Lehman, Julia S.

Abstract Background Reactive granulomatous dermatitis (RGD) is an umbrella term used to describe interstitial granulomatous dermatitis (IGD), palisaded neutrophilic and granulomatous dermatitis (PNGD), and interstitial granulomatous drug eruption (IGDR). Objective The aim of this study was to describe systemic associations of RGD, explore possible associations between histopathologic findings and systemic RGD associations and determine clinical relevance of RGD subtypes. Methods We retrospectively studied clinical and histopathologic characteristics of patients with RGD from 1990 through 2020. Results Of 65 patients with RGD (41 women, 24 men; median age at diagnosis, 62 years), 37 had IGD, 26 had PNGD, and 2 had IGDR. Fifty patients (76.9%) had an associated systemic condition; rheumatologic conditions were identified for 34 (52.3%) patients. The associated systemic condition occurred before RGD in approximately 75% of patients. Statistical analyses did not show significant associations between specific subtypes of RGD and systemic diseases or treatment response, and specific histopathologic findings were not predictive of an associated systemic disease. Conclusions Although most patients with RGD had an associated systemic condition, subtypes of RGD did not correlate with systemic associations, lending support to the use of the umbrella term RGD .

Psoriasiform dermatoses represent a wide array of skin diseases commonly encountered by clinicians and pathologists. While they may present a diagnostic challenge, thorough observation coupled with proper interpretation of subtle additional clinical or histopathologic features provide clues to the correct diagnosis. In this review, we provide updates on emerging entities and develop a systemic approach to establish the pathologic diagnosis, with emphasis on the importance of clinicopathologic correlation.

AbstractBackgroundThe reliability to non‐invasively identify features of inflammatory dermatoses by reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) remains unknown. Lack of formal training among RCM readers can result in inconsistent assessments, limiting clinical utility. Specific consensus terminology with representative images is necessary to ensure consistent feature‐level interpretation among RCM readers.Objectives(1) Develop a glossary with representative images of RCM features of cutaneous acute graft‐versus‐host disease (aGVHD) for consistent interpretation among observers, (2) assess the interobserver reproducibility among RCM readers using the glossary, and (3) determine the concordance between RCM and histopathology for aGVHD features.MethodsThrough an iterative process of refinement and discussion among five international RCM experts, we developed a glossary with representative images of RCM features of aGVHD. From April to November 2018, patients suspected of aGVHD were imaged with RCM and subsequently biopsied. 17 lesions from 12 patients had clinically and pathologically confirmed cutaneous aGVHD. For each of these lesions, four dermatopathologists and four RCM readers independently evaluated the presence of aGVHD features in scanned histopathology slides and 1.5 × 1.5 mm RCM submosaics at 4 depths (blockstacks) respectively. RCM cases were adjudicated by a fifth RCM expert. Interobserver reproducibility was calculated by mean pairwise difference (U statistic). Concordance between modalities was determined by fraction of assignments with agreement.ResultsWe present a glossary with representative images of 18 aGVHD features by RCM. The average interobserver reproducibility among RCM readers (75%, confidence interval, CI: 71–79%) did not differ significantly from dermatopathologists (80%, 76–85%). The concordance between RCM and histopathology was 59%.ConclusionsBy using the glossary, the interobserver reproducibility among RCM readers was similar to the interobserver reproducibility among dermatopathologists. There was reasonable concordance between RCM and histopathology to visualize aGVHD features. The implementation of RCM can now be advanced in a variety of inflammatory conditions with a validated glossary and representative image set.

AbstractBackgroundOral lichen planus confers a 1% risk of transformation to oral squamous cell carcinoma. While prior exome sequencing studies have identified multiple genetic mutations in oral squamous cell carcinoma, mutational analyses of lichen planus‐derived OSCC are lacking. We sought to clarify genomic events associated with oral lichen planus transformation.MethodsUsing rigorous diagnostic criteria, we retrospectively identified patients with non‐transforming oral lichen planus (i.e., known to be non‐transforming with 5 years of clinical follow‐up; n = 17), transforming oral lichen planus (tissue marginal to oral squamous cell carcinoma, n = 9), or oral squamous cell carcinoma arising in lichen planus (n = 17). Gene mutational profiles derived from whole‐exome sequencing on fixed mucosal specimens were compared among the groups.ResultsThe four most frequently mutated genes in transforming oral lichen planus and oral squamous cell carcinoma (TP53, CELSR1, CASP8, and KMT2D) identified 12/17 (71%) of oral squamous cell carcinomas and 5/9 (56%) of transforming oral lichen planus but were absent in non‐transforming oral lichen planus. We identified other known oral squamous cell carcinoma mutations (TRRAP, OBSCN, and LRP2) but also previously unreported mutations (TENM3 and ASH1L) in lichen planus‐associated oral squamous cell carcinomas.ConclusionsThese findings suggest alterations in DNA damage response and apoptosis pathways underlie lichen planus‐related oral squamous cell carcinoma transformation and are supported by mutational signatures indicative of DNA damage. This study characterized patterns of mutational events present in oral lichen planus associated with squamous cell carcinoma and in squamous cell carcinoma associated with oral lichen planus but not in non‐transforming oral lichen planus.

AbstractBackgroundUnderstanding whether specific histopathologic features on skin biopsy are predictive of systemic associations in dermatomyositis (DM) would be useful to guide clinical screening.MethodsThrough retrospective medical record search, clinical and laboratory findings of patients with DM were documented. Existing skin biopsy slides were re‐reviewed blindly.ResultsOf all biopsy specimens (n = 42), the most frequent histopathological finding was vacuolar interface dermatitis (95%). Other features included perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate (71%), increased dermal mucin (40%), vessel wall thickening (12%), follicular plugging (9.5%), and dermal sclerosis (7%). Neutrophilic infiltrate was observed in three biopsies from a patient with adalimumab‐associated DM. Vasculitis was not observed. There was no statistically significant difference in the presence of any histopathological feature and that of various systemic manifestations (i.e., myopathy, interstitial lung disease [ILD] and malignancy). However, we observed that dense lichenoid infiltrate rather than pauci‐inflammatory changes correlated with severe itching (p < 0.001). Patients with MDA‐5 antibodies were significantly more likely to have vasculopathy than those without (p = 0.029*).ConclusionsNo dermatopathologic feature was reliably predictive of myopathy, ILD, or malignancy. This finding implies that, regardless of histopathologic findings, patients should be screened for associated conditions as clinically indicated.

AbstractBackgroundCertain autoimmune bullous dermatoses are mediated by autoantibodies of the IgG4 subclass. We determined the diagnostic impact of adding IgG4 to our conventional direct immunofluorescence (DIF) panel.MethodsFor all cases submitted to our referral laboratory for DIF over 1 month (n = 630), we performed IgG4 testing and collected consecutive biopsy specimens showing definite or indeterminate linear or cell‐surface deposition of IgG, IgG4, and/or C3. On retrospective blinded review, we classified the pattern and whether the findings were definite, indeterminate, or negative. When present, substantial background staining was recorded.ResultsSeventy DIF specimens met the inclusion criteria. Of 22 (31.4%) specimens equivocal for linear or cell‐surface deposition, 9 (40.9%) had definitive IgG4 findings, either linear (3 of 14 equivocal linear cases; 21.4%) or cell‐surface (6 of 8 equivocal cell‐surface cases; 75.0%). Background deposition was substantial in 14 cases (20.0%) for IgG but in none for C3 or IgG4.ConclusionIgG4 allowed the classification of over 40% of DIF cases that were otherwise equivocal by IgG and C3. IgG4 staining showed lower levels of non‐specific background staining than IgG or C3. IgG4 appears to contribute most value in cases with cell‐surface deposition or with equivocal linear IgG deposition and negative C3 results.

AbstractBackgroundCalciphylaxis is a debilitating dermatological condition associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Palliative care offers a multidisciplinary approach to addressing symptoms and goals of care in patients with serious medical diagnoses. Involvement of palliative services for calciphylaxis is infrequently reported in the literature. The purpose of this report is to assess rates of palliative and pain consultation for patients with calciphylaxis.MethodsThis is a comprehensive, single‐institution retrospective chart review of 121 eligible patients with a diagnosis of calciphylaxis treated at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from 1999 to 2016. Inclusion criteria were an indisputable diagnosis of calciphylaxis based on clinical, histopathologic, and radiographic features. One hundred twenty‐one patients met inclusion criteria.ResultsFifty‐one patients (42%) received either a palliative (n = 15) or pain (n = 20) consultation, or both (n = 16). Patients with a palliative care consultation were younger compared with those without (mean ages 57 vs. 62 years, P = 0.046). In 104 patients (86%), psychiatric symptoms were not assessed.ConclusionsIn this cohort of patients with calciphylaxis, the majority do not receive palliative and pain care consultations. Psychiatric complications are inconsistently addressed. These observations highlight practice gaps in the care of patients with calciphylaxis.