Lichenoid Drug Eruption Secondary to Apalutamide Treatment

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 11/05/2024 - 09:25
Display Headline
Lichenoid Drug Eruption Secondary to Apalutamide Treatment

To the Editor:

Lichenoid drug eruptions are lichen planus–like hypersensitivity reactions induced by medications. These reactions are rare but cause irritation to the skin, as extreme pruritus is common. One review of 300 consecutive cases of drug eruptions submitted to dermatopathology revealed that 12% of cases were classified as lichenoid drug reactions.1 Lichenoid dermatitis is characterized by extremely pruritic, scaly, eczematous or psoriasiform papules, often along the extensor surfaces and trunk.2 The pruritic nature of the rash can negatively impact quality of life. Treatment typically involves discontinuation of the offending medication, although complete resolution can take months, even after the drug is stopped. Although there have been some data suggesting that topical and/or oral corticosteroids can help with resolution, the rash can persist even with steroid treatment.2

The histopathologic findings of lichenoid drug eruptions show lichen planus–like changes such as hyperkeratosis, irregular acanthosis, and lichenoid interface dermatitis. Accordingly, idiopathic lichen planus is an important differential diagnosis for lichenoid drug eruptions; however, compared to idiopathic lichen planus, lichenoid drug eruptions are more likely to be associated with eosinophils and parakeratosis.1,3 In some cases, the histopathologic distinction between the 2 conditions is impossible, and clinical history needs to be considered to make a diagnosis.1 Drugs known to cause lichenoid drug reactions more commonly include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta blockers, thiazides, gold, penicillamine, and antimalarials.2 Lichenoid drug eruptions also have been documented in patients taking the second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist enzalutamide, which is used for the treatment of prostate cancer.4 More recently, the newer second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist apalutamide has been implicated in several cases of lichenoid drug eruptions.5,6

We present a case of an apalutamide-induced lichenoid drug eruption that was resistant to dose reduction and required discontinuation of treatment due to the negative impact on the patient’s quality of life. Once the rash resolved, the patient transitioned to enzalutamide without any adverse events (AEs).

A 72-year-old man with a history of metastatic prostate cancer (stage IVB) presented to the dermatology clinic with a 4-month history of a dry itchy rash on the face, chest, back, and legs that had developed 2 to 3 months after oncology started him on apalutamide. The patient initially received apalutamide 240 mg/d, which was reduced by his oncologist 3 months later to 180 mg/d following the appearance of the rash. Then apalutamide was held as he awaited improvement of the rash.

One week after the apalutamide was held, the patient presented to dermatology. He reported that he had tried over-the-counter ammonium lactate 12% lotion twice daily when the rash first developed without improvement. When the apalutamide was held, oncology prescribed mupirocin ointment 2% 3 times daily which yielded minimal relief. On physical examination, widespread lichenified papules and plaques were noted on the face, chest, back, and legs (Figure 1). Dermatology initially prescribed triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily. A 4-mm punch biopsy specimen of the upper back revealed a lichenoid interface dermatitis with numerous eosinophils compatible with a lichenoid hypersensitivity reaction (Figure 2). Considering the clinical and histologic findings, a diagnosis of lichenoid drug eruption secondary to apalutamide treatment was made.

FIGURE 1. A and B, The patient presented with lichenified papules and plaques on the chest and back.

FIGURE 2. A and B, The 4-mm punch biopsy revealed a lichenoid interface dermatitis (H&E, original magnification ×40) with numerous dermal eosinophils in the lichenoid inflammatory infiltrate (H&E, original magnification ×200).


Two weeks after discontinuation of the medication, the rash improved, and the patient restarted apalutamide at a dosage of 120 mg/d; however, the rash re-emerged within 1 month and was resistant to the triamcinolone ointment 0.1%. Apalutamide was again discontinued, and oncology switched the patient to enzalutamide 160 mg/d in an effort to find a medication the patient could better tolerate. Two months after starting enzalutamide, the patient had resolution of the rash and no further dermatologic complications.

Apalutamide is a second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist used in the treatment of nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC).7 It stops the spread and growth of prostate cancer cells by several different mechanisms, including competitively binding androgen receptors, preventing 5α-dihydrotestosterone from binding to androgen receptors, blocking androgen receptor nuclear translocation, impairing co-activator recruitment, and restraining androgen receptor DNA binding.7 The SPARTAN and TITAN phase 3 clinical trials demonstrated increased overall survival and time to progression with apalutamide in both nonmetastatic CRPC and metastatic CSPC. In both trials, the rash was shown to be an AE more commonly associated with apalutamide than placebo.8,9

Until recently, the characteristics of apalutamide-induced drug rashes have not been well described. One literature review reported 6 cases of cutaneous apalutamide-induced drug eruptions.5 Four (66.7%) of these eruptions were maculopapular rashes, only 2 of which were histologically classified as lichenoid in nature. The other 2 eruptions were classified as toxic epidermal necrosis.5 Another study of 303 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with apalutamide recorded the frequency and time to onset of dermatologic AEs.6 Seventy-one (23.4%) of the patients had dermatologic AEs, and of those, only 20 (28.2%) had AEs that resulted in interruptions in apalutamide therapy (with only 5 [25.0%] requiring medication discontinuation). Thirty-two (45.1%) patients were managed with topical or oral corticosteroids or dose modification. In this study, histopathology was examined in 8 cases (one of which had 2 biopsies for a total of 9 biopsies), 7 of which were consistent with lichenoid interface dermatitis.6

Lichenoid interface dermatitis is a rare manifestation of an apalutamide-induced drug eruption and also has been reported secondary to treatment with enzalutamide, another second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist.4 Enzalutamide was the first second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of prostate cancer. It originally was approved only for metastatic CRPC after docetaxel therapy in 2012, then later was expanded to metastatic and nonmetastatic CRPC in 2012 and 2018, respectively, as well as metastatic CSPC in 2019.7 Because enzalutamide is from the same medication class as apalutamide and has been on the market longer for the treatment of nonmetastatic CRPC and metastatic CSPC, it is not surprising that similar drug eruptions now are being reported secondary to apalutamide use as well.

It is important for providers to consider lichenoid drug eruptions in the differential diagnosis of pruritic rashes in patients taking second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonists such as apalutamide or enzalutamide. Although dose reduction or treatment discontinuation have been the standard of care for patients with extremely pruritic lichenoid drug eruptions secondary to these medications, these are not ideal because they are important for cancer treatment. Interestingly, after our patient’s apalutamide-induced rash resolved and he was switched to enzalutamide, he did not develop any AEs. Based on our patient’s experience, physicians could consider switching their patients to another drug of the same class, as they may be able tolerate that medication. More research is needed to determine how commonly patients tolerate a different second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist after not tolerating another medication from the same class.

References
  1. Weyers W, Metze D. Histopathology of drug eruptions—general criteria, common patterns, and differential diagnosis. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2011;1:33-47. doi:10.5826/dpc.0101a09
  2. Cheraghlou S, Levy LL. Fixed drug eruption, bullous drug eruptions, and lichenoid drug eruptions. Clin Dermatol. 2020;38:679-692. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2020.06.010
  3. Thompson DF, Skaehill PA. Drug-induced lichen planus. Pharmacotherapy. 1994;14:561-571.
  4. Khan S, Saizan AL, O’Brien K, et al. Diffuse hyperpigmented lichenoid drug eruption secondary to enzalutamide. Curr Probl Cancer Case Rep. 2022;5:100135. doi:10.1016/j.cpccr.2021.100135
  5. Katayama H, Saeki H, Osada S-I. Maculopapular drug eruption caused by apalutamide: case report and review of the literature. J Nippon Med Sch. 2022;89:550-554. doi:10.1272/jnms.JNMS.2022_89-503
  6. Pan A, Reingold RE, Zhao JL, et al. Dermatologic adverse events in prostate cancer patients treated with the androgen receptor inhibitor apalutamide. J Urol. 2022;207:1010-1019. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002425
  7. Rajaram P, Rivera A, Muthima K, et al. Second-generation androgen receptor antagonists as hormonal therapeutics for three forms of prostate cancer. Molecules. 2020;25:2448. doi:10.3390/molecules25102448
  8. Smith MR, Saad F, Chowdhury S, et al. Apalutamide treatment and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1408-1418. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1715546
  9. Chi KN, Agarwal N, Bjartell A, et al. Apalutamide for metastatic, castration-sensative prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:13-24. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1903307
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Madelyn M. Class is from the Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Drs. McCoy, Hafeez, and Westheim are from the Department of Dermatology, St. Luke’s University Health Network, Easton, Pennsylvania.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures to report.

Correspondence: Madelyn M. Class, BS, Department of Dermatology, St. Luke’s University Health Network, 1600 St. Luke’s Blvd, Easton, PA 18045 (madelyn.class@temple.edu).

Cutis. 2024 October;114(4):E29-E31. doi:10.12788/cutis.1133

Publications
Topics
Page Number
E29-E31
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Madelyn M. Class is from the Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Drs. McCoy, Hafeez, and Westheim are from the Department of Dermatology, St. Luke’s University Health Network, Easton, Pennsylvania.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures to report.

Correspondence: Madelyn M. Class, BS, Department of Dermatology, St. Luke’s University Health Network, 1600 St. Luke’s Blvd, Easton, PA 18045 (madelyn.class@temple.edu).

Cutis. 2024 October;114(4):E29-E31. doi:10.12788/cutis.1133

Author and Disclosure Information

Madelyn M. Class is from the Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Drs. McCoy, Hafeez, and Westheim are from the Department of Dermatology, St. Luke’s University Health Network, Easton, Pennsylvania.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures to report.

Correspondence: Madelyn M. Class, BS, Department of Dermatology, St. Luke’s University Health Network, 1600 St. Luke’s Blvd, Easton, PA 18045 (madelyn.class@temple.edu).

Cutis. 2024 October;114(4):E29-E31. doi:10.12788/cutis.1133

Article PDF
Article PDF

To the Editor:

Lichenoid drug eruptions are lichen planus–like hypersensitivity reactions induced by medications. These reactions are rare but cause irritation to the skin, as extreme pruritus is common. One review of 300 consecutive cases of drug eruptions submitted to dermatopathology revealed that 12% of cases were classified as lichenoid drug reactions.1 Lichenoid dermatitis is characterized by extremely pruritic, scaly, eczematous or psoriasiform papules, often along the extensor surfaces and trunk.2 The pruritic nature of the rash can negatively impact quality of life. Treatment typically involves discontinuation of the offending medication, although complete resolution can take months, even after the drug is stopped. Although there have been some data suggesting that topical and/or oral corticosteroids can help with resolution, the rash can persist even with steroid treatment.2

The histopathologic findings of lichenoid drug eruptions show lichen planus–like changes such as hyperkeratosis, irregular acanthosis, and lichenoid interface dermatitis. Accordingly, idiopathic lichen planus is an important differential diagnosis for lichenoid drug eruptions; however, compared to idiopathic lichen planus, lichenoid drug eruptions are more likely to be associated with eosinophils and parakeratosis.1,3 In some cases, the histopathologic distinction between the 2 conditions is impossible, and clinical history needs to be considered to make a diagnosis.1 Drugs known to cause lichenoid drug reactions more commonly include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta blockers, thiazides, gold, penicillamine, and antimalarials.2 Lichenoid drug eruptions also have been documented in patients taking the second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist enzalutamide, which is used for the treatment of prostate cancer.4 More recently, the newer second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist apalutamide has been implicated in several cases of lichenoid drug eruptions.5,6

We present a case of an apalutamide-induced lichenoid drug eruption that was resistant to dose reduction and required discontinuation of treatment due to the negative impact on the patient’s quality of life. Once the rash resolved, the patient transitioned to enzalutamide without any adverse events (AEs).

A 72-year-old man with a history of metastatic prostate cancer (stage IVB) presented to the dermatology clinic with a 4-month history of a dry itchy rash on the face, chest, back, and legs that had developed 2 to 3 months after oncology started him on apalutamide. The patient initially received apalutamide 240 mg/d, which was reduced by his oncologist 3 months later to 180 mg/d following the appearance of the rash. Then apalutamide was held as he awaited improvement of the rash.

One week after the apalutamide was held, the patient presented to dermatology. He reported that he had tried over-the-counter ammonium lactate 12% lotion twice daily when the rash first developed without improvement. When the apalutamide was held, oncology prescribed mupirocin ointment 2% 3 times daily which yielded minimal relief. On physical examination, widespread lichenified papules and plaques were noted on the face, chest, back, and legs (Figure 1). Dermatology initially prescribed triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily. A 4-mm punch biopsy specimen of the upper back revealed a lichenoid interface dermatitis with numerous eosinophils compatible with a lichenoid hypersensitivity reaction (Figure 2). Considering the clinical and histologic findings, a diagnosis of lichenoid drug eruption secondary to apalutamide treatment was made.

FIGURE 1. A and B, The patient presented with lichenified papules and plaques on the chest and back.

FIGURE 2. A and B, The 4-mm punch biopsy revealed a lichenoid interface dermatitis (H&E, original magnification ×40) with numerous dermal eosinophils in the lichenoid inflammatory infiltrate (H&E, original magnification ×200).


Two weeks after discontinuation of the medication, the rash improved, and the patient restarted apalutamide at a dosage of 120 mg/d; however, the rash re-emerged within 1 month and was resistant to the triamcinolone ointment 0.1%. Apalutamide was again discontinued, and oncology switched the patient to enzalutamide 160 mg/d in an effort to find a medication the patient could better tolerate. Two months after starting enzalutamide, the patient had resolution of the rash and no further dermatologic complications.

Apalutamide is a second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist used in the treatment of nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC).7 It stops the spread and growth of prostate cancer cells by several different mechanisms, including competitively binding androgen receptors, preventing 5α-dihydrotestosterone from binding to androgen receptors, blocking androgen receptor nuclear translocation, impairing co-activator recruitment, and restraining androgen receptor DNA binding.7 The SPARTAN and TITAN phase 3 clinical trials demonstrated increased overall survival and time to progression with apalutamide in both nonmetastatic CRPC and metastatic CSPC. In both trials, the rash was shown to be an AE more commonly associated with apalutamide than placebo.8,9

Until recently, the characteristics of apalutamide-induced drug rashes have not been well described. One literature review reported 6 cases of cutaneous apalutamide-induced drug eruptions.5 Four (66.7%) of these eruptions were maculopapular rashes, only 2 of which were histologically classified as lichenoid in nature. The other 2 eruptions were classified as toxic epidermal necrosis.5 Another study of 303 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with apalutamide recorded the frequency and time to onset of dermatologic AEs.6 Seventy-one (23.4%) of the patients had dermatologic AEs, and of those, only 20 (28.2%) had AEs that resulted in interruptions in apalutamide therapy (with only 5 [25.0%] requiring medication discontinuation). Thirty-two (45.1%) patients were managed with topical or oral corticosteroids or dose modification. In this study, histopathology was examined in 8 cases (one of which had 2 biopsies for a total of 9 biopsies), 7 of which were consistent with lichenoid interface dermatitis.6

Lichenoid interface dermatitis is a rare manifestation of an apalutamide-induced drug eruption and also has been reported secondary to treatment with enzalutamide, another second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist.4 Enzalutamide was the first second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of prostate cancer. It originally was approved only for metastatic CRPC after docetaxel therapy in 2012, then later was expanded to metastatic and nonmetastatic CRPC in 2012 and 2018, respectively, as well as metastatic CSPC in 2019.7 Because enzalutamide is from the same medication class as apalutamide and has been on the market longer for the treatment of nonmetastatic CRPC and metastatic CSPC, it is not surprising that similar drug eruptions now are being reported secondary to apalutamide use as well.

It is important for providers to consider lichenoid drug eruptions in the differential diagnosis of pruritic rashes in patients taking second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonists such as apalutamide or enzalutamide. Although dose reduction or treatment discontinuation have been the standard of care for patients with extremely pruritic lichenoid drug eruptions secondary to these medications, these are not ideal because they are important for cancer treatment. Interestingly, after our patient’s apalutamide-induced rash resolved and he was switched to enzalutamide, he did not develop any AEs. Based on our patient’s experience, physicians could consider switching their patients to another drug of the same class, as they may be able tolerate that medication. More research is needed to determine how commonly patients tolerate a different second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist after not tolerating another medication from the same class.

To the Editor:

Lichenoid drug eruptions are lichen planus–like hypersensitivity reactions induced by medications. These reactions are rare but cause irritation to the skin, as extreme pruritus is common. One review of 300 consecutive cases of drug eruptions submitted to dermatopathology revealed that 12% of cases were classified as lichenoid drug reactions.1 Lichenoid dermatitis is characterized by extremely pruritic, scaly, eczematous or psoriasiform papules, often along the extensor surfaces and trunk.2 The pruritic nature of the rash can negatively impact quality of life. Treatment typically involves discontinuation of the offending medication, although complete resolution can take months, even after the drug is stopped. Although there have been some data suggesting that topical and/or oral corticosteroids can help with resolution, the rash can persist even with steroid treatment.2

The histopathologic findings of lichenoid drug eruptions show lichen planus–like changes such as hyperkeratosis, irregular acanthosis, and lichenoid interface dermatitis. Accordingly, idiopathic lichen planus is an important differential diagnosis for lichenoid drug eruptions; however, compared to idiopathic lichen planus, lichenoid drug eruptions are more likely to be associated with eosinophils and parakeratosis.1,3 In some cases, the histopathologic distinction between the 2 conditions is impossible, and clinical history needs to be considered to make a diagnosis.1 Drugs known to cause lichenoid drug reactions more commonly include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta blockers, thiazides, gold, penicillamine, and antimalarials.2 Lichenoid drug eruptions also have been documented in patients taking the second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist enzalutamide, which is used for the treatment of prostate cancer.4 More recently, the newer second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist apalutamide has been implicated in several cases of lichenoid drug eruptions.5,6

We present a case of an apalutamide-induced lichenoid drug eruption that was resistant to dose reduction and required discontinuation of treatment due to the negative impact on the patient’s quality of life. Once the rash resolved, the patient transitioned to enzalutamide without any adverse events (AEs).

A 72-year-old man with a history of metastatic prostate cancer (stage IVB) presented to the dermatology clinic with a 4-month history of a dry itchy rash on the face, chest, back, and legs that had developed 2 to 3 months after oncology started him on apalutamide. The patient initially received apalutamide 240 mg/d, which was reduced by his oncologist 3 months later to 180 mg/d following the appearance of the rash. Then apalutamide was held as he awaited improvement of the rash.

One week after the apalutamide was held, the patient presented to dermatology. He reported that he had tried over-the-counter ammonium lactate 12% lotion twice daily when the rash first developed without improvement. When the apalutamide was held, oncology prescribed mupirocin ointment 2% 3 times daily which yielded minimal relief. On physical examination, widespread lichenified papules and plaques were noted on the face, chest, back, and legs (Figure 1). Dermatology initially prescribed triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily. A 4-mm punch biopsy specimen of the upper back revealed a lichenoid interface dermatitis with numerous eosinophils compatible with a lichenoid hypersensitivity reaction (Figure 2). Considering the clinical and histologic findings, a diagnosis of lichenoid drug eruption secondary to apalutamide treatment was made.

FIGURE 1. A and B, The patient presented with lichenified papules and plaques on the chest and back.

FIGURE 2. A and B, The 4-mm punch biopsy revealed a lichenoid interface dermatitis (H&E, original magnification ×40) with numerous dermal eosinophils in the lichenoid inflammatory infiltrate (H&E, original magnification ×200).


Two weeks after discontinuation of the medication, the rash improved, and the patient restarted apalutamide at a dosage of 120 mg/d; however, the rash re-emerged within 1 month and was resistant to the triamcinolone ointment 0.1%. Apalutamide was again discontinued, and oncology switched the patient to enzalutamide 160 mg/d in an effort to find a medication the patient could better tolerate. Two months after starting enzalutamide, the patient had resolution of the rash and no further dermatologic complications.

Apalutamide is a second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist used in the treatment of nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC).7 It stops the spread and growth of prostate cancer cells by several different mechanisms, including competitively binding androgen receptors, preventing 5α-dihydrotestosterone from binding to androgen receptors, blocking androgen receptor nuclear translocation, impairing co-activator recruitment, and restraining androgen receptor DNA binding.7 The SPARTAN and TITAN phase 3 clinical trials demonstrated increased overall survival and time to progression with apalutamide in both nonmetastatic CRPC and metastatic CSPC. In both trials, the rash was shown to be an AE more commonly associated with apalutamide than placebo.8,9

Until recently, the characteristics of apalutamide-induced drug rashes have not been well described. One literature review reported 6 cases of cutaneous apalutamide-induced drug eruptions.5 Four (66.7%) of these eruptions were maculopapular rashes, only 2 of which were histologically classified as lichenoid in nature. The other 2 eruptions were classified as toxic epidermal necrosis.5 Another study of 303 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with apalutamide recorded the frequency and time to onset of dermatologic AEs.6 Seventy-one (23.4%) of the patients had dermatologic AEs, and of those, only 20 (28.2%) had AEs that resulted in interruptions in apalutamide therapy (with only 5 [25.0%] requiring medication discontinuation). Thirty-two (45.1%) patients were managed with topical or oral corticosteroids or dose modification. In this study, histopathology was examined in 8 cases (one of which had 2 biopsies for a total of 9 biopsies), 7 of which were consistent with lichenoid interface dermatitis.6

Lichenoid interface dermatitis is a rare manifestation of an apalutamide-induced drug eruption and also has been reported secondary to treatment with enzalutamide, another second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist.4 Enzalutamide was the first second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of prostate cancer. It originally was approved only for metastatic CRPC after docetaxel therapy in 2012, then later was expanded to metastatic and nonmetastatic CRPC in 2012 and 2018, respectively, as well as metastatic CSPC in 2019.7 Because enzalutamide is from the same medication class as apalutamide and has been on the market longer for the treatment of nonmetastatic CRPC and metastatic CSPC, it is not surprising that similar drug eruptions now are being reported secondary to apalutamide use as well.

It is important for providers to consider lichenoid drug eruptions in the differential diagnosis of pruritic rashes in patients taking second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonists such as apalutamide or enzalutamide. Although dose reduction or treatment discontinuation have been the standard of care for patients with extremely pruritic lichenoid drug eruptions secondary to these medications, these are not ideal because they are important for cancer treatment. Interestingly, after our patient’s apalutamide-induced rash resolved and he was switched to enzalutamide, he did not develop any AEs. Based on our patient’s experience, physicians could consider switching their patients to another drug of the same class, as they may be able tolerate that medication. More research is needed to determine how commonly patients tolerate a different second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist after not tolerating another medication from the same class.

References
  1. Weyers W, Metze D. Histopathology of drug eruptions—general criteria, common patterns, and differential diagnosis. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2011;1:33-47. doi:10.5826/dpc.0101a09
  2. Cheraghlou S, Levy LL. Fixed drug eruption, bullous drug eruptions, and lichenoid drug eruptions. Clin Dermatol. 2020;38:679-692. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2020.06.010
  3. Thompson DF, Skaehill PA. Drug-induced lichen planus. Pharmacotherapy. 1994;14:561-571.
  4. Khan S, Saizan AL, O’Brien K, et al. Diffuse hyperpigmented lichenoid drug eruption secondary to enzalutamide. Curr Probl Cancer Case Rep. 2022;5:100135. doi:10.1016/j.cpccr.2021.100135
  5. Katayama H, Saeki H, Osada S-I. Maculopapular drug eruption caused by apalutamide: case report and review of the literature. J Nippon Med Sch. 2022;89:550-554. doi:10.1272/jnms.JNMS.2022_89-503
  6. Pan A, Reingold RE, Zhao JL, et al. Dermatologic adverse events in prostate cancer patients treated with the androgen receptor inhibitor apalutamide. J Urol. 2022;207:1010-1019. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002425
  7. Rajaram P, Rivera A, Muthima K, et al. Second-generation androgen receptor antagonists as hormonal therapeutics for three forms of prostate cancer. Molecules. 2020;25:2448. doi:10.3390/molecules25102448
  8. Smith MR, Saad F, Chowdhury S, et al. Apalutamide treatment and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1408-1418. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1715546
  9. Chi KN, Agarwal N, Bjartell A, et al. Apalutamide for metastatic, castration-sensative prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:13-24. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1903307
References
  1. Weyers W, Metze D. Histopathology of drug eruptions—general criteria, common patterns, and differential diagnosis. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2011;1:33-47. doi:10.5826/dpc.0101a09
  2. Cheraghlou S, Levy LL. Fixed drug eruption, bullous drug eruptions, and lichenoid drug eruptions. Clin Dermatol. 2020;38:679-692. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2020.06.010
  3. Thompson DF, Skaehill PA. Drug-induced lichen planus. Pharmacotherapy. 1994;14:561-571.
  4. Khan S, Saizan AL, O’Brien K, et al. Diffuse hyperpigmented lichenoid drug eruption secondary to enzalutamide. Curr Probl Cancer Case Rep. 2022;5:100135. doi:10.1016/j.cpccr.2021.100135
  5. Katayama H, Saeki H, Osada S-I. Maculopapular drug eruption caused by apalutamide: case report and review of the literature. J Nippon Med Sch. 2022;89:550-554. doi:10.1272/jnms.JNMS.2022_89-503
  6. Pan A, Reingold RE, Zhao JL, et al. Dermatologic adverse events in prostate cancer patients treated with the androgen receptor inhibitor apalutamide. J Urol. 2022;207:1010-1019. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002425
  7. Rajaram P, Rivera A, Muthima K, et al. Second-generation androgen receptor antagonists as hormonal therapeutics for three forms of prostate cancer. Molecules. 2020;25:2448. doi:10.3390/molecules25102448
  8. Smith MR, Saad F, Chowdhury S, et al. Apalutamide treatment and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1408-1418. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1715546
  9. Chi KN, Agarwal N, Bjartell A, et al. Apalutamide for metastatic, castration-sensative prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:13-24. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1903307
Page Number
E29-E31
Page Number
E29-E31
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Lichenoid Drug Eruption Secondary to Apalutamide Treatment
Display Headline
Lichenoid Drug Eruption Secondary to Apalutamide Treatment
Sections
Inside the Article

Practice Points

  • Although it is rare, patients can develop lichenoid drug eruptions secondary to treatment with second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonists such as apalutamide.
  • If a patient develops a lichenoid drug eruption while taking a specific second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor antagonist, the entire class of medications should not be ruled out, as some patients can tolerate other drugs from that class.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media

Periorbital Orange Spots

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/19/2023 - 06:53
Display Headline
Periorbital Orange Spots

The Diagnosis: Orange Palpebral Spots

The clinical presentation of our patient was consistent with a diagnosis of orange palpebral spots (OPSs), an uncommon discoloration that most often appears in White patients in the fifth or sixth decades of life. Orange palpebral spots were first described in 2008 by Assouly et al1 in 27 patients (23 females and 4 males). In 2015, Belliveau et al2 expanded the designation to yellow-orange palpebral spots because they felt the term more fully expressed the color variations depicted in their patients; however, this term more frequently is used in ophthalmology.

Orange palpebral spots commonly appear as asymptomatic, yellow-orange, symmetric lesions with a predilection for the recessed areas of the superior eyelids but also can present on the canthi and inferior eyelids. The discolorations are more easily visible on fair skin and have been reported to measure from 10 to 15 mm in the long axis.3 Assouly et al1 described the orange spots as having indistinct margins, with borders similar to “sand on a sea shore.” Orange palpebral spots can be a persistent discoloration, and there are no reports of spontaneous regression. No known association with malignancy or systemic illness has been reported.

Case reports of OPSs describe histologic similarities between specimens, including increased adipose tissue and pigment-laden macrophages in the superficial dermis.2 The pigmented deposits sometimes may be found in the basal keratinocytes of the epidermis and turn black with Fontana-Masson stain.1 No inflammatory infiltrates, necrosis, or xanthomization are characteristically found. Stains for iron, mucin, and amyloid also have been negative.2

The cause of pigmentation in OPSs is unknown; however, lipofuscin deposits and high-situated adipocytes in the reticular dermis colored by carotenoids have been proposed as possible mechanisms.1 No unifying cause for pigmentation in the serum (eg, cholesterol, triglycerides, thyroid-stimulating hormone, free retinol, vitamin E, carotenoids) was found in 11 of 27 patients with OPSs assessed by Assouly et al.1 In one case, lipofuscin, a degradation product of lysosomes, was detected by microscopic autofluorescence in the superficial dermis. However, lipofuscin typically is a breakdown product associated with aging, and OPSs have been present in patients as young as 28 years.1 Local trauma related to eye rubbing is another theory that has been proposed due to the finding of melanin in the superficial dermis. However, the absence of hemosiderin deposits as well as the extensive duration of the discolorations makes local trauma a less likely explanation for the etiology of OPSs.2

The clinical differential diagnosis for OPSs includes xanthelasma, jaundice, and carotenoderma. Xanthelasma presents as elevated yellow plaques usually found over the medial aspect of the eyes. In contrast, OPSs are nonelevated with both orange and yellow hues typically present. Histologic samples of xanthelasma are characterized by lipid-laden macrophages (foam cells) in the dermis in contrast to the adipose tissue seen in OPSs that has not been phagocytized.1,2 The lack of scleral icterus made jaundice an unlikely diagnosis in our patient. Bilirubin elevations substantial enough to cause skin discoloration also would be expected to discolor the conjunctiva. In carotenoderma, carotenoids are deposited in the sweat and sebum of the stratum corneum with the orange pigmentation most prominent in regions of increased sweating such as the palms, soles, and nasolabial folds.4 Our patient’s lack of discoloration in places other than the periorbital region made carotenoderma less likely.

In the study by Assouly et al,1 10 of 11 patients who underwent laboratory analysis self-reported eating a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, though no standardized questionnaire was given. One patient was found to have an elevated vitamin E level, and in 5 cases there was an elevated level of β-cryptoxanthin. The significance of these elevations in such a small minority is unknown, and increased β-cryptoxanthin has been attributed to increased consumption of citrus fruits during the winter season. Our patient reported ingesting a daily oral supplement rich in carotenoids that constituted 60% of the daily value of vitamin E including mixed tocopherols as well as 90% of the daily value of vitamin A with many sources of carotenoids including beta-carotenes, lutein/zeaxanthin, lycopene, and astaxanthin. An invasive biopsy was not taken in this case, as OPSs largely are diagnosed clinically. Greater awareness and recognition of OPSs may help to identify common underlying causes for this unique diagnosis.

References
  1. Assouly P, Cavelier-Balloy B, Dupré T. Orange palpebral spots. Dermatology. 2008;216:166-170.
  2. Belliveau MJ, Odashiro AN, Harvey JT. Yellow-orange palpebral spots. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:2139-2140.
  3. Kluger N, Guillot B. Bilateral orange discoloration of the upper eyelids: a quiz. Acta Derm Venereol. 2011;91:211-212.
  4. Maharshak N, Shapiro J, Trau H. Carotenoderma—a review of the current literature. Int J Dermatol. 2003;42:178-181.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond. Dr. Venna also is from the Inova Schar Melanoma and Skin Cancer Center, Fairfax, Virginia.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Kelly McCoy, MD, 8081 Innovation Park Dr, 5th Floor, Chesapeake Clinic, Fairfax, VA 22031 (mccoyk@vcu.edu).

Issue
Cutis - 111(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E2-E3
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

From the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond. Dr. Venna also is from the Inova Schar Melanoma and Skin Cancer Center, Fairfax, Virginia.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Kelly McCoy, MD, 8081 Innovation Park Dr, 5th Floor, Chesapeake Clinic, Fairfax, VA 22031 (mccoyk@vcu.edu).

Author and Disclosure Information

From the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond. Dr. Venna also is from the Inova Schar Melanoma and Skin Cancer Center, Fairfax, Virginia.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Kelly McCoy, MD, 8081 Innovation Park Dr, 5th Floor, Chesapeake Clinic, Fairfax, VA 22031 (mccoyk@vcu.edu).

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

The Diagnosis: Orange Palpebral Spots

The clinical presentation of our patient was consistent with a diagnosis of orange palpebral spots (OPSs), an uncommon discoloration that most often appears in White patients in the fifth or sixth decades of life. Orange palpebral spots were first described in 2008 by Assouly et al1 in 27 patients (23 females and 4 males). In 2015, Belliveau et al2 expanded the designation to yellow-orange palpebral spots because they felt the term more fully expressed the color variations depicted in their patients; however, this term more frequently is used in ophthalmology.

Orange palpebral spots commonly appear as asymptomatic, yellow-orange, symmetric lesions with a predilection for the recessed areas of the superior eyelids but also can present on the canthi and inferior eyelids. The discolorations are more easily visible on fair skin and have been reported to measure from 10 to 15 mm in the long axis.3 Assouly et al1 described the orange spots as having indistinct margins, with borders similar to “sand on a sea shore.” Orange palpebral spots can be a persistent discoloration, and there are no reports of spontaneous regression. No known association with malignancy or systemic illness has been reported.

Case reports of OPSs describe histologic similarities between specimens, including increased adipose tissue and pigment-laden macrophages in the superficial dermis.2 The pigmented deposits sometimes may be found in the basal keratinocytes of the epidermis and turn black with Fontana-Masson stain.1 No inflammatory infiltrates, necrosis, or xanthomization are characteristically found. Stains for iron, mucin, and amyloid also have been negative.2

The cause of pigmentation in OPSs is unknown; however, lipofuscin deposits and high-situated adipocytes in the reticular dermis colored by carotenoids have been proposed as possible mechanisms.1 No unifying cause for pigmentation in the serum (eg, cholesterol, triglycerides, thyroid-stimulating hormone, free retinol, vitamin E, carotenoids) was found in 11 of 27 patients with OPSs assessed by Assouly et al.1 In one case, lipofuscin, a degradation product of lysosomes, was detected by microscopic autofluorescence in the superficial dermis. However, lipofuscin typically is a breakdown product associated with aging, and OPSs have been present in patients as young as 28 years.1 Local trauma related to eye rubbing is another theory that has been proposed due to the finding of melanin in the superficial dermis. However, the absence of hemosiderin deposits as well as the extensive duration of the discolorations makes local trauma a less likely explanation for the etiology of OPSs.2

The clinical differential diagnosis for OPSs includes xanthelasma, jaundice, and carotenoderma. Xanthelasma presents as elevated yellow plaques usually found over the medial aspect of the eyes. In contrast, OPSs are nonelevated with both orange and yellow hues typically present. Histologic samples of xanthelasma are characterized by lipid-laden macrophages (foam cells) in the dermis in contrast to the adipose tissue seen in OPSs that has not been phagocytized.1,2 The lack of scleral icterus made jaundice an unlikely diagnosis in our patient. Bilirubin elevations substantial enough to cause skin discoloration also would be expected to discolor the conjunctiva. In carotenoderma, carotenoids are deposited in the sweat and sebum of the stratum corneum with the orange pigmentation most prominent in regions of increased sweating such as the palms, soles, and nasolabial folds.4 Our patient’s lack of discoloration in places other than the periorbital region made carotenoderma less likely.

In the study by Assouly et al,1 10 of 11 patients who underwent laboratory analysis self-reported eating a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, though no standardized questionnaire was given. One patient was found to have an elevated vitamin E level, and in 5 cases there was an elevated level of β-cryptoxanthin. The significance of these elevations in such a small minority is unknown, and increased β-cryptoxanthin has been attributed to increased consumption of citrus fruits during the winter season. Our patient reported ingesting a daily oral supplement rich in carotenoids that constituted 60% of the daily value of vitamin E including mixed tocopherols as well as 90% of the daily value of vitamin A with many sources of carotenoids including beta-carotenes, lutein/zeaxanthin, lycopene, and astaxanthin. An invasive biopsy was not taken in this case, as OPSs largely are diagnosed clinically. Greater awareness and recognition of OPSs may help to identify common underlying causes for this unique diagnosis.

The Diagnosis: Orange Palpebral Spots

The clinical presentation of our patient was consistent with a diagnosis of orange palpebral spots (OPSs), an uncommon discoloration that most often appears in White patients in the fifth or sixth decades of life. Orange palpebral spots were first described in 2008 by Assouly et al1 in 27 patients (23 females and 4 males). In 2015, Belliveau et al2 expanded the designation to yellow-orange palpebral spots because they felt the term more fully expressed the color variations depicted in their patients; however, this term more frequently is used in ophthalmology.

Orange palpebral spots commonly appear as asymptomatic, yellow-orange, symmetric lesions with a predilection for the recessed areas of the superior eyelids but also can present on the canthi and inferior eyelids. The discolorations are more easily visible on fair skin and have been reported to measure from 10 to 15 mm in the long axis.3 Assouly et al1 described the orange spots as having indistinct margins, with borders similar to “sand on a sea shore.” Orange palpebral spots can be a persistent discoloration, and there are no reports of spontaneous regression. No known association with malignancy or systemic illness has been reported.

Case reports of OPSs describe histologic similarities between specimens, including increased adipose tissue and pigment-laden macrophages in the superficial dermis.2 The pigmented deposits sometimes may be found in the basal keratinocytes of the epidermis and turn black with Fontana-Masson stain.1 No inflammatory infiltrates, necrosis, or xanthomization are characteristically found. Stains for iron, mucin, and amyloid also have been negative.2

The cause of pigmentation in OPSs is unknown; however, lipofuscin deposits and high-situated adipocytes in the reticular dermis colored by carotenoids have been proposed as possible mechanisms.1 No unifying cause for pigmentation in the serum (eg, cholesterol, triglycerides, thyroid-stimulating hormone, free retinol, vitamin E, carotenoids) was found in 11 of 27 patients with OPSs assessed by Assouly et al.1 In one case, lipofuscin, a degradation product of lysosomes, was detected by microscopic autofluorescence in the superficial dermis. However, lipofuscin typically is a breakdown product associated with aging, and OPSs have been present in patients as young as 28 years.1 Local trauma related to eye rubbing is another theory that has been proposed due to the finding of melanin in the superficial dermis. However, the absence of hemosiderin deposits as well as the extensive duration of the discolorations makes local trauma a less likely explanation for the etiology of OPSs.2

The clinical differential diagnosis for OPSs includes xanthelasma, jaundice, and carotenoderma. Xanthelasma presents as elevated yellow plaques usually found over the medial aspect of the eyes. In contrast, OPSs are nonelevated with both orange and yellow hues typically present. Histologic samples of xanthelasma are characterized by lipid-laden macrophages (foam cells) in the dermis in contrast to the adipose tissue seen in OPSs that has not been phagocytized.1,2 The lack of scleral icterus made jaundice an unlikely diagnosis in our patient. Bilirubin elevations substantial enough to cause skin discoloration also would be expected to discolor the conjunctiva. In carotenoderma, carotenoids are deposited in the sweat and sebum of the stratum corneum with the orange pigmentation most prominent in regions of increased sweating such as the palms, soles, and nasolabial folds.4 Our patient’s lack of discoloration in places other than the periorbital region made carotenoderma less likely.

In the study by Assouly et al,1 10 of 11 patients who underwent laboratory analysis self-reported eating a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, though no standardized questionnaire was given. One patient was found to have an elevated vitamin E level, and in 5 cases there was an elevated level of β-cryptoxanthin. The significance of these elevations in such a small minority is unknown, and increased β-cryptoxanthin has been attributed to increased consumption of citrus fruits during the winter season. Our patient reported ingesting a daily oral supplement rich in carotenoids that constituted 60% of the daily value of vitamin E including mixed tocopherols as well as 90% of the daily value of vitamin A with many sources of carotenoids including beta-carotenes, lutein/zeaxanthin, lycopene, and astaxanthin. An invasive biopsy was not taken in this case, as OPSs largely are diagnosed clinically. Greater awareness and recognition of OPSs may help to identify common underlying causes for this unique diagnosis.

References
  1. Assouly P, Cavelier-Balloy B, Dupré T. Orange palpebral spots. Dermatology. 2008;216:166-170.
  2. Belliveau MJ, Odashiro AN, Harvey JT. Yellow-orange palpebral spots. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:2139-2140.
  3. Kluger N, Guillot B. Bilateral orange discoloration of the upper eyelids: a quiz. Acta Derm Venereol. 2011;91:211-212.
  4. Maharshak N, Shapiro J, Trau H. Carotenoderma—a review of the current literature. Int J Dermatol. 2003;42:178-181.
References
  1. Assouly P, Cavelier-Balloy B, Dupré T. Orange palpebral spots. Dermatology. 2008;216:166-170.
  2. Belliveau MJ, Odashiro AN, Harvey JT. Yellow-orange palpebral spots. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:2139-2140.
  3. Kluger N, Guillot B. Bilateral orange discoloration of the upper eyelids: a quiz. Acta Derm Venereol. 2011;91:211-212.
  4. Maharshak N, Shapiro J, Trau H. Carotenoderma—a review of the current literature. Int J Dermatol. 2003;42:178-181.
Issue
Cutis - 111(2)
Issue
Cutis - 111(2)
Page Number
E2-E3
Page Number
E2-E3
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Periorbital Orange Spots
Display Headline
Periorbital Orange Spots
Sections
Questionnaire Body

A 63-year-old White man with a history of melanoma presented to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of gradually worsening yellow discoloration around the eyes of 2 years’ duration. Physical examination revealed periorbital yellow-orange patches (top). The discolorations were nonelevated and nonpalpable. Dermoscopy revealed yellow blotches with sparing of the hair follicles (bottom). The remainder of the skin examination was unremarkable.

Periorbital orange spots

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Mon, 02/06/2023 - 14:00
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 02/06/2023 - 14:00
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 02/06/2023 - 14:00
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media