibrosis, or malignant conditions.^1,11

In contrast to other radiation-induced skin conditions, development of PIM is independent of the presence or absence of adjuvant chemotherapy, type of radiation therapy, or the total radiation dose or fractionation number, with reported doses ranging from less than 20.0 Gy to up to 59.4 Gy and dose fractions ranging from 10 to 30. In 20% to 30% of cases, PIM extends beyond the radiation field, sometimes involving distant sites never exposed to high-energy rays.^1,10,11 This observation suggests a mechanism reliant on more widespread cascade rather than solely local tissue damage.

Prominent culture-negative, lymphoplasmacytic inflammation is another important diagnostic clue. Radiation dermatitis and fibrosis do not have the marked erythematous to violaceous hue seen in early morphea plaques. This color seen in early morphea plaques may be intense enough and in a geographic pattern, emulating a vascular lesion. However, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms reticulate radiation morphea and livedo radiation morphea yielded no reports linking the reticulate erythema seen in our patient with early PIM. It is important to note that the histopathology findings in our patient were not entirely specific, and although there were some background changes that may have represented a sequela of radiation to the area (ie, the enlarged fibroblasts and increased number of vessels), there were foci suggestive of early sclerosing dermatitis. With clinical correlation, including the extension beyond the radiation field, these changes were best interpreted as early PIM. Therefore, our case demonstrated a novel presentation of a frequently underrecognized trigger for morphea. Although we favored a diagnosis of PIM, a fibrosing chronic radiation dermatitis could not be entirely excluded based on the clinical and histologic features.

There is no standardized treatment of PIM, but traditional therapies for morphea may provide some benefit. Several randomized controlled clinical trials have shown success with pentoxifylline and oral vitamin E supplementation to treat or prevent radiation-induced breast fibrosis.¹² Extrapolating from this data, our patient was started on this combination therapy and showed marked improvement in skin color and texture.

To the Editor:

Postirradiation morphea (PIM) is a rare but well-documented phenomenon that primarily occurs in breast cancer patients who have received radiation therapy; however, it also has been reported in patients who have received radiation therapy for lymphoma as well as endocervical, endometrial, and gastric carcinomas.¹ Importantly, clinicians must be able to recognize and differentiate this condition from other causes of new-onset induration and erythema of the breast, such as cancer recurrence, a new primary malignancy, or inflammatory etiologies (eg, radiation or contact dermatitis). Typically, PIM presents months to years after radiation therapy as an erythematous patch within the irradiated area that progressively becomes indurated. We report an unusual case of PIM with a reticulated appearance occurring 3 weeks after radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery for an infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the left breast.

A 62-year-old woman presented to the dermatology department with a stage IIA, lymph node–negative, estrogen and progesterone receptor–negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the left breast. She was treated with a partial mastectomy of the left breast followed by external beam radiotherapy to the entire left breast in combination with chemotherapy (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel). The patient received 15 fractions of 270 cGy (4050 cGy total) with a weekly 600-cGy boost over 21 days without any complications.

Three weeks after finishing radiation therapy, the patient developed redness and swelling of the left breast that did not encompass the entire radiation field. There was no associated pain or pruritus. She was treated by her surgical oncologist with topical calendula and 3 courses of cephalexin for suspected mastitis with only modest improvement, then was referred to dermatology 3 months later.

At the initial dermatology evaluation, the patient reported little improvement after antibiotics and topical calendula. On physical examination, there were erythematous, reticulated, dusky, indurated patches on the entire left breast. The area of most pronounced induration surrounded the surgical scar on the left superior breast. Punch biopsy for hematoxylin and eosin staining and tissue cultures was obtained at this appointment. The patient was started on doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and was instructed to apply triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily to the affected area. After 1 month of therapy, she reported slight improvement in the degree of erythema with this regimen, but the involved area continued to extend outside of the radiation field to the central chest wall and medial right breast (Figure 1). Two additional biopsies—one from the central chest and another from the right breast—were then taken over the course of 4 months, given the consistently inconclusive clinicopathologic nature and failure of the eruption to respond to antibiotics plus topical corticosteroids.

Punch biopsy from the central chest revealed a sparse perivascular infiltrate comprised predominantly of lymphocytes with occasional eosinophils (Figure 2). There were foci suggestive of early dermal sclerosis, an increased number of small blood vessels in the dermis, and scattered enlarged fibroblasts. Metastatic carcinoma was not identified. Although the histologic findings were not entirely specific, the changes were most suggestive of PIM, for which the patient was started on pentoxifylline (400 mg 3 times daily) and oral vitamin E supplementation (400 IU daily). At subsequent follow-up appointments, she showed markedly decreased skin erythema and induration.

Morphea, also known as localized scleroderma, is an inflammatory skin condition characterized by sclerosis of the dermis and subcutis leading to scarlike tissue formation. Worldwide incidence ranges from 0.4 to 2.7 cases per 100,000 individuals with a predilection for white women.² Unlike systemic scleroderma, morphea patients lack Raynaud phenomenon and visceral involvement.^3,4

There are several clinical subtypes of morphea, including plaque, linear, generalized, and pansclerotic morphea. Lesions may vary in appearance based on configuration, stage of development, and depth of involvement.⁴ During the earliest phases, morphea lesions are asymptomatic, asymmetrically distributed, erythematous to violaceous patches or subtly indurated plaques expanding centrifugally with a lilac ring. Central sclerosis with loss of follicles and sweat glands is a later finding associated with advanced disease. Moreover, some reports of early-stage morphea have suggested a reticulated or geographic vascular morphology that may be misdiagnosed for other conditions such as a port-wine stain.⁵

Local skin exposures have long been hypothesized to contribute to development of morphea, including infection, especially Borrelia burgdorferi; trauma; chronic venous insufficiency; cosmetic surgery; medications; and exposure to toxic cooking oils, silicones, silica, pesticides, organic solvents, and vinyl chloride.^2,6,7

Radiation therapy is an often overlooked cause of morphea. It was first described in 1905 but then rarely discussed until a 1989 case series of 9 patients, 7 of whom had received irradiation for breast cancer.^8,9 Today, the increasing popularity of lumpectomy plus radiation therapy for treatment of early-stage breast cancer has led to a rise in PIM incidence.¹⁰Estimates have indicated an incidence among previously irradiated breast cancer patients as high as 1 in 500 individuals, appreciably higher than that seen in the general population.¹¹ Tissue changes occur as early as weeks or as late as 32 years after radiation treatment and are commonly mistaken for mastitis, such as in our case, as well as radiation dermatitis, radiation fibrosis, or malignant conditions.^1,11

In contrast to other radiation-induced skin conditions, development of PIM is independent of the presence or absence of adjuvant chemotherapy, type of radiation therapy, or the total radiation dose or fractionation number, with reported doses ranging from less than 20.0 Gy to up to 59.4 Gy and dose fractions ranging from 10 to 30. In 20% to 30% of cases, PIM extends beyond the radiation field, sometimes involving distant sites never exposed to high-energy rays.^1,10,11 This observation suggests a mechanism reliant on more widespread cascade rather than solely local tissue damage.

Prominent culture-negative, lymphoplasmacytic inflammation is another important diagnostic clue. Radiation dermatitis and fibrosis do not have the marked erythematous to violaceous hue seen in early morphea plaques. This color seen in early morphea plaques may be intense enough and in a geographic pattern, emulating a vascular lesion. However, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms reticulate radiation morphea and livedo radiation morphea yielded no reports linking the reticulate erythema seen in our patient with early PIM. It is important to note that the histopathology findings in our patient were not entirely specific, and although there were some background changes that may have represented a sequela of radiation to the area (ie, the enlarged fibroblasts and increased number of vessels), there were foci suggestive of early sclerosing dermatitis. With clinical correlation, including the extension beyond the radiation field, these changes were best interpreted as early PIM. Therefore, our case demonstrated a novel presentation of a frequently underrecognized trigger for morphea. Although we favored a diagnosis of PIM, a fibrosing chronic radiation dermatitis could not be entirely excluded based on the clinical and histologic features.

There is no standardized treatment of PIM, but traditional therapies for morphea may provide some benefit. Several randomized controlled clinical trials have shown success with pentoxifylline and oral vitamin E supplementation to treat or prevent radiation-induced breast fibrosis.¹² Extrapolating from this data, our patient was started on this combination therapy and showed marked improvement in skin color and texture.

To the Editor:

Postirradiation morphea (PIM) is a rare but well-documented phenomenon that primarily occurs in breast cancer patients who have received radiation therapy; however, it also has been reported in patients who have received radiation therapy for lymphoma as well as endocervical, endometrial, and gastric carcinomas.¹ Importantly, clinicians must be able to recognize and differentiate this condition from other causes of new-onset induration and erythema of the breast, such as cancer recurrence, a new primary malignancy, or inflammatory etiologies (eg, radiation or contact dermatitis). Typically, PIM presents months to years after radiation therapy as an erythematous patch within the irradiated area that progressively becomes indurated. We report an unusual case of PIM with a reticulated appearance occurring 3 weeks after radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery for an infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the left breast.

A 62-year-old woman presented to the dermatology department with a stage IIA, lymph node–negative, estrogen and progesterone receptor–negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the left breast. She was treated with a partial mastectomy of the left breast followed by external beam radiotherapy to the entire left breast in combination with chemotherapy (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel). The patient received 15 fractions of 270 cGy (4050 cGy total) with a weekly 600-cGy boost over 21 days without any complications.

Three weeks after finishing radiation therapy, the patient developed redness and swelling of the left breast that did not encompass the entire radiation field. There was no associated pain or pruritus. She was treated by her surgical oncologist with topical calendula and 3 courses of cephalexin for suspected mastitis with only modest improvement, then was referred to dermatology 3 months later.

At the initial dermatology evaluation, the patient reported little improvement after antibiotics and topical calendula. On physical examination, there were erythematous, reticulated, dusky, indurated patches on the entire left breast. The area of most pronounced induration surrounded the surgical scar on the left superior breast. Punch biopsy for hematoxylin and eosin staining and tissue cultures was obtained at this appointment. The patient was started on doxycycline 100 mg twice daily and was instructed to apply triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily to the affected area. After 1 month of therapy, she reported slight improvement in the degree of erythema with this regimen, but the involved area continued to extend outside of the radiation field to the central chest wall and medial right breast (Figure 1). Two additional biopsies—one from the central chest and another from the right breast—were then taken over the course of 4 months, given the consistently inconclusive clinicopathologic nature and failure of the eruption to respond to antibiotics plus topical corticosteroids.

Punch biopsy from the central chest revealed a sparse perivascular infiltrate comprised predominantly of lymphocytes with occasional eosinophils (Figure 2). There were foci suggestive of early dermal sclerosis, an increased number of small blood vessels in the dermis, and scattered enlarged fibroblasts. Metastatic carcinoma was not identified. Although the histologic findings were not entirely specific, the changes were most suggestive of PIM, for which the patient was started on pentoxifylline (400 mg 3 times daily) and oral vitamin E supplementation (400 IU daily). At subsequent follow-up appointments, she showed markedly decreased skin erythema and induration.

Morphea, also known as localized scleroderma, is an inflammatory skin condition characterized by sclerosis of the dermis and subcutis leading to scarlike tissue formation. Worldwide incidence ranges from 0.4 to 2.7 cases per 100,000 individuals with a predilection for white women.² Unlike systemic scleroderma, morphea patients lack Raynaud phenomenon and visceral involvement.^3,4

There are several clinical subtypes of morphea, including plaque, linear, generalized, and pansclerotic morphea. Lesions may vary in appearance based on configuration, stage of development, and depth of involvement.⁴ During the earliest phases, morphea lesions are asymptomatic, asymmetrically distributed, erythematous to violaceous patches or subtly indurated plaques expanding centrifugally with a lilac ring. Central sclerosis with loss of follicles and sweat glands is a later finding associated with advanced disease. Moreover, some reports of early-stage morphea have suggested a reticulated or geographic vascular morphology that may be misdiagnosed for other conditions such as a port-wine stain.⁵

Local skin exposures have long been hypothesized to contribute to development of morphea, including infection, especially Borrelia burgdorferi; trauma; chronic venous insufficiency; cosmetic surgery; medications; and exposure to toxic cooking oils, silicones, silica, pesticides, organic solvents, and vinyl chloride.^2,6,7

Radiation therapy is an often overlooked cause of morphea. It was first described in 1905 but then rarely discussed until a 1989 case series of 9 patients, 7 of whom had received irradiation for breast cancer.^8,9 Today, the increasing popularity of lumpectomy plus radiation therapy for treatment of early-stage breast cancer has led to a rise in PIM incidence.¹⁰Estimates have indicated an incidence among previously irradiated breast cancer patients as high as 1 in 500 individuals, appreciably higher than that seen in the general population.¹¹ Tissue changes occur as early as weeks or as late as 32 years after radiation treatment and are commonly mistaken for mastitis, such as in our case, as well as radiation dermatitis, radiation fibrosis, or malignant conditions.^1,11

In contrast to other radiation-induced skin conditions, development of PIM is independent of the presence or absence of adjuvant chemotherapy, type of radiation therapy, or the total radiation dose or fractionation number, with reported doses ranging from less than 20.0 Gy to up to 59.4 Gy and dose fractions ranging from 10 to 30. In 20% to 30% of cases, PIM extends beyond the radiation field, sometimes involving distant sites never exposed to high-energy rays.^1,10,11 This observation suggests a mechanism reliant on more widespread cascade rather than solely local tissue damage.

Prominent culture-negative, lymphoplasmacytic inflammation is another important diagnostic clue. Radiation dermatitis and fibrosis do not have the marked erythematous to violaceous hue seen in early morphea plaques. This color seen in early morphea plaques may be intense enough and in a geographic pattern, emulating a vascular lesion. However, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms reticulate radiation morphea and livedo radiation morphea yielded no reports linking the reticulate erythema seen in our patient with early PIM. It is important to note that the histopathology findings in our patient were not entirely specific, and although there were some background changes that may have represented a sequela of radiation to the area (ie, the enlarged fibroblasts and increased number of vessels), there were foci suggestive of early sclerosing dermatitis. With clinical correlation, including the extension beyond the radiation field, these changes were best interpreted as early PIM. Therefore, our case demonstrated a novel presentation of a frequently underrecognized trigger for morphea. Although we favored a diagnosis of PIM, a fibrosing chronic radiation dermatitis could not be entirely excluded based on the clinical and histologic features.

There is no standardized treatment of PIM, but traditional therapies for morphea may provide some benefit. Several randomized controlled clinical trials have shown success with pentoxifylline and oral vitamin E supplementation to treat or prevent radiation-induced breast fibrosis.¹² Extrapolating from this data, our patient was started on this combination therapy and showed marked improvement in skin color and texture.

To the Editor:

Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis (APD) is a rare dermatologic condition that can be challenging to diagnose. The associated skin lesions are not only variable in physical presentation but also in the timing of the outbreak. The skin disorder stems from an internal reaction to elevated levels of progesterone during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis can be difficult to detect; although the typical menstrual cycle is 28 days, many women have longer or shorter hormonal phases, leading to cyclical irregularity that can cause the lesions to appear sporadic in nature when in fact they are not.¹

A 34-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, psoriasis, and malignant melanoma presented to our dermatology clinic 2 days after a brief hospitalization during which she was diagnosed with a hypersensitivity reaction. Two days prior to her hospital admission, the patient developed a rash on the lower back with associated myalgia. The rash progressively worsened, spreading laterally to the flanks, which prompted her to seek medical attention. Blood work included a complete blood cell count with differential, complete metabolic panel, antinuclear antibody test, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, which all were within reference range. A 4-mm punch biopsy from the left lateral flank was performed and was consistent with a neutrophilic dermatosis. The patient’s symptoms diminished and she was discharged the next day with instructions to follow up with a dermatologist.

Physical examination at our clinic revealed multiple minimally indurated, erythematous plaques with superficial scaling along the left lower back and upper buttock (Figure 1). No other skin lesions were present, and palpation of the cervical, axillary, and inguinal lymph nodes was unremarkable. A repeat 6-mm punch biopsy was performed and she was sent for fasting blood work.

Histologic examination of the punch biopsy revealed a superficial and deep perivascular and interstitial dermatitis with scattered neutrophils and eosinophils. Findings were described as nonspecific, possibly representing a dermal hypersensitivity or urticarial reaction.

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase testing was within reference range, and therapy was initiated with oral dapsone 50 mg once daily as well as fexofenadine 180 mg once daily. The patient initially responded well to the oral therapy, but she experienced recurrence of the skin eruption at infrequent intervals over the next few months, requiring escalating doses of dapsone to control the symptoms. After further questioning at a subsequent visit a few months later, it was discovered that the eruption occurred near the onset of the patient’s irregular menstrual cycle.

Approximately 1 year after her initial presentation, the patient returned for intradermal hormone injections to test for hormonally induced hypersensitivities. An injection of0.1 mL of a 50-mg/mL progesterone solution was administered in the right forearm as well as 0.1 mL of a 5-mg/mL estradiol solution and 0.1 mL of saline in the left forearm as a control. One hour after the injections, a strong positive reaction consisting of a 15-mm indurated plaque with surrounding wheal was noted at the site of the progesterone injection. The estradiol and saline control sites were clear of any dermal reaction (Figure 2). A diagnosis of APD was established, and the patient was referred to her gynecologist for treatment.

Due to the aggressive nature of her endometriosis, the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist leuprolide acetate was the first-line treatment prescribed by her gynecologist; however, after 8 months of therapy with leuprolide acetate, she was still experiencing breakthrough myalgia with her menstrual cycle and opted for a hysterectomy with a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Within weeks of surgery, the myalgia ceased and the patient was completely asymptomatic.

Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis was first described in 1921.² In affected women, the body reacts to the progesterone hormone surge during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. Symptoms begin approximately 3 to 4 days prior to menses and resolve 2 to 3 days after onset of flow. These progesterone hypersensitivity reactions can present within a spectrum of morphologies and severities. The lesions can appear eczematous, urticarial, as an angioedemalike reaction, as an erythema multiforme–like reaction with targetoid lesions, or in other nonspecific ways.^1,3 Some patients experience a very mild, almost asymptomatic reaction, while others have a profound reaction progressing to anaphylaxis. Originally it was thought that exogenous exposure to progesterone led to a cross-reaction or hypersensitivity to the hormone; however, there have been cases reported in females as young as 12 years of age with no prior exposure.^3,4 Reactions also can vary during pregnancy. There have been reports of spontaneous abortion in some affected females, but symptoms may dissipate in others, possibly due to a slow rise in progesterone causing a desensitization reaction.^3,5

According to Bandino et al,⁶ there are 3 criteria for diagnosis of APD: (1) skin lesions related to the menstrual cycle, (2) positive response to intradermal testing with progesterone, and (3) symptomatic improvement after inhibiting progesterone secretions by suppressing ovulation.Areas checked with intradermal testing need to be evaluated 24 and 48 hours later for possible immediate or delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. Biopsy typically is not helpful in this diagnosis because results usually are nonspecific.

Treatment of APD is targeted toward suppressing the internal hormonal surge. By suppressing the progesterone hormone, the symptoms are alleviated. The discomfort from the skin reaction typically is unresponsive to steroids or antihistamines. Oral contraceptives are first line in most cases because they suppress ovulation. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues and tamoxifen also have been successful. For patients with severe disease that is recalcitrant to standard therapy or those who are postmenopausal, an oophorectemy is a curative option.^2,4,5,7

Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis is a rare cyclical dermatologic condition in which the body responds to a surge of the patient’s own progesterone hormone. The disorder is difficult to diagnose because it can present with differing morphologies and biopsy is nonspecific. It also can be increasingly difficult to diagnose in women who do not have a typical 28-day menstrual cycle. In our patient, her irregular menstrual cycle may have caused a delay in diagnosis. Although the condition is rare, APD should be included in the differential diagnosis in females with a recurrent, cyclical, or recalcitrant cutaneous eruption.

To the Editor:

Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis (APD) is a rare dermatologic condition that can be challenging to diagnose. The associated skin lesions are not only variable in physical presentation but also in the timing of the outbreak. The skin disorder stems from an internal reaction to elevated levels of progesterone during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis can be difficult to detect; although the typical menstrual cycle is 28 days, many women have longer or shorter hormonal phases, leading to cyclical irregularity that can cause the lesions to appear sporadic in nature when in fact they are not.¹

A 34-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, psoriasis, and malignant melanoma presented to our dermatology clinic 2 days after a brief hospitalization during which she was diagnosed with a hypersensitivity reaction. Two days prior to her hospital admission, the patient developed a rash on the lower back with associated myalgia. The rash progressively worsened, spreading laterally to the flanks, which prompted her to seek medical attention. Blood work included a complete blood cell count with differential, complete metabolic panel, antinuclear antibody test, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, which all were within reference range. A 4-mm punch biopsy from the left lateral flank was performed and was consistent with a neutrophilic dermatosis. The patient’s symptoms diminished and she was discharged the next day with instructions to follow up with a dermatologist.

Physical examination at our clinic revealed multiple minimally indurated, erythematous plaques with superficial scaling along the left lower back and upper buttock (Figure 1). No other skin lesions were present, and palpation of the cervical, axillary, and inguinal lymph nodes was unremarkable. A repeat 6-mm punch biopsy was performed and she was sent for fasting blood work.

Histologic examination of the punch biopsy revealed a superficial and deep perivascular and interstitial dermatitis with scattered neutrophils and eosinophils. Findings were described as nonspecific, possibly representing a dermal hypersensitivity or urticarial reaction.

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase testing was within reference range, and therapy was initiated with oral dapsone 50 mg once daily as well as fexofenadine 180 mg once daily. The patient initially responded well to the oral therapy, but she experienced recurrence of the skin eruption at infrequent intervals over the next few months, requiring escalating doses of dapsone to control the symptoms. After further questioning at a subsequent visit a few months later, it was discovered that the eruption occurred near the onset of the patient’s irregular menstrual cycle.

Approximately 1 year after her initial presentation, the patient returned for intradermal hormone injections to test for hormonally induced hypersensitivities. An injection of0.1 mL of a 50-mg/mL progesterone solution was administered in the right forearm as well as 0.1 mL of a 5-mg/mL estradiol solution and 0.1 mL of saline in the left forearm as a control. One hour after the injections, a strong positive reaction consisting of a 15-mm indurated plaque with surrounding wheal was noted at the site of the progesterone injection. The estradiol and saline control sites were clear of any dermal reaction (Figure 2). A diagnosis of APD was established, and the patient was referred to her gynecologist for treatment.

Due to the aggressive nature of her endometriosis, the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist leuprolide acetate was the first-line treatment prescribed by her gynecologist; however, after 8 months of therapy with leuprolide acetate, she was still experiencing breakthrough myalgia with her menstrual cycle and opted for a hysterectomy with a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Within weeks of surgery, the myalgia ceased and the patient was completely asymptomatic.

Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis was first described in 1921.² In affected women, the body reacts to the progesterone hormone surge during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. Symptoms begin approximately 3 to 4 days prior to menses and resolve 2 to 3 days after onset of flow. These progesterone hypersensitivity reactions can present within a spectrum of morphologies and severities. The lesions can appear eczematous, urticarial, as an angioedemalike reaction, as an erythema multiforme–like reaction with targetoid lesions, or in other nonspecific ways.^1,3 Some patients experience a very mild, almost asymptomatic reaction, while others have a profound reaction progressing to anaphylaxis. Originally it was thought that exogenous exposure to progesterone led to a cross-reaction or hypersensitivity to the hormone; however, there have been cases reported in females as young as 12 years of age with no prior exposure.^3,4 Reactions also can vary during pregnancy. There have been reports of spontaneous abortion in some affected females, but symptoms may dissipate in others, possibly due to a slow rise in progesterone causing a desensitization reaction.^3,5

According to Bandino et al,⁶ there are 3 criteria for diagnosis of APD: (1) skin lesions related to the menstrual cycle, (2) positive response to intradermal testing with progesterone, and (3) symptomatic improvement after inhibiting progesterone secretions by suppressing ovulation.Areas checked with intradermal testing need to be evaluated 24 and 48 hours later for possible immediate or delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. Biopsy typically is not helpful in this diagnosis because results usually are nonspecific.

Treatment of APD is targeted toward suppressing the internal hormonal surge. By suppressing the progesterone hormone, the symptoms are alleviated. The discomfort from the skin reaction typically is unresponsive to steroids or antihistamines. Oral contraceptives are first line in most cases because they suppress ovulation. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues and tamoxifen also have been successful. For patients with severe disease that is recalcitrant to standard therapy or those who are postmenopausal, an oophorectemy is a curative option.^2,4,5,7

Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis is a rare cyclical dermatologic condition in which the body responds to a surge of the patient’s own progesterone hormone. The disorder is difficult to diagnose because it can present with differing morphologies and biopsy is nonspecific. It also can be increasingly difficult to diagnose in women who do not have a typical 28-day menstrual cycle. In our patient, her irregular menstrual cycle may have caused a delay in diagnosis. Although the condition is rare, APD should be included in the differential diagnosis in females with a recurrent, cyclical, or recalcitrant cutaneous eruption.

To the Editor:

Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis (APD) is a rare dermatologic condition that can be challenging to diagnose. The associated skin lesions are not only variable in physical presentation but also in the timing of the outbreak. The skin disorder stems from an internal reaction to elevated levels of progesterone during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis can be difficult to detect; although the typical menstrual cycle is 28 days, many women have longer or shorter hormonal phases, leading to cyclical irregularity that can cause the lesions to appear sporadic in nature when in fact they are not.¹

A 34-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, psoriasis, and malignant melanoma presented to our dermatology clinic 2 days after a brief hospitalization during which she was diagnosed with a hypersensitivity reaction. Two days prior to her hospital admission, the patient developed a rash on the lower back with associated myalgia. The rash progressively worsened, spreading laterally to the flanks, which prompted her to seek medical attention. Blood work included a complete blood cell count with differential, complete metabolic panel, antinuclear antibody test, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, which all were within reference range. A 4-mm punch biopsy from the left lateral flank was performed and was consistent with a neutrophilic dermatosis. The patient’s symptoms diminished and she was discharged the next day with instructions to follow up with a dermatologist.

Physical examination at our clinic revealed multiple minimally indurated, erythematous plaques with superficial scaling along the left lower back and upper buttock (Figure 1). No other skin lesions were present, and palpation of the cervical, axillary, and inguinal lymph nodes was unremarkable. A repeat 6-mm punch biopsy was performed and she was sent for fasting blood work.

Histologic examination of the punch biopsy revealed a superficial and deep perivascular and interstitial dermatitis with scattered neutrophils and eosinophils. Findings were described as nonspecific, possibly representing a dermal hypersensitivity or urticarial reaction.

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase testing was within reference range, and therapy was initiated with oral dapsone 50 mg once daily as well as fexofenadine 180 mg once daily. The patient initially responded well to the oral therapy, but she experienced recurrence of the skin eruption at infrequent intervals over the next few months, requiring escalating doses of dapsone to control the symptoms. After further questioning at a subsequent visit a few months later, it was discovered that the eruption occurred near the onset of the patient’s irregular menstrual cycle.

Approximately 1 year after her initial presentation, the patient returned for intradermal hormone injections to test for hormonally induced hypersensitivities. An injection of0.1 mL of a 50-mg/mL progesterone solution was administered in the right forearm as well as 0.1 mL of a 5-mg/mL estradiol solution and 0.1 mL of saline in the left forearm as a control. One hour after the injections, a strong positive reaction consisting of a 15-mm indurated plaque with surrounding wheal was noted at the site of the progesterone injection. The estradiol and saline control sites were clear of any dermal reaction (Figure 2). A diagnosis of APD was established, and the patient was referred to her gynecologist for treatment.

Due to the aggressive nature of her endometriosis, the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist leuprolide acetate was the first-line treatment prescribed by her gynecologist; however, after 8 months of therapy with leuprolide acetate, she was still experiencing breakthrough myalgia with her menstrual cycle and opted for a hysterectomy with a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Within weeks of surgery, the myalgia ceased and the patient was completely asymptomatic.

Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis was first described in 1921.² In affected women, the body reacts to the progesterone hormone surge during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. Symptoms begin approximately 3 to 4 days prior to menses and resolve 2 to 3 days after onset of flow. These progesterone hypersensitivity reactions can present within a spectrum of morphologies and severities. The lesions can appear eczematous, urticarial, as an angioedemalike reaction, as an erythema multiforme–like reaction with targetoid lesions, or in other nonspecific ways.^1,3 Some patients experience a very mild, almost asymptomatic reaction, while others have a profound reaction progressing to anaphylaxis. Originally it was thought that exogenous exposure to progesterone led to a cross-reaction or hypersensitivity to the hormone; however, there have been cases reported in females as young as 12 years of age with no prior exposure.^3,4 Reactions also can vary during pregnancy. There have been reports of spontaneous abortion in some affected females, but symptoms may dissipate in others, possibly due to a slow rise in progesterone causing a desensitization reaction.^3,5

According to Bandino et al,⁶ there are 3 criteria for diagnosis of APD: (1) skin lesions related to the menstrual cycle, (2) positive response to intradermal testing with progesterone, and (3) symptomatic improvement after inhibiting progesterone secretions by suppressing ovulation.Areas checked with intradermal testing need to be evaluated 24 and 48 hours later for possible immediate or delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. Biopsy typically is not helpful in this diagnosis because results usually are nonspecific.

Treatment of APD is targeted toward suppressing the internal hormonal surge. By suppressing the progesterone hormone, the symptoms are alleviated. The discomfort from the skin reaction typically is unresponsive to steroids or antihistamines. Oral contraceptives are first line in most cases because they suppress ovulation. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues and tamoxifen also have been successful. For patients with severe disease that is recalcitrant to standard therapy or those who are postmenopausal, an oophorectemy is a curative option.^2,4,5,7

Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis is a rare cyclical dermatologic condition in which the body responds to a surge of the patient’s own progesterone hormone. The disorder is difficult to diagnose because it can present with differing morphologies and biopsy is nonspecific. It also can be increasingly difficult to diagnose in women who do not have a typical 28-day menstrual cycle. In our patient, her irregular menstrual cycle may have caused a delay in diagnosis. Although the condition is rare, APD should be included in the differential diagnosis in females with a recurrent, cyclical, or recalcitrant cutaneous eruption.

To the Editor:

Pacemakers and defibrillators are common in patients presenting for cutaneous surgery. The use and application of electrosurgery in this patient population has been reviewed extensively.¹ The presence of a cardiac device immediately below a cutaneous surgical site presents as a potentially more complex surgical procedure. Damage to and/or manipulation of the cardiac device could activate the device and/or require subsequent repair of the unit. We present the case of a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) overlying a pacemaker along with a brief review of the literature.

An 89-year-old man presented to our Mohs surgical unit for treatment of a long-standing BCC on the left upper chest (Figure, A) via Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), which was utilized due to the infiltrative nature of the tumor and its close proximity to the cardiac device. He had a history of heart disease including paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, first-degree atrioventricular block, and sick sinus syndrome, and a pacemaker had been placed 5 years prior. The tumor was located on the skin directly above the pacemaker. The pacemaker and associated lead wires were easily palpable to touch. Prior to the procedure, treatment options were discussed with the patient’s cardiologist. Due to the size of the tumor (21×22 mm) and more importantly its location directly above the pacemaker, the BCC was treated with a single stage of MMS (Figure, B). In an effort to minimize potential exposure of the pacemaker, the surgical site was infiltrated with additional local anesthesia, which created a temporary edematous thickening to provide an increased barrier between the surgical site and pacemaker. Hemostasis was achieved with thermocautery, and a fusiform repair was completed without consequence (Figure, C). There were no postoperative changes or concerns, and preoperative and postoperative electrocardiograms reviewed by the patient’s cardiologist revealed no change.

Treatment of cutaneous lesions near pacemakers or defibrillators requires caution, both in avoidance of the device itself as well as electrocautery interference.^1-4 There are multiple treatment options available, including MMS, excision, curettage and desiccation, topical therapies, and radiation therapy. The benefits of MMS for cutaneous tumors overlying cardiac devices include decreased risk of damaging the underlying pacemaker by minimizing surgical depth of the defect, minimizing the risk of recurrence and hence any additional procedures, and minimizing the risk of surgical complications via a smaller surgical defect.⁴ Monopolar electrosurgery is associated with the risk of interfering with pacemaker function; however, the use of bipolar electrocoagulation has been shown to be safer.^1,3,4 Additionally, thermocautery carries the least risk because it involves heat only.^2,5

Awareness of the cardiac device location, communication with the patient’s cardiologist, use of local anesthesia infiltrates to maximize distance between the surgical site and cardiac device, and appropriate hemostasis methods offer the most effective and safest means for surgical removal of tumors overlying cardiac devices.

To the Editor:

Pacemakers and defibrillators are common in patients presenting for cutaneous surgery. The use and application of electrosurgery in this patient population has been reviewed extensively.¹ The presence of a cardiac device immediately below a cutaneous surgical site presents as a potentially more complex surgical procedure. Damage to and/or manipulation of the cardiac device could activate the device and/or require subsequent repair of the unit. We present the case of a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) overlying a pacemaker along with a brief review of the literature.

An 89-year-old man presented to our Mohs surgical unit for treatment of a long-standing BCC on the left upper chest (Figure, A) via Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), which was utilized due to the infiltrative nature of the tumor and its close proximity to the cardiac device. He had a history of heart disease including paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, first-degree atrioventricular block, and sick sinus syndrome, and a pacemaker had been placed 5 years prior. The tumor was located on the skin directly above the pacemaker. The pacemaker and associated lead wires were easily palpable to touch. Prior to the procedure, treatment options were discussed with the patient’s cardiologist. Due to the size of the tumor (21×22 mm) and more importantly its location directly above the pacemaker, the BCC was treated with a single stage of MMS (Figure, B). In an effort to minimize potential exposure of the pacemaker, the surgical site was infiltrated with additional local anesthesia, which created a temporary edematous thickening to provide an increased barrier between the surgical site and pacemaker. Hemostasis was achieved with thermocautery, and a fusiform repair was completed without consequence (Figure, C). There were no postoperative changes or concerns, and preoperative and postoperative electrocardiograms reviewed by the patient’s cardiologist revealed no change.

Treatment of cutaneous lesions near pacemakers or defibrillators requires caution, both in avoidance of the device itself as well as electrocautery interference.^1-4 There are multiple treatment options available, including MMS, excision, curettage and desiccation, topical therapies, and radiation therapy. The benefits of MMS for cutaneous tumors overlying cardiac devices include decreased risk of damaging the underlying pacemaker by minimizing surgical depth of the defect, minimizing the risk of recurrence and hence any additional procedures, and minimizing the risk of surgical complications via a smaller surgical defect.⁴ Monopolar electrosurgery is associated with the risk of interfering with pacemaker function; however, the use of bipolar electrocoagulation has been shown to be safer.^1,3,4 Additionally, thermocautery carries the least risk because it involves heat only.^2,5

Awareness of the cardiac device location, communication with the patient’s cardiologist, use of local anesthesia infiltrates to maximize distance between the surgical site and cardiac device, and appropriate hemostasis methods offer the most effective and safest means for surgical removal of tumors overlying cardiac devices.

To the Editor:

Pacemakers and defibrillators are common in patients presenting for cutaneous surgery. The use and application of electrosurgery in this patient population has been reviewed extensively.¹ The presence of a cardiac device immediately below a cutaneous surgical site presents as a potentially more complex surgical procedure. Damage to and/or manipulation of the cardiac device could activate the device and/or require subsequent repair of the unit. We present the case of a basal cell carcinoma (BCC) overlying a pacemaker along with a brief review of the literature.

An 89-year-old man presented to our Mohs surgical unit for treatment of a long-standing BCC on the left upper chest (Figure, A) via Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), which was utilized due to the infiltrative nature of the tumor and its close proximity to the cardiac device. He had a history of heart disease including paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, first-degree atrioventricular block, and sick sinus syndrome, and a pacemaker had been placed 5 years prior. The tumor was located on the skin directly above the pacemaker. The pacemaker and associated lead wires were easily palpable to touch. Prior to the procedure, treatment options were discussed with the patient’s cardiologist. Due to the size of the tumor (21×22 mm) and more importantly its location directly above the pacemaker, the BCC was treated with a single stage of MMS (Figure, B). In an effort to minimize potential exposure of the pacemaker, the surgical site was infiltrated with additional local anesthesia, which created a temporary edematous thickening to provide an increased barrier between the surgical site and pacemaker. Hemostasis was achieved with thermocautery, and a fusiform repair was completed without consequence (Figure, C). There were no postoperative changes or concerns, and preoperative and postoperative electrocardiograms reviewed by the patient’s cardiologist revealed no change.

Treatment of cutaneous lesions near pacemakers or defibrillators requires caution, both in avoidance of the device itself as well as electrocautery interference.^1-4 There are multiple treatment options available, including MMS, excision, curettage and desiccation, topical therapies, and radiation therapy. The benefits of MMS for cutaneous tumors overlying cardiac devices include decreased risk of damaging the underlying pacemaker by minimizing surgical depth of the defect, minimizing the risk of recurrence and hence any additional procedures, and minimizing the risk of surgical complications via a smaller surgical defect.⁴ Monopolar electrosurgery is associated with the risk of interfering with pacemaker function; however, the use of bipolar electrocoagulation has been shown to be safer.^1,3,4 Additionally, thermocautery carries the least risk because it involves heat only.^2,5

Awareness of the cardiac device location, communication with the patient’s cardiologist, use of local anesthesia infiltrates to maximize distance between the surgical site and cardiac device, and appropriate hemostasis methods offer the most effective and safest means for surgical removal of tumors overlying cardiac devices.

To the Editor:

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 32 weeks’ gestation presented to an outpatient dermatology clinic with a generalized rash and itch of 3 months’ duration. She was distressed with the itch and had tried antihistamines (eg, chlorpheniramine, cetirizine) without relief. She had no notable medical history. Physical examination revealed generalized erythematous papules and nodules on the chest, back, periumbilical region, arms, and legs (Figure). A few pustules were noted on the upper back. No wheals, plaques, vesicles, or bullae were seen.

Laboratory investigations revealed elevated alkaline phosphatase (187 U/L [reference range, 30–120 U/L]), aspartate aminotransferase (45 U/L [reference range, 10–30 U/L]), alanine aminotransferase (120 U/L [reference range, 10–40 U/L]), and γ-glutamyltransferase (48 U/L [reference range, 9–40 U/L]) levels. A fungal scrape of the papules on the upper back demonstrated spores. Subsequent tests included ultrasonography of the liver, which showed fatty changes, as well as rising levels of alkaline phosphatase. Fasting glucose and 2-hour oral glucose tolerance tests showed poorly controlled gestational diabetes mellitus (DM) as well as raised triglycerides.

Based on the patient’s reports of itch, signs of erythematous papules and nodules, and laboratory results of cholestasis, a diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) was made. The finding of Pityrosporum folliculitis also prompted screening for gestational DM, which was positive.

Treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) 250 mg twice daily was prescribed, which led to some relief of the skin symptoms. Her cutaneous symptoms were discussed with her obstetrician, and a decision was made for emergency cesarean delivery at 37 weeks’ gestation in light of nonreassuring fetal status during her follow-up antenatal ultrasonograph. Her pruritus and poor liver function resolved within 2 weeks after delivery.

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy is a rare form of reversible cholestasis occurring in the second half of pregnancy. The incidence varies with geographical location and ethnicity.¹ It is one of the specific dermatoses of pregnancy and usually presents in the third trimester. It is characterized by pruritus, elevation of serum total bile acids and mild elevations of other liver function tests, and increased rates of adverse fetal outcomes. A positive diagnosis is made by the elevation of the serum total bile acid levels (>11.0 μmol/L [reference range, 0.73–5.63 μmol/L]). It is important for clinicians to recognize ICP because it is associated with fetal prematurity, intrapartal fetal distress, and stillbirths.²

The pathogenesis of ICP is not fully understood. During pregnancy, estrogens interfere with bile acid secretion, and progestins inhibit hepatic glucuronyltransferase. Increased IFN-γ, natural killer cells, and natural killer T cells, as well as decreased T cells in decidua parietalis, also have been reported.³

Mutations in the ATP binding cassette subfamily B member 4 gene, ABCB4, which encodes the multidrug resistance protein 3, a canalicular phosphatidylcholine translocase, have been found in several women with ICP.⁴ Clinically, patients usually present with pruritus that may precede or follow laboratory abnormalities. The pruritus worsens as the pregnancy advances and can resolve within 48 hours of delivery. Pruritus usually affects the palms and soles but may extend to the legs and abdomen or become generalized.⁴

Generally, there are no cutaneous signs other than excoriation marks, contrary to primary skin lesions found in other specific dermatoses of pregnancy. Mild jaundice can develop 2 to 4 weeks after the onset of pruritus, which may be associated with subclinical steatorrhea and increased risk of intrapartum and postpartum hemorrhage.⁵ Of note, ICP may be associated with increased risk for gestational DM, as illustrated in our case.⁶

Ursodeoxycholic acid currently is the most effective pharmacologic treatment of ICP. It reduces bile acids in cord blood, colostrum, and amniotic fluid.⁷ A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials demonstrated that UDCA (450–1200 mg daily) is highly effective in alleviating pruritus and normalizing laboratory abnormalities associated with ICP.⁸ No severe adverse events have been reported related to UDCA.^9,10

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy has been associated with increased risk for preterm delivery (19%–60%), meconium staining of amniotic fluid (≤27%), fetal bradycardia (≤14%), fetal distress (22%–41%), and fetal loss (0.4%–4.1%).¹¹ The risk for serious fetal complications in ICP makes intensive fetal surveillance mandatory, including weekly nonstress cardiotocography or biophysical assessment from 34 weeks’ gestation. Delivery at 36 weeks or earlier (if lung maturity is achieved and cervix favorable) should be considered for severe cases with jaundice, progressive elevations in serum total bile acids, and suspected fetal distress. At more than 36 weeks’ gestation, amniocentesis and delivery should be considered if cervix is favorable and fetal lung maturity satisfactory.^12-14

Our case highlights the importance of diagnosing ICP when a pregnant patient presents with generalized itch associated with elevated liver function tests. Interdisciplinary management involving dermatologists, obstetricians, pediatricians, and gastroenterologists is mandatory to acquire a better outcome for the mother and the fetus.

To the Editor:

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 32 weeks’ gestation presented to an outpatient dermatology clinic with a generalized rash and itch of 3 months’ duration. She was distressed with the itch and had tried antihistamines (eg, chlorpheniramine, cetirizine) without relief. She had no notable medical history. Physical examination revealed generalized erythematous papules and nodules on the chest, back, periumbilical region, arms, and legs (Figure). A few pustules were noted on the upper back. No wheals, plaques, vesicles, or bullae were seen.

Laboratory investigations revealed elevated alkaline phosphatase (187 U/L [reference range, 30–120 U/L]), aspartate aminotransferase (45 U/L [reference range, 10–30 U/L]), alanine aminotransferase (120 U/L [reference range, 10–40 U/L]), and γ-glutamyltransferase (48 U/L [reference range, 9–40 U/L]) levels. A fungal scrape of the papules on the upper back demonstrated spores. Subsequent tests included ultrasonography of the liver, which showed fatty changes, as well as rising levels of alkaline phosphatase. Fasting glucose and 2-hour oral glucose tolerance tests showed poorly controlled gestational diabetes mellitus (DM) as well as raised triglycerides.

Based on the patient’s reports of itch, signs of erythematous papules and nodules, and laboratory results of cholestasis, a diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) was made. The finding of Pityrosporum folliculitis also prompted screening for gestational DM, which was positive.

Treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) 250 mg twice daily was prescribed, which led to some relief of the skin symptoms. Her cutaneous symptoms were discussed with her obstetrician, and a decision was made for emergency cesarean delivery at 37 weeks’ gestation in light of nonreassuring fetal status during her follow-up antenatal ultrasonograph. Her pruritus and poor liver function resolved within 2 weeks after delivery.

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy is a rare form of reversible cholestasis occurring in the second half of pregnancy. The incidence varies with geographical location and ethnicity.¹ It is one of the specific dermatoses of pregnancy and usually presents in the third trimester. It is characterized by pruritus, elevation of serum total bile acids and mild elevations of other liver function tests, and increased rates of adverse fetal outcomes. A positive diagnosis is made by the elevation of the serum total bile acid levels (>11.0 μmol/L [reference range, 0.73–5.63 μmol/L]). It is important for clinicians to recognize ICP because it is associated with fetal prematurity, intrapartal fetal distress, and stillbirths.²

The pathogenesis of ICP is not fully understood. During pregnancy, estrogens interfere with bile acid secretion, and progestins inhibit hepatic glucuronyltransferase. Increased IFN-γ, natural killer cells, and natural killer T cells, as well as decreased T cells in decidua parietalis, also have been reported.³

Mutations in the ATP binding cassette subfamily B member 4 gene, ABCB4, which encodes the multidrug resistance protein 3, a canalicular phosphatidylcholine translocase, have been found in several women with ICP.⁴ Clinically, patients usually present with pruritus that may precede or follow laboratory abnormalities. The pruritus worsens as the pregnancy advances and can resolve within 48 hours of delivery. Pruritus usually affects the palms and soles but may extend to the legs and abdomen or become generalized.⁴

Generally, there are no cutaneous signs other than excoriation marks, contrary to primary skin lesions found in other specific dermatoses of pregnancy. Mild jaundice can develop 2 to 4 weeks after the onset of pruritus, which may be associated with subclinical steatorrhea and increased risk of intrapartum and postpartum hemorrhage.⁵ Of note, ICP may be associated with increased risk for gestational DM, as illustrated in our case.⁶

Ursodeoxycholic acid currently is the most effective pharmacologic treatment of ICP. It reduces bile acids in cord blood, colostrum, and amniotic fluid.⁷ A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials demonstrated that UDCA (450–1200 mg daily) is highly effective in alleviating pruritus and normalizing laboratory abnormalities associated with ICP.⁸ No severe adverse events have been reported related to UDCA.^9,10

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy has been associated with increased risk for preterm delivery (19%–60%), meconium staining of amniotic fluid (≤27%), fetal bradycardia (≤14%), fetal distress (22%–41%), and fetal loss (0.4%–4.1%).¹¹ The risk for serious fetal complications in ICP makes intensive fetal surveillance mandatory, including weekly nonstress cardiotocography or biophysical assessment from 34 weeks’ gestation. Delivery at 36 weeks or earlier (if lung maturity is achieved and cervix favorable) should be considered for severe cases with jaundice, progressive elevations in serum total bile acids, and suspected fetal distress. At more than 36 weeks’ gestation, amniocentesis and delivery should be considered if cervix is favorable and fetal lung maturity satisfactory.^12-14

Our case highlights the importance of diagnosing ICP when a pregnant patient presents with generalized itch associated with elevated liver function tests. Interdisciplinary management involving dermatologists, obstetricians, pediatricians, and gastroenterologists is mandatory to acquire a better outcome for the mother and the fetus.

To the Editor:

A 28-year-old primigravid woman at 32 weeks’ gestation presented to an outpatient dermatology clinic with a generalized rash and itch of 3 months’ duration. She was distressed with the itch and had tried antihistamines (eg, chlorpheniramine, cetirizine) without relief. She had no notable medical history. Physical examination revealed generalized erythematous papules and nodules on the chest, back, periumbilical region, arms, and legs (Figure). A few pustules were noted on the upper back. No wheals, plaques, vesicles, or bullae were seen.

Laboratory investigations revealed elevated alkaline phosphatase (187 U/L [reference range, 30–120 U/L]), aspartate aminotransferase (45 U/L [reference range, 10–30 U/L]), alanine aminotransferase (120 U/L [reference range, 10–40 U/L]), and γ-glutamyltransferase (48 U/L [reference range, 9–40 U/L]) levels. A fungal scrape of the papules on the upper back demonstrated spores. Subsequent tests included ultrasonography of the liver, which showed fatty changes, as well as rising levels of alkaline phosphatase. Fasting glucose and 2-hour oral glucose tolerance tests showed poorly controlled gestational diabetes mellitus (DM) as well as raised triglycerides.

Based on the patient’s reports of itch, signs of erythematous papules and nodules, and laboratory results of cholestasis, a diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) was made. The finding of Pityrosporum folliculitis also prompted screening for gestational DM, which was positive.

Treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) 250 mg twice daily was prescribed, which led to some relief of the skin symptoms. Her cutaneous symptoms were discussed with her obstetrician, and a decision was made for emergency cesarean delivery at 37 weeks’ gestation in light of nonreassuring fetal status during her follow-up antenatal ultrasonograph. Her pruritus and poor liver function resolved within 2 weeks after delivery.

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy is a rare form of reversible cholestasis occurring in the second half of pregnancy. The incidence varies with geographical location and ethnicity.¹ It is one of the specific dermatoses of pregnancy and usually presents in the third trimester. It is characterized by pruritus, elevation of serum total bile acids and mild elevations of other liver function tests, and increased rates of adverse fetal outcomes. A positive diagnosis is made by the elevation of the serum total bile acid levels (>11.0 μmol/L [reference range, 0.73–5.63 μmol/L]). It is important for clinicians to recognize ICP because it is associated with fetal prematurity, intrapartal fetal distress, and stillbirths.²

The pathogenesis of ICP is not fully understood. During pregnancy, estrogens interfere with bile acid secretion, and progestins inhibit hepatic glucuronyltransferase. Increased IFN-γ, natural killer cells, and natural killer T cells, as well as decreased T cells in decidua parietalis, also have been reported.³

Mutations in the ATP binding cassette subfamily B member 4 gene, ABCB4, which encodes the multidrug resistance protein 3, a canalicular phosphatidylcholine translocase, have been found in several women with ICP.⁴ Clinically, patients usually present with pruritus that may precede or follow laboratory abnormalities. The pruritus worsens as the pregnancy advances and can resolve within 48 hours of delivery. Pruritus usually affects the palms and soles but may extend to the legs and abdomen or become generalized.⁴

Generally, there are no cutaneous signs other than excoriation marks, contrary to primary skin lesions found in other specific dermatoses of pregnancy. Mild jaundice can develop 2 to 4 weeks after the onset of pruritus, which may be associated with subclinical steatorrhea and increased risk of intrapartum and postpartum hemorrhage.⁵ Of note, ICP may be associated with increased risk for gestational DM, as illustrated in our case.⁶

Ursodeoxycholic acid currently is the most effective pharmacologic treatment of ICP. It reduces bile acids in cord blood, colostrum, and amniotic fluid.⁷ A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials demonstrated that UDCA (450–1200 mg daily) is highly effective in alleviating pruritus and normalizing laboratory abnormalities associated with ICP.⁸ No severe adverse events have been reported related to UDCA.^9,10

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy has been associated with increased risk for preterm delivery (19%–60%), meconium staining of amniotic fluid (≤27%), fetal bradycardia (≤14%), fetal distress (22%–41%), and fetal loss (0.4%–4.1%).¹¹ The risk for serious fetal complications in ICP makes intensive fetal surveillance mandatory, including weekly nonstress cardiotocography or biophysical assessment from 34 weeks’ gestation. Delivery at 36 weeks or earlier (if lung maturity is achieved and cervix favorable) should be considered for severe cases with jaundice, progressive elevations in serum total bile acids, and suspected fetal distress. At more than 36 weeks’ gestation, amniocentesis and delivery should be considered if cervix is favorable and fetal lung maturity satisfactory.^12-14

Our case highlights the importance of diagnosing ICP when a pregnant patient presents with generalized itch associated with elevated liver function tests. Interdisciplinary management involving dermatologists, obstetricians, pediatricians, and gastroenterologists is mandatory to acquire a better outcome for the mother and the fetus.

To the Editor:

It is not uncommon for patients with extensive dermal scarring to overheat due to the inability to regulate body temperature through evaporative heat loss, as lack of perspiration in areas of prior full-thickness skin injury is well known. One of the authors (C.M.H.) previously reported a case of a patient with considerable hypertrophic scarring after surviving an episode of toxic epidermal necrolysis that was likely precipitated by lamotrigine.¹ The patient initially presented to our clinic in consultation for laser therapy to improve the pliability and cosmetic appearance of the scars; however, approximately 3 weeks after initiating treatment with a fractional CO₂ laser, the patient noticed perspiration in areas where she once lacked the ability to perspire as well as improved functionality.¹ It was speculated that scar remodeling stimulated by the CO₂ fractional laser allowed new connections to form between eccrine ducts in the dermis and epidermis.²

These findings are even more notable in light of a study by Rittié et al³ that suggested the primary appendages of the skin involved in human wound healing are the eccrine sweat glands. The investigators were able to demonstrate that eccrine sweat glands are major contributors in reepithelialization and wound healing in humans; therefore, it is possible that stimulating these glands with the CO₂ laser may promote enhanced reepithelialization in addition to the reestablishment of perspiration and wound healing.³ Considering inadequate wound repair represents a substantial disturbance to the patient and health care system, this finding offers promise as a potential means to decrease morbidity in patients with dermal scarring from burns and traumatic injuries. We have since evaluated and treated 3 patients who demonstrated sweat regeneration following treatment with the fractional CO₂ laser (Table).

A 42-year-old man was our first patient to demonstrate functional scar improvement following bone marrow transplant for acute lymphoblastic leukemia complicated by chronic sclerodermoid graft-versus-host disease and subsequent extensive scarring on the chest and arms. Approximately 2 weeks after the first treatment with the fractional CO₂ laser, the patient began to notice the presence of sweat beads in the treated areas. In addition to the reestablishment of perspiration, the patient had perceived increased mobility with improved pliability and “softness” (as described by family members) in treated areas likely related to scar remodeling.

A 36-year-old wounded army veteran presented with burns to the face, arms, and chest affecting 49% of the body surface area. After only 1 treatment, the patient reported that he could subjectively tolerate 10°F more ambient temperature and work all day outside in south Texas when heat intolerance previously would allow him to work only 2 to 3 hours. Additionally, he noted increased mobility and chest wall expansion, which in combination contributed to overall increased exercise tolerance and enhanced quality of life.

A 35-year-old US Marine and firefighter with burns primarily on the chest and arms involving 35% body surface area experienced increased exercise tolerance and sweat regeneration, particularly on the chest after a single treatment with the fractional CO₂ laser but continued to experience improvement after a total of 3 treatments. Additionally, the cosmetic improvement was so substantial that the physician (C.M.H) had to review older photographs to verify the location of the scars.

We have now treated 3 patients with various mechanisms of injury and extensive scarring who noticed improved heat tolerance from sweat regeneration following fractional CO₂ laser therapy. At this point, we only have anecdotal evidence of subjective functional improvement, and further research is warranted to elucidate the exact mechanism of action to support our findings.

To the Editor:

It is not uncommon for patients with extensive dermal scarring to overheat due to the inability to regulate body temperature through evaporative heat loss, as lack of perspiration in areas of prior full-thickness skin injury is well known. One of the authors (C.M.H.) previously reported a case of a patient with considerable hypertrophic scarring after surviving an episode of toxic epidermal necrolysis that was likely precipitated by lamotrigine.¹ The patient initially presented to our clinic in consultation for laser therapy to improve the pliability and cosmetic appearance of the scars; however, approximately 3 weeks after initiating treatment with a fractional CO₂ laser, the patient noticed perspiration in areas where she once lacked the ability to perspire as well as improved functionality.¹ It was speculated that scar remodeling stimulated by the CO₂ fractional laser allowed new connections to form between eccrine ducts in the dermis and epidermis.²

These findings are even more notable in light of a study by Rittié et al³ that suggested the primary appendages of the skin involved in human wound healing are the eccrine sweat glands. The investigators were able to demonstrate that eccrine sweat glands are major contributors in reepithelialization and wound healing in humans; therefore, it is possible that stimulating these glands with the CO₂ laser may promote enhanced reepithelialization in addition to the reestablishment of perspiration and wound healing.³ Considering inadequate wound repair represents a substantial disturbance to the patient and health care system, this finding offers promise as a potential means to decrease morbidity in patients with dermal scarring from burns and traumatic injuries. We have since evaluated and treated 3 patients who demonstrated sweat regeneration following treatment with the fractional CO₂ laser (Table).

A 42-year-old man was our first patient to demonstrate functional scar improvement following bone marrow transplant for acute lymphoblastic leukemia complicated by chronic sclerodermoid graft-versus-host disease and subsequent extensive scarring on the chest and arms. Approximately 2 weeks after the first treatment with the fractional CO₂ laser, the patient began to notice the presence of sweat beads in the treated areas. In addition to the reestablishment of perspiration, the patient had perceived increased mobility with improved pliability and “softness” (as described by family members) in treated areas likely related to scar remodeling.

A 36-year-old wounded army veteran presented with burns to the face, arms, and chest affecting 49% of the body surface area. After only 1 treatment, the patient reported that he could subjectively tolerate 10°F more ambient temperature and work all day outside in south Texas when heat intolerance previously would allow him to work only 2 to 3 hours. Additionally, he noted increased mobility and chest wall expansion, which in combination contributed to overall increased exercise tolerance and enhanced quality of life.

A 35-year-old US Marine and firefighter with burns primarily on the chest and arms involving 35% body surface area experienced increased exercise tolerance and sweat regeneration, particularly on the chest after a single treatment with the fractional CO₂ laser but continued to experience improvement after a total of 3 treatments. Additionally, the cosmetic improvement was so substantial that the physician (C.M.H) had to review older photographs to verify the location of the scars.

We have now treated 3 patients with various mechanisms of injury and extensive scarring who noticed improved heat tolerance from sweat regeneration following fractional CO₂ laser therapy. At this point, we only have anecdotal evidence of subjective functional improvement, and further research is warranted to elucidate the exact mechanism of action to support our findings.

To the Editor:

It is not uncommon for patients with extensive dermal scarring to overheat due to the inability to regulate body temperature through evaporative heat loss, as lack of perspiration in areas of prior full-thickness skin injury is well known. One of the authors (C.M.H.) previously reported a case of a patient with considerable hypertrophic scarring after surviving an episode of toxic epidermal necrolysis that was likely precipitated by lamotrigine.¹ The patient initially presented to our clinic in consultation for laser therapy to improve the pliability and cosmetic appearance of the scars; however, approximately 3 weeks after initiating treatment with a fractional CO₂ laser, the patient noticed perspiration in areas where she once lacked the ability to perspire as well as improved functionality.¹ It was speculated that scar remodeling stimulated by the CO₂ fractional laser allowed new connections to form between eccrine ducts in the dermis and epidermis.²

These findings are even more notable in light of a study by Rittié et al³ that suggested the primary appendages of the skin involved in human wound healing are the eccrine sweat glands. The investigators were able to demonstrate that eccrine sweat glands are major contributors in reepithelialization and wound healing in humans; therefore, it is possible that stimulating these glands with the CO₂ laser may promote enhanced reepithelialization in addition to the reestablishment of perspiration and wound healing.³ Considering inadequate wound repair represents a substantial disturbance to the patient and health care system, this finding offers promise as a potential means to decrease morbidity in patients with dermal scarring from burns and traumatic injuries. We have since evaluated and treated 3 patients who demonstrated sweat regeneration following treatment with the fractional CO₂ laser (Table).

A 42-year-old man was our first patient to demonstrate functional scar improvement following bone marrow transplant for acute lymphoblastic leukemia complicated by chronic sclerodermoid graft-versus-host disease and subsequent extensive scarring on the chest and arms. Approximately 2 weeks after the first treatment with the fractional CO₂ laser, the patient began to notice the presence of sweat beads in the treated areas. In addition to the reestablishment of perspiration, the patient had perceived increased mobility with improved pliability and “softness” (as described by family members) in treated areas likely related to scar remodeling.

A 36-year-old wounded army veteran presented with burns to the face, arms, and chest affecting 49% of the body surface area. After only 1 treatment, the patient reported that he could subjectively tolerate 10°F more ambient temperature and work all day outside in south Texas when heat intolerance previously would allow him to work only 2 to 3 hours. Additionally, he noted increased mobility and chest wall expansion, which in combination contributed to overall increased exercise tolerance and enhanced quality of life.

A 35-year-old US Marine and firefighter with burns primarily on the chest and arms involving 35% body surface area experienced increased exercise tolerance and sweat regeneration, particularly on the chest after a single treatment with the fractional CO₂ laser but continued to experience improvement after a total of 3 treatments. Additionally, the cosmetic improvement was so substantial that the physician (C.M.H) had to review older photographs to verify the location of the scars.

We have now treated 3 patients with various mechanisms of injury and extensive scarring who noticed improved heat tolerance from sweat regeneration following fractional CO₂ laser therapy. At this point, we only have anecdotal evidence of subjective functional improvement, and further research is warranted to elucidate the exact mechanism of action to support our findings.

To the Editor:

Vemurafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, is a chemotherapeutic agent used in the treatment of metastatic melanoma with BRAF mutations. It has been associated with various cutaneous side effects. We report a case of metastatic melanoma with acquired plantar hyperkeratosis secondary to vemurafenib therapy.

A 49-year-old man presented for evaluation of a pigmented plaque on the left pretibial region that had been enlarging over the last 2 months. The lesion had been diagnosed as folliculitis by his primary care physician 1 month prior to the current presentation and was being treated with oral antibiotics. The patient reported occasional bleeding from the lesion but denied other symptoms. Physical examination revealed a 1.4-cm pigmented plaque distributed over the left shin. Excisional biopsy was performed to rule out melanoma. Histopathology revealed well-circumscribed and symmetric proliferation of nested and single atypical melanocytes throughout all layers to the deep reticular dermis, confirming a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. The lesion demonstrated angiolymphatic invasion, mitotic activity, and a Breslow depth of 2.5 mm. The patient underwent wide local excision with 3-cm margins and left inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy; 2 of 14 lymph nodes were positive for melanoma. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography was negative for further metastatic disease. The patient underwent isolated limb perfusion with ipilimumab, but treatment was discontinued due to regional progression of multiple cutaneous metastases that were positive for the BRAF V600E mutation.

The patient was then started on vemurafenib therapy. Within 2 weeks, the patient reported various cutaneous symptoms, including morbilliform drug eruption covering approximately 70% of the body surface area that resolved with topical steroids and oral antihistamines, as well as the appearance of melanocytic nevi on the posterior neck, back, and abdomen. After 5 months of vemurafenib therapy, the patient began to develop hyperkeratosis of the bilateral soles of the feet (Figure). A diagnosis of acquired plantar hyperkeratosis secondary to vemurafenib therapy was made. Treatment with keratolytics was initiated and vemurafenib was not discontinued. The patient died approximately 1 year after therapy was started.

Metastatic melanoma is challenging to treat and continues to have a high mortality rate; however, newer chemotherapeutic agents targeting specific mutations found in melanoma, including the BRAF V600E mutation, are promising.

The US Food and Drug Administration first approved vemurafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, in 2011 for treatment of metastatic melanoma. Activating BRAF mutations have been detected in up to 60% of cutaneous melanomas.¹ In the majority of these mutations, valine (V) is inserted at codon 600 instead of glutamic acid (E); therefore, the mutation is named V600E.² In a phase 3 trial of 675 metastatic melanoma patients with positive V600E who were randomized to receive either vemurafenib or dacarbazine, the overall survival rate in the vemurafenib group improved by 84% versus 64% in the dacarbazine group at 6 months.³

Vemurafenib and other BRAF inhibitors have been associated with multiple cutaneous side effects, including rash, alopecia, squamous cell carcinoma, photosensitivity, evolution of existing nevi, and less commonly palmoplantar hyperkeratosis.^2-5 Constitutional symptoms including arthralgia, nausea, and fatigue also have been commonly reported.^2-5 In several large studies comprising 1138 patients, cutaneous side effects were seen in 92% to 95% of patients.^3,5 Adverse effects caused interruption or modification of therapy in 38% of patients.³

Palmoplantar keratoderma is a known side effect of vemurafenib therapy, but it is less commonly reported than other cutaneous adverse effects. It is believed that vemurafenib has the ability to paradoxically activate the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, leading to keratinocyte proliferation in cells without BRAF mutations.^6-8 In the phase 3 trial, approximately 23% to 30% of patients developed some form of hyperkeratosis.⁵ Comparatively, 64% of patients developed a rash and 23% developed cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Incidence of palmoplantar hyperkeratosis was similar in the vemurafenib and dabrafenib groups (6% vs 8%).^3,9 Development of keratoderma also has been associated with other multikinase inhibitors (eg, sorafenib, sunitinib).^10,11

In our case, the patient displayed multiple side effects while undergoing vemurafenib therapy. Within the first 2 weeks of therapy, he experienced a drug eruption that affected approximately 70% of the body surface area. The eruption resolved with topical steroids and oral antihistamines. The patient also noted the appearance of several new melanocytic nevi on the posterior neck as well as several evolving nevi on the back and abdomen. Five months into the treatment cycle, the patient began to develop hyperkeratosis on the bilateral plantar feet. Treatment consisted of keratolytics. Vemurafenib therapy was not discontinued secondary to any adverse effects.

Vemurafenib and other BRAF inhibitors are efficacious in the treatment of metastatic melanoma with V600E mutations. The use of these therapies is likely to continue and increase in the future. BRAF inhibitors have been associated with a variety of side effects, including palmoplantar hyperkeratosis. Awareness of and appropriate response to adverse reactions is essential to proper patient care and continuation of potentially life-extending therapies.

To the Editor:

Vemurafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, is a chemotherapeutic agent used in the treatment of metastatic melanoma with BRAF mutations. It has been associated with various cutaneous side effects. We report a case of metastatic melanoma with acquired plantar hyperkeratosis secondary to vemurafenib therapy.

A 49-year-old man presented for evaluation of a pigmented plaque on the left pretibial region that had been enlarging over the last 2 months. The lesion had been diagnosed as folliculitis by his primary care physician 1 month prior to the current presentation and was being treated with oral antibiotics. The patient reported occasional bleeding from the lesion but denied other symptoms. Physical examination revealed a 1.4-cm pigmented plaque distributed over the left shin. Excisional biopsy was performed to rule out melanoma. Histopathology revealed well-circumscribed and symmetric proliferation of nested and single atypical melanocytes throughout all layers to the deep reticular dermis, confirming a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. The lesion demonstrated angiolymphatic invasion, mitotic activity, and a Breslow depth of 2.5 mm. The patient underwent wide local excision with 3-cm margins and left inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy; 2 of 14 lymph nodes were positive for melanoma. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography was negative for further metastatic disease. The patient underwent isolated limb perfusion with ipilimumab, but treatment was discontinued due to regional progression of multiple cutaneous metastases that were positive for the BRAF V600E mutation.

The patient was then started on vemurafenib therapy. Within 2 weeks, the patient reported various cutaneous symptoms, including morbilliform drug eruption covering approximately 70% of the body surface area that resolved with topical steroids and oral antihistamines, as well as the appearance of melanocytic nevi on the posterior neck, back, and abdomen. After 5 months of vemurafenib therapy, the patient began to develop hyperkeratosis of the bilateral soles of the feet (Figure). A diagnosis of acquired plantar hyperkeratosis secondary to vemurafenib therapy was made. Treatment with keratolytics was initiated and vemurafenib was not discontinued. The patient died approximately 1 year after therapy was started.

Metastatic melanoma is challenging to treat and continues to have a high mortality rate; however, newer chemotherapeutic agents targeting specific mutations found in melanoma, including the BRAF V600E mutation, are promising.

The US Food and Drug Administration first approved vemurafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, in 2011 for treatment of metastatic melanoma. Activating BRAF mutations have been detected in up to 60% of cutaneous melanomas.¹ In the majority of these mutations, valine (V) is inserted at codon 600 instead of glutamic acid (E); therefore, the mutation is named V600E.² In a phase 3 trial of 675 metastatic melanoma patients with positive V600E who were randomized to receive either vemurafenib or dacarbazine, the overall survival rate in the vemurafenib group improved by 84% versus 64% in the dacarbazine group at 6 months.³

Vemurafenib and other BRAF inhibitors have been associated with multiple cutaneous side effects, including rash, alopecia, squamous cell carcinoma, photosensitivity, evolution of existing nevi, and less commonly palmoplantar hyperkeratosis.^2-5 Constitutional symptoms including arthralgia, nausea, and fatigue also have been commonly reported.^2-5 In several large studies comprising 1138 patients, cutaneous side effects were seen in 92% to 95% of patients.^3,5 Adverse effects caused interruption or modification of therapy in 38% of patients.³

Palmoplantar keratoderma is a known side effect of vemurafenib therapy, but it is less commonly reported than other cutaneous adverse effects. It is believed that vemurafenib has the ability to paradoxically activate the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, leading to keratinocyte proliferation in cells without BRAF mutations.^6-8 In the phase 3 trial, approximately 23% to 30% of patients developed some form of hyperkeratosis.⁵ Comparatively, 64% of patients developed a rash and 23% developed cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Incidence of palmoplantar hyperkeratosis was similar in the vemurafenib and dabrafenib groups (6% vs 8%).^3,9 Development of keratoderma also has been associated with other multikinase inhibitors (eg, sorafenib, sunitinib).^10,11

In our case, the patient displayed multiple side effects while undergoing vemurafenib therapy. Within the first 2 weeks of therapy, he experienced a drug eruption that affected approximately 70% of the body surface area. The eruption resolved with topical steroids and oral antihistamines. The patient also noted the appearance of several new melanocytic nevi on the posterior neck as well as several evolving nevi on the back and abdomen. Five months into the treatment cycle, the patient began to develop hyperkeratosis on the bilateral plantar feet. Treatment consisted of keratolytics. Vemurafenib therapy was not discontinued secondary to any adverse effects.

Vemurafenib and other BRAF inhibitors are efficacious in the treatment of metastatic melanoma with V600E mutations. The use of these therapies is likely to continue and increase in the future. BRAF inhibitors have been associated with a variety of side effects, including palmoplantar hyperkeratosis. Awareness of and appropriate response to adverse reactions is essential to proper patient care and continuation of potentially life-extending therapies.

To the Editor:

Vemurafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, is a chemotherapeutic agent used in the treatment of metastatic melanoma with BRAF mutations. It has been associated with various cutaneous side effects. We report a case of metastatic melanoma with acquired plantar hyperkeratosis secondary to vemurafenib therapy.

A 49-year-old man presented for evaluation of a pigmented plaque on the left pretibial region that had been enlarging over the last 2 months. The lesion had been diagnosed as folliculitis by his primary care physician 1 month prior to the current presentation and was being treated with oral antibiotics. The patient reported occasional bleeding from the lesion but denied other symptoms. Physical examination revealed a 1.4-cm pigmented plaque distributed over the left shin. Excisional biopsy was performed to rule out melanoma. Histopathology revealed well-circumscribed and symmetric proliferation of nested and single atypical melanocytes throughout all layers to the deep reticular dermis, confirming a clinical diagnosis of malignant melanoma. The lesion demonstrated angiolymphatic invasion, mitotic activity, and a Breslow depth of 2.5 mm. The patient underwent wide local excision with 3-cm margins and left inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy; 2 of 14 lymph nodes were positive for melanoma. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography was negative for further metastatic disease. The patient underwent isolated limb perfusion with ipilimumab, but treatment was discontinued due to regional progression of multiple cutaneous metastases that were positive for the BRAF V600E mutation.

The patient was then started on vemurafenib therapy. Within 2 weeks, the patient reported various cutaneous symptoms, including morbilliform drug eruption covering approximately 70% of the body surface area that resolved with topical steroids and oral antihistamines, as well as the appearance of melanocytic nevi on the posterior neck, back, and abdomen. After 5 months of vemurafenib therapy, the patient began to develop hyperkeratosis of the bilateral soles of the feet (Figure). A diagnosis of acquired plantar hyperkeratosis secondary to vemurafenib therapy was made. Treatment with keratolytics was initiated and vemurafenib was not discontinued. The patient died approximately 1 year after therapy was started.

Metastatic melanoma is challenging to treat and continues to have a high mortality rate; however, newer chemotherapeutic agents targeting specific mutations found in melanoma, including the BRAF V600E mutation, are promising.

The US Food and Drug Administration first approved vemurafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, in 2011 for treatment of metastatic melanoma. Activating BRAF mutations have been detected in up to 60% of cutaneous melanomas.¹ In the majority of these mutations, valine (V) is inserted at codon 600 instead of glutamic acid (E); therefore, the mutation is named V600E.² In a phase 3 trial of 675 metastatic melanoma patients with positive V600E who were randomized to receive either vemurafenib or dacarbazine, the overall survival rate in the vemurafenib group improved by 84% versus 64% in the dacarbazine group at 6 months.³

Vemurafenib and other BRAF inhibitors have been associated with multiple cutaneous side effects, including rash, alopecia, squamous cell carcinoma, photosensitivity, evolution of existing nevi, and less commonly palmoplantar hyperkeratosis.^2-5 Constitutional symptoms including arthralgia, nausea, and fatigue also have been commonly reported.^2-5 In several large studies comprising 1138 patients, cutaneous side effects were seen in 92% to 95% of patients.^3,5 Adverse effects caused interruption or modification of therapy in 38% of patients.³

Palmoplantar keratoderma is a known side effect of vemurafenib therapy, but it is less commonly reported than other cutaneous adverse effects. It is believed that vemurafenib has the ability to paradoxically activate the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, leading to keratinocyte proliferation in cells without BRAF mutations.^6-8 In the phase 3 trial, approximately 23% to 30% of patients developed some form of hyperkeratosis.⁵ Comparatively, 64% of patients developed a rash and 23% developed cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Incidence of palmoplantar hyperkeratosis was similar in the vemurafenib and dabrafenib groups (6% vs 8%).^3,9 Development of keratoderma also has been associated with other multikinase inhibitors (eg, sorafenib, sunitinib).^10,11

In our case, the patient displayed multiple side effects while undergoing vemurafenib therapy. Within the first 2 weeks of therapy, he experienced a drug eruption that affected approximately 70% of the body surface area. The eruption resolved with topical steroids and oral antihistamines. The patient also noted the appearance of several new melanocytic nevi on the posterior neck as well as several evolving nevi on the back and abdomen. Five months into the treatment cycle, the patient began to develop hyperkeratosis on the bilateral plantar feet. Treatment consisted of keratolytics. Vemurafenib therapy was not discontinued secondary to any adverse effects.

Vemurafenib and other BRAF inhibitors are efficacious in the treatment of metastatic melanoma with V600E mutations. The use of these therapies is likely to continue and increase in the future. BRAF inhibitors have been associated with a variety of side effects, including palmoplantar hyperkeratosis. Awareness of and appropriate response to adverse reactions is essential to proper patient care and continuation of potentially life-extending therapies.

To the Editor:

A 17-year-old adolescent boy presented with dark spots on the legs and back of 2 months’ duration. He was not taking any medications and the spots could not be washed away by scrubbing with soap and water. He denied symptoms, except occasional itching. Family history revealed a maternal uncle with protein C deficiency and a maternal grandmother with systemic lupus erythematosus. Review of systems was negative; the patient denied joint pain and contact with heating pads or laptop computers. Based on the initial presentation, an underlying systemic condition was suspected. Physical examination revealed reticulate, nonblanching, brown patches on the bilateral arms, legs, and back in an apparent livedoid pattern (Figure). The patient’s history and physical examination suggested terra firma-forme dermatosis, livedo racemosa, or another vasculopathic process. However, gentle rubbing of the skin with an alcohol swab removed the discoloration completely, leading to the diagnosis of terra firma-forme dermatosis.

Livedo racemosa appears as an irregular, focal, reticulated discoloration of the skin.¹ The reticulated pattern of livedo racemosa has a branched or broken-up appearance.² Livedo racemosa indicates a disruption in the vasculature due to inflammation or occlusion.¹ The change is pathologic and does not blanch or resolve with warming.^1,2 The condition can progress to pigmentation and ulceration.¹ Livedo racemosa is a cutaneous manifestation of underlying vascular pathology. Due to a variety of causes, skin biopsy is nondiagnostic. Livedo racemosa can be caused by conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus, syphilis, tuberculosis, polycythemia rubra vera, and Sneddon syndrome, among others.^3-5

Terra firma-forme dermatosis was reported in 1987 by Duncan et al.⁶ The condition classically presents with an exasperated mother who is unable to clean the “dirt” off her child’s skin despite multiple vigorous scrubbing attempts. The condition most commonly occurs in the summer months on the neck, face, and ankles.^7,8 Duncan et al⁶ reported that when the affected area was prepared for a biopsy, clean skin was revealed after wiping with an alcohol swab. No other cleansing agent has been reported to effectively remove the discoloration of terra firma-forme dermatosis. Hoping to elucidate a cause, Duncan et al⁶ performed both bacteriologic and fungal studies. The bacterial skin culture grew only normal flora, and fungal culture grew only normal contaminants consistent with the potassium hydroxide preparation of skin scraping. Histopathologic examination showed hyperkeratosis and orthokeratosis but not parakeratosis. Staining revealed melanin in the hyperkeratotic areas.⁶ Although the cause of this condition largely is unknown, it is thought that the epidermis in the affected areas could undergo altered maturation, resulting in trapping melanin that causes the skin to appear hyperkeratotic and hyperpigmented.¹ In our case, wiping the skin revealed the unsuspected diagnosis of terra firma-forme dermatosis displaying an unusual pseudolivedoid pattern. With apparently hyperpigmented processes, rubbing the skin with alcohol may help avoid unnecessary aggressive workup.

To the Editor:

A 17-year-old adolescent boy presented with dark spots on the legs and back of 2 months’ duration. He was not taking any medications and the spots could not be washed away by scrubbing with soap and water. He denied symptoms, except occasional itching. Family history revealed a maternal uncle with protein C deficiency and a maternal grandmother with systemic lupus erythematosus. Review of systems was negative; the patient denied joint pain and contact with heating pads or laptop computers. Based on the initial presentation, an underlying systemic condition was suspected. Physical examination revealed reticulate, nonblanching, brown patches on the bilateral arms, legs, and back in an apparent livedoid pattern (Figure). The patient’s history and physical examination suggested terra firma-forme dermatosis, livedo racemosa, or another vasculopathic process. However, gentle rubbing of the skin with an alcohol swab removed the discoloration completely, leading to the diagnosis of terra firma-forme dermatosis.

Livedo racemosa appears as an irregular, focal, reticulated discoloration of the skin.¹ The reticulated pattern of livedo racemosa has a branched or broken-up appearance.² Livedo racemosa indicates a disruption in the vasculature due to inflammation or occlusion.¹ The change is pathologic and does not blanch or resolve with warming.^1,2 The condition can progress to pigmentation and ulceration.¹ Livedo racemosa is a cutaneous manifestation of underlying vascular pathology. Due to a variety of causes, skin biopsy is nondiagnostic. Livedo racemosa can be caused by conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus, syphilis, tuberculosis, polycythemia rubra vera, and Sneddon syndrome, among others.^3-5

Terra firma-forme dermatosis was reported in 1987 by Duncan et al.⁶ The condition classically presents with an exasperated mother who is unable to clean the “dirt” off her child’s skin despite multiple vigorous scrubbing attempts. The condition most commonly occurs in the summer months on the neck, face, and ankles.^7,8 Duncan et al⁶ reported that when the affected area was prepared for a biopsy, clean skin was revealed after wiping with an alcohol swab. No other cleansing agent has been reported to effectively remove the discoloration of terra firma-forme dermatosis. Hoping to elucidate a cause, Duncan et al⁶ performed both bacteriologic and fungal studies. The bacterial skin culture grew only normal flora, and fungal culture grew only normal contaminants consistent with the potassium hydroxide preparation of skin scraping. Histopathologic examination showed hyperkeratosis and orthokeratosis but not parakeratosis. Staining revealed melanin in the hyperkeratotic areas.⁶ Although the cause of this condition largely is unknown, it is thought that the epidermis in the affected areas could undergo altered maturation, resulting in trapping melanin that causes the skin to appear hyperkeratotic and hyperpigmented.¹ In our case, wiping the skin revealed the unsuspected diagnosis of terra firma-forme dermatosis displaying an unusual pseudolivedoid pattern. With apparently hyperpigmented processes, rubbing the skin with alcohol may help avoid unnecessary aggressive workup.

To the Editor:

A 17-year-old adolescent boy presented with dark spots on the legs and back of 2 months’ duration. He was not taking any medications and the spots could not be washed away by scrubbing with soap and water. He denied symptoms, except occasional itching. Family history revealed a maternal uncle with protein C deficiency and a maternal grandmother with systemic lupus erythematosus. Review of systems was negative; the patient denied joint pain and contact with heating pads or laptop computers. Based on the initial presentation, an underlying systemic condition was suspected. Physical examination revealed reticulate, nonblanching, brown patches on the bilateral arms, legs, and back in an apparent livedoid pattern (Figure). The patient’s history and physical examination suggested terra firma-forme dermatosis, livedo racemosa, or another vasculopathic process. However, gentle rubbing of the skin with an alcohol swab removed the discoloration completely, leading to the diagnosis of terra firma-forme dermatosis.

Livedo racemosa appears as an irregular, focal, reticulated discoloration of the skin.¹ The reticulated pattern of livedo racemosa has a branched or broken-up appearance.² Livedo racemosa indicates a disruption in the vasculature due to inflammation or occlusion.¹ The change is pathologic and does not blanch or resolve with warming.^1,2 The condition can progress to pigmentation and ulceration.¹ Livedo racemosa is a cutaneous manifestation of underlying vascular pathology. Due to a variety of causes, skin biopsy is nondiagnostic. Livedo racemosa can be caused by conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus, syphilis, tuberculosis, polycythemia rubra vera, and Sneddon syndrome, among others.^3-5

Terra firma-forme dermatosis was reported in 1987 by Duncan et al.⁶ The condition classically presents with an exasperated mother who is unable to clean the “dirt” off her child’s skin despite multiple vigorous scrubbing attempts. The condition most commonly occurs in the summer months on the neck, face, and ankles.^7,8 Duncan et al⁶ reported that when the affected area was prepared for a biopsy, clean skin was revealed after wiping with an alcohol swab. No other cleansing agent has been reported to effectively remove the discoloration of terra firma-forme dermatosis. Hoping to elucidate a cause, Duncan et al⁶ performed both bacteriologic and fungal studies. The bacterial skin culture grew only normal flora, and fungal culture grew only normal contaminants consistent with the potassium hydroxide preparation of skin scraping. Histopathologic examination showed hyperkeratosis and orthokeratosis but not parakeratosis. Staining revealed melanin in the hyperkeratotic areas.⁶ Although the cause of this condition largely is unknown, it is thought that the epidermis in the affected areas could undergo altered maturation, resulting in trapping melanin that causes the skin to appear hyperkeratotic and hyperpigmented.¹ In our case, wiping the skin revealed the unsuspected diagnosis of terra firma-forme dermatosis displaying an unusual pseudolivedoid pattern. With apparently hyperpigmented processes, rubbing the skin with alcohol may help avoid unnecessary aggressive workup.

To the Editor:

Microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC), described by Goldstein et al¹ in 1982, is a relatively uncommon cutaneous neoplasm. This locally aggressive malignant adnexal tumor has high potential for local recurrence. The skin of the head, particularly in the nasolabial and periorbital regions, most often is involved.² Involvement of the external auditory canal (EAC) is relatively rare. We report a case of MAC of the EAC.

A 52-year-old man presented with 1 palpable nodule on the right EAC of approximately 1 year’s duration. The lesion was asymptomatic, and the patient had no history of radiation exposure. The patient was an airport employee required to wear an earplug in the right ear. Endoscopic examination identified a 1×1 cm² erythematous nodule on the anterior inferior quadrant of the right external ear canal orifice (Figure 1). Axial and coronal computed tomography demonstrated a soft tissue mass in the right EAC without any bony erosion. No clinical signs of regional lymphadenopathy or distant metastasis were present. Excision was performed under microscopic visualization.

Histopathology of the nodule showed marked proliferation of multiple keratin-containing cysts, irregular ductal structures, and solid epithelial nests in the deep dermis (Figure 2). Irregular ductal structures with 2 cell layer walls and several epithelial strands or small nests of tumor cells within desmoplastic stroma were noted (Figure 3). No perineural infiltration or tumor infiltration existed at the margin. Based on the clinical and histopathologic findings, the final diagnosis was MAC. Complete resolution was noted after the excision. The patient returned for regular follow-up and no signs of recurrence were noted for 7 years postoperatively.

Microcystic adnexal carcinoma, also known as sclerosing sweat duct (syringomatous) carcinoma, malignant syringoma, and syringoid eccrine carcinoma, is characterized by slow and locally aggressive growth with high likelihood of perineural invasion and frequent recurrence.² Regional lymph node metastasis is uncommon, and systemic metastasis is rare.^2-4

Although the head most often is involved, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms microcystic adnexal carcinoma and external auditory canal revealed 4 cases (Table).^5-8 Our report adds another case of MAC arising solely in the EAC. Although the etiology of MAC is unknown, prior studies indicated that radiotherapy is a risk factor for MAC. Other possible risk factors include UV light exposure and immunodeficiency.² Our patient had no history of these factors and experienced chronic friction caused by use of an occupational unilateral earplug, which may be a notable factor. Locations of MAC arising outside the head region include the axilla, vulva, breast, palm, toe, perianal skin, buttock, chest, and an ovarian cystic teratoma.^3,9 Friction commonly occurs in many of these areas. Therefore, we propose that friction may be a risk factor for MAC.

Microcystic adnexal carcinoma should be included in the differential diagnosis of any slowly growing cutaneous tumor, even in the EAC. Once diagnosed, the tumor should be surgically excised. Because local recurrence is common and may occur several decades after excision, lifetime follow-up for recurrence signs is essential.

To the Editor:

Microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC), described by Goldstein et al¹ in 1982, is a relatively uncommon cutaneous neoplasm. This locally aggressive malignant adnexal tumor has high potential for local recurrence. The skin of the head, particularly in the nasolabial and periorbital regions, most often is involved.² Involvement of the external auditory canal (EAC) is relatively rare. We report a case of MAC of the EAC.

A 52-year-old man presented with 1 palpable nodule on the right EAC of approximately 1 year’s duration. The lesion was asymptomatic, and the patient had no history of radiation exposure. The patient was an airport employee required to wear an earplug in the right ear. Endoscopic examination identified a 1×1 cm² erythematous nodule on the anterior inferior quadrant of the right external ear canal orifice (Figure 1). Axial and coronal computed tomography demonstrated a soft tissue mass in the right EAC without any bony erosion. No clinical signs of regional lymphadenopathy or distant metastasis were present. Excision was performed under microscopic visualization.

Histopathology of the nodule showed marked proliferation of multiple keratin-containing cysts, irregular ductal structures, and solid epithelial nests in the deep dermis (Figure 2). Irregular ductal structures with 2 cell layer walls and several epithelial strands or small nests of tumor cells within desmoplastic stroma were noted (Figure 3). No perineural infiltration or tumor infiltration existed at the margin. Based on the clinical and histopathologic findings, the final diagnosis was MAC. Complete resolution was noted after the excision. The patient returned for regular follow-up and no signs of recurrence were noted for 7 years postoperatively.

Microcystic adnexal carcinoma, also known as sclerosing sweat duct (syringomatous) carcinoma, malignant syringoma, and syringoid eccrine carcinoma, is characterized by slow and locally aggressive growth with high likelihood of perineural invasion and frequent recurrence.² Regional lymph node metastasis is uncommon, and systemic metastasis is rare.^2-4

Although the head most often is involved, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms microcystic adnexal carcinoma and external auditory canal revealed 4 cases (Table).^5-8 Our report adds another case of MAC arising solely in the EAC. Although the etiology of MAC is unknown, prior studies indicated that radiotherapy is a risk factor for MAC. Other possible risk factors include UV light exposure and immunodeficiency.² Our patient had no history of these factors and experienced chronic friction caused by use of an occupational unilateral earplug, which may be a notable factor. Locations of MAC arising outside the head region include the axilla, vulva, breast, palm, toe, perianal skin, buttock, chest, and an ovarian cystic teratoma.^3,9 Friction commonly occurs in many of these areas. Therefore, we propose that friction may be a risk factor for MAC.

Microcystic adnexal carcinoma should be included in the differential diagnosis of any slowly growing cutaneous tumor, even in the EAC. Once diagnosed, the tumor should be surgically excised. Because local recurrence is common and may occur several decades after excision, lifetime follow-up for recurrence signs is essential.

To the Editor:

Microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC), described by Goldstein et al¹ in 1982, is a relatively uncommon cutaneous neoplasm. This locally aggressive malignant adnexal tumor has high potential for local recurrence. The skin of the head, particularly in the nasolabial and periorbital regions, most often is involved.² Involvement of the external auditory canal (EAC) is relatively rare. We report a case of MAC of the EAC.

A 52-year-old man presented with 1 palpable nodule on the right EAC of approximately 1 year’s duration. The lesion was asymptomatic, and the patient had no history of radiation exposure. The patient was an airport employee required to wear an earplug in the right ear. Endoscopic examination identified a 1×1 cm² erythematous nodule on the anterior inferior quadrant of the right external ear canal orifice (Figure 1). Axial and coronal computed tomography demonstrated a soft tissue mass in the right EAC without any bony erosion. No clinical signs of regional lymphadenopathy or distant metastasis were present. Excision was performed under microscopic visualization.

Histopathology of the nodule showed marked proliferation of multiple keratin-containing cysts, irregular ductal structures, and solid epithelial nests in the deep dermis (Figure 2). Irregular ductal structures with 2 cell layer walls and several epithelial strands or small nests of tumor cells within desmoplastic stroma were noted (Figure 3). No perineural infiltration or tumor infiltration existed at the margin. Based on the clinical and histopathologic findings, the final diagnosis was MAC. Complete resolution was noted after the excision. The patient returned for regular follow-up and no signs of recurrence were noted for 7 years postoperatively.

Microcystic adnexal carcinoma, also known as sclerosing sweat duct (syringomatous) carcinoma, malignant syringoma, and syringoid eccrine carcinoma, is characterized by slow and locally aggressive growth with high likelihood of perineural invasion and frequent recurrence.² Regional lymph node metastasis is uncommon, and systemic metastasis is rare.^2-4

Although the head most often is involved, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms microcystic adnexal carcinoma and external auditory canal revealed 4 cases (Table).^5-8 Our report adds another case of MAC arising solely in the EAC. Although the etiology of MAC is unknown, prior studies indicated that radiotherapy is a risk factor for MAC. Other possible risk factors include UV light exposure and immunodeficiency.² Our patient had no history of these factors and experienced chronic friction caused by use of an occupational unilateral earplug, which may be a notable factor. Locations of MAC arising outside the head region include the axilla, vulva, breast, palm, toe, perianal skin, buttock, chest, and an ovarian cystic teratoma.^3,9 Friction commonly occurs in many of these areas. Therefore, we propose that friction may be a risk factor for MAC.

Microcystic adnexal carcinoma should be included in the differential diagnosis of any slowly growing cutaneous tumor, even in the EAC. Once diagnosed, the tumor should be surgically excised. Because local recurrence is common and may occur several decades after excision, lifetime follow-up for recurrence signs is essential.

To the Editor:

Morphea, atrophoderma, guttate lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LS&A), anetoderma, and their subtypes are inflammatory processes ultimately leading to dermal remodeling. We report a case of a scaly, hypopigmented, macular rash that clinically appeared as an entity along the morphea-atrophoderma spectrum and demonstrated unique histopathologic changes in both collagen and elastin confined to the upper reticular and papillary dermis. This case is a potentially rare variant representing a combination of clinical and microscopic findings.

A 29-year-old woman presented for an increasing number of white spots distributed on the trunk, arms, and legs. She denied local and systemic symptoms. The patient reported that she was stung by 100 wasps 23 years prior. Following the assault, her grandmother placed chewed tobacco leaves atop the painful erythematous wheals and flares. Upon resolution, hypopigmented macules and patches remained in their place. The patient denied associated symptoms or new lesions; she did not seek care at that time.

In her early 20s, the patient noted new, similarly distributed hypopigmented macules and patches without associated arthropod assault. She was treated by an outside dermatologist without result for presumed tinea versicolor. A follow-up superficial shave biopsy cited subtle psoriasiform dermatitis. Topical steroids did not improve the lesions. Her medical history also was remarkable for a reportedly unprovoked complete rotator cuff tear.

Physical examination revealed 0.5- to 2.0-cm, ill-defined, perifollicular and nonfollicular, slightly scaly macules and patches on the trunk, arms, and legs. There was no follicular plugging (Figure 1A). The hands, feet, face, and mucosal surfaces were spared. She had no family history of similar lesions. Although atrophic in appearance, a single lesion on the left thigh was palpably depressed (Figure 1B). Serology demonstrated a normal complete blood cell count and comprehensive metabolic panel, and negative Lyme titers. Light therapy and topical steroids failed to improve the lesions; calcipotriene cream 0.005% made the lesions erythematous and pruritic.

A biopsy from a flank lesion demonstrated a normal epithelium without thinning, a normal basal melanocyte population, and minimally effaced rete ridges. Thin collagen bundles were noted in the upper reticular and papillary dermis with associated fibroplasia (Figure 2). Verhoeff-van Gieson stain revealed decreased and fragmented elastin filaments in the same dermal distribution as the changed collagen (Figure 3). There was no evidence of primary inflammatory disease. The dermis was thinned. Periodic acid–Schiff stain confirmed the absence of hyphae and spores.

The relevant findings in our patient including the following: (1) onset of hypopigmented macules and patches following resolution of a toxic insult; (2) initially stable number of lesions that progressed in number but not size; (3) thinned collagen associated with fibroplasia in the upper reticular and papillary dermis; (4) decreased number and fragmentation of elastin filaments confined to the same region; (5) no congenital lesions or similar lesions in family members; and (6) a complete rotator cuff tear with no findings of a systemic connective-tissue disorder such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

We performed a literature search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using combinations of the terms atrophic, hypopigmented, white, spot disease, confetti-like, guttate, macules, atrophoderma, morphea, anetoderma, elastin, and collagen to identify potentially similar reports of guttate hypopigmented macules demonstrating changes of the collagen and elastin in the papillary and upper reticular dermis. Some variants, namely atrophoderma of Pasini and Pierini (APP), guttate morphea, and superficial morphea, demonstrate similar clinical and histopathologic findings.

Findings similar to our case were documented in case reports of 2 women (aged 34 and 42 years)¹ presenting with asymptomatic, atrophic, well-demarcated, shiny, hypopigmented macules over the trunk and upper extremities, which demonstrated a thinned epidermis with coarse hyalinized collagen bundles in the mid and lower dermis. There was upper and diffuse dermal elastolysis (patient 1 and patient 2, respectively).¹ Our patient’s lesions were hypopigmented and atrophic in appearance but were slightly scaly and also involved the extremities. Distinct from these patient reports, histopathology from our case demonstrated thin packed collagen bundles and decreased fragmented elastin filaments confined to the upper reticular and papillary dermis.

Plaque morphea is the most common type of localized scleroderma.² The subtype APP demonstrates round to ovoid, gray-brown depressions with cliff-drop borders. They may appear flesh colored or hypopigmented.^3,4 These sclerodermoid lesions lack the violaceous border classic to morphea. Sclerosis and induration also are typically absent.⁵ Clinically, our patient’s macules resembled this entity. Histopathologically, APP shows normal epithelium with an increased basal layer pigmentation; preserved adnexal structures; and mid to lower dermal collagen edema, clumping, and homogenization.^3,4 Elastic fibers classically are unchanged, with exceptions.^6-11 Changes in the collagen and elastin of our patient were unlike those reported in APP, which occur in the mid to lower dermis.

Guttate morphea demonstrates small, pale, minimally indurated, coin-shaped lesions on the trunk. Histopathology reveals less sclerosis and more edema, resembling LS&A.¹² The earliest descriptions of this entity describe 3 stages: ivory/chalk white, scaly, and atrophic. Follicular plugging (absent in this patient) and fine scale can exist at any stage.^13,14 Flattened rete ridges mark an otherwise preserved epidermis; hyalinized collagen typically is superficial and demonstrates less sclerosis yet increased edema.^12-14 Fewer elastic fibers typically are present compared to normal skin. Changes seen in this entity are more superficial, as with our patient, than classic scleroderma. However, classic edema was not found in our patient’s biopsy specimen.

Superficial morphea, occurring predominantly in females, presents with hyperpigmented or hypopigmented patches having minimal to no induration. The lesions typically are asymptomatic. Histopathologically, collagen deposition and inflammation are confined to the superficial dermis without homogenization associated with LS&A, findings that were consistent with this patient’s biopsy.^15,16 However, similar to other morpheaform variants, elastic fibers are unchanged.¹⁵ Verhoeff-van Gieson stain of the biopsy (Figure 3) showed the decreased and fragmented elastin network in the upper reticular and papillary dermis, making this entity less compatible.

Guttate LS&A may present with interfollicular, bluish white macules or papules coalescing into patches or plaques. Lesions evolve to reveal atrophic thin skin with follicular plugging. Histology demonstrates a thinned epidermis with orthohypokeratosis marked by flattened rete ridges. The dermis reveals short hyalinized collagen fibrils with a loss of elastic fibers in the papillary and upper reticular dermis, giving a homogenized appearance. Early disease is marked by an inflammatory infiltrate.¹⁷ Most of these findings are consistent with our patient’s pathology, which was confined to the upper dermis. Lacking, however, were characteristic findings of LS&A, including upper dermal homogenization, near-total effacement of rete ridges, orthokeratosis, and vacuolar degeneration at the dermoepidermal junction. As such, this entity is less compatible.

Atrophoderma elastolyticum discretum has clinical features of atrophoderma with elastolytic histopathologic findings.¹ Anetoderma presents with outpouchings of atrophic skin with a surrounding ring of normal tissue. Histopathologically, this entity shows normal collagen with elastolysis; there also is a decrease in desmosine, an elastin cross-linker.^1,3 Neither the clinical nor histopathologic findings in this patient matched these 2 entities.

The reported chronologic association of these lesions with an arthropod assault raised suspicion to their association with toxic insult or postinflammatory changes. One study reported mechanical trauma, including insect bites, as a possible inciting factor of morphea.¹¹ These data, gathered from patient surveys, reported trauma associated to lesion development.^1,17 A review of the literature regarding atrophoderma, morphea, and LS&A failed to identify pathogenic changes seen in this patient following initial trauma. Moreover, although it is difficult to prove causality in the formation of the original hypopigmented spots, the development of identical spots in a similar distribution without further trauma suggests against these etiologies to fully explain her lesions. Nonetheless, circumstance makes it difficult to prove whether the original arthropod insult spurred a smoldering reactive process that caused the newer lesions.

Hereditary connective-tissue disorders also were considered in the differential diagnosis. Because of the patient’s history of an unprovoked complete rotator cuff tear, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome was considered; however, the remainder of her examination was normal, making a syndromic systemic disorder a less likely etiology.Because of the distinct clinical and histopathologic findings, this case may represent a rare and previously unreported variant of morphea. Clinically, these hypopigmented macules and patches exist somewhere along the morphea-atrophoderma spectrum. Histopathologic findings do not conform to prior reports. The name atrophodermalike guttate morphea may be an appropriate appellation. It is possible this presentation represents a variant of what dermatologists have referred to as white spot disease.¹⁸ We hope that this case may bring others to discussion, allowing for the identification of a more precise entity and etiology so that patients may receive more directed therapy.

To the Editor:

Morphea, atrophoderma, guttate lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LS&A), anetoderma, and their subtypes are inflammatory processes ultimately leading to dermal remodeling. We report a case of a scaly, hypopigmented, macular rash that clinically appeared as an entity along the morphea-atrophoderma spectrum and demonstrated unique histopathologic changes in both collagen and elastin confined to the upper reticular and papillary dermis. This case is a potentially rare variant representing a combination of clinical and microscopic findings.

A 29-year-old woman presented for an increasing number of white spots distributed on the trunk, arms, and legs. She denied local and systemic symptoms. The patient reported that she was stung by 100 wasps 23 years prior. Following the assault, her grandmother placed chewed tobacco leaves atop the painful erythematous wheals and flares. Upon resolution, hypopigmented macules and patches remained in their place. The patient denied associated symptoms or new lesions; she did not seek care at that time.

In her early 20s, the patient noted new, similarly distributed hypopigmented macules and patches without associated arthropod assault. She was treated by an outside dermatologist without result for presumed tinea versicolor. A follow-up superficial shave biopsy cited subtle psoriasiform dermatitis. Topical steroids did not improve the lesions. Her medical history also was remarkable for a reportedly unprovoked complete rotator cuff tear.

Physical examination revealed 0.5- to 2.0-cm, ill-defined, perifollicular and nonfollicular, slightly scaly macules and patches on the trunk, arms, and legs. There was no follicular plugging (Figure 1A). The hands, feet, face, and mucosal surfaces were spared. She had no family history of similar lesions. Although atrophic in appearance, a single lesion on the left thigh was palpably depressed (Figure 1B). Serology demonstrated a normal complete blood cell count and comprehensive metabolic panel, and negative Lyme titers. Light therapy and topical steroids failed to improve the lesions; calcipotriene cream 0.005% made the lesions erythematous and pruritic.

A biopsy from a flank lesion demonstrated a normal epithelium without thinning, a normal basal melanocyte population, and minimally effaced rete ridges. Thin collagen bundles were noted in the upper reticular and papillary dermis with associated fibroplasia (Figure 2). Verhoeff-van Gieson stain revealed decreased and fragmented elastin filaments in the same dermal distribution as the changed collagen (Figure 3). There was no evidence of primary inflammatory disease. The dermis was thinned. Periodic acid–Schiff stain confirmed the absence of hyphae and spores.

The relevant findings in our patient including the following: (1) onset of hypopigmented macules and patches following resolution of a toxic insult; (2) initially stable number of lesions that progressed in number but not size; (3) thinned collagen associated with fibroplasia in the upper reticular and papillary dermis; (4) decreased number and fragmentation of elastin filaments confined to the same region; (5) no congenital lesions or similar lesions in family members; and (6) a complete rotator cuff tear with no findings of a systemic connective-tissue disorder such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

We performed a literature search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using combinations of the terms atrophic, hypopigmented, white, spot disease, confetti-like, guttate, macules, atrophoderma, morphea, anetoderma, elastin, and collagen to identify potentially similar reports of guttate hypopigmented macules demonstrating changes of the collagen and elastin in the papillary and upper reticular dermis. Some variants, namely atrophoderma of Pasini and Pierini (APP), guttate morphea, and superficial morphea, demonstrate similar clinical and histopathologic findings.

Findings similar to our case were documented in case reports of 2 women (aged 34 and 42 years)¹ presenting with asymptomatic, atrophic, well-demarcated, shiny, hypopigmented macules over the trunk and upper extremities, which demonstrated a thinned epidermis with coarse hyalinized collagen bundles in the mid and lower dermis. There was upper and diffuse dermal elastolysis (patient 1 and patient 2, respectively).¹ Our patient’s lesions were hypopigmented and atrophic in appearance but were slightly scaly and also involved the extremities. Distinct from these patient reports, histopathology from our case demonstrated thin packed collagen bundles and decreased fragmented elastin filaments confined to the upper reticular and papillary dermis.

Plaque morphea is the most common type of localized scleroderma.² The subtype APP demonstrates round to ovoid, gray-brown depressions with cliff-drop borders. They may appear flesh colored or hypopigmented.^3,4 These sclerodermoid lesions lack the violaceous border classic to morphea. Sclerosis and induration also are typically absent.⁵ Clinically, our patient’s macules resembled this entity. Histopathologically, APP shows normal epithelium with an increased basal layer pigmentation; preserved adnexal structures; and mid to lower dermal collagen edema, clumping, and homogenization.^3,4 Elastic fibers classically are unchanged, with exceptions.^6-11 Changes in the collagen and elastin of our patient were unlike those reported in APP, which occur in the mid to lower dermis.

Guttate morphea demonstrates small, pale, minimally indurated, coin-shaped lesions on the trunk. Histopathology reveals less sclerosis and more edema, resembling LS&A.¹² The earliest descriptions of this entity describe 3 stages: ivory/chalk white, scaly, and atrophic. Follicular plugging (absent in this patient) and fine scale can exist at any stage.^13,14 Flattened rete ridges mark an otherwise preserved epidermis; hyalinized collagen typically is superficial and demonstrates less sclerosis yet increased edema.^12-14 Fewer elastic fibers typically are present compared to normal skin. Changes seen in this entity are more superficial, as with our patient, than classic scleroderma. However, classic edema was not found in our patient’s biopsy specimen.

Superficial morphea, occurring predominantly in females, presents with hyperpigmented or hypopigmented patches having minimal to no induration. The lesions typically are asymptomatic. Histopathologically, collagen deposition and inflammation are confined to the superficial dermis without homogenization associated with LS&A, findings that were consistent with this patient’s biopsy.^15,16 However, similar to other morpheaform variants, elastic fibers are unchanged.¹⁵ Verhoeff-van Gieson stain of the biopsy (Figure 3) showed the decreased and fragmented elastin network in the upper reticular and papillary dermis, making this entity less compatible.

Guttate LS&A may present with interfollicular, bluish white macules or papules coalescing into patches or plaques. Lesions evolve to reveal atrophic thin skin with follicular plugging. Histology demonstrates a thinned epidermis with orthohypokeratosis marked by flattened rete ridges. The dermis reveals short hyalinized collagen fibrils with a loss of elastic fibers in the papillary and upper reticular dermis, giving a homogenized appearance. Early disease is marked by an inflammatory infiltrate.¹⁷ Most of these findings are consistent with our patient’s pathology, which was confined to the upper dermis. Lacking, however, were characteristic findings of LS&A, including upper dermal homogenization, near-total effacement of rete ridges, orthokeratosis, and vacuolar degeneration at the dermoepidermal junction. As such, this entity is less compatible.

Atrophoderma elastolyticum discretum has clinical features of atrophoderma with elastolytic histopathologic findings.¹ Anetoderma presents with outpouchings of atrophic skin with a surrounding ring of normal tissue. Histopathologically, this entity shows normal collagen with elastolysis; there also is a decrease in desmosine, an elastin cross-linker.^1,3 Neither the clinical nor histopathologic findings in this patient matched these 2 entities.

The reported chronologic association of these lesions with an arthropod assault raised suspicion to their association with toxic insult or postinflammatory changes. One study reported mechanical trauma, including insect bites, as a possible inciting factor of morphea.¹¹ These data, gathered from patient surveys, reported trauma associated to lesion development.^1,17 A review of the literature regarding atrophoderma, morphea, and LS&A failed to identify pathogenic changes seen in this patient following initial trauma. Moreover, although it is difficult to prove causality in the formation of the original hypopigmented spots, the development of identical spots in a similar distribution without further trauma suggests against these etiologies to fully explain her lesions. Nonetheless, circumstance makes it difficult to prove whether the original arthropod insult spurred a smoldering reactive process that caused the newer lesions.

Hereditary connective-tissue disorders also were considered in the differential diagnosis. Because of the patient’s history of an unprovoked complete rotator cuff tear, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome was considered; however, the remainder of her examination was normal, making a syndromic systemic disorder a less likely etiology.Because of the distinct clinical and histopathologic findings, this case may represent a rare and previously unreported variant of morphea. Clinically, these hypopigmented macules and patches exist somewhere along the morphea-atrophoderma spectrum. Histopathologic findings do not conform to prior reports. The name atrophodermalike guttate morphea may be an appropriate appellation. It is possible this presentation represents a variant of what dermatologists have referred to as white spot disease.¹⁸ We hope that this case may bring others to discussion, allowing for the identification of a more precise entity and etiology so that patients may receive more directed therapy.

To the Editor:

Morphea, atrophoderma, guttate lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LS&A), anetoderma, and their subtypes are inflammatory processes ultimately leading to dermal remodeling. We report a case of a scaly, hypopigmented, macular rash that clinically appeared as an entity along the morphea-atrophoderma spectrum and demonstrated unique histopathologic changes in both collagen and elastin confined to the upper reticular and papillary dermis. This case is a potentially rare variant representing a combination of clinical and microscopic findings.

A 29-year-old woman presented for an increasing number of white spots distributed on the trunk, arms, and legs. She denied local and systemic symptoms. The patient reported that she was stung by 100 wasps 23 years prior. Following the assault, her grandmother placed chewed tobacco leaves atop the painful erythematous wheals and flares. Upon resolution, hypopigmented macules and patches remained in their place. The patient denied associated symptoms or new lesions; she did not seek care at that time.

In her early 20s, the patient noted new, similarly distributed hypopigmented macules and patches without associated arthropod assault. She was treated by an outside dermatologist without result for presumed tinea versicolor. A follow-up superficial shave biopsy cited subtle psoriasiform dermatitis. Topical steroids did not improve the lesions. Her medical history also was remarkable for a reportedly unprovoked complete rotator cuff tear.

Physical examination revealed 0.5- to 2.0-cm, ill-defined, perifollicular and nonfollicular, slightly scaly macules and patches on the trunk, arms, and legs. There was no follicular plugging (Figure 1A). The hands, feet, face, and mucosal surfaces were spared. She had no family history of similar lesions. Although atrophic in appearance, a single lesion on the left thigh was palpably depressed (Figure 1B). Serology demonstrated a normal complete blood cell count and comprehensive metabolic panel, and negative Lyme titers. Light therapy and topical steroids failed to improve the lesions; calcipotriene cream 0.005% made the lesions erythematous and pruritic.

A biopsy from a flank lesion demonstrated a normal epithelium without thinning, a normal basal melanocyte population, and minimally effaced rete ridges. Thin collagen bundles were noted in the upper reticular and papillary dermis with associated fibroplasia (Figure 2). Verhoeff-van Gieson stain revealed decreased and fragmented elastin filaments in the same dermal distribution as the changed collagen (Figure 3). There was no evidence of primary inflammatory disease. The dermis was thinned. Periodic acid–Schiff stain confirmed the absence of hyphae and spores.

The relevant findings in our patient including the following: (1) onset of hypopigmented macules and patches following resolution of a toxic insult; (2) initially stable number of lesions that progressed in number but not size; (3) thinned collagen associated with fibroplasia in the upper reticular and papillary dermis; (4) decreased number and fragmentation of elastin filaments confined to the same region; (5) no congenital lesions or similar lesions in family members; and (6) a complete rotator cuff tear with no findings of a systemic connective-tissue disorder such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

We performed a literature search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE using combinations of the terms atrophic, hypopigmented, white, spot disease, confetti-like, guttate, macules, atrophoderma, morphea, anetoderma, elastin, and collagen to identify potentially similar reports of guttate hypopigmented macules demonstrating changes of the collagen and elastin in the papillary and upper reticular dermis. Some variants, namely atrophoderma of Pasini and Pierini (APP), guttate morphea, and superficial morphea, demonstrate similar clinical and histopathologic findings.

Findings similar to our case were documented in case reports of 2 women (aged 34 and 42 years)¹ presenting with asymptomatic, atrophic, well-demarcated, shiny, hypopigmented macules over the trunk and upper extremities, which demonstrated a thinned epidermis with coarse hyalinized collagen bundles in the mid and lower dermis. There was upper and diffuse dermal elastolysis (patient 1 and patient 2, respectively).¹ Our patient’s lesions were hypopigmented and atrophic in appearance but were slightly scaly and also involved the extremities. Distinct from these patient reports, histopathology from our case demonstrated thin packed collagen bundles and decreased fragmented elastin filaments confined to the upper reticular and papillary dermis.

Plaque morphea is the most common type of localized scleroderma.² The subtype APP demonstrates round to ovoid, gray-brown depressions with cliff-drop borders. They may appear flesh colored or hypopigmented.^3,4 These sclerodermoid lesions lack the violaceous border classic to morphea. Sclerosis and induration also are typically absent.⁵ Clinically, our patient’s macules resembled this entity. Histopathologically, APP shows normal epithelium with an increased basal layer pigmentation; preserved adnexal structures; and mid to lower dermal collagen edema, clumping, and homogenization.^3,4 Elastic fibers classically are unchanged, with exceptions.^6-11 Changes in the collagen and elastin of our patient were unlike those reported in APP, which occur in the mid to lower dermis.

Guttate morphea demonstrates small, pale, minimally indurated, coin-shaped lesions on the trunk. Histopathology reveals less sclerosis and more edema, resembling LS&A.¹² The earliest descriptions of this entity describe 3 stages: ivory/chalk white, scaly, and atrophic. Follicular plugging (absent in this patient) and fine scale can exist at any stage.^13,14 Flattened rete ridges mark an otherwise preserved epidermis; hyalinized collagen typically is superficial and demonstrates less sclerosis yet increased edema.^12-14 Fewer elastic fibers typically are present compared to normal skin. Changes seen in this entity are more superficial, as with our patient, than classic scleroderma. However, classic edema was not found in our patient’s biopsy specimen.

Superficial morphea, occurring predominantly in females, presents with hyperpigmented or hypopigmented patches having minimal to no induration. The lesions typically are asymptomatic. Histopathologically, collagen deposition and inflammation are confined to the superficial dermis without homogenization associated with LS&A, findings that were consistent with this patient’s biopsy.^15,16 However, similar to other morpheaform variants, elastic fibers are unchanged.¹⁵ Verhoeff-van Gieson stain of the biopsy (Figure 3) showed the decreased and fragmented elastin network in the upper reticular and papillary dermis, making this entity less compatible.

Guttate LS&A may present with interfollicular, bluish white macules or papules coalescing into patches or plaques. Lesions evolve to reveal atrophic thin skin with follicular plugging. Histology demonstrates a thinned epidermis with orthohypokeratosis marked by flattened rete ridges. The dermis reveals short hyalinized collagen fibrils with a loss of elastic fibers in the papillary and upper reticular dermis, giving a homogenized appearance. Early disease is marked by an inflammatory infiltrate.¹⁷ Most of these findings are consistent with our patient’s pathology, which was confined to the upper dermis. Lacking, however, were characteristic findings of LS&A, including upper dermal homogenization, near-total effacement of rete ridges, orthokeratosis, and vacuolar degeneration at the dermoepidermal junction. As such, this entity is less compatible.

Atrophoderma elastolyticum discretum has clinical features of atrophoderma with elastolytic histopathologic findings.¹ Anetoderma presents with outpouchings of atrophic skin with a surrounding ring of normal tissue. Histopathologically, this entity shows normal collagen with elastolysis; there also is a decrease in desmosine, an elastin cross-linker.^1,3 Neither the clinical nor histopathologic findings in this patient matched these 2 entities.

The reported chronologic association of these lesions with an arthropod assault raised suspicion to their association with toxic insult or postinflammatory changes. One study reported mechanical trauma, including insect bites, as a possible inciting factor of morphea.¹¹ These data, gathered from patient surveys, reported trauma associated to lesion development.^1,17 A review of the literature regarding atrophoderma, morphea, and LS&A failed to identify pathogenic changes seen in this patient following initial trauma. Moreover, although it is difficult to prove causality in the formation of the original hypopigmented spots, the development of identical spots in a similar distribution without further trauma suggests against these etiologies to fully explain her lesions. Nonetheless, circumstance makes it difficult to prove whether the original arthropod insult spurred a smoldering reactive process that caused the newer lesions.

Hereditary connective-tissue disorders also were considered in the differential diagnosis. Because of the patient’s history of an unprovoked complete rotator cuff tear, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome was considered; however, the remainder of her examination was normal, making a syndromic systemic disorder a less likely etiology.Because of the distinct clinical and histopathologic findings, this case may represent a rare and previously unreported variant of morphea. Clinically, these hypopigmented macules and patches exist somewhere along the morphea-atrophoderma spectrum. Histopathologic findings do not conform to prior reports. The name atrophodermalike guttate morphea may be an appropriate appellation. It is possible this presentation represents a variant of what dermatologists have referred to as white spot disease.¹⁸ We hope that this case may bring others to discussion, allowing for the identification of a more precise entity and etiology so that patients may receive more directed therapy.