Dermatopathology

The Diagnosis: Glochid Dermatitis

Biopsy of a nodule on the upper right arm showed chronic granulomatous inflammation and polarizable foreign material consistent with plant cellulose (Figure). A diagnosis of glochid dermatitis was made. The treatment plan included follow-up skin evaluation and punch excision of persistent papules 1 month after the initial presentation. The patient reported the rash began after he fell on a cactus plant while chasing his grandson. He was seen by various clinicians and was given hydrocortisone and clobetasol, which helped with pruritis but did not resolve the rash. His grandson developed a similar rash at the site of contact with the cactus plant. The patient and his grandson did not detect the presence of any cactus spines.

Injuries from cactus glochids most often occur due to accidental falls on cactus plants, but glochids also may be transferred from clothing to other individuals. The thin, hairlike glochids easily detach from the stem of the cactus and can become deeply embedded with virtually no pressure.¹

Glochid implantation from the prickly pear cactus commonly presents as a pruritic papular eruption known as glochid dermatitis. These penetrating injuries can lead to inoculation of Clostridium tetani and Staphylococcus aureus. Additionally, unrecognized and unremoved cactus spines may be highly inflammatory and may cause chronic granulomatous inflammation.²

Initially, acute glochid dermatitis occurs due to mechanical damage caused by the detatched cactus spine and may not resolve for up to 4 months. Granuloma formation has been reported several weeks after exposure and may persist for more than 8 months.³ Although an immune mechanism has been suggested, the literature has indicated that delayed hypersensitivity reactions are a more probable cause of the granulomatous inflammation after glochid exposure.³ Madkan et al⁴ reported that relatively few patients developed granulomas after implantation of glochids in the skin, thus suggesting that granuloma formation is an allergic response.

With regard to the pathogenesis of glochid dermatitis, the initial response to foreign plant matter in the dermis involves a neutrophilic infiltrate, which later is replaced by histiocytes; however, the foreign material remains undegraded in the macrophage cytoplasm.⁵ Activated macrophages secrete cytokines that intensify the inflammatory response, resulting in formation of a granuloma around the foreign body. The granuloma acts as a wall to isolate the foreign matter from the rest of the body.⁵

Regarding treatment of chronic granulomas, Madkan et al⁴ reported a case that showed some improvement with clobetasol ointment; however, clinical lesions resolved only after punch biopsies were performed to confirm the diagnosis of cactus spine granuloma. In a controlled study in rabbits, glochids were successfully removed by first detaching the larger clumps with tweezers then applying glue and gauze to the affected area.⁶ After the glue dried, the gauze was peeled off, resulting in the removal of 95% of the implanted glochids. Overall, removal of embedded spines is difficult because the glochids typically radiate in several directions.⁷ Treatment of foreign body granulomas caused by cactus spines can be achieved by expulsion of plant matter remnants and symptomatic treatment using midpotency topical steroids twice daily.⁴ Uncovering and performing punch biopsies of papules also can result in rapid healing of the lesions. Without manual removal of the glochid, lesions can persist for 2 to 8 months until gradual resolution with possible postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.⁴

The Diagnosis: Glochid Dermatitis

Biopsy of a nodule on the upper right arm showed chronic granulomatous inflammation and polarizable foreign material consistent with plant cellulose (Figure). A diagnosis of glochid dermatitis was made. The treatment plan included follow-up skin evaluation and punch excision of persistent papules 1 month after the initial presentation. The patient reported the rash began after he fell on a cactus plant while chasing his grandson. He was seen by various clinicians and was given hydrocortisone and clobetasol, which helped with pruritis but did not resolve the rash. His grandson developed a similar rash at the site of contact with the cactus plant. The patient and his grandson did not detect the presence of any cactus spines.

Injuries from cactus glochids most often occur due to accidental falls on cactus plants, but glochids also may be transferred from clothing to other individuals. The thin, hairlike glochids easily detach from the stem of the cactus and can become deeply embedded with virtually no pressure.¹

Glochid implantation from the prickly pear cactus commonly presents as a pruritic papular eruption known as glochid dermatitis. These penetrating injuries can lead to inoculation of Clostridium tetani and Staphylococcus aureus. Additionally, unrecognized and unremoved cactus spines may be highly inflammatory and may cause chronic granulomatous inflammation.²

Initially, acute glochid dermatitis occurs due to mechanical damage caused by the detatched cactus spine and may not resolve for up to 4 months. Granuloma formation has been reported several weeks after exposure and may persist for more than 8 months.³ Although an immune mechanism has been suggested, the literature has indicated that delayed hypersensitivity reactions are a more probable cause of the granulomatous inflammation after glochid exposure.³ Madkan et al⁴ reported that relatively few patients developed granulomas after implantation of glochids in the skin, thus suggesting that granuloma formation is an allergic response.

With regard to the pathogenesis of glochid dermatitis, the initial response to foreign plant matter in the dermis involves a neutrophilic infiltrate, which later is replaced by histiocytes; however, the foreign material remains undegraded in the macrophage cytoplasm.⁵ Activated macrophages secrete cytokines that intensify the inflammatory response, resulting in formation of a granuloma around the foreign body. The granuloma acts as a wall to isolate the foreign matter from the rest of the body.⁵

Regarding treatment of chronic granulomas, Madkan et al⁴ reported a case that showed some improvement with clobetasol ointment; however, clinical lesions resolved only after punch biopsies were performed to confirm the diagnosis of cactus spine granuloma. In a controlled study in rabbits, glochids were successfully removed by first detaching the larger clumps with tweezers then applying glue and gauze to the affected area.⁶ After the glue dried, the gauze was peeled off, resulting in the removal of 95% of the implanted glochids. Overall, removal of embedded spines is difficult because the glochids typically radiate in several directions.⁷ Treatment of foreign body granulomas caused by cactus spines can be achieved by expulsion of plant matter remnants and symptomatic treatment using midpotency topical steroids twice daily.⁴ Uncovering and performing punch biopsies of papules also can result in rapid healing of the lesions. Without manual removal of the glochid, lesions can persist for 2 to 8 months until gradual resolution with possible postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.⁴

The Diagnosis: Glochid Dermatitis

Biopsy of a nodule on the upper right arm showed chronic granulomatous inflammation and polarizable foreign material consistent with plant cellulose (Figure). A diagnosis of glochid dermatitis was made. The treatment plan included follow-up skin evaluation and punch excision of persistent papules 1 month after the initial presentation. The patient reported the rash began after he fell on a cactus plant while chasing his grandson. He was seen by various clinicians and was given hydrocortisone and clobetasol, which helped with pruritis but did not resolve the rash. His grandson developed a similar rash at the site of contact with the cactus plant. The patient and his grandson did not detect the presence of any cactus spines.

Injuries from cactus glochids most often occur due to accidental falls on cactus plants, but glochids also may be transferred from clothing to other individuals. The thin, hairlike glochids easily detach from the stem of the cactus and can become deeply embedded with virtually no pressure.¹

Glochid implantation from the prickly pear cactus commonly presents as a pruritic papular eruption known as glochid dermatitis. These penetrating injuries can lead to inoculation of Clostridium tetani and Staphylococcus aureus. Additionally, unrecognized and unremoved cactus spines may be highly inflammatory and may cause chronic granulomatous inflammation.²

Initially, acute glochid dermatitis occurs due to mechanical damage caused by the detatched cactus spine and may not resolve for up to 4 months. Granuloma formation has been reported several weeks after exposure and may persist for more than 8 months.³ Although an immune mechanism has been suggested, the literature has indicated that delayed hypersensitivity reactions are a more probable cause of the granulomatous inflammation after glochid exposure.³ Madkan et al⁴ reported that relatively few patients developed granulomas after implantation of glochids in the skin, thus suggesting that granuloma formation is an allergic response.

With regard to the pathogenesis of glochid dermatitis, the initial response to foreign plant matter in the dermis involves a neutrophilic infiltrate, which later is replaced by histiocytes; however, the foreign material remains undegraded in the macrophage cytoplasm.⁵ Activated macrophages secrete cytokines that intensify the inflammatory response, resulting in formation of a granuloma around the foreign body. The granuloma acts as a wall to isolate the foreign matter from the rest of the body.⁵

Regarding treatment of chronic granulomas, Madkan et al⁴ reported a case that showed some improvement with clobetasol ointment; however, clinical lesions resolved only after punch biopsies were performed to confirm the diagnosis of cactus spine granuloma. In a controlled study in rabbits, glochids were successfully removed by first detaching the larger clumps with tweezers then applying glue and gauze to the affected area.⁶ After the glue dried, the gauze was peeled off, resulting in the removal of 95% of the implanted glochids. Overall, removal of embedded spines is difficult because the glochids typically radiate in several directions.⁷ Treatment of foreign body granulomas caused by cactus spines can be achieved by expulsion of plant matter remnants and symptomatic treatment using midpotency topical steroids twice daily.⁴ Uncovering and performing punch biopsies of papules also can result in rapid healing of the lesions. Without manual removal of the glochid, lesions can persist for 2 to 8 months until gradual resolution with possible postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.⁴

The Diagnosis: Lymphoepitheliomalike Carcinoma of the Skin

The term lymphoepitheliomalike carcinoma of the skin (LELCS) initially was proposed by Swanson et al¹ in 1988 when they described 5 patients with cutaneous neoplasms histologically resembling nasopharyngeal carcinoma, also known as lymphoepithelioma. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term lymphoepitheliomalike carcinoma of the skin revealed over 60 cases of LELCS since 1988. However, unlike nasopharyngeal carcinoma, LELCS has not been associated with Epstein-Barr virus, with the exception of 1 known reported case.² The clinical appearance of LELCS is nonspecific but usually presents as a flesh-colored to erythematous nodule, as was seen in the current case. Lesions commonly are found on the head and neck in middle-aged to elderly patients with a slight male predominance.²

On histology, LELCS is characterized by aggregations of large, atypical epithelioid cells surrounded by a dense lymphoplasmocytic infiltrate (right quiz image). The neoplasm tends to reside within the deep dermis and/or subcutis¹ without appreciable epidermal involvement (left quiz image). The atypical epithelioid cells demonstrate positive immunoreactivity for cytokeratins (right quiz image inset), p40/p63, and epithelial membrane antigen,³ and the surrounding lymphocytic infiltrate stains positively for leukocyte common antigen. The tumor histogenesis still is unknown, although an epidermal origin has been suggested given its staining pattern.² Other investigators have postulated on an adnexal origin, citing the tumor's dermal location along with case reports describing possible glandular, sebaceous, or follicular differentiation.^2,4

Treatment for LELCS can include either standard surgical excision or Mohs micrographic surgery, with radiation reserved for lymph node involvement, tumor recurrence, or poor surgical candidates.^2,3,5 With appropriate therapy, prognosis may be considered favorable. Data from 49 LELCS patients presenting from 1988 and 2008 showed that 36 (73.5%) had no evidence of recurrence after treatment with standard surgical excision, 4 (8.2%) had local recurrence, and 6 (12.2%) developed lymph node metastasis, which led to death in 1 (2.0%) patient.²

Given the histologic similarity of LELCS to nasopharyngeal carcinoma, it is important to rule out the possibility of cutaneous metastasis, which can be done by testing for Epstein-Barr virus and performing either computed tomography imaging or comprehensive laryngoscopic examination of the head and neck region. In the current case, the patient was referred for laryngoscopy, at which time no suspicious lesions were identified. He subsequently underwent treatment with Mohs micrographic surgery, and the tumor was cleared after 2 surgical stages. At 5-month follow-up, the patient continued to do well with no signs of clinical recurrence.

Cutaneous lymphadenoma may be included in the differential diagnosis for LELCS on histopathology. This neoplasm is characterized by a well-circumscribed dermal proliferation of basaloid tumor islands within a fibrotic stroma (Figure 1). The basaloid cells may display peripheral palisading, and lymphocytes often are seen infiltrating the tumor lobules and the surrounding stroma (Figure 1 inset). Clinically, cutaneous lymphadenomas are slowly growing nodules that typically occur in young to middle-aged patients,^4,6 unlike LELCS, which is more commonly observed in middle-aged to elderly patients.²

The dense lymphocytic infiltrate seen in LELCS may obscure the neoplastic epithelioid cells and in doing so may mimic a lymphoproliferative disorder, such as lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP). Lymphomatoid papulosis is a chronic CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder consisting of recurrent crops of self-resolving papulonodules occurring on the trunk, arms, and legs. The average age of onset is in the third to fourth decades of life. Histology is dependent on the subtype; type A, the most common subtype, displays a wedge-shaped dermal infiltrate consisting of small lymphocytes (Figure 2) admixed with larger CD30⁺ atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli (Figure 2 inset).⁷ Bizarre, binucleated forms resembling Reed-Sternberg cells also may be observed along with hallmark cells, which contain a horseshoe-shaped nucleus. The presence of admixed neutrophils and eosinophils also are common in type A LyP, a feature that is not characteristic of LELCS. Moreover, the atypical cells in LyP would not stain positively for epithelial markers as they would in LELCS.

Rosai-Dorfman disease is a rare condition that usually presents with painless cervical lymphadenopathy, typically in the first and second decades of life. Skin involvement can be seen in a small subset of extranodal cases, but cutaneous involvement alone is uncommon. On histopathology, cutaneous lesions are characterized by a dense dermal infiltrate of atypical histiocytes with vesicular nuclei and pale cytoplasm admixed with inflammatory cells, including lymphocytes, neutrophils, and plasma cells (Figure 3). Intracytoplasmic inflammatory cells or emperipolesis often is appreciated (Figure 3 inset).^8,9 The atypical histiocytes stain positively for S100 and negatively for CD1a.

Lymphoepitheliomalike carcinoma of the skin sometimes is considered to be a poorly differentiated, inflamed variant of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).¹⁰ A number of features may allow distinction of a primary cutaneous SCC from LELCS; for instance, SCC is more likely to have an epidermal connection and at least focal signs of squamous differentiation,11 which can include the presence of poorly differentiated epithelial cells with mitoses (Figure 4), keratin pearls, dyskeratotic cells, or intercellular bridges.¹² Moreover, SCCs have a more variable surrounding inflammatory infiltrate compared to LELCS.

The Diagnosis: Lymphoepitheliomalike Carcinoma of the Skin

The term lymphoepitheliomalike carcinoma of the skin (LELCS) initially was proposed by Swanson et al¹ in 1988 when they described 5 patients with cutaneous neoplasms histologically resembling nasopharyngeal carcinoma, also known as lymphoepithelioma. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term lymphoepitheliomalike carcinoma of the skin revealed over 60 cases of LELCS since 1988. However, unlike nasopharyngeal carcinoma, LELCS has not been associated with Epstein-Barr virus, with the exception of 1 known reported case.² The clinical appearance of LELCS is nonspecific but usually presents as a flesh-colored to erythematous nodule, as was seen in the current case. Lesions commonly are found on the head and neck in middle-aged to elderly patients with a slight male predominance.²

On histology, LELCS is characterized by aggregations of large, atypical epithelioid cells surrounded by a dense lymphoplasmocytic infiltrate (right quiz image). The neoplasm tends to reside within the deep dermis and/or subcutis¹ without appreciable epidermal involvement (left quiz image). The atypical epithelioid cells demonstrate positive immunoreactivity for cytokeratins (right quiz image inset), p40/p63, and epithelial membrane antigen,³ and the surrounding lymphocytic infiltrate stains positively for leukocyte common antigen. The tumor histogenesis still is unknown, although an epidermal origin has been suggested given its staining pattern.² Other investigators have postulated on an adnexal origin, citing the tumor's dermal location along with case reports describing possible glandular, sebaceous, or follicular differentiation.^2,4

Treatment for LELCS can include either standard surgical excision or Mohs micrographic surgery, with radiation reserved for lymph node involvement, tumor recurrence, or poor surgical candidates.^2,3,5 With appropriate therapy, prognosis may be considered favorable. Data from 49 LELCS patients presenting from 1988 and 2008 showed that 36 (73.5%) had no evidence of recurrence after treatment with standard surgical excision, 4 (8.2%) had local recurrence, and 6 (12.2%) developed lymph node metastasis, which led to death in 1 (2.0%) patient.²

Given the histologic similarity of LELCS to nasopharyngeal carcinoma, it is important to rule out the possibility of cutaneous metastasis, which can be done by testing for Epstein-Barr virus and performing either computed tomography imaging or comprehensive laryngoscopic examination of the head and neck region. In the current case, the patient was referred for laryngoscopy, at which time no suspicious lesions were identified. He subsequently underwent treatment with Mohs micrographic surgery, and the tumor was cleared after 2 surgical stages. At 5-month follow-up, the patient continued to do well with no signs of clinical recurrence.

Cutaneous lymphadenoma may be included in the differential diagnosis for LELCS on histopathology. This neoplasm is characterized by a well-circumscribed dermal proliferation of basaloid tumor islands within a fibrotic stroma (Figure 1). The basaloid cells may display peripheral palisading, and lymphocytes often are seen infiltrating the tumor lobules and the surrounding stroma (Figure 1 inset). Clinically, cutaneous lymphadenomas are slowly growing nodules that typically occur in young to middle-aged patients,^4,6 unlike LELCS, which is more commonly observed in middle-aged to elderly patients.²

The dense lymphocytic infiltrate seen in LELCS may obscure the neoplastic epithelioid cells and in doing so may mimic a lymphoproliferative disorder, such as lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP). Lymphomatoid papulosis is a chronic CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder consisting of recurrent crops of self-resolving papulonodules occurring on the trunk, arms, and legs. The average age of onset is in the third to fourth decades of life. Histology is dependent on the subtype; type A, the most common subtype, displays a wedge-shaped dermal infiltrate consisting of small lymphocytes (Figure 2) admixed with larger CD30⁺ atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli (Figure 2 inset).⁷ Bizarre, binucleated forms resembling Reed-Sternberg cells also may be observed along with hallmark cells, which contain a horseshoe-shaped nucleus. The presence of admixed neutrophils and eosinophils also are common in type A LyP, a feature that is not characteristic of LELCS. Moreover, the atypical cells in LyP would not stain positively for epithelial markers as they would in LELCS.

Rosai-Dorfman disease is a rare condition that usually presents with painless cervical lymphadenopathy, typically in the first and second decades of life. Skin involvement can be seen in a small subset of extranodal cases, but cutaneous involvement alone is uncommon. On histopathology, cutaneous lesions are characterized by a dense dermal infiltrate of atypical histiocytes with vesicular nuclei and pale cytoplasm admixed with inflammatory cells, including lymphocytes, neutrophils, and plasma cells (Figure 3). Intracytoplasmic inflammatory cells or emperipolesis often is appreciated (Figure 3 inset).^8,9 The atypical histiocytes stain positively for S100 and negatively for CD1a.

Lymphoepitheliomalike carcinoma of the skin sometimes is considered to be a poorly differentiated, inflamed variant of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).¹⁰ A number of features may allow distinction of a primary cutaneous SCC from LELCS; for instance, SCC is more likely to have an epidermal connection and at least focal signs of squamous differentiation,11 which can include the presence of poorly differentiated epithelial cells with mitoses (Figure 4), keratin pearls, dyskeratotic cells, or intercellular bridges.¹² Moreover, SCCs have a more variable surrounding inflammatory infiltrate compared to LELCS.

The Diagnosis: Lymphoepitheliomalike Carcinoma of the Skin

The term lymphoepitheliomalike carcinoma of the skin (LELCS) initially was proposed by Swanson et al¹ in 1988 when they described 5 patients with cutaneous neoplasms histologically resembling nasopharyngeal carcinoma, also known as lymphoepithelioma. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term lymphoepitheliomalike carcinoma of the skin revealed over 60 cases of LELCS since 1988. However, unlike nasopharyngeal carcinoma, LELCS has not been associated with Epstein-Barr virus, with the exception of 1 known reported case.² The clinical appearance of LELCS is nonspecific but usually presents as a flesh-colored to erythematous nodule, as was seen in the current case. Lesions commonly are found on the head and neck in middle-aged to elderly patients with a slight male predominance.²

On histology, LELCS is characterized by aggregations of large, atypical epithelioid cells surrounded by a dense lymphoplasmocytic infiltrate (right quiz image). The neoplasm tends to reside within the deep dermis and/or subcutis¹ without appreciable epidermal involvement (left quiz image). The atypical epithelioid cells demonstrate positive immunoreactivity for cytokeratins (right quiz image inset), p40/p63, and epithelial membrane antigen,³ and the surrounding lymphocytic infiltrate stains positively for leukocyte common antigen. The tumor histogenesis still is unknown, although an epidermal origin has been suggested given its staining pattern.² Other investigators have postulated on an adnexal origin, citing the tumor's dermal location along with case reports describing possible glandular, sebaceous, or follicular differentiation.^2,4

Treatment for LELCS can include either standard surgical excision or Mohs micrographic surgery, with radiation reserved for lymph node involvement, tumor recurrence, or poor surgical candidates.^2,3,5 With appropriate therapy, prognosis may be considered favorable. Data from 49 LELCS patients presenting from 1988 and 2008 showed that 36 (73.5%) had no evidence of recurrence after treatment with standard surgical excision, 4 (8.2%) had local recurrence, and 6 (12.2%) developed lymph node metastasis, which led to death in 1 (2.0%) patient.²

Given the histologic similarity of LELCS to nasopharyngeal carcinoma, it is important to rule out the possibility of cutaneous metastasis, which can be done by testing for Epstein-Barr virus and performing either computed tomography imaging or comprehensive laryngoscopic examination of the head and neck region. In the current case, the patient was referred for laryngoscopy, at which time no suspicious lesions were identified. He subsequently underwent treatment with Mohs micrographic surgery, and the tumor was cleared after 2 surgical stages. At 5-month follow-up, the patient continued to do well with no signs of clinical recurrence.

Cutaneous lymphadenoma may be included in the differential diagnosis for LELCS on histopathology. This neoplasm is characterized by a well-circumscribed dermal proliferation of basaloid tumor islands within a fibrotic stroma (Figure 1). The basaloid cells may display peripheral palisading, and lymphocytes often are seen infiltrating the tumor lobules and the surrounding stroma (Figure 1 inset). Clinically, cutaneous lymphadenomas are slowly growing nodules that typically occur in young to middle-aged patients,^4,6 unlike LELCS, which is more commonly observed in middle-aged to elderly patients.²

The dense lymphocytic infiltrate seen in LELCS may obscure the neoplastic epithelioid cells and in doing so may mimic a lymphoproliferative disorder, such as lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP). Lymphomatoid papulosis is a chronic CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder consisting of recurrent crops of self-resolving papulonodules occurring on the trunk, arms, and legs. The average age of onset is in the third to fourth decades of life. Histology is dependent on the subtype; type A, the most common subtype, displays a wedge-shaped dermal infiltrate consisting of small lymphocytes (Figure 2) admixed with larger CD30⁺ atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli (Figure 2 inset).⁷ Bizarre, binucleated forms resembling Reed-Sternberg cells also may be observed along with hallmark cells, which contain a horseshoe-shaped nucleus. The presence of admixed neutrophils and eosinophils also are common in type A LyP, a feature that is not characteristic of LELCS. Moreover, the atypical cells in LyP would not stain positively for epithelial markers as they would in LELCS.

Rosai-Dorfman disease is a rare condition that usually presents with painless cervical lymphadenopathy, typically in the first and second decades of life. Skin involvement can be seen in a small subset of extranodal cases, but cutaneous involvement alone is uncommon. On histopathology, cutaneous lesions are characterized by a dense dermal infiltrate of atypical histiocytes with vesicular nuclei and pale cytoplasm admixed with inflammatory cells, including lymphocytes, neutrophils, and plasma cells (Figure 3). Intracytoplasmic inflammatory cells or emperipolesis often is appreciated (Figure 3 inset).^8,9 The atypical histiocytes stain positively for S100 and negatively for CD1a.

Lymphoepitheliomalike carcinoma of the skin sometimes is considered to be a poorly differentiated, inflamed variant of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).¹⁰ A number of features may allow distinction of a primary cutaneous SCC from LELCS; for instance, SCC is more likely to have an epidermal connection and at least focal signs of squamous differentiation,11 which can include the presence of poorly differentiated epithelial cells with mitoses (Figure 4), keratin pearls, dyskeratotic cells, or intercellular bridges.¹² Moreover, SCCs have a more variable surrounding inflammatory infiltrate compared to LELCS.

The Diagnosis: Granuloma Faciale

A biopsy from a scalp lesion showed an intense mixed inflammatory infiltrate mainly consisting of eosinophils, but lymphocytes, histiocytes, neutrophils, and plasma cells also were present. A grenz zone was observed between the dermal infiltrate and epidermis. Perivascular infiltrates were penetrating vessel walls, and hyalinization of the vessel walls also was seen (Figure 1). Direct immunofluorescence demonstrated IgG positivity on vessel walls (Figure 2). A diagnosis of granuloma faciale with extrafacial lesions was made. Twice daily application of tacrolimus ointment 0.1% was started, but after a 10-month course of treatment, there was no notable difference in the lesions.

Granuloma faciale (GF) is an uncommon benign dermatosis of unknown pathogenesis characterized by erythematous, brown, or violaceous papules, plaques, or nodules. Granuloma faciale lesions can be solitary or multiple as well as disseminated and most often occur on the face. Predilection sites include the nose, periauricular area, cheeks, forehead, eyelids, and ears; however, lesions also have been reported to occur in extrafacial areas such as the trunk, arms, and legs.^1-4 In our patient, multiple plaques were seen on the scalp. Facial lesions usually precede extrafacial lesions, which may present months to several years after the appearance of facial disease; however, according to our patient's history his scalp lesions appeared before the facial lesions.

The differential diagnoses for GF mainly include erythema elevatum diutinum, cutaneous sarcoidosis, cutaneous lymphoma, lupus, basal cell carcinoma, and cutaneous pseudolymphoma.⁵ Diagnosis may be established based on a combination of clinical features and skin biopsy results. On histopathologic examination, small-vessel vasculitis usually is present with an infiltrate predominantly consisting of neutrophils and eosinophils.⁶

It has been suggested that actinic damage plays a role in the etiology of GF.⁷ The pathogenesis is uncertain, but it is thought that immunophenotypic and molecular analysis of the dermal infiltrate in GF reveals that most lymphocytes are clonally expanded and the process is mediated by interferon gamma.⁷ Tacrolimus acts by binding and inactivating calcineurin and thus blocking T-cell activation and proliferation, so it is not surprising that topical tacrolimus has been shown to be useful in the management of this condition.⁸

The Diagnosis: Granuloma Faciale

A biopsy from a scalp lesion showed an intense mixed inflammatory infiltrate mainly consisting of eosinophils, but lymphocytes, histiocytes, neutrophils, and plasma cells also were present. A grenz zone was observed between the dermal infiltrate and epidermis. Perivascular infiltrates were penetrating vessel walls, and hyalinization of the vessel walls also was seen (Figure 1). Direct immunofluorescence demonstrated IgG positivity on vessel walls (Figure 2). A diagnosis of granuloma faciale with extrafacial lesions was made. Twice daily application of tacrolimus ointment 0.1% was started, but after a 10-month course of treatment, there was no notable difference in the lesions.

Granuloma faciale (GF) is an uncommon benign dermatosis of unknown pathogenesis characterized by erythematous, brown, or violaceous papules, plaques, or nodules. Granuloma faciale lesions can be solitary or multiple as well as disseminated and most often occur on the face. Predilection sites include the nose, periauricular area, cheeks, forehead, eyelids, and ears; however, lesions also have been reported to occur in extrafacial areas such as the trunk, arms, and legs.^1-4 In our patient, multiple plaques were seen on the scalp. Facial lesions usually precede extrafacial lesions, which may present months to several years after the appearance of facial disease; however, according to our patient's history his scalp lesions appeared before the facial lesions.

The differential diagnoses for GF mainly include erythema elevatum diutinum, cutaneous sarcoidosis, cutaneous lymphoma, lupus, basal cell carcinoma, and cutaneous pseudolymphoma.⁵ Diagnosis may be established based on a combination of clinical features and skin biopsy results. On histopathologic examination, small-vessel vasculitis usually is present with an infiltrate predominantly consisting of neutrophils and eosinophils.⁶

It has been suggested that actinic damage plays a role in the etiology of GF.⁷ The pathogenesis is uncertain, but it is thought that immunophenotypic and molecular analysis of the dermal infiltrate in GF reveals that most lymphocytes are clonally expanded and the process is mediated by interferon gamma.⁷ Tacrolimus acts by binding and inactivating calcineurin and thus blocking T-cell activation and proliferation, so it is not surprising that topical tacrolimus has been shown to be useful in the management of this condition.⁸

The Diagnosis: Granuloma Faciale

A biopsy from a scalp lesion showed an intense mixed inflammatory infiltrate mainly consisting of eosinophils, but lymphocytes, histiocytes, neutrophils, and plasma cells also were present. A grenz zone was observed between the dermal infiltrate and epidermis. Perivascular infiltrates were penetrating vessel walls, and hyalinization of the vessel walls also was seen (Figure 1). Direct immunofluorescence demonstrated IgG positivity on vessel walls (Figure 2). A diagnosis of granuloma faciale with extrafacial lesions was made. Twice daily application of tacrolimus ointment 0.1% was started, but after a 10-month course of treatment, there was no notable difference in the lesions.

Granuloma faciale (GF) is an uncommon benign dermatosis of unknown pathogenesis characterized by erythematous, brown, or violaceous papules, plaques, or nodules. Granuloma faciale lesions can be solitary or multiple as well as disseminated and most often occur on the face. Predilection sites include the nose, periauricular area, cheeks, forehead, eyelids, and ears; however, lesions also have been reported to occur in extrafacial areas such as the trunk, arms, and legs.^1-4 In our patient, multiple plaques were seen on the scalp. Facial lesions usually precede extrafacial lesions, which may present months to several years after the appearance of facial disease; however, according to our patient's history his scalp lesions appeared before the facial lesions.

The differential diagnoses for GF mainly include erythema elevatum diutinum, cutaneous sarcoidosis, cutaneous lymphoma, lupus, basal cell carcinoma, and cutaneous pseudolymphoma.⁵ Diagnosis may be established based on a combination of clinical features and skin biopsy results. On histopathologic examination, small-vessel vasculitis usually is present with an infiltrate predominantly consisting of neutrophils and eosinophils.⁶

It has been suggested that actinic damage plays a role in the etiology of GF.⁷ The pathogenesis is uncertain, but it is thought that immunophenotypic and molecular analysis of the dermal infiltrate in GF reveals that most lymphocytes are clonally expanded and the process is mediated by interferon gamma.⁷ Tacrolimus acts by binding and inactivating calcineurin and thus blocking T-cell activation and proliferation, so it is not surprising that topical tacrolimus has been shown to be useful in the management of this condition.⁸

The Diagnosis: Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Histopathologic examination of the punch biopsy demonstrated epithelioid cells with abundant clear cytoplasm and numerous chicken wire-like vascular channels consistent with a diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC)(Figure). Collateral history revealed that 8 years prior, the patient had been diagnosed with clear cell RCC, stage III (T3aN0M0). At that time, he was treated with radical nephrectomy, which was considered curative. He remained disease free until several months prior to the development of the cutaneous lesion when he was found to have pulmonary and cerebral metastases with biopsies showing metastatic RCC. He was treated with lobectomy and Gamma Knife radiation for the lung and cerebral metastases, respectively. His oncologist planned to initiate therapy with the multikinase inhibitor sunitinib, which inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling. Unfortunately, the patient died prior to treatment due to overwhelming tumor burden.

Clear cell RCC, the most common renal malignancy, presents with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis in 21% of patients.¹ An additional 20% of patients with localized disease develop metastases within several years of receiving a nephrectomy without adjuvant therapy, which is standard treatment for stage I to stage III disease.^1,2 Metastatic RCC most frequently targets the lungs, bone, liver, and brain, though virtually any organ can be involved. Cutaneous involvement is estimated to occur in 3.3% of RCC cases,³ accounting for only 1.4% of cutaneous metastases overall.⁴ The risk for developing cutaneous metastases is greatest within 3 years following nephrectomy.³ However, our patient demonstrates that metastasis of RCC to skin can be long delayed (>5 years) despite an initial diagnosis of localized disease.

Cutaneous RCC classically presents as a painless firm papulonodule with a deep red or purple color due to its high vascularity.⁴ Several retrospective studies have identified the scalp as the most frequent site of cutaneous involvement, followed by the chest, abdomen, and nephrectomy scar.^3,4 The differential diagnosis includes other vascular lesions such as pyogenic granuloma, hemangioma, angiosarcoma, bacillary angiomatosis, and Kaposi sarcoma. Diagnosis usually is easily confirmed histologically. Proliferative nests of epithelioid cells with clear cell morphology are surrounded by delicately branching vessels referred to as chicken wire-like vasculature. Immunohistochemical studies demonstrate positivity for pan-cytokeratin, vimentin, and CD-10, and negativity for p63 and cytokeratins 5 and 6, helping to confirm the diagnosis in more challenging cases, especially when there is no known history of primary RCC.⁵

If cutaneous metastasis of RCC is diagnosed, a chest and abdominal computed tomography scan as well as serum alkaline phosphatase test are warranted, as up to 90% of patients with RCC in the skin have additional lesions in at least 1 other site such as the lungs, bones, or liver.³ Management of metastatic RCC includes surgical excision if a single metastasis is found and either immunotherapy with high-dose IL-2 or an anti-programmed cell death inhibitor. Patients with progressive disease also may receive targeted anti-VEGF inhibitors (eg, axitinib, pazopanib, sunitinib), which have been shown to increase progression-free survival in metastatic RCC.^6-8 Interestingly, some evidence suggests severely delayed recurrence of RCC (>5 years following nephrectomy) may predict better response to systemic therapy.⁹

This case of severely delayed metastasis of RCC 8 years after nephrectomy raises the question of whether routine surveillance for RCC recurrence should continue beyond 5 years. It also underscores the need for further studies to determine the utility of postsurgical adjuvant therapy for localized disease (stages I-III). A randomized clinical trial showed no significant difference in disease-free survival when the multikinase inhibitors sunitinib and sorafenib were used as adjuvant therapy.¹⁰ The randomized, placebo-controlled PROTECT trial showed no significant difference in disease-free survival between the VEGF inhibitor pazopanib and placebo when used as adjuvant therapy.¹¹ However, trials are ongoing to investigate a potential survival advantage of adjuvant therapy with the VEGF receptor inhibitor axitinib and the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus.

The Diagnosis: Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Histopathologic examination of the punch biopsy demonstrated epithelioid cells with abundant clear cytoplasm and numerous chicken wire-like vascular channels consistent with a diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC)(Figure). Collateral history revealed that 8 years prior, the patient had been diagnosed with clear cell RCC, stage III (T3aN0M0). At that time, he was treated with radical nephrectomy, which was considered curative. He remained disease free until several months prior to the development of the cutaneous lesion when he was found to have pulmonary and cerebral metastases with biopsies showing metastatic RCC. He was treated with lobectomy and Gamma Knife radiation for the lung and cerebral metastases, respectively. His oncologist planned to initiate therapy with the multikinase inhibitor sunitinib, which inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling. Unfortunately, the patient died prior to treatment due to overwhelming tumor burden.

Clear cell RCC, the most common renal malignancy, presents with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis in 21% of patients.¹ An additional 20% of patients with localized disease develop metastases within several years of receiving a nephrectomy without adjuvant therapy, which is standard treatment for stage I to stage III disease.^1,2 Metastatic RCC most frequently targets the lungs, bone, liver, and brain, though virtually any organ can be involved. Cutaneous involvement is estimated to occur in 3.3% of RCC cases,³ accounting for only 1.4% of cutaneous metastases overall.⁴ The risk for developing cutaneous metastases is greatest within 3 years following nephrectomy.³ However, our patient demonstrates that metastasis of RCC to skin can be long delayed (>5 years) despite an initial diagnosis of localized disease.

Cutaneous RCC classically presents as a painless firm papulonodule with a deep red or purple color due to its high vascularity.⁴ Several retrospective studies have identified the scalp as the most frequent site of cutaneous involvement, followed by the chest, abdomen, and nephrectomy scar.^3,4 The differential diagnosis includes other vascular lesions such as pyogenic granuloma, hemangioma, angiosarcoma, bacillary angiomatosis, and Kaposi sarcoma. Diagnosis usually is easily confirmed histologically. Proliferative nests of epithelioid cells with clear cell morphology are surrounded by delicately branching vessels referred to as chicken wire-like vasculature. Immunohistochemical studies demonstrate positivity for pan-cytokeratin, vimentin, and CD-10, and negativity for p63 and cytokeratins 5 and 6, helping to confirm the diagnosis in more challenging cases, especially when there is no known history of primary RCC.⁵

If cutaneous metastasis of RCC is diagnosed, a chest and abdominal computed tomography scan as well as serum alkaline phosphatase test are warranted, as up to 90% of patients with RCC in the skin have additional lesions in at least 1 other site such as the lungs, bones, or liver.³ Management of metastatic RCC includes surgical excision if a single metastasis is found and either immunotherapy with high-dose IL-2 or an anti-programmed cell death inhibitor. Patients with progressive disease also may receive targeted anti-VEGF inhibitors (eg, axitinib, pazopanib, sunitinib), which have been shown to increase progression-free survival in metastatic RCC.^6-8 Interestingly, some evidence suggests severely delayed recurrence of RCC (>5 years following nephrectomy) may predict better response to systemic therapy.⁹

This case of severely delayed metastasis of RCC 8 years after nephrectomy raises the question of whether routine surveillance for RCC recurrence should continue beyond 5 years. It also underscores the need for further studies to determine the utility of postsurgical adjuvant therapy for localized disease (stages I-III). A randomized clinical trial showed no significant difference in disease-free survival when the multikinase inhibitors sunitinib and sorafenib were used as adjuvant therapy.¹⁰ The randomized, placebo-controlled PROTECT trial showed no significant difference in disease-free survival between the VEGF inhibitor pazopanib and placebo when used as adjuvant therapy.¹¹ However, trials are ongoing to investigate a potential survival advantage of adjuvant therapy with the VEGF receptor inhibitor axitinib and the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus.

The Diagnosis: Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Histopathologic examination of the punch biopsy demonstrated epithelioid cells with abundant clear cytoplasm and numerous chicken wire-like vascular channels consistent with a diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC)(Figure). Collateral history revealed that 8 years prior, the patient had been diagnosed with clear cell RCC, stage III (T3aN0M0). At that time, he was treated with radical nephrectomy, which was considered curative. He remained disease free until several months prior to the development of the cutaneous lesion when he was found to have pulmonary and cerebral metastases with biopsies showing metastatic RCC. He was treated with lobectomy and Gamma Knife radiation for the lung and cerebral metastases, respectively. His oncologist planned to initiate therapy with the multikinase inhibitor sunitinib, which inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling. Unfortunately, the patient died prior to treatment due to overwhelming tumor burden.

Clear cell RCC, the most common renal malignancy, presents with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis in 21% of patients.¹ An additional 20% of patients with localized disease develop metastases within several years of receiving a nephrectomy without adjuvant therapy, which is standard treatment for stage I to stage III disease.^1,2 Metastatic RCC most frequently targets the lungs, bone, liver, and brain, though virtually any organ can be involved. Cutaneous involvement is estimated to occur in 3.3% of RCC cases,³ accounting for only 1.4% of cutaneous metastases overall.⁴ The risk for developing cutaneous metastases is greatest within 3 years following nephrectomy.³ However, our patient demonstrates that metastasis of RCC to skin can be long delayed (>5 years) despite an initial diagnosis of localized disease.

Cutaneous RCC classically presents as a painless firm papulonodule with a deep red or purple color due to its high vascularity.⁴ Several retrospective studies have identified the scalp as the most frequent site of cutaneous involvement, followed by the chest, abdomen, and nephrectomy scar.^3,4 The differential diagnosis includes other vascular lesions such as pyogenic granuloma, hemangioma, angiosarcoma, bacillary angiomatosis, and Kaposi sarcoma. Diagnosis usually is easily confirmed histologically. Proliferative nests of epithelioid cells with clear cell morphology are surrounded by delicately branching vessels referred to as chicken wire-like vasculature. Immunohistochemical studies demonstrate positivity for pan-cytokeratin, vimentin, and CD-10, and negativity for p63 and cytokeratins 5 and 6, helping to confirm the diagnosis in more challenging cases, especially when there is no known history of primary RCC.⁵

If cutaneous metastasis of RCC is diagnosed, a chest and abdominal computed tomography scan as well as serum alkaline phosphatase test are warranted, as up to 90% of patients with RCC in the skin have additional lesions in at least 1 other site such as the lungs, bones, or liver.³ Management of metastatic RCC includes surgical excision if a single metastasis is found and either immunotherapy with high-dose IL-2 or an anti-programmed cell death inhibitor. Patients with progressive disease also may receive targeted anti-VEGF inhibitors (eg, axitinib, pazopanib, sunitinib), which have been shown to increase progression-free survival in metastatic RCC.^6-8 Interestingly, some evidence suggests severely delayed recurrence of RCC (>5 years following nephrectomy) may predict better response to systemic therapy.⁹

This case of severely delayed metastasis of RCC 8 years after nephrectomy raises the question of whether routine surveillance for RCC recurrence should continue beyond 5 years. It also underscores the need for further studies to determine the utility of postsurgical adjuvant therapy for localized disease (stages I-III). A randomized clinical trial showed no significant difference in disease-free survival when the multikinase inhibitors sunitinib and sorafenib were used as adjuvant therapy.¹⁰ The randomized, placebo-controlled PROTECT trial showed no significant difference in disease-free survival between the VEGF inhibitor pazopanib and placebo when used as adjuvant therapy.¹¹ However, trials are ongoing to investigate a potential survival advantage of adjuvant therapy with the VEGF receptor inhibitor axitinib and the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus.

The Diagnosis: Primary Cutaneous Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma

Primary cutaneous CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorders encompass lymphomatoid papulosis and primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (PCALCL) as well as borderline cases. Primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma is a rare disease that is more common in white patients with slight male predominance and median age at diagnosis of 61 years.1 Prognosis is excellent, with a 90% survival rate at 10 years. Although lesions spontaneously regress in 6% to 22% of cases, complete resolution is rare.2 Clinically, the classic presentation is a solitary, rapidly growing, flesh-colored, erythematous nodule or plaque on the arms and legs or trunk, often with ulceration. Proper diagnosis requires clinical, histopathologic, and immunophenotypic correlation.

Histopathologic examination of PCALCL typically reveals large, atypical, Reed-Sternberg-like cells most commonly with anaplastic cytomorphology, but pleomorphic or immunoblastic morphology is not uncommon. Cells are in sheets or nodules, diffusely occupying the dermis and often the subcutaneous fat, with more than 75% of large cells expressing CD30.³ In addition to CD30 positivity, immunophenotype is classically CD4⁺, cutaneous lymphocyte-associated antigen positive, epithelial membrane antigen negative, and anaplastic lymphoma kinase negative; CD2, CD5, and CD3 expression is variable. Interestingly, in our case, there was a minor population of CD8⁺ cells. CD8 expression is seen in less than 5% of PCALCL cases; this phenotype is associated with an indolent disease with favorable prognosis.³ Of note, anaplastic lymphoma kinase positivity corresponding to a t(2;5) translocation is more suggestive of systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma with secondary skin involvement and more commonly is seen in children. For reasons possibly related to mediators such as epidermal growth factor or transforming growth factor α from CD30⁺ cells, epidermal hyperplasia can be seen in PCALCL.⁴ The subsequent hyperkeratosis, crusting, and ulceration can be difficult to distinguish from lesions such as pyoderma gangrenosum, squamous cell carcinoma, arthropod bite, leukemia cutis, Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), and metastatic breast cancer.

Skin involvement with leukemia is rare but most commonly is seen in acute myelogenous leukemia, specifically more mature forms such as acute myelomonocytic leukemia and acute monocytic leukemia. Approximately 10% to 20% of acute myelomonocytic leukemia cases have cutaneous involvement.⁵ Although there is a variety of potential skin lesions, the most common is a red-purple papule or nodule, sometimes with hemorrhage or ulceration, on the head, neck, and trunk. Leukemic infiltrates may arise from sites of prior trauma. Histopathology depends on the type of leukemia; however, general features include a normal epidermis without epidermotropism and perivascular, nodular, or diffuse infiltrate of neoplastic cells in the dermis, often with a Grenz zone (Figure 1). Compared to PCALCL, leukemia cutis shows sparing of the papillary dermis (Grenz zone), and the cells have more cytoplasm and show a different immunophenotype. The cells often are fragile and show crush artifact. Acute myelogenous leukemia often will show cytoplasmic granules; however, immature precursor cells may not have granules. The myeloid cells will stain with myeloperoxidase and chloroacetate. Positivity is seen for CD13, CD33, and CD68. Clinical correlation is important because other diseases with nodular or diffuse infiltrates of small cell infiltrates, such as extramedullary hematopoiesis and lymphoma, appear similar. Acute myelogenous leukemia is associated with neutrophilic dermatoses such as Sweet syndrome and pyoderma gangrenosum. Cutaneous eruption resolves with successful treatment of the leukemia.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer to metastasize to the skin in women, accounting for 73% of cutaneous metastases, followed by melanoma, which is responsible for 11%.⁵ The classic presentation is an erythematous patch with spreading borders or a nodule on the trunk. Many cases of metastatic breast cancer with skin involvement may represent direct extension of the cancer into the skin. General histologic clues to cutaneous metastasis include well-circumscribed dermal or subcutaneous nodules of atypical cells with an increase in mitotic activity without connection to the epidermis. Tumor cells may show diffuse, nodular, or single file pattern and may exhibit areas of necrosis. Ductal carcinoma additionally may show ductal or glandular differentiation with surrounding desmoplasia (Figure 2). Immunohistochemistry typically is positive for cytokeratin (CK) 7, estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor, mammaglobin, and gross cystic disease fluid protein-15, and negative for CK20, CK5/6, and thyroid transcription factor-1.

Papulovesicular and nodular lesions appearing as an arthropod bite have been noted in hematologic malignancies, underscoring the importance of histopathology and clinical correlation. Arthropod bites commonly present as red papules, nodules, vesicles, or pustules at the site of the bite. Pseudolymphomatous nodules occasionally develop. Excoriations and further progression to persistent prurigo also may occur. Histopathology shows variable epidermal features including spongiosis, acanthosis, parakeratosis, dermal edema, and superficial and deep perivascular neutrophils (Figure 3). Additionally, lymphocytes sometimes with CD30 positivity may be seen. The presence of eosinophils in interstitial areas, especially in the deep dermis, is a useful clue.

Lack of staining for epithelial and neuroendocrine markers differentiates PCALCL from MCC; specifically CK20, an epithelial marker positive in more than 90% of MCC cases, excludes lymphoma.⁶ Merkel cell carcinoma presents as a solitary, quickly growing, red and often ulcerated nodule or plaque on the head, neck, or legs of elderly patients. The lesions often are in areas of sun damage. Histopathology classically shows a diffuse dermal infiltrate of monotonous round blue cells with a scant cytoplasmic rim and multiple inconspicuous nucleoli in nests, rosettes, or strands in the dermis. There are frequent mitotic figures. The cells are uniform and 2 to 3 times larger than mature lymphocytes. Single-cell necrosis and crush artifact is common. Epidermotropism or coexisting Bowenoid change also may be observed (Figure 4). The term primary neuroendocrine carcinoma of the skin is preferred over Merkel cell carcinoma because the tumor cells share similar morphology to the specialized touch receptor of the basal layer (Merkel cell), but no direct histogenetic relationship has been established.^7,8

Immunohistochemistry is key to diagnosis because MCC stains for both epithelial and neuroendocrine markers. Positivity is seen for neuron-specific enolase, epithelial membrane antigen, neurofilament, synaptophysin, and chromogranin. Because the histology of MCC may resemble small cell carcinoma of the lung, staining for low-molecular-weight keratin such as CK20 and CK7 help to distinguish MCC. Merkel cell carcinoma typically is CK20⁺ and CK7^-, while small cell carcinoma of the lung is the opposite.⁹ The tumor grows aggressively and metastasis is common, thus surgery is the primary approach, but adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation often are given in addition.

The Diagnosis: Primary Cutaneous Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma

Primary cutaneous CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorders encompass lymphomatoid papulosis and primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (PCALCL) as well as borderline cases. Primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma is a rare disease that is more common in white patients with slight male predominance and median age at diagnosis of 61 years.1 Prognosis is excellent, with a 90% survival rate at 10 years. Although lesions spontaneously regress in 6% to 22% of cases, complete resolution is rare.2 Clinically, the classic presentation is a solitary, rapidly growing, flesh-colored, erythematous nodule or plaque on the arms and legs or trunk, often with ulceration. Proper diagnosis requires clinical, histopathologic, and immunophenotypic correlation.

Histopathologic examination of PCALCL typically reveals large, atypical, Reed-Sternberg-like cells most commonly with anaplastic cytomorphology, but pleomorphic or immunoblastic morphology is not uncommon. Cells are in sheets or nodules, diffusely occupying the dermis and often the subcutaneous fat, with more than 75% of large cells expressing CD30.³ In addition to CD30 positivity, immunophenotype is classically CD4⁺, cutaneous lymphocyte-associated antigen positive, epithelial membrane antigen negative, and anaplastic lymphoma kinase negative; CD2, CD5, and CD3 expression is variable. Interestingly, in our case, there was a minor population of CD8⁺ cells. CD8 expression is seen in less than 5% of PCALCL cases; this phenotype is associated with an indolent disease with favorable prognosis.³ Of note, anaplastic lymphoma kinase positivity corresponding to a t(2;5) translocation is more suggestive of systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma with secondary skin involvement and more commonly is seen in children. For reasons possibly related to mediators such as epidermal growth factor or transforming growth factor α from CD30⁺ cells, epidermal hyperplasia can be seen in PCALCL.⁴ The subsequent hyperkeratosis, crusting, and ulceration can be difficult to distinguish from lesions such as pyoderma gangrenosum, squamous cell carcinoma, arthropod bite, leukemia cutis, Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), and metastatic breast cancer.

Skin involvement with leukemia is rare but most commonly is seen in acute myelogenous leukemia, specifically more mature forms such as acute myelomonocytic leukemia and acute monocytic leukemia. Approximately 10% to 20% of acute myelomonocytic leukemia cases have cutaneous involvement.⁵ Although there is a variety of potential skin lesions, the most common is a red-purple papule or nodule, sometimes with hemorrhage or ulceration, on the head, neck, and trunk. Leukemic infiltrates may arise from sites of prior trauma. Histopathology depends on the type of leukemia; however, general features include a normal epidermis without epidermotropism and perivascular, nodular, or diffuse infiltrate of neoplastic cells in the dermis, often with a Grenz zone (Figure 1). Compared to PCALCL, leukemia cutis shows sparing of the papillary dermis (Grenz zone), and the cells have more cytoplasm and show a different immunophenotype. The cells often are fragile and show crush artifact. Acute myelogenous leukemia often will show cytoplasmic granules; however, immature precursor cells may not have granules. The myeloid cells will stain with myeloperoxidase and chloroacetate. Positivity is seen for CD13, CD33, and CD68. Clinical correlation is important because other diseases with nodular or diffuse infiltrates of small cell infiltrates, such as extramedullary hematopoiesis and lymphoma, appear similar. Acute myelogenous leukemia is associated with neutrophilic dermatoses such as Sweet syndrome and pyoderma gangrenosum. Cutaneous eruption resolves with successful treatment of the leukemia.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer to metastasize to the skin in women, accounting for 73% of cutaneous metastases, followed by melanoma, which is responsible for 11%.⁵ The classic presentation is an erythematous patch with spreading borders or a nodule on the trunk. Many cases of metastatic breast cancer with skin involvement may represent direct extension of the cancer into the skin. General histologic clues to cutaneous metastasis include well-circumscribed dermal or subcutaneous nodules of atypical cells with an increase in mitotic activity without connection to the epidermis. Tumor cells may show diffuse, nodular, or single file pattern and may exhibit areas of necrosis. Ductal carcinoma additionally may show ductal or glandular differentiation with surrounding desmoplasia (Figure 2). Immunohistochemistry typically is positive for cytokeratin (CK) 7, estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor, mammaglobin, and gross cystic disease fluid protein-15, and negative for CK20, CK5/6, and thyroid transcription factor-1.

Papulovesicular and nodular lesions appearing as an arthropod bite have been noted in hematologic malignancies, underscoring the importance of histopathology and clinical correlation. Arthropod bites commonly present as red papules, nodules, vesicles, or pustules at the site of the bite. Pseudolymphomatous nodules occasionally develop. Excoriations and further progression to persistent prurigo also may occur. Histopathology shows variable epidermal features including spongiosis, acanthosis, parakeratosis, dermal edema, and superficial and deep perivascular neutrophils (Figure 3). Additionally, lymphocytes sometimes with CD30 positivity may be seen. The presence of eosinophils in interstitial areas, especially in the deep dermis, is a useful clue.

Lack of staining for epithelial and neuroendocrine markers differentiates PCALCL from MCC; specifically CK20, an epithelial marker positive in more than 90% of MCC cases, excludes lymphoma.⁶ Merkel cell carcinoma presents as a solitary, quickly growing, red and often ulcerated nodule or plaque on the head, neck, or legs of elderly patients. The lesions often are in areas of sun damage. Histopathology classically shows a diffuse dermal infiltrate of monotonous round blue cells with a scant cytoplasmic rim and multiple inconspicuous nucleoli in nests, rosettes, or strands in the dermis. There are frequent mitotic figures. The cells are uniform and 2 to 3 times larger than mature lymphocytes. Single-cell necrosis and crush artifact is common. Epidermotropism or coexisting Bowenoid change also may be observed (Figure 4). The term primary neuroendocrine carcinoma of the skin is preferred over Merkel cell carcinoma because the tumor cells share similar morphology to the specialized touch receptor of the basal layer (Merkel cell), but no direct histogenetic relationship has been established.^7,8

Immunohistochemistry is key to diagnosis because MCC stains for both epithelial and neuroendocrine markers. Positivity is seen for neuron-specific enolase, epithelial membrane antigen, neurofilament, synaptophysin, and chromogranin. Because the histology of MCC may resemble small cell carcinoma of the lung, staining for low-molecular-weight keratin such as CK20 and CK7 help to distinguish MCC. Merkel cell carcinoma typically is CK20⁺ and CK7^-, while small cell carcinoma of the lung is the opposite.⁹ The tumor grows aggressively and metastasis is common, thus surgery is the primary approach, but adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation often are given in addition.

The Diagnosis: Primary Cutaneous Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma

Primary cutaneous CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorders encompass lymphomatoid papulosis and primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (PCALCL) as well as borderline cases. Primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma is a rare disease that is more common in white patients with slight male predominance and median age at diagnosis of 61 years.1 Prognosis is excellent, with a 90% survival rate at 10 years. Although lesions spontaneously regress in 6% to 22% of cases, complete resolution is rare.2 Clinically, the classic presentation is a solitary, rapidly growing, flesh-colored, erythematous nodule or plaque on the arms and legs or trunk, often with ulceration. Proper diagnosis requires clinical, histopathologic, and immunophenotypic correlation.

Histopathologic examination of PCALCL typically reveals large, atypical, Reed-Sternberg-like cells most commonly with anaplastic cytomorphology, but pleomorphic or immunoblastic morphology is not uncommon. Cells are in sheets or nodules, diffusely occupying the dermis and often the subcutaneous fat, with more than 75% of large cells expressing CD30.³ In addition to CD30 positivity, immunophenotype is classically CD4⁺, cutaneous lymphocyte-associated antigen positive, epithelial membrane antigen negative, and anaplastic lymphoma kinase negative; CD2, CD5, and CD3 expression is variable. Interestingly, in our case, there was a minor population of CD8⁺ cells. CD8 expression is seen in less than 5% of PCALCL cases; this phenotype is associated with an indolent disease with favorable prognosis.³ Of note, anaplastic lymphoma kinase positivity corresponding to a t(2;5) translocation is more suggestive of systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma with secondary skin involvement and more commonly is seen in children. For reasons possibly related to mediators such as epidermal growth factor or transforming growth factor α from CD30⁺ cells, epidermal hyperplasia can be seen in PCALCL.⁴ The subsequent hyperkeratosis, crusting, and ulceration can be difficult to distinguish from lesions such as pyoderma gangrenosum, squamous cell carcinoma, arthropod bite, leukemia cutis, Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), and metastatic breast cancer.

Skin involvement with leukemia is rare but most commonly is seen in acute myelogenous leukemia, specifically more mature forms such as acute myelomonocytic leukemia and acute monocytic leukemia. Approximately 10% to 20% of acute myelomonocytic leukemia cases have cutaneous involvement.⁵ Although there is a variety of potential skin lesions, the most common is a red-purple papule or nodule, sometimes with hemorrhage or ulceration, on the head, neck, and trunk. Leukemic infiltrates may arise from sites of prior trauma. Histopathology depends on the type of leukemia; however, general features include a normal epidermis without epidermotropism and perivascular, nodular, or diffuse infiltrate of neoplastic cells in the dermis, often with a Grenz zone (Figure 1). Compared to PCALCL, leukemia cutis shows sparing of the papillary dermis (Grenz zone), and the cells have more cytoplasm and show a different immunophenotype. The cells often are fragile and show crush artifact. Acute myelogenous leukemia often will show cytoplasmic granules; however, immature precursor cells may not have granules. The myeloid cells will stain with myeloperoxidase and chloroacetate. Positivity is seen for CD13, CD33, and CD68. Clinical correlation is important because other diseases with nodular or diffuse infiltrates of small cell infiltrates, such as extramedullary hematopoiesis and lymphoma, appear similar. Acute myelogenous leukemia is associated with neutrophilic dermatoses such as Sweet syndrome and pyoderma gangrenosum. Cutaneous eruption resolves with successful treatment of the leukemia.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer to metastasize to the skin in women, accounting for 73% of cutaneous metastases, followed by melanoma, which is responsible for 11%.⁵ The classic presentation is an erythematous patch with spreading borders or a nodule on the trunk. Many cases of metastatic breast cancer with skin involvement may represent direct extension of the cancer into the skin. General histologic clues to cutaneous metastasis include well-circumscribed dermal or subcutaneous nodules of atypical cells with an increase in mitotic activity without connection to the epidermis. Tumor cells may show diffuse, nodular, or single file pattern and may exhibit areas of necrosis. Ductal carcinoma additionally may show ductal or glandular differentiation with surrounding desmoplasia (Figure 2). Immunohistochemistry typically is positive for cytokeratin (CK) 7, estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor, mammaglobin, and gross cystic disease fluid protein-15, and negative for CK20, CK5/6, and thyroid transcription factor-1.

Papulovesicular and nodular lesions appearing as an arthropod bite have been noted in hematologic malignancies, underscoring the importance of histopathology and clinical correlation. Arthropod bites commonly present as red papules, nodules, vesicles, or pustules at the site of the bite. Pseudolymphomatous nodules occasionally develop. Excoriations and further progression to persistent prurigo also may occur. Histopathology shows variable epidermal features including spongiosis, acanthosis, parakeratosis, dermal edema, and superficial and deep perivascular neutrophils (Figure 3). Additionally, lymphocytes sometimes with CD30 positivity may be seen. The presence of eosinophils in interstitial areas, especially in the deep dermis, is a useful clue.

Lack of staining for epithelial and neuroendocrine markers differentiates PCALCL from MCC; specifically CK20, an epithelial marker positive in more than 90% of MCC cases, excludes lymphoma.⁶ Merkel cell carcinoma presents as a solitary, quickly growing, red and often ulcerated nodule or plaque on the head, neck, or legs of elderly patients. The lesions often are in areas of sun damage. Histopathology classically shows a diffuse dermal infiltrate of monotonous round blue cells with a scant cytoplasmic rim and multiple inconspicuous nucleoli in nests, rosettes, or strands in the dermis. There are frequent mitotic figures. The cells are uniform and 2 to 3 times larger than mature lymphocytes. Single-cell necrosis and crush artifact is common. Epidermotropism or coexisting Bowenoid change also may be observed (Figure 4). The term primary neuroendocrine carcinoma of the skin is preferred over Merkel cell carcinoma because the tumor cells share similar morphology to the specialized touch receptor of the basal layer (Merkel cell), but no direct histogenetic relationship has been established.^7,8

Immunohistochemistry is key to diagnosis because MCC stains for both epithelial and neuroendocrine markers. Positivity is seen for neuron-specific enolase, epithelial membrane antigen, neurofilament, synaptophysin, and chromogranin. Because the histology of MCC may resemble small cell carcinoma of the lung, staining for low-molecular-weight keratin such as CK20 and CK7 help to distinguish MCC. Merkel cell carcinoma typically is CK20⁺ and CK7^-, while small cell carcinoma of the lung is the opposite.⁹ The tumor grows aggressively and metastasis is common, thus surgery is the primary approach, but adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation often are given in addition.

The 2008 World Health Organization and European Organization for Treatment of Cancer joint classification has distinguished 3 categories of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas: primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma (PCFCL), primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma.^1-3 Primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma is the most common type of cutaneous B-cell lymphoma, accounting for approximately 60% of cases worldwide.⁴ The median age at diagnosis is 60 years, and most lesions are located on the scalp, forehead, neck, and trunk.⁵ Histologically, PCFCL is characterized by dermal proliferation of centrocytes and centroblasts derived from germinal center B cells that are arranged in either a follicular, diffuse, or mixed growth pattern.¹ The cutaneous manifestations of PCFCL include solitary erythematous or violaceous plaques, nodules, or tumors of varying sizes.⁴ Grouped lesions also may be observed, but multifocal disease is rare.¹ We report a rare presentation of PCFCL mimicking folliculitis with multiple multifocal papules on the back.

Case Report

A 54-year-old woman presented with fever and leukocytosis of 4 days’ duration and was admitted to the hospital for presumed sepsis. She had a history of mastectomy for treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the right breast 5 years prior to the current presentation and endocrine therapy with tamoxifen. Her symptoms were thought to be a complication from a surgery for implantation of a tissue expander in the right breast 5 years prior to presentation.

During her hospital admission, she developed a papular and cystic eruption on the back that was clinically suggestive of folliculitis, transient acantholytic dermatosis (Grover disease), or miliaria rubra (Figure 1). This papular and cystic eruption initially was managed conservatively with observation as she recovered from an occult infection. Due to the persistent nature of the eruption on the back, an excisional biopsy of the cystic component was performed 2 months after her discharge from the hospital. Histologic studies showed a dense infiltrate of lymphocytes, which expanded into the deep dermis in a nodular and diffuse growth pattern that was accentuated in the periadnexal areas. The B lymphocytes were small and hyperchromatic with few scattered centroblasts (Figure 2). Further immunohistochemical studies demonstrated that the neoplastic cells were positive for CD20, CD79a, BCL-2, and BCL-6; CD3, CD5, and cyclin D1 were negative. Staining for antigen Ki-67 revealed a proliferation index of 15% to 20% among the neoplastic cells (Figure 3). These findings were consistent with either PCFCL or secondary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma.

Further evaluation for systemic disease was unremarkable. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography revealed no evidence of nodal lymphoma, and a bone marrow biopsy was negative. Other laboratory studies including lactate dehydrogenase were within reference range, which conferred a diagnosis of PCFCL. The patient was treated with localized electron beam radiation therapy to the skin of the mid back for a total dose of 24 Gy in 12 fractions at 2 Gy per fraction once daily over a 12-day period. She tolerated the treatment well and has remained clinically and radiographically without evidence of disease for more than 3 years.

Comment

Because the incidence of cutaneous B-cell lymphomas has been increasing, especially among males, non-Hispanic whites, and adults older than 50 years,¹ it is important for clinicians to have a high index of suspicion for this entity. In our patient, the clinical findings of a papular, largely asymptomatic eruption on the back with acute onset were initially thought to be consistent with folliculitis; the differential diagnosis included transient acantholytic dermatosis and miliaria rubra. Lymphoma was not in the initial clinical differential, and we only arrived at this diagnosis based on histopathologic evaluation.

The neoplastic cells typically are positive for CD20, CD79a, and BCL-6, and negative for BCL-2.⁴ Most cases of PCFCL do not express the t(14;18) translocation involving the BCL-2 locus, in contrast to systemic follicular lymphoma.¹ Systemic imaging and evaluation is needed to definitively differentiate PCFCL from systemic lymphoma with cutaneous involvement. Our patient was unusual in that BCL-2 was strongly staining in the setting of a negative systemic workup.

With regard to treatment of PCFCL, electron beam radiation therapy is highly effective and safe in patients with solitary lesions, as the remission rate is close to 100%.¹ For patients with multiple lesions confined to one area, electron beam radiation therapy also can be helpful, as in our patient. In patients with more extensive skin involvement, rituximab therapy may be preferable. Relapse following treatment with either radiation or rituximab occurs in approximately one-third of patients, but these relapses generally are limited to the skin.¹ The International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group has noted that elevated lactate dehydrogenase, presence of more than 2 skin lesions, and presence of nodular lesions are negative prognostic factors in patients with PCFCL⁶; however, PCFCL has an excellent prognosis overall with a 5-year survival rate of 95%.¹

Other rare heterogeneous presentations of PCFCL have been reported in the literature. A large multinodular mass on the scalp with multifocal facial lesions has been described in a patient with essential thrombocytopenia.⁷ Another report identified a variant of PCFCL characterized by multiple erythematous firm papules that were distributed in a miliary pattern, predominantly on the forehead and cheeks.⁸ Barzilai et al⁹ described 4 patients with PCFCL who developed lesions that were clinically similar to rosacea or rhinophyma, including papulonodular eruptions on the cheeks; infiltrated erythematous nasal plaques; and small flesh-colored to erythematous papules on the cheeks, nose, helices, and upper back. Hodak et al¹⁰ identified 2 cases of PCFCL that manifested as anetoderma, a condition characterized by the focal loss of elastic tissue. In the setting of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, PCFCL has been observed as a red or violaceous nodule with a centrally depressed scar on the legs.¹¹ In one case, PCFCL manifested as recurrent episodes of extraorbital swelling and a multifocal red-blue macular lesion that extended from the inferior orbital rim to the nasojugal fold.¹² An interesting presentation of PCFCL was noted as a small, recurring, blood-filled blister on the cheek with perineural spread of the tumor along cranial nerves V2, V3, VII, and VIII.¹³ In the pediatric literature, PCFCL has been reported to present as an erythematous nodule with a smooth surface and a hard elastic consistency that appeared on the nose and nasolabial fold and spread to the ipsilateral cheek, maxillary sinus, and soft palate.¹⁴ In many of these unusual cases, the diagnosis of PCFCL was made after treatment with topical or systemic anti-inflammatory therapies failed.

Increased recognition of anomalous presentations of PCFCL among dermatologists can lead to more timely diagnoses and treatment. Based on our experience with this patient, we recommend considering biopsy for histopathologic evaluation when treating patients with presumed folliculitis or transient acantholytic dermatosis that does not improve with routine treatment or is accompanied by systemic symptoms.

The 2008 World Health Organization and European Organization for Treatment of Cancer joint classification has distinguished 3 categories of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas: primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma (PCFCL), primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma.^1-3 Primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma is the most common type of cutaneous B-cell lymphoma, accounting for approximately 60% of cases worldwide.⁴ The median age at diagnosis is 60 years, and most lesions are located on the scalp, forehead, neck, and trunk.⁵ Histologically, PCFCL is characterized by dermal proliferation of centrocytes and centroblasts derived from germinal center B cells that are arranged in either a follicular, diffuse, or mixed growth pattern.¹ The cutaneous manifestations of PCFCL include solitary erythematous or violaceous plaques, nodules, or tumors of varying sizes.⁴ Grouped lesions also may be observed, but multifocal disease is rare.¹ We report a rare presentation of PCFCL mimicking folliculitis with multiple multifocal papules on the back.

Case Report

A 54-year-old woman presented with fever and leukocytosis of 4 days’ duration and was admitted to the hospital for presumed sepsis. She had a history of mastectomy for treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the right breast 5 years prior to the current presentation and endocrine therapy with tamoxifen. Her symptoms were thought to be a complication from a surgery for implantation of a tissue expander in the right breast 5 years prior to presentation.

During her hospital admission, she developed a papular and cystic eruption on the back that was clinically suggestive of folliculitis, transient acantholytic dermatosis (Grover disease), or miliaria rubra (Figure 1). This papular and cystic eruption initially was managed conservatively with observation as she recovered from an occult infection. Due to the persistent nature of the eruption on the back, an excisional biopsy of the cystic component was performed 2 months after her discharge from the hospital. Histologic studies showed a dense infiltrate of lymphocytes, which expanded into the deep dermis in a nodular and diffuse growth pattern that was accentuated in the periadnexal areas. The B lymphocytes were small and hyperchromatic with few scattered centroblasts (Figure 2). Further immunohistochemical studies demonstrated that the neoplastic cells were positive for CD20, CD79a, BCL-2, and BCL-6; CD3, CD5, and cyclin D1 were negative. Staining for antigen Ki-67 revealed a proliferation index of 15% to 20% among the neoplastic cells (Figure 3). These findings were consistent with either PCFCL or secondary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma.

Further evaluation for systemic disease was unremarkable. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography revealed no evidence of nodal lymphoma, and a bone marrow biopsy was negative. Other laboratory studies including lactate dehydrogenase were within reference range, which conferred a diagnosis of PCFCL. The patient was treated with localized electron beam radiation therapy to the skin of the mid back for a total dose of 24 Gy in 12 fractions at 2 Gy per fraction once daily over a 12-day period. She tolerated the treatment well and has remained clinically and radiographically without evidence of disease for more than 3 years.

Comment

Because the incidence of cutaneous B-cell lymphomas has been increasing, especially among males, non-Hispanic whites, and adults older than 50 years,¹ it is important for clinicians to have a high index of suspicion for this entity. In our patient, the clinical findings of a papular, largely asymptomatic eruption on the back with acute onset were initially thought to be consistent with folliculitis; the differential diagnosis included transient acantholytic dermatosis and miliaria rubra. Lymphoma was not in the initial clinical differential, and we only arrived at this diagnosis based on histopathologic evaluation.

The neoplastic cells typically are positive for CD20, CD79a, and BCL-6, and negative for BCL-2.⁴ Most cases of PCFCL do not express the t(14;18) translocation involving the BCL-2 locus, in contrast to systemic follicular lymphoma.¹ Systemic imaging and evaluation is needed to definitively differentiate PCFCL from systemic lymphoma with cutaneous involvement. Our patient was unusual in that BCL-2 was strongly staining in the setting of a negative systemic workup.

With regard to treatment of PCFCL, electron beam radiation therapy is highly effective and safe in patients with solitary lesions, as the remission rate is close to 100%.¹ For patients with multiple lesions confined to one area, electron beam radiation therapy also can be helpful, as in our patient. In patients with more extensive skin involvement, rituximab therapy may be preferable. Relapse following treatment with either radiation or rituximab occurs in approximately one-third of patients, but these relapses generally are limited to the skin.¹ The International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group has noted that elevated lactate dehydrogenase, presence of more than 2 skin lesions, and presence of nodular lesions are negative prognostic factors in patients with PCFCL⁶; however, PCFCL has an excellent prognosis overall with a 5-year survival rate of 95%.¹

Other rare heterogeneous presentations of PCFCL have been reported in the literature. A large multinodular mass on the scalp with multifocal facial lesions has been described in a patient with essential thrombocytopenia.⁷ Another report identified a variant of PCFCL characterized by multiple erythematous firm papules that were distributed in a miliary pattern, predominantly on the forehead and cheeks.⁸ Barzilai et al⁹ described 4 patients with PCFCL who developed lesions that were clinically similar to rosacea or rhinophyma, including papulonodular eruptions on the cheeks; infiltrated erythematous nasal plaques; and small flesh-colored to erythematous papules on the cheeks, nose, helices, and upper back. Hodak et al¹⁰ identified 2 cases of PCFCL that manifested as anetoderma, a condition characterized by the focal loss of elastic tissue. In the setting of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, PCFCL has been observed as a red or violaceous nodule with a centrally depressed scar on the legs.¹¹ In one case, PCFCL manifested as recurrent episodes of extraorbital swelling and a multifocal red-blue macular lesion that extended from the inferior orbital rim to the nasojugal fold.¹² An interesting presentation of PCFCL was noted as a small, recurring, blood-filled blister on the cheek with perineural spread of the tumor along cranial nerves V2, V3, VII, and VIII.¹³ In the pediatric literature, PCFCL has been reported to present as an erythematous nodule with a smooth surface and a hard elastic consistency that appeared on the nose and nasolabial fold and spread to the ipsilateral cheek, maxillary sinus, and soft palate.¹⁴ In many of these unusual cases, the diagnosis of PCFCL was made after treatment with topical or systemic anti-inflammatory therapies failed.

Increased recognition of anomalous presentations of PCFCL among dermatologists can lead to more timely diagnoses and treatment. Based on our experience with this patient, we recommend considering biopsy for histopathologic evaluation when treating patients with presumed folliculitis or transient acantholytic dermatosis that does not improve with routine treatment or is accompanied by systemic symptoms.

The 2008 World Health Organization and European Organization for Treatment of Cancer joint classification has distinguished 3 categories of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas: primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma (PCFCL), primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma.^1-3 Primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma is the most common type of cutaneous B-cell lymphoma, accounting for approximately 60% of cases worldwide.⁴ The median age at diagnosis is 60 years, and most lesions are located on the scalp, forehead, neck, and trunk.⁵ Histologically, PCFCL is characterized by dermal proliferation of centrocytes and centroblasts derived from germinal center B cells that are arranged in either a follicular, diffuse, or mixed growth pattern.¹ The cutaneous manifestations of PCFCL include solitary erythematous or violaceous plaques, nodules, or tumors of varying sizes.⁴ Grouped lesions also may be observed, but multifocal disease is rare.¹ We report a rare presentation of PCFCL mimicking folliculitis with multiple multifocal papules on the back.

Case Report

A 54-year-old woman presented with fever and leukocytosis of 4 days’ duration and was admitted to the hospital for presumed sepsis. She had a history of mastectomy for treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the right breast 5 years prior to the current presentation and endocrine therapy with tamoxifen. Her symptoms were thought to be a complication from a surgery for implantation of a tissue expander in the right breast 5 years prior to presentation.

During her hospital admission, she developed a papular and cystic eruption on the back that was clinically suggestive of folliculitis, transient acantholytic dermatosis (Grover disease), or miliaria rubra (Figure 1). This papular and cystic eruption initially was managed conservatively with observation as she recovered from an occult infection. Due to the persistent nature of the eruption on the back, an excisional biopsy of the cystic component was performed 2 months after her discharge from the hospital. Histologic studies showed a dense infiltrate of lymphocytes, which expanded into the deep dermis in a nodular and diffuse growth pattern that was accentuated in the periadnexal areas. The B lymphocytes were small and hyperchromatic with few scattered centroblasts (Figure 2). Further immunohistochemical studies demonstrated that the neoplastic cells were positive for CD20, CD79a, BCL-2, and BCL-6; CD3, CD5, and cyclin D1 were negative. Staining for antigen Ki-67 revealed a proliferation index of 15% to 20% among the neoplastic cells (Figure 3). These findings were consistent with either PCFCL or secondary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma.

Further evaluation for systemic disease was unremarkable. Positron emission tomography–computed tomography revealed no evidence of nodal lymphoma, and a bone marrow biopsy was negative. Other laboratory studies including lactate dehydrogenase were within reference range, which conferred a diagnosis of PCFCL. The patient was treated with localized electron beam radiation therapy to the skin of the mid back for a total dose of 24 Gy in 12 fractions at 2 Gy per fraction once daily over a 12-day period. She tolerated the treatment well and has remained clinically and radiographically without evidence of disease for more than 3 years.

Comment

Because the incidence of cutaneous B-cell lymphomas has been increasing, especially among males, non-Hispanic whites, and adults older than 50 years,¹ it is important for clinicians to have a high index of suspicion for this entity. In our patient, the clinical findings of a papular, largely asymptomatic eruption on the back with acute onset were initially thought to be consistent with folliculitis; the differential diagnosis included transient acantholytic dermatosis and miliaria rubra. Lymphoma was not in the initial clinical differential, and we only arrived at this diagnosis based on histopathologic evaluation.

The neoplastic cells typically are positive for CD20, CD79a, and BCL-6, and negative for BCL-2.⁴ Most cases of PCFCL do not express the t(14;18) translocation involving the BCL-2 locus, in contrast to systemic follicular lymphoma.¹ Systemic imaging and evaluation is needed to definitively differentiate PCFCL from systemic lymphoma with cutaneous involvement. Our patient was unusual in that BCL-2 was strongly staining in the setting of a negative systemic workup.

With regard to treatment of PCFCL, electron beam radiation therapy is highly effective and safe in patients with solitary lesions, as the remission rate is close to 100%.¹ For patients with multiple lesions confined to one area, electron beam radiation therapy also can be helpful, as in our patient. In patients with more extensive skin involvement, rituximab therapy may be preferable. Relapse following treatment with either radiation or rituximab occurs in approximately one-third of patients, but these relapses generally are limited to the skin.¹ The International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group has noted that elevated lactate dehydrogenase, presence of more than 2 skin lesions, and presence of nodular lesions are negative prognostic factors in patients with PCFCL⁶; however, PCFCL has an excellent prognosis overall with a 5-year survival rate of 95%.¹

Other rare heterogeneous presentations of PCFCL have been reported in the literature. A large multinodular mass on the scalp with multifocal facial lesions has been described in a patient with essential thrombocytopenia.⁷ Another report identified a variant of PCFCL characterized by multiple erythematous firm papules that were distributed in a miliary pattern, predominantly on the forehead and cheeks.⁸ Barzilai et al⁹ described 4 patients with PCFCL who developed lesions that were clinically similar to rosacea or rhinophyma, including papulonodular eruptions on the cheeks; infiltrated erythematous nasal plaques; and small flesh-colored to erythematous papules on the cheeks, nose, helices, and upper back. Hodak et al¹⁰ identified 2 cases of PCFCL that manifested as anetoderma, a condition characterized by the focal loss of elastic tissue. In the setting of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, PCFCL has been observed as a red or violaceous nodule with a centrally depressed scar on the legs.¹¹ In one case, PCFCL manifested as recurrent episodes of extraorbital swelling and a multifocal red-blue macular lesion that extended from the inferior orbital rim to the nasojugal fold.¹² An interesting presentation of PCFCL was noted as a small, recurring, blood-filled blister on the cheek with perineural spread of the tumor along cranial nerves V2, V3, VII, and VIII.¹³ In the pediatric literature, PCFCL has been reported to present as an erythematous nodule with a smooth surface and a hard elastic consistency that appeared on the nose and nasolabial fold and spread to the ipsilateral cheek, maxillary sinus, and soft palate.¹⁴ In many of these unusual cases, the diagnosis of PCFCL was made after treatment with topical or systemic anti-inflammatory therapies failed.

Increased recognition of anomalous presentations of PCFCL among dermatologists can lead to more timely diagnoses and treatment. Based on our experience with this patient, we recommend considering biopsy for histopathologic evaluation when treating patients with presumed folliculitis or transient acantholytic dermatosis that does not improve with routine treatment or is accompanied by systemic symptoms.

To the Editor:

A 53-year-old woman was referred by her oncologist to our dermatology office with lesions on the face and body that presented 8 days after starting vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily for metastatic melanoma. The patient denied any symptoms from the lesions but was concerned they would spread to cover her entire face and body.

The patient's medical history included a diagnosis of metastatic melanoma 6 years prior to presentation. She stated that the primary cutaneous melanoma site was unknown. The patient had endured numerous surgeries to excise lymph node tumors, with some lesions up to 3 cm. The patient recently started vemurafenib, a treatment for BRAF V600E mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. The patient's personal history was notable for hepatitis A, B, and C, and her family history revealed her mother had metastatic lung cancer.

Physical examination revealed numerous 2- to 3-mm, round-oval, flesh-colored to light-brown papules on the cheeks, chest, abdomen (Figure 1), back, and both arms and legs. Some papules were inflamed and some had a stuck-on appearance. Lesions on the chest between the breasts and inframammary region were slightly inflamed. Two skin biopsies were performed. Biopsy of the lesion on the right lateral back revealed solar lentigo, early macular seborrheic keratosis, and a focus of inflamed mild solar keratosis. The dermis showed a mild superficial perivascular and interstitial inflammatory infiltrate composed mostly of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and eosinophils. There were occasional melanophages present (Figure 2). Biopsy of the lesion between the breasts revealed inflamed verrucous seborrheic keratosis (Figure 3).

We treated the lesion on the right lateral back with cycles of cryotherapy and explained to the patient that the lesion between the breasts was benign. We also reiterated to the patient the importance of wearing sun-protective clothing and UVA/UVB sunblock with a sun protection factor of 30 or higher.

Our patient was diagnosed with pneumonia and subsequently had to discontinue vemurafenib. During the period of nontreatment, the keratotic lesions cleared with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and no epidermal changes, which showed a possible inference of a direct relationship between the vemurafenib and the appearance of the nonmalignant cutaneous lesions. Although this report only represents 1 patient, other patients possibly can benefit from a modified dose of vemurafenib, which either would resolve or lessen the quantity of these lesions.

Vemurafenib is the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for nonresectable metastatic melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation as detected by a US Food and Drug Administration-approved test.^1,2 Mutated BRAF is present in approximately 60% of cutaneous melanomas.³ Vemurafenib targets the oncogenic BRAF V600E making the protein inactive, thus inhibiting cell proliferation and leading to apoptosis and shrinkage of the metastatic tumors.^3-5 Vemurafenib has a response rate of more than 50% and is associated with rapid improvement in quality of life.³

Cutaneous side effects include increased incidence of squamous cell carcinoma and keratoacanthomas, appearing approximately 7 to 8 weeks after starting vemurafenib.⁴ The incidence of these lesions increases in patients 65 years and older and in patients with prior skin cancer and chronic sun exposure. The paradoxical activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway by mutant BRAF-selective inhibitors provides an explanation of the induction of squamous cell carcinomas.⁴ Prior to the initiation of vemurafenib, all patients should receive a total-body skin examination and every 2 months thereafter while on treatment. After discontinuation of the medicine, the patient should continue to receive total-body skin evaluations every 6 months indefinitely.

Patients should be aware of the potential for mild to severe photosensitivity reactions. They should be advised to limit their sun exposure time and to wear sun-protective clothing when outdoors. The use of broad-spectrum UVA/UVB sunscreen and lip protectant with a sun protection factor of 30 or higher also should be stressed.^6,7 Patients should be aware that UVA rays penetrate glass; therefore, UV-protective clothing should be worn throughout the day and during all seasons.⁷

In clinical trials of vemurafenib, Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis was reported in 2 patients.^8,9 Clinical trials also reported patients developing new primary malignant melanoma lesions.¹⁰ These findings further emphasize the need for patients to undergo total-body skin examinations during and after treatment.

Other possible dermatologic reactions include a generalized rash, erythema, alopecia, and pruritus.^2,3 The development of benign growths associated with patients on vemurafenib include follicular plugging seen in keratosis pilaris, palmar and plantar hyperkeratosis, seborrheic dermatitis-like rashes, verrucous keratosis, and acantholytic dyskeratosis.^8,11,12

We report a case of nonmalignant growths occurring 8 days after starting vemurafenib. This case illustrates potential cutaneous adverse reactions that were benign yet still of great concern to our patient. Many of these nonmalignant cutaneous findings are associated with abnormal follicular keratinization thought to be secondary to abnormal signaling of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway that occurs with the use of BRAF inhibitors.⁸ Although in this case malignant lesions were not discovered, the need for total-body skin examinations exists during all stages of treatment. Supportive care and reassurance should be given to patients along with local treatments including topical therapies (steroids, retinoids), cryotherapy, and biopsies or excisions when necessary.^13,14

To the Editor:

A 53-year-old woman was referred by her oncologist to our dermatology office with lesions on the face and body that presented 8 days after starting vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily for metastatic melanoma. The patient denied any symptoms from the lesions but was concerned they would spread to cover her entire face and body.

The patient's medical history included a diagnosis of metastatic melanoma 6 years prior to presentation. She stated that the primary cutaneous melanoma site was unknown. The patient had endured numerous surgeries to excise lymph node tumors, with some lesions up to 3 cm. The patient recently started vemurafenib, a treatment for BRAF V600E mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. The patient's personal history was notable for hepatitis A, B, and C, and her family history revealed her mother had metastatic lung cancer.

Physical examination revealed numerous 2- to 3-mm, round-oval, flesh-colored to light-brown papules on the cheeks, chest, abdomen (Figure 1), back, and both arms and legs. Some papules were inflamed and some had a stuck-on appearance. Lesions on the chest between the breasts and inframammary region were slightly inflamed. Two skin biopsies were performed. Biopsy of the lesion on the right lateral back revealed solar lentigo, early macular seborrheic keratosis, and a focus of inflamed mild solar keratosis. The dermis showed a mild superficial perivascular and interstitial inflammatory infiltrate composed mostly of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and eosinophils. There were occasional melanophages present (Figure 2). Biopsy of the lesion between the breasts revealed inflamed verrucous seborrheic keratosis (Figure 3).

We treated the lesion on the right lateral back with cycles of cryotherapy and explained to the patient that the lesion between the breasts was benign. We also reiterated to the patient the importance of wearing sun-protective clothing and UVA/UVB sunblock with a sun protection factor of 30 or higher.

Our patient was diagnosed with pneumonia and subsequently had to discontinue vemurafenib. During the period of nontreatment, the keratotic lesions cleared with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and no epidermal changes, which showed a possible inference of a direct relationship between the vemurafenib and the appearance of the nonmalignant cutaneous lesions. Although this report only represents 1 patient, other patients possibly can benefit from a modified dose of vemurafenib, which either would resolve or lessen the quantity of these lesions.

Vemurafenib is the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for nonresectable metastatic melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation as detected by a US Food and Drug Administration-approved test.^1,2 Mutated BRAF is present in approximately 60% of cutaneous melanomas.³ Vemurafenib targets the oncogenic BRAF V600E making the protein inactive, thus inhibiting cell proliferation and leading to apoptosis and shrinkage of the metastatic tumors.^3-5 Vemurafenib has a response rate of more than 50% and is associated with rapid improvement in quality of life.³

Cutaneous side effects include increased incidence of squamous cell carcinoma and keratoacanthomas, appearing approximately 7 to 8 weeks after starting vemurafenib.⁴ The incidence of these lesions increases in patients 65 years and older and in patients with prior skin cancer and chronic sun exposure. The paradoxical activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway by mutant BRAF-selective inhibitors provides an explanation of the induction of squamous cell carcinomas.⁴ Prior to the initiation of vemurafenib, all patients should receive a total-body skin examination and every 2 months thereafter while on treatment. After discontinuation of the medicine, the patient should continue to receive total-body skin evaluations every 6 months indefinitely.

Patients should be aware of the potential for mild to severe photosensitivity reactions. They should be advised to limit their sun exposure time and to wear sun-protective clothing when outdoors. The use of broad-spectrum UVA/UVB sunscreen and lip protectant with a sun protection factor of 30 or higher also should be stressed.^6,7 Patients should be aware that UVA rays penetrate glass; therefore, UV-protective clothing should be worn throughout the day and during all seasons.⁷

In clinical trials of vemurafenib, Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis was reported in 2 patients.^8,9 Clinical trials also reported patients developing new primary malignant melanoma lesions.¹⁰ These findings further emphasize the need for patients to undergo total-body skin examinations during and after treatment.

Other possible dermatologic reactions include a generalized rash, erythema, alopecia, and pruritus.^2,3 The development of benign growths associated with patients on vemurafenib include follicular plugging seen in keratosis pilaris, palmar and plantar hyperkeratosis, seborrheic dermatitis-like rashes, verrucous keratosis, and acantholytic dyskeratosis.^8,11,12

We report a case of nonmalignant growths occurring 8 days after starting vemurafenib. This case illustrates potential cutaneous adverse reactions that were benign yet still of great concern to our patient. Many of these nonmalignant cutaneous findings are associated with abnormal follicular keratinization thought to be secondary to abnormal signaling of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway that occurs with the use of BRAF inhibitors.⁸ Although in this case malignant lesions were not discovered, the need for total-body skin examinations exists during all stages of treatment. Supportive care and reassurance should be given to patients along with local treatments including topical therapies (steroids, retinoids), cryotherapy, and biopsies or excisions when necessary.^13,14

To the Editor:

A 53-year-old woman was referred by her oncologist to our dermatology office with lesions on the face and body that presented 8 days after starting vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily for metastatic melanoma. The patient denied any symptoms from the lesions but was concerned they would spread to cover her entire face and body.

The patient's medical history included a diagnosis of metastatic melanoma 6 years prior to presentation. She stated that the primary cutaneous melanoma site was unknown. The patient had endured numerous surgeries to excise lymph node tumors, with some lesions up to 3 cm. The patient recently started vemurafenib, a treatment for BRAF V600E mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. The patient's personal history was notable for hepatitis A, B, and C, and her family history revealed her mother had metastatic lung cancer.

Physical examination revealed numerous 2- to 3-mm, round-oval, flesh-colored to light-brown papules on the cheeks, chest, abdomen (Figure 1), back, and both arms and legs. Some papules were inflamed and some had a stuck-on appearance. Lesions on the chest between the breasts and inframammary region were slightly inflamed. Two skin biopsies were performed. Biopsy of the lesion on the right lateral back revealed solar lentigo, early macular seborrheic keratosis, and a focus of inflamed mild solar keratosis. The dermis showed a mild superficial perivascular and interstitial inflammatory infiltrate composed mostly of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and eosinophils. There were occasional melanophages present (Figure 2). Biopsy of the lesion between the breasts revealed inflamed verrucous seborrheic keratosis (Figure 3).

We treated the lesion on the right lateral back with cycles of cryotherapy and explained to the patient that the lesion between the breasts was benign. We also reiterated to the patient the importance of wearing sun-protective clothing and UVA/UVB sunblock with a sun protection factor of 30 or higher.

Our patient was diagnosed with pneumonia and subsequently had to discontinue vemurafenib. During the period of nontreatment, the keratotic lesions cleared with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and no epidermal changes, which showed a possible inference of a direct relationship between the vemurafenib and the appearance of the nonmalignant cutaneous lesions. Although this report only represents 1 patient, other patients possibly can benefit from a modified dose of vemurafenib, which either would resolve or lessen the quantity of these lesions.

Vemurafenib is the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for nonresectable metastatic melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation as detected by a US Food and Drug Administration-approved test.^1,2 Mutated BRAF is present in approximately 60% of cutaneous melanomas.³ Vemurafenib targets the oncogenic BRAF V600E making the protein inactive, thus inhibiting cell proliferation and leading to apoptosis and shrinkage of the metastatic tumors.^3-5 Vemurafenib has a response rate of more than 50% and is associated with rapid improvement in quality of life.³

Cutaneous side effects include increased incidence of squamous cell carcinoma and keratoacanthomas, appearing approximately 7 to 8 weeks after starting vemurafenib.⁴ The incidence of these lesions increases in patients 65 years and older and in patients with prior skin cancer and chronic sun exposure. The paradoxical activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway by mutant BRAF-selective inhibitors provides an explanation of the induction of squamous cell carcinomas.⁴ Prior to the initiation of vemurafenib, all patients should receive a total-body skin examination and every 2 months thereafter while on treatment. After discontinuation of the medicine, the patient should continue to receive total-body skin evaluations every 6 months indefinitely.

Patients should be aware of the potential for mild to severe photosensitivity reactions. They should be advised to limit their sun exposure time and to wear sun-protective clothing when outdoors. The use of broad-spectrum UVA/UVB sunscreen and lip protectant with a sun protection factor of 30 or higher also should be stressed.^6,7 Patients should be aware that UVA rays penetrate glass; therefore, UV-protective clothing should be worn throughout the day and during all seasons.⁷

In clinical trials of vemurafenib, Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis was reported in 2 patients.^8,9 Clinical trials also reported patients developing new primary malignant melanoma lesions.¹⁰ These findings further emphasize the need for patients to undergo total-body skin examinations during and after treatment.

Other possible dermatologic reactions include a generalized rash, erythema, alopecia, and pruritus.^2,3 The development of benign growths associated with patients on vemurafenib include follicular plugging seen in keratosis pilaris, palmar and plantar hyperkeratosis, seborrheic dermatitis-like rashes, verrucous keratosis, and acantholytic dyskeratosis.^8,11,12

We report a case of nonmalignant growths occurring 8 days after starting vemurafenib. This case illustrates potential cutaneous adverse reactions that were benign yet still of great concern to our patient. Many of these nonmalignant cutaneous findings are associated with abnormal follicular keratinization thought to be secondary to abnormal signaling of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway that occurs with the use of BRAF inhibitors.⁸ Although in this case malignant lesions were not discovered, the need for total-body skin examinations exists during all stages of treatment. Supportive care and reassurance should be given to patients along with local treatments including topical therapies (steroids, retinoids), cryotherapy, and biopsies or excisions when necessary.^13,14

The Diagnosis: Atypical Vascular Lesion

Atypical vascular lesion (AVL)(quiz image), named by Fineberg and Rosen,¹ is a vascular lesion that arises on mammary skin with a history of radiation exposure. Clinically, AVL can present as a papule or erythematous patch that manifests 3 to 7 years after radiation therapy.^2,3 There are 2 histologic subtypes of AVL: lymphatic and vascular.^2,4 Lymphatic-type AVL is comprised of a symmetric distribution of thin, dilated, and anastomosing vessels usually found in the superficial and mid dermis. The vessels are lined by flat or hobnail protuberant endothelial cells that lack nuclear irregularity or pleomorphism; however, hyperchromatism of endothelial cell nuclei is a common finding. Vascular-type AVL is morphologically similar to a capillary hemangioma, and histologic features include irregular growth of capillary-sized vessels that extend to the dermis and subcutis.^2,4 Atypical vascular lesions are benign lesions but may be a precursor to angiosarcoma. Along with vascular markers, D2-40 typically is positive. Surgical excision with clear margins is recommended when the lesion is small.^4,5 Observation is more appropriate for extensive lesions.

Angiosarcoma can arise spontaneously or in association with radiation or chronic lymphedema. Given the shared risk factors and presentation with AVL, it is essential to differentiate angiosarcoma from AVL. Primary cutaneous angiosarcoma usually presents on the head of elderly patients as an ecchymotic patch or plaque with ulceration.⁴ Secondary angiosarcoma may arise following radiation or chronic lymphedema (Stewart-Treves syndrome); however, some authors now prefer to consider lymphangiosarcoma arising in chronic lymphedematous limbs a distinct entity.⁶ Surgical excision with wide margins is the mainstay of therapy, but angiosarcoma has high recurrence rates, and the 5-year survival rate has been reported to be as low as 35%.⁷ Histologic overlap with AVL includes dissecting anastomosing vessels lined by hyperchromatic nuclei; however, angiosarcoma is distinguished by endothelial cell layering, nuclear pleomorphism, and prominent nucleoli (Figure 1).^4,8 Increased positivity for Ki-67 immunostain, which indicates cell proliferation, may be used to distinguish angiosarcoma from an AVL (Figure 1 [inset]).⁹ Further, in contrast to AVL, radiation-induced angiosarcoma is characterized by amplification of C-MYC, a regulator gene, and FLT4 (FMS-related tyrosine kinase 4), a gene encoding vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 3. Gene amplification may be detected through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.¹⁰ Ki-67 labeling showed less than 10% staining in endothelial cells in our case (quiz image [inset]), and fluorescence in situ hybridization was negative for C-MYC amplification, supporting the diagnosis of AVL.

Lymphangioma circumscriptum, the most common superficial lymphangioma, is a hamartomatous malformation that usually occurs at the axillary folds, neck, and trunk. It clinically presents as small agminated vesicles with a characteristic frog spawn appearance.¹¹ Dermoscopic features include yellow lacunae that may alternate with a dark red color secondary to extravasation of erythrocytes.¹² These clinical features often lead to a differential diagnosis of verrucae, angiokeratoma, and angiosarcoma. Lymphangioma circumscriptum histologically is characterized by an overgrowth of dilated lymphatic vessels that fill the papillary dermis. The vessels are composed of flat endothelial cells typically filled with acellular proteinaceous debris and occasional erythrocytes (Figure 2). As the lesion traverses deeper into the dermis, the caliber of the lymphatic channel becomes narrower. The presence of deep lymphatic cisterns with surrounding smooth muscle is helpful to differentiate lymphangioma circumscriptum from other lymphatic malformations such as acquired lymphangiectasia. Treatment options include surgical excision, sclerosing agents, and destructive modalities such as cryotherapy.

Hobnail hemangioma, originally termed targetoid hemosiderotic hemangioma by Santa Cruz and Aronberg,¹³ presents as a violaceous papule or nodule surrounded by a characteristic brown halo on the leg. Trauma has been proposed as the inciting factor for the clinical appearance of hobnail hemangioma.¹⁴ Microscopically, the lesion shows vessels in a wedge shape. The superficial component has telangiectatic vessels with focal areas of papillary projections lined by endothelial cells. Although the endothelial nuclei typically project into the lumen, the nuclei are small, bland, and without mitotic activity.¹⁵ Deeper components show slit-shaped vasculature with dermal collagen dissection. Hemosiderin, extravasated red blood cells, and inflammation are found adjacent to the vessels (Figure 3). Given the benign nature, hobnail hemangiomas may be monitored.

Kaposi sarcoma (KS) is a low-grade vascular neoplasm associated with human herpesvirus 8 that arises in multiple clinical settings, especially in immunosuppression secondary to human immunodeficiency virus. There are 3 distinct clinical stages: patch, plaque, and tumor. The patch stage appears as red macules that blend into larger plaques; the tumor stage is defined as larger nodules developing from plaques. Histologic features differ by stage. Similar to angiosarcoma, KS is comprised of anastomosing vessels that dissect collagen bundles; endothelial cell atypia is minimal. A useful feature of KS is its propensity to involve adnexa and display the promontory sign, which involves the tumor growing into normal vasculature (Figure 4).¹⁶ Positive immunohistochemistry for human herpesvirus 8 aids in confirmation of the diagnosis. Treatment options for KS are numerous but include destructive modalities, chemotherapeutic agents such as doxorubicin, or highly active antiretroviral therapy for AIDS-related KS.¹⁷

The Diagnosis: Atypical Vascular Lesion

Atypical vascular lesion (AVL)(quiz image), named by Fineberg and Rosen,¹ is a vascular lesion that arises on mammary skin with a history of radiation exposure. Clinically, AVL can present as a papule or erythematous patch that manifests 3 to 7 years after radiation therapy.^2,3 There are 2 histologic subtypes of AVL: lymphatic and vascular.^2,4 Lymphatic-type AVL is comprised of a symmetric distribution of thin, dilated, and anastomosing vessels usually found in the superficial and mid dermis. The vessels are lined by flat or hobnail protuberant endothelial cells that lack nuclear irregularity or pleomorphism; however, hyperchromatism of endothelial cell nuclei is a common finding. Vascular-type AVL is morphologically similar to a capillary hemangioma, and histologic features include irregular growth of capillary-sized vessels that extend to the dermis and subcutis.^2,4 Atypical vascular lesions are benign lesions but may be a precursor to angiosarcoma. Along with vascular markers, D2-40 typically is positive. Surgical excision with clear margins is recommended when the lesion is small.^4,5 Observation is more appropriate for extensive lesions.

Angiosarcoma can arise spontaneously or in association with radiation or chronic lymphedema. Given the shared risk factors and presentation with AVL, it is essential to differentiate angiosarcoma from AVL. Primary cutaneous angiosarcoma usually presents on the head of elderly patients as an ecchymotic patch or plaque with ulceration.⁴ Secondary angiosarcoma may arise following radiation or chronic lymphedema (Stewart-Treves syndrome); however, some authors now prefer to consider lymphangiosarcoma arising in chronic lymphedematous limbs a distinct entity.⁶ Surgical excision with wide margins is the mainstay of therapy, but angiosarcoma has high recurrence rates, and the 5-year survival rate has been reported to be as low as 35%.⁷ Histologic overlap with AVL includes dissecting anastomosing vessels lined by hyperchromatic nuclei; however, angiosarcoma is distinguished by endothelial cell layering, nuclear pleomorphism, and prominent nucleoli (Figure 1).^4,8 Increased positivity for Ki-67 immunostain, which indicates cell proliferation, may be used to distinguish angiosarcoma from an AVL (Figure 1 [inset]).⁹ Further, in contrast to AVL, radiation-induced angiosarcoma is characterized by amplification of C-MYC, a regulator gene, and FLT4 (FMS-related tyrosine kinase 4), a gene encoding vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 3. Gene amplification may be detected through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.¹⁰ Ki-67 labeling showed less than 10% staining in endothelial cells in our case (quiz image [inset]), and fluorescence in situ hybridization was negative for C-MYC amplification, supporting the diagnosis of AVL.

Lymphangioma circumscriptum, the most common superficial lymphangioma, is a hamartomatous malformation that usually occurs at the axillary folds, neck, and trunk. It clinically presents as small agminated vesicles with a characteristic frog spawn appearance.¹¹ Dermoscopic features include yellow lacunae that may alternate with a dark red color secondary to extravasation of erythrocytes.¹² These clinical features often lead to a differential diagnosis of verrucae, angiokeratoma, and angiosarcoma. Lymphangioma circumscriptum histologically is characterized by an overgrowth of dilated lymphatic vessels that fill the papillary dermis. The vessels are composed of flat endothelial cells typically filled with acellular proteinaceous debris and occasional erythrocytes (Figure 2). As the lesion traverses deeper into the dermis, the caliber of the lymphatic channel becomes narrower. The presence of deep lymphatic cisterns with surrounding smooth muscle is helpful to differentiate lymphangioma circumscriptum from other lymphatic malformations such as acquired lymphangiectasia. Treatment options include surgical excision, sclerosing agents, and destructive modalities such as cryotherapy.

Hobnail hemangioma, originally termed targetoid hemosiderotic hemangioma by Santa Cruz and Aronberg,¹³ presents as a violaceous papule or nodule surrounded by a characteristic brown halo on the leg. Trauma has been proposed as the inciting factor for the clinical appearance of hobnail hemangioma.¹⁴ Microscopically, the lesion shows vessels in a wedge shape. The superficial component has telangiectatic vessels with focal areas of papillary projections lined by endothelial cells. Although the endothelial nuclei typically project into the lumen, the nuclei are small, bland, and without mitotic activity.¹⁵ Deeper components show slit-shaped vasculature with dermal collagen dissection. Hemosiderin, extravasated red blood cells, and inflammation are found adjacent to the vessels (Figure 3). Given the benign nature, hobnail hemangiomas may be monitored.

Kaposi sarcoma (KS) is a low-grade vascular neoplasm associated with human herpesvirus 8 that arises in multiple clinical settings, especially in immunosuppression secondary to human immunodeficiency virus. There are 3 distinct clinical stages: patch, plaque, and tumor. The patch stage appears as red macules that blend into larger plaques; the tumor stage is defined as larger nodules developing from plaques. Histologic features differ by stage. Similar to angiosarcoma, KS is comprised of anastomosing vessels that dissect collagen bundles; endothelial cell atypia is minimal. A useful feature of KS is its propensity to involve adnexa and display the promontory sign, which involves the tumor growing into normal vasculature (Figure 4).¹⁶ Positive immunohistochemistry for human herpesvirus 8 aids in confirmation of the diagnosis. Treatment options for KS are numerous but include destructive modalities, chemotherapeutic agents such as doxorubicin, or highly active antiretroviral therapy for AIDS-related KS.¹⁷

The Diagnosis: Atypical Vascular Lesion

Atypical vascular lesion (AVL)(quiz image), named by Fineberg and Rosen,¹ is a vascular lesion that arises on mammary skin with a history of radiation exposure. Clinically, AVL can present as a papule or erythematous patch that manifests 3 to 7 years after radiation therapy.^2,3 There are 2 histologic subtypes of AVL: lymphatic and vascular.^2,4 Lymphatic-type AVL is comprised of a symmetric distribution of thin, dilated, and anastomosing vessels usually found in the superficial and mid dermis. The vessels are lined by flat or hobnail protuberant endothelial cells that lack nuclear irregularity or pleomorphism; however, hyperchromatism of endothelial cell nuclei is a common finding. Vascular-type AVL is morphologically similar to a capillary hemangioma, and histologic features include irregular growth of capillary-sized vessels that extend to the dermis and subcutis.^2,4 Atypical vascular lesions are benign lesions but may be a precursor to angiosarcoma. Along with vascular markers, D2-40 typically is positive. Surgical excision with clear margins is recommended when the lesion is small.^4,5 Observation is more appropriate for extensive lesions.

Angiosarcoma can arise spontaneously or in association with radiation or chronic lymphedema. Given the shared risk factors and presentation with AVL, it is essential to differentiate angiosarcoma from AVL. Primary cutaneous angiosarcoma usually presents on the head of elderly patients as an ecchymotic patch or plaque with ulceration.⁴ Secondary angiosarcoma may arise following radiation or chronic lymphedema (Stewart-Treves syndrome); however, some authors now prefer to consider lymphangiosarcoma arising in chronic lymphedematous limbs a distinct entity.⁶ Surgical excision with wide margins is the mainstay of therapy, but angiosarcoma has high recurrence rates, and the 5-year survival rate has been reported to be as low as 35%.⁷ Histologic overlap with AVL includes dissecting anastomosing vessels lined by hyperchromatic nuclei; however, angiosarcoma is distinguished by endothelial cell layering, nuclear pleomorphism, and prominent nucleoli (Figure 1).^4,8 Increased positivity for Ki-67 immunostain, which indicates cell proliferation, may be used to distinguish angiosarcoma from an AVL (Figure 1 [inset]).⁹ Further, in contrast to AVL, radiation-induced angiosarcoma is characterized by amplification of C-MYC, a regulator gene, and FLT4 (FMS-related tyrosine kinase 4), a gene encoding vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 3. Gene amplification may be detected through immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization.¹⁰ Ki-67 labeling showed less than 10% staining in endothelial cells in our case (quiz image [inset]), and fluorescence in situ hybridization was negative for C-MYC amplification, supporting the diagnosis of AVL.

Lymphangioma circumscriptum, the most common superficial lymphangioma, is a hamartomatous malformation that usually occurs at the axillary folds, neck, and trunk. It clinically presents as small agminated vesicles with a characteristic frog spawn appearance.¹¹ Dermoscopic features include yellow lacunae that may alternate with a dark red color secondary to extravasation of erythrocytes.¹² These clinical features often lead to a differential diagnosis of verrucae, angiokeratoma, and angiosarcoma. Lymphangioma circumscriptum histologically is characterized by an overgrowth of dilated lymphatic vessels that fill the papillary dermis. The vessels are composed of flat endothelial cells typically filled with acellular proteinaceous debris and occasional erythrocytes (Figure 2). As the lesion traverses deeper into the dermis, the caliber of the lymphatic channel becomes narrower. The presence of deep lymphatic cisterns with surrounding smooth muscle is helpful to differentiate lymphangioma circumscriptum from other lymphatic malformations such as acquired lymphangiectasia. Treatment options include surgical excision, sclerosing agents, and destructive modalities such as cryotherapy.

Hobnail hemangioma, originally termed targetoid hemosiderotic hemangioma by Santa Cruz and Aronberg,¹³ presents as a violaceous papule or nodule surrounded by a characteristic brown halo on the leg. Trauma has been proposed as the inciting factor for the clinical appearance of hobnail hemangioma.¹⁴ Microscopically, the lesion shows vessels in a wedge shape. The superficial component has telangiectatic vessels with focal areas of papillary projections lined by endothelial cells. Although the endothelial nuclei typically project into the lumen, the nuclei are small, bland, and without mitotic activity.¹⁵ Deeper components show slit-shaped vasculature with dermal collagen dissection. Hemosiderin, extravasated red blood cells, and inflammation are found adjacent to the vessels (Figure 3). Given the benign nature, hobnail hemangiomas may be monitored.

Kaposi sarcoma (KS) is a low-grade vascular neoplasm associated with human herpesvirus 8 that arises in multiple clinical settings, especially in immunosuppression secondary to human immunodeficiency virus. There are 3 distinct clinical stages: patch, plaque, and tumor. The patch stage appears as red macules that blend into larger plaques; the tumor stage is defined as larger nodules developing from plaques. Histologic features differ by stage. Similar to angiosarcoma, KS is comprised of anastomosing vessels that dissect collagen bundles; endothelial cell atypia is minimal. A useful feature of KS is its propensity to involve adnexa and display the promontory sign, which involves the tumor growing into normal vasculature (Figure 4).¹⁶ Positive immunohistochemistry for human herpesvirus 8 aids in confirmation of the diagnosis. Treatment options for KS are numerous but include destructive modalities, chemotherapeutic agents such as doxorubicin, or highly active antiretroviral therapy for AIDS-related KS.¹⁷

The Diagnosis: Necrobiotic Xanthogranuloma

A 4-mm punch biopsy was performed for routine stain with hematoxylin and eosin. The differential diagnosis included sarcoidosis, necrobiosis lipoidica, xanthoma disseminatum, and multicentric reticulohistiocytosis. Histopathologic examination demonstrated a dermal infiltrate of foamy histiocytes and neutrophils (Figure). There were surrounding areas of degenerated collagen containing numerous cholesterol clefts. After clinical pathologic correlation, a diagnosis of necrobiotic xanthogranuloma (NXG) was elucidated.

The patient was referred to general surgery for elective excision of 1 or more of the lesions. Excision of an abdominal lesion was performed without complication. After several months, a new lesion reformed within the excisional scar that also was consistent with NXG. At further dermatologic visits, a trial of intralesional corticosteroids was attempted to the largest lesions with modest improvement. In addition, follow-up with hematology and oncology was recommended for routine surveillance of the known blood dyscrasia.

Necrobiotic xanthogranuloma is a multisystem non-Langerhans cell histiocytic disease. Clinically, NXG is characterized by infiltrative plaques and ulcerative nodules. Lesions may appear red, brown, or yellow with associated atrophy and telangiectasia.¹ Koch et al² described a predilection for granuloma formation within preexisting scars. Periorbital location is the most common cutaneous site of involvement of NXG, seen in 80% of cases, but the trunk and extremities also may be involved.^1,3 Approximately half of those with periocular involvement experience ocular symptoms including prop- tosis, blepharoptosis, and restricted eye movements.⁴ The onset of NXG most commonly is seen in middle age.

Characteristic systemic associations have been reported in the setting of NXG. More than 20% of patients may exhibit hepatomegaly. Hematologic abnormalities, hyperlipidemia, and cryoglobulinemia also may be seen.¹ In addition, a monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance is found in more than 80% of NXG cases. The IgG κ light chain is most commonly identified.² A foreign body reaction is incited by the immunoglobulin-lipid complex, which is thought to contribute to the formation of cutaneous lesions. There may be associated plasma cell dyscrasia such as multiple myeloma or B-cell lymphoma in approximately 13% of cases.² Evaluation for underlying plasma cell dyscrasia or lymphoproliferative disorder should be performed regularly with serum protein electrophoresis or immunofixation electrophoresis, and in some cases full-body imaging with computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging may be warranted.¹

Treatment of NXG often is unsuccessful. Surgical excision, systemic immunosuppressive agents, electron beam radiation, and destructive therapies such as cryotherapy may be trialed, often with little success.¹ Cutaneous regression has been reported with combination treatment of high-dose dexamethasone and high-dose lenalidomide.⁵

The Diagnosis: Necrobiotic Xanthogranuloma

A 4-mm punch biopsy was performed for routine stain with hematoxylin and eosin. The differential diagnosis included sarcoidosis, necrobiosis lipoidica, xanthoma disseminatum, and multicentric reticulohistiocytosis. Histopathologic examination demonstrated a dermal infiltrate of foamy histiocytes and neutrophils (Figure). There were surrounding areas of degenerated collagen containing numerous cholesterol clefts. After clinical pathologic correlation, a diagnosis of necrobiotic xanthogranuloma (NXG) was elucidated.

The patient was referred to general surgery for elective excision of 1 or more of the lesions. Excision of an abdominal lesion was performed without complication. After several months, a new lesion reformed within the excisional scar that also was consistent with NXG. At further dermatologic visits, a trial of intralesional corticosteroids was attempted to the largest lesions with modest improvement. In addition, follow-up with hematology and oncology was recommended for routine surveillance of the known blood dyscrasia.

Necrobiotic xanthogranuloma is a multisystem non-Langerhans cell histiocytic disease. Clinically, NXG is characterized by infiltrative plaques and ulcerative nodules. Lesions may appear red, brown, or yellow with associated atrophy and telangiectasia.¹ Koch et al² described a predilection for granuloma formation within preexisting scars. Periorbital location is the most common cutaneous site of involvement of NXG, seen in 80% of cases, but the trunk and extremities also may be involved.^1,3 Approximately half of those with periocular involvement experience ocular symptoms including prop- tosis, blepharoptosis, and restricted eye movements.⁴ The onset of NXG most commonly is seen in middle age.

Characteristic systemic associations have been reported in the setting of NXG. More than 20% of patients may exhibit hepatomegaly. Hematologic abnormalities, hyperlipidemia, and cryoglobulinemia also may be seen.¹ In addition, a monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance is found in more than 80% of NXG cases. The IgG κ light chain is most commonly identified.² A foreign body reaction is incited by the immunoglobulin-lipid complex, which is thought to contribute to the formation of cutaneous lesions. There may be associated plasma cell dyscrasia such as multiple myeloma or B-cell lymphoma in approximately 13% of cases.² Evaluation for underlying plasma cell dyscrasia or lymphoproliferative disorder should be performed regularly with serum protein electrophoresis or immunofixation electrophoresis, and in some cases full-body imaging with computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging may be warranted.¹

Treatment of NXG often is unsuccessful. Surgical excision, systemic immunosuppressive agents, electron beam radiation, and destructive therapies such as cryotherapy may be trialed, often with little success.¹ Cutaneous regression has been reported with combination treatment of high-dose dexamethasone and high-dose lenalidomide.⁵

The Diagnosis: Necrobiotic Xanthogranuloma

A 4-mm punch biopsy was performed for routine stain with hematoxylin and eosin. The differential diagnosis included sarcoidosis, necrobiosis lipoidica, xanthoma disseminatum, and multicentric reticulohistiocytosis. Histopathologic examination demonstrated a dermal infiltrate of foamy histiocytes and neutrophils (Figure). There were surrounding areas of degenerated collagen containing numerous cholesterol clefts. After clinical pathologic correlation, a diagnosis of necrobiotic xanthogranuloma (NXG) was elucidated.

The patient was referred to general surgery for elective excision of 1 or more of the lesions. Excision of an abdominal lesion was performed without complication. After several months, a new lesion reformed within the excisional scar that also was consistent with NXG. At further dermatologic visits, a trial of intralesional corticosteroids was attempted to the largest lesions with modest improvement. In addition, follow-up with hematology and oncology was recommended for routine surveillance of the known blood dyscrasia.

Necrobiotic xanthogranuloma is a multisystem non-Langerhans cell histiocytic disease. Clinically, NXG is characterized by infiltrative plaques and ulcerative nodules. Lesions may appear red, brown, or yellow with associated atrophy and telangiectasia.¹ Koch et al² described a predilection for granuloma formation within preexisting scars. Periorbital location is the most common cutaneous site of involvement of NXG, seen in 80% of cases, but the trunk and extremities also may be involved.^1,3 Approximately half of those with periocular involvement experience ocular symptoms including prop- tosis, blepharoptosis, and restricted eye movements.⁴ The onset of NXG most commonly is seen in middle age.

Characteristic systemic associations have been reported in the setting of NXG. More than 20% of patients may exhibit hepatomegaly. Hematologic abnormalities, hyperlipidemia, and cryoglobulinemia also may be seen.¹ In addition, a monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance is found in more than 80% of NXG cases. The IgG κ light chain is most commonly identified.² A foreign body reaction is incited by the immunoglobulin-lipid complex, which is thought to contribute to the formation of cutaneous lesions. There may be associated plasma cell dyscrasia such as multiple myeloma or B-cell lymphoma in approximately 13% of cases.² Evaluation for underlying plasma cell dyscrasia or lymphoproliferative disorder should be performed regularly with serum protein electrophoresis or immunofixation electrophoresis, and in some cases full-body imaging with computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging may be warranted.¹

Treatment of NXG often is unsuccessful. Surgical excision, systemic immunosuppressive agents, electron beam radiation, and destructive therapies such as cryotherapy may be trialed, often with little success.¹ Cutaneous regression has been reported with combination treatment of high-dose dexamethasone and high-dose lenalidomide.⁵

Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma (PMHE), also referred to as epithelioid sarcoma–like hemangioendothelioma,¹ is a rare soft tissue tumor that was described in 1992 by Mirra et al² as a fibromalike variant of epithelioid sarcoma. It predominantly affects males between the second and fifth decades of life and most commonly presents as multiple nodules that may involve either the superficial or deep soft tissues of the legs and less often the arms. It also can arise on the trunk. We present a case of PMHE occurring in a young man and briefly review the literature on clinical presentation and histologic differentiation of this unique tumor, comparing these findings to its mimickers.

Case Report

A 20-year-old man presented with skin lesions on the left leg that had been present for 1 year. The patient described the lesions as tender pimples that would drain yellow discharge on occasion but had now transformed into large brown plaques. Physical examination showed 4 verrucous plaques ranging in size from 1 to 3 cm with hyperpigmentation and a central crust (Figure 1). Initially, the patient thought the lesions appeared due to shaving his legs for sports. He presented to the emergency department multiple times over the past year; pain control was provided and local skin care was recommended. Culture of the discharge had been performed 6 months prior to biopsy with negative results. No biopsy was performed on initial presentation and the lesions were diagnosed in the emergency department clinically as boils.

After failing to improve, the patient was seen by an outside dermatologist and the clinical differential diagnosis included deep fungal infection, atypical mycobacterial infection, and keloids. A 4-mm punch biopsy was taken from the periphery of one of the lesions and demonstrated hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, and acanthosis (Figure 2). Within the superficial and deep dermis and focally extending into the subcutaneous tissue, there were sheets of spindled to epithelioid-appearing cells with moderate cytologic atypia (Figure 3). The tumor showed infiltrative margins. There was moderate cellularity. The individual cells had a rhabdoid appearance with large eccentric vesicular nuclei, prominent nucleoli, and abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm (Figure 4). No definitive evidence of glandular, squamous, or vascular differentiation was present. There was an associated moderate inflammatory host response composed of neutrophils and lymphocytes. Occasional extravasated red blood cells were present. Immunohistochemistry staining was performed and the atypical cells demonstrated diffuse positive staining for friend leukemia integration 1 transcription factor (FLI-1), erythroblastosis virus E26 transforming sequence-related gene (ERG)(Figure 5), CD31, and CD68. There was patchy positive staining for cytokeratin AE1/AE3, CD10, and factor VIII. There was no remarkable staining for human herpesvirus 8, epithelial membrane antigen, S-100, CD34, cytokeratin 903, and desmin. Overall, the histologic features in conjunction with the immunohistochemistry staining were consistent with a diagnosis of PMHE.

Magnetic resonance imaging was then performed to evaluate the depth and extent of the lesions for surgical excision planning (Figure 6), which showed 5 nodular lesions within the dermis and subcutis adjacent to the proximal aspect of the left tibia and medial aspect of the left knee. An additional lesion was noted between the sartorius and semimembranosus muscles, which was thought to represent either a lymph node or an additional neoplastic lesion. Chest computed tomography also displayed indeterminate lesions in the lungs.

Excision of the superficial lesions was performed. All of the lesions demonstrated similar histologic changes to the previously described biopsy specimen. The tumor was limited to the dermis and subcutaneous tissue. The patient was lost to follow-up and the etiology of the lung lesions was unknown.

Comment

Nomenclature
Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma is a relatively new type of vascular tumor that has been included in the updated 2013 edition of the World Health Organization classification as an intermediate malignant tumor that rarely metastasizes.³ It typically involves multiple tissue planes, most notably the dermis and subcutaneous layers but also muscle and bone.⁴ The term pseudomyogenic refers to the histologic resemblance of some of the cells to rhabdomyoblasts; however, these tumors are negative for all immunohistochemical muscle markers, most notably myogenin, desmin, and α-smooth muscle actin.⁵

Clinical Presentation
Gross features of PMHE typically include multiple firm nodules with ill-defined margins. The tumor was initially described in 1992 by Mirra et al² as a fibromalike variant of epithelioid sarcoma. In 2003, a series of 7 cases of PMHE was reported by Billings et al⁶ under the term epithelioid sarcomalike hemangioendothelioma. Other than the predominance of an epithelioid morphology, the cases reported as epithelioid sarcomalike hemangioendothelioma had similar clinical features and immunophenotype to what has been reported as PMHE.

Based on a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma, the 2 largest case series were reported by Pradhan et al⁷ (N=8) in 2017 and Hornick and Fletcher⁴ (N=50) in 2011. Hornick and Fletcher⁴ reported a male (41/50 [82.0%]) to female (9/50 [18.0%]) ratio of 4.6 to 1, and an average age at presentation of 31 years with 82% (41/50) of patients 40 years or younger. Pradhan et al⁷ also reported a male predominance (7/8 [87.5%]) with a similar average age at presentation of 29 years (age range, 9–62 years). The size of individual tumors ranged from 0.3 to 5.5 cm (mean size, 1.9 cm) in the series by Hornick and Fletcher⁴ and 0.3 to 6.0 com in the series by Pradhan et al.⁷ Hornick and Fletcher⁴ reported the most common site of involvement was the leg (27/50 [54.0%]), followed by the arm (12/50 [24.0%]), trunk (9/50 [18.0%]), and head and neck (2/50 [4.0%]). The leg (6/8 [75.0%]) also was the most common site of involvement in the series by Pradhan et al,⁷ with 2 cases occurring on the arm. In the series by Hornick and Fletcher,⁴ the tumors typically involved the dermis and subcutaneous tissue (26/50 [52%]) with a smaller number involving skeletal muscle (17/50 [34%]) and bone (7/50 [14%]). They reported 66% of their patients (33/50) had multifocal disease at presentation.⁴ Pradhan et al⁷ also reported 2 (25.0%) cases being limited to the superficial soft tissue, 2 (25.0%) being limited to the deep soft tissue, and 4 (50.0%) involving the bone; 5 (62.5%) patients had multifocal disease at presentation. The presentation of our patient in regards to gender, age, and tumor characteristics is consistent with other published cases.^5-10

Histopathology
Microscopic features of PMHE include sheets of spindled to epithelioid-appearing cells with mild to moderate nuclear atypia and eosinophilic cytoplasm. The tumor has an infiltrative growth pattern. Some of the cells may resemble rhabdomyoblastlike cells, hence the moniker pseudomyogenic. There is no recapitulation of vascular structures or remarkable cytoplasmic vacuolization. Mitotic rate is low and there is no tumor necrosis.⁴ The tumor cells do not appear to arise from a vessel or display an angiocentric growth pattern. Many cases report the presence of an inflammatory infiltrate containing neutrophils interspersed within the tumor.^4,5,7 The overlying epidermis will commonly show hyperkeratosis, epidermal hyperplasia, and acanthosis.^4,11

Differential Diagnosis
The histopathologic differential diagnosis would include epithelioid sarcoma, epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, and to a lesser extent dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) and rhabdomyosarcoma. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is the most commonly encountered of these tumors. Histologically, DFSP is characterized by a cellular proliferation of small spindle cells with plump nuclei arranged in a storiform or cartwheel pattern. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans tends to be limited to the dermis and subcutaneous tissue and only rarely involves underlying skeletal muscle. The presence of the storiform growth pattern in conjunction with the lack of rhabdoid changes would favor a diagnosis of DFSP. Another characteristic histologic finding typically only associated with DFSP is the interdigitating growth pattern of the spindle cells within the lobules of the subcutaneous tissue, creating a lacelike or honeycomb appearance.

Immunohistochemistry staining is necessary to help differentiate PMHE from other tumors in the differential diagnosis. Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma stains positive for cytokeratin AE1/AE3; integrase interactor 1; and vascular markers FLI-1, CD31, and ERG, and negative for CD34.^4,6,12-15 In contrast to epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, DFSP, and to a lesser extent epithelioid sarcoma, all of which are positive for CD34, epithelioid sarcoma is negative for both CD31 and integrase interactor 1. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is negative for cytokeratin AE1/AE3. Rhabdomyosarcomas are positive for myogenic markers such as MyoD1 and myogenin, unlike any of the other tumors mentioned. Histologically, epithelioid sarcomas will tend to have a granulomalike growth pattern with central necrosis, unlike PMHE.¹² Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma often will have a cordlike growth pattern in a myxochondroid background. Unlike PMHE, these tumors often will appear to be arising from vessels, and intracytoplasmic vacuoles are common. Three cases of PMHE have been reported to have a t(7;19)(q22;q13) chromosomal anomaly, which is not consistent with every case.¹⁶

Treatment Options
Standard treatment typically includes wide excision of the lesions, as was done in our case. Because of the substantial risk of local recurrence, which was up to 58% in the series by Hornick and Fletcher,⁴ adjuvant therapy may be considered if positive margins are found on excision. Metastasis to lymph nodes and the lungs has been reported but is rare.^2,4 Most cases have been shown to have a favorable prognosis; however, local recurrence seems to be common. Rarely, amputation of the limb may be required.⁵ In contrast, epithelioid sarcomas have been found to spread to lymph nodes and the lungs in up to 50% of cases with a 5-year survival rate of 10% to 30%.¹³

Conclusion

In summary, we describe a case of PMHE involving the lower leg in a 20-year-old man. These tumors often are multinodular and multiplanar, with the dermis and subcutaneous tissues being the most common areas affected. It has a high rate of local recurrence but rarely has distant metastasis. Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma, similar to other soft tissue tumors, can be difficult to diagnose on shave biopsy or superficial punch biopsy not extending into subcutaneous tissue. Deep incisional or punch biopsies are required to more definitively diagnose these types of tumors. The diagnosis of PMHE versus other soft tissue tumors requires correlation of histology and immunohistochemistry staining with clinical information and radiographic findings.

Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma (PMHE), also referred to as epithelioid sarcoma–like hemangioendothelioma,¹ is a rare soft tissue tumor that was described in 1992 by Mirra et al² as a fibromalike variant of epithelioid sarcoma. It predominantly affects males between the second and fifth decades of life and most commonly presents as multiple nodules that may involve either the superficial or deep soft tissues of the legs and less often the arms. It also can arise on the trunk. We present a case of PMHE occurring in a young man and briefly review the literature on clinical presentation and histologic differentiation of this unique tumor, comparing these findings to its mimickers.

Case Report

A 20-year-old man presented with skin lesions on the left leg that had been present for 1 year. The patient described the lesions as tender pimples that would drain yellow discharge on occasion but had now transformed into large brown plaques. Physical examination showed 4 verrucous plaques ranging in size from 1 to 3 cm with hyperpigmentation and a central crust (Figure 1). Initially, the patient thought the lesions appeared due to shaving his legs for sports. He presented to the emergency department multiple times over the past year; pain control was provided and local skin care was recommended. Culture of the discharge had been performed 6 months prior to biopsy with negative results. No biopsy was performed on initial presentation and the lesions were diagnosed in the emergency department clinically as boils.

After failing to improve, the patient was seen by an outside dermatologist and the clinical differential diagnosis included deep fungal infection, atypical mycobacterial infection, and keloids. A 4-mm punch biopsy was taken from the periphery of one of the lesions and demonstrated hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, and acanthosis (Figure 2). Within the superficial and deep dermis and focally extending into the subcutaneous tissue, there were sheets of spindled to epithelioid-appearing cells with moderate cytologic atypia (Figure 3). The tumor showed infiltrative margins. There was moderate cellularity. The individual cells had a rhabdoid appearance with large eccentric vesicular nuclei, prominent nucleoli, and abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm (Figure 4). No definitive evidence of glandular, squamous, or vascular differentiation was present. There was an associated moderate inflammatory host response composed of neutrophils and lymphocytes. Occasional extravasated red blood cells were present. Immunohistochemistry staining was performed and the atypical cells demonstrated diffuse positive staining for friend leukemia integration 1 transcription factor (FLI-1), erythroblastosis virus E26 transforming sequence-related gene (ERG)(Figure 5), CD31, and CD68. There was patchy positive staining for cytokeratin AE1/AE3, CD10, and factor VIII. There was no remarkable staining for human herpesvirus 8, epithelial membrane antigen, S-100, CD34, cytokeratin 903, and desmin. Overall, the histologic features in conjunction with the immunohistochemistry staining were consistent with a diagnosis of PMHE.

Magnetic resonance imaging was then performed to evaluate the depth and extent of the lesions for surgical excision planning (Figure 6), which showed 5 nodular lesions within the dermis and subcutis adjacent to the proximal aspect of the left tibia and medial aspect of the left knee. An additional lesion was noted between the sartorius and semimembranosus muscles, which was thought to represent either a lymph node or an additional neoplastic lesion. Chest computed tomography also displayed indeterminate lesions in the lungs.

Excision of the superficial lesions was performed. All of the lesions demonstrated similar histologic changes to the previously described biopsy specimen. The tumor was limited to the dermis and subcutaneous tissue. The patient was lost to follow-up and the etiology of the lung lesions was unknown.

Comment

Nomenclature
Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma is a relatively new type of vascular tumor that has been included in the updated 2013 edition of the World Health Organization classification as an intermediate malignant tumor that rarely metastasizes.³ It typically involves multiple tissue planes, most notably the dermis and subcutaneous layers but also muscle and bone.⁴ The term pseudomyogenic refers to the histologic resemblance of some of the cells to rhabdomyoblasts; however, these tumors are negative for all immunohistochemical muscle markers, most notably myogenin, desmin, and α-smooth muscle actin.⁵

Clinical Presentation
Gross features of PMHE typically include multiple firm nodules with ill-defined margins. The tumor was initially described in 1992 by Mirra et al² as a fibromalike variant of epithelioid sarcoma. In 2003, a series of 7 cases of PMHE was reported by Billings et al⁶ under the term epithelioid sarcomalike hemangioendothelioma. Other than the predominance of an epithelioid morphology, the cases reported as epithelioid sarcomalike hemangioendothelioma had similar clinical features and immunophenotype to what has been reported as PMHE.

Based on a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma, the 2 largest case series were reported by Pradhan et al⁷ (N=8) in 2017 and Hornick and Fletcher⁴ (N=50) in 2011. Hornick and Fletcher⁴ reported a male (41/50 [82.0%]) to female (9/50 [18.0%]) ratio of 4.6 to 1, and an average age at presentation of 31 years with 82% (41/50) of patients 40 years or younger. Pradhan et al⁷ also reported a male predominance (7/8 [87.5%]) with a similar average age at presentation of 29 years (age range, 9–62 years). The size of individual tumors ranged from 0.3 to 5.5 cm (mean size, 1.9 cm) in the series by Hornick and Fletcher⁴ and 0.3 to 6.0 com in the series by Pradhan et al.⁷ Hornick and Fletcher⁴ reported the most common site of involvement was the leg (27/50 [54.0%]), followed by the arm (12/50 [24.0%]), trunk (9/50 [18.0%]), and head and neck (2/50 [4.0%]). The leg (6/8 [75.0%]) also was the most common site of involvement in the series by Pradhan et al,⁷ with 2 cases occurring on the arm. In the series by Hornick and Fletcher,⁴ the tumors typically involved the dermis and subcutaneous tissue (26/50 [52%]) with a smaller number involving skeletal muscle (17/50 [34%]) and bone (7/50 [14%]). They reported 66% of their patients (33/50) had multifocal disease at presentation.⁴ Pradhan et al⁷ also reported 2 (25.0%) cases being limited to the superficial soft tissue, 2 (25.0%) being limited to the deep soft tissue, and 4 (50.0%) involving the bone; 5 (62.5%) patients had multifocal disease at presentation. The presentation of our patient in regards to gender, age, and tumor characteristics is consistent with other published cases.^5-10

Histopathology
Microscopic features of PMHE include sheets of spindled to epithelioid-appearing cells with mild to moderate nuclear atypia and eosinophilic cytoplasm. The tumor has an infiltrative growth pattern. Some of the cells may resemble rhabdomyoblastlike cells, hence the moniker pseudomyogenic. There is no recapitulation of vascular structures or remarkable cytoplasmic vacuolization. Mitotic rate is low and there is no tumor necrosis.⁴ The tumor cells do not appear to arise from a vessel or display an angiocentric growth pattern. Many cases report the presence of an inflammatory infiltrate containing neutrophils interspersed within the tumor.^4,5,7 The overlying epidermis will commonly show hyperkeratosis, epidermal hyperplasia, and acanthosis.^4,11

Differential Diagnosis
The histopathologic differential diagnosis would include epithelioid sarcoma, epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, and to a lesser extent dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) and rhabdomyosarcoma. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is the most commonly encountered of these tumors. Histologically, DFSP is characterized by a cellular proliferation of small spindle cells with plump nuclei arranged in a storiform or cartwheel pattern. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans tends to be limited to the dermis and subcutaneous tissue and only rarely involves underlying skeletal muscle. The presence of the storiform growth pattern in conjunction with the lack of rhabdoid changes would favor a diagnosis of DFSP. Another characteristic histologic finding typically only associated with DFSP is the interdigitating growth pattern of the spindle cells within the lobules of the subcutaneous tissue, creating a lacelike or honeycomb appearance.

Immunohistochemistry staining is necessary to help differentiate PMHE from other tumors in the differential diagnosis. Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma stains positive for cytokeratin AE1/AE3; integrase interactor 1; and vascular markers FLI-1, CD31, and ERG, and negative for CD34.^4,6,12-15 In contrast to epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, DFSP, and to a lesser extent epithelioid sarcoma, all of which are positive for CD34, epithelioid sarcoma is negative for both CD31 and integrase interactor 1. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is negative for cytokeratin AE1/AE3. Rhabdomyosarcomas are positive for myogenic markers such as MyoD1 and myogenin, unlike any of the other tumors mentioned. Histologically, epithelioid sarcomas will tend to have a granulomalike growth pattern with central necrosis, unlike PMHE.¹² Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma often will have a cordlike growth pattern in a myxochondroid background. Unlike PMHE, these tumors often will appear to be arising from vessels, and intracytoplasmic vacuoles are common. Three cases of PMHE have been reported to have a t(7;19)(q22;q13) chromosomal anomaly, which is not consistent with every case.¹⁶

Treatment Options
Standard treatment typically includes wide excision of the lesions, as was done in our case. Because of the substantial risk of local recurrence, which was up to 58% in the series by Hornick and Fletcher,⁴ adjuvant therapy may be considered if positive margins are found on excision. Metastasis to lymph nodes and the lungs has been reported but is rare.^2,4 Most cases have been shown to have a favorable prognosis; however, local recurrence seems to be common. Rarely, amputation of the limb may be required.⁵ In contrast, epithelioid sarcomas have been found to spread to lymph nodes and the lungs in up to 50% of cases with a 5-year survival rate of 10% to 30%.¹³

Conclusion

In summary, we describe a case of PMHE involving the lower leg in a 20-year-old man. These tumors often are multinodular and multiplanar, with the dermis and subcutaneous tissues being the most common areas affected. It has a high rate of local recurrence but rarely has distant metastasis. Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma, similar to other soft tissue tumors, can be difficult to diagnose on shave biopsy or superficial punch biopsy not extending into subcutaneous tissue. Deep incisional or punch biopsies are required to more definitively diagnose these types of tumors. The diagnosis of PMHE versus other soft tissue tumors requires correlation of histology and immunohistochemistry staining with clinical information and radiographic findings.

Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma (PMHE), also referred to as epithelioid sarcoma–like hemangioendothelioma,¹ is a rare soft tissue tumor that was described in 1992 by Mirra et al² as a fibromalike variant of epithelioid sarcoma. It predominantly affects males between the second and fifth decades of life and most commonly presents as multiple nodules that may involve either the superficial or deep soft tissues of the legs and less often the arms. It also can arise on the trunk. We present a case of PMHE occurring in a young man and briefly review the literature on clinical presentation and histologic differentiation of this unique tumor, comparing these findings to its mimickers.

Case Report

A 20-year-old man presented with skin lesions on the left leg that had been present for 1 year. The patient described the lesions as tender pimples that would drain yellow discharge on occasion but had now transformed into large brown plaques. Physical examination showed 4 verrucous plaques ranging in size from 1 to 3 cm with hyperpigmentation and a central crust (Figure 1). Initially, the patient thought the lesions appeared due to shaving his legs for sports. He presented to the emergency department multiple times over the past year; pain control was provided and local skin care was recommended. Culture of the discharge had been performed 6 months prior to biopsy with negative results. No biopsy was performed on initial presentation and the lesions were diagnosed in the emergency department clinically as boils.

After failing to improve, the patient was seen by an outside dermatologist and the clinical differential diagnosis included deep fungal infection, atypical mycobacterial infection, and keloids. A 4-mm punch biopsy was taken from the periphery of one of the lesions and demonstrated hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, and acanthosis (Figure 2). Within the superficial and deep dermis and focally extending into the subcutaneous tissue, there were sheets of spindled to epithelioid-appearing cells with moderate cytologic atypia (Figure 3). The tumor showed infiltrative margins. There was moderate cellularity. The individual cells had a rhabdoid appearance with large eccentric vesicular nuclei, prominent nucleoli, and abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm (Figure 4). No definitive evidence of glandular, squamous, or vascular differentiation was present. There was an associated moderate inflammatory host response composed of neutrophils and lymphocytes. Occasional extravasated red blood cells were present. Immunohistochemistry staining was performed and the atypical cells demonstrated diffuse positive staining for friend leukemia integration 1 transcription factor (FLI-1), erythroblastosis virus E26 transforming sequence-related gene (ERG)(Figure 5), CD31, and CD68. There was patchy positive staining for cytokeratin AE1/AE3, CD10, and factor VIII. There was no remarkable staining for human herpesvirus 8, epithelial membrane antigen, S-100, CD34, cytokeratin 903, and desmin. Overall, the histologic features in conjunction with the immunohistochemistry staining were consistent with a diagnosis of PMHE.

Magnetic resonance imaging was then performed to evaluate the depth and extent of the lesions for surgical excision planning (Figure 6), which showed 5 nodular lesions within the dermis and subcutis adjacent to the proximal aspect of the left tibia and medial aspect of the left knee. An additional lesion was noted between the sartorius and semimembranosus muscles, which was thought to represent either a lymph node or an additional neoplastic lesion. Chest computed tomography also displayed indeterminate lesions in the lungs.

Excision of the superficial lesions was performed. All of the lesions demonstrated similar histologic changes to the previously described biopsy specimen. The tumor was limited to the dermis and subcutaneous tissue. The patient was lost to follow-up and the etiology of the lung lesions was unknown.

Comment

Nomenclature
Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma is a relatively new type of vascular tumor that has been included in the updated 2013 edition of the World Health Organization classification as an intermediate malignant tumor that rarely metastasizes.³ It typically involves multiple tissue planes, most notably the dermis and subcutaneous layers but also muscle and bone.⁴ The term pseudomyogenic refers to the histologic resemblance of some of the cells to rhabdomyoblasts; however, these tumors are negative for all immunohistochemical muscle markers, most notably myogenin, desmin, and α-smooth muscle actin.⁵

Clinical Presentation
Gross features of PMHE typically include multiple firm nodules with ill-defined margins. The tumor was initially described in 1992 by Mirra et al² as a fibromalike variant of epithelioid sarcoma. In 2003, a series of 7 cases of PMHE was reported by Billings et al⁶ under the term epithelioid sarcomalike hemangioendothelioma. Other than the predominance of an epithelioid morphology, the cases reported as epithelioid sarcomalike hemangioendothelioma had similar clinical features and immunophenotype to what has been reported as PMHE.

Based on a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma, the 2 largest case series were reported by Pradhan et al⁷ (N=8) in 2017 and Hornick and Fletcher⁴ (N=50) in 2011. Hornick and Fletcher⁴ reported a male (41/50 [82.0%]) to female (9/50 [18.0%]) ratio of 4.6 to 1, and an average age at presentation of 31 years with 82% (41/50) of patients 40 years or younger. Pradhan et al⁷ also reported a male predominance (7/8 [87.5%]) with a similar average age at presentation of 29 years (age range, 9–62 years). The size of individual tumors ranged from 0.3 to 5.5 cm (mean size, 1.9 cm) in the series by Hornick and Fletcher⁴ and 0.3 to 6.0 com in the series by Pradhan et al.⁷ Hornick and Fletcher⁴ reported the most common site of involvement was the leg (27/50 [54.0%]), followed by the arm (12/50 [24.0%]), trunk (9/50 [18.0%]), and head and neck (2/50 [4.0%]). The leg (6/8 [75.0%]) also was the most common site of involvement in the series by Pradhan et al,⁷ with 2 cases occurring on the arm. In the series by Hornick and Fletcher,⁴ the tumors typically involved the dermis and subcutaneous tissue (26/50 [52%]) with a smaller number involving skeletal muscle (17/50 [34%]) and bone (7/50 [14%]). They reported 66% of their patients (33/50) had multifocal disease at presentation.⁴ Pradhan et al⁷ also reported 2 (25.0%) cases being limited to the superficial soft tissue, 2 (25.0%) being limited to the deep soft tissue, and 4 (50.0%) involving the bone; 5 (62.5%) patients had multifocal disease at presentation. The presentation of our patient in regards to gender, age, and tumor characteristics is consistent with other published cases.^5-10

Histopathology
Microscopic features of PMHE include sheets of spindled to epithelioid-appearing cells with mild to moderate nuclear atypia and eosinophilic cytoplasm. The tumor has an infiltrative growth pattern. Some of the cells may resemble rhabdomyoblastlike cells, hence the moniker pseudomyogenic. There is no recapitulation of vascular structures or remarkable cytoplasmic vacuolization. Mitotic rate is low and there is no tumor necrosis.⁴ The tumor cells do not appear to arise from a vessel or display an angiocentric growth pattern. Many cases report the presence of an inflammatory infiltrate containing neutrophils interspersed within the tumor.^4,5,7 The overlying epidermis will commonly show hyperkeratosis, epidermal hyperplasia, and acanthosis.^4,11

Differential Diagnosis
The histopathologic differential diagnosis would include epithelioid sarcoma, epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, and to a lesser extent dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) and rhabdomyosarcoma. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is the most commonly encountered of these tumors. Histologically, DFSP is characterized by a cellular proliferation of small spindle cells with plump nuclei arranged in a storiform or cartwheel pattern. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans tends to be limited to the dermis and subcutaneous tissue and only rarely involves underlying skeletal muscle. The presence of the storiform growth pattern in conjunction with the lack of rhabdoid changes would favor a diagnosis of DFSP. Another characteristic histologic finding typically only associated with DFSP is the interdigitating growth pattern of the spindle cells within the lobules of the subcutaneous tissue, creating a lacelike or honeycomb appearance.

Immunohistochemistry staining is necessary to help differentiate PMHE from other tumors in the differential diagnosis. Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma stains positive for cytokeratin AE1/AE3; integrase interactor 1; and vascular markers FLI-1, CD31, and ERG, and negative for CD34.^4,6,12-15 In contrast to epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, DFSP, and to a lesser extent epithelioid sarcoma, all of which are positive for CD34, epithelioid sarcoma is negative for both CD31 and integrase interactor 1. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans is negative for cytokeratin AE1/AE3. Rhabdomyosarcomas are positive for myogenic markers such as MyoD1 and myogenin, unlike any of the other tumors mentioned. Histologically, epithelioid sarcomas will tend to have a granulomalike growth pattern with central necrosis, unlike PMHE.¹² Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma often will have a cordlike growth pattern in a myxochondroid background. Unlike PMHE, these tumors often will appear to be arising from vessels, and intracytoplasmic vacuoles are common. Three cases of PMHE have been reported to have a t(7;19)(q22;q13) chromosomal anomaly, which is not consistent with every case.¹⁶

Treatment Options
Standard treatment typically includes wide excision of the lesions, as was done in our case. Because of the substantial risk of local recurrence, which was up to 58% in the series by Hornick and Fletcher,⁴ adjuvant therapy may be considered if positive margins are found on excision. Metastasis to lymph nodes and the lungs has been reported but is rare.^2,4 Most cases have been shown to have a favorable prognosis; however, local recurrence seems to be common. Rarely, amputation of the limb may be required.⁵ In contrast, epithelioid sarcomas have been found to spread to lymph nodes and the lungs in up to 50% of cases with a 5-year survival rate of 10% to 30%.¹³

Conclusion

In summary, we describe a case of PMHE involving the lower leg in a 20-year-old man. These tumors often are multinodular and multiplanar, with the dermis and subcutaneous tissues being the most common areas affected. It has a high rate of local recurrence but rarely has distant metastasis. Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma, similar to other soft tissue tumors, can be difficult to diagnose on shave biopsy or superficial punch biopsy not extending into subcutaneous tissue. Deep incisional or punch biopsies are required to more definitively diagnose these types of tumors. The diagnosis of PMHE versus other soft tissue tumors requires correlation of histology and immunohistochemistry staining with clinical information and radiographic findings.