Anna De Benedetto, MD

To the Editor:

An otherwise healthy 26-year-old man presented to our outpatient clinic with a 15- to 20-mm, shiny, friable-appearing, red umbilical nodule with clear malodorous discharge (Figure 1). The lesion developed 2 weeks prior and gradually increased in size and discomfort. The patient reported mild associated abdominal pain. He had no fever, changes in urination or bowel movements, or prior history of umbilical growths or drainage. The abdomen was tender to palpation.

Differential diagnoses included pyogenic granuloma, umbilical hernia, epidermoid cyst or abscess, and malignancy (low suspicion). A biopsy was not performed due to concern for bleeding or communication with the bowel. A complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, and urinalysis were unremarkable except for mild leukocytosis and elevated C-reactive protein. Ultrasonography revealed a 1.4×1.3-cm inflammatory umbilical mass with no communication with the bowel. The patient was referred to the emergency department (ED) for further evaluation. Computed tomography (CT) revealed periumbilical inflammation and an associated 1-cm calcification that appeared to be connected to a potential tract from the bladder, suggestive of a urachal remnant calcification (Figure 2). The patient was diagnosed with a persistent urachal remnant, discharged home with ciprofloxacin, and scheduled for a follow-up with urology.

The patient returned to the ED 3 days later with painful umbilical bleeding (Figure 3). While there, the patient extracted a 1-cm stone from the lesion, consistent with the calcification visualized on CT scan. Computed tomographic virtual cystoscopy showed no connection between the bladder and umbilicus. He was diagnosed with an umbilical-urachal sinus. Complete surgical excision was recommended and performed by urology without complication.

We report an unusual presentation of a symptomatic urachal remnant in an adult. During embryogenesis, the urachus connects the umbilicus to the developing bladder and normally involutes during development. Incomplete regression can cause rare pathological urachal anomalies. The clinical presentation is nonspecific and differs between children and adults, with most cases presenting during infancy or childhood.¹ Pediatric urachal abnormalities often present with umbilical drainage, abdominal pain, a palpable mass, an abnormal appearance of the umbilicus, or urinary tract infections.^2,3 In adults, the most common symptoms include hematuria, pain, or dysuria. Alternatively, they may be asympomatic³ or present with periumbilical dermatitis⁴ or abscess. Rodrigues and Gandhi⁵ reported another case of a symptomatic calculus formed within a urachal remnant. Calcifications in urachal remnants are rare and usually are reported as incidental radiologic findings.

Overall, visible umbilical masses occur infrequently. In addition to urachal anomalies, the differential diagnosis includes several benign and malignant pathologies. Benign causes include epidermoid cysts, foreign body granulomas, pyogenic granulomas, abscesses, hamartomas, nevi, hemangiomas, dermatofibromas, neurofibromas, lipomas, granular cell tumors, desmoid tumors, keloid scars, omphaliths, hernias, or omphalomesenteric duct remnants.⁶ Primary malignancies (eg, skin cancers, urachal adenocarcinoma, mesenchymal tumors) or metastasis (ie, Sister Mary Joseph nodule) also can present as umbilical nodules.

The wide range of clinical presentations of urachal anomalies combined with the rarity make diagnosis difficult. Thus, it is essential to have a high index of suspicion and awareness of how they can present. Ultrasonography and CT scan are useful tools in making the diagnosis. Urachal anomalies are prone to infection or can be associated with malignancy; therefore, timely and correct diagnosis is critical. Although surgical removal is the primary treatment for urachal anomalies, it may not be the primary treatment of the other entities included in the differential diagnosis of umbilical nodules. For example, the Sister Mary Joseph nodule can be associated with various primary malignancies, which should be treated accordingly.

To the Editor:

An otherwise healthy 26-year-old man presented to our outpatient clinic with a 15- to 20-mm, shiny, friable-appearing, red umbilical nodule with clear malodorous discharge (Figure 1). The lesion developed 2 weeks prior and gradually increased in size and discomfort. The patient reported mild associated abdominal pain. He had no fever, changes in urination or bowel movements, or prior history of umbilical growths or drainage. The abdomen was tender to palpation.

Differential diagnoses included pyogenic granuloma, umbilical hernia, epidermoid cyst or abscess, and malignancy (low suspicion). A biopsy was not performed due to concern for bleeding or communication with the bowel. A complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, and urinalysis were unremarkable except for mild leukocytosis and elevated C-reactive protein. Ultrasonography revealed a 1.4×1.3-cm inflammatory umbilical mass with no communication with the bowel. The patient was referred to the emergency department (ED) for further evaluation. Computed tomography (CT) revealed periumbilical inflammation and an associated 1-cm calcification that appeared to be connected to a potential tract from the bladder, suggestive of a urachal remnant calcification (Figure 2). The patient was diagnosed with a persistent urachal remnant, discharged home with ciprofloxacin, and scheduled for a follow-up with urology.

The patient returned to the ED 3 days later with painful umbilical bleeding (Figure 3). While there, the patient extracted a 1-cm stone from the lesion, consistent with the calcification visualized on CT scan. Computed tomographic virtual cystoscopy showed no connection between the bladder and umbilicus. He was diagnosed with an umbilical-urachal sinus. Complete surgical excision was recommended and performed by urology without complication.

We report an unusual presentation of a symptomatic urachal remnant in an adult. During embryogenesis, the urachus connects the umbilicus to the developing bladder and normally involutes during development. Incomplete regression can cause rare pathological urachal anomalies. The clinical presentation is nonspecific and differs between children and adults, with most cases presenting during infancy or childhood.¹ Pediatric urachal abnormalities often present with umbilical drainage, abdominal pain, a palpable mass, an abnormal appearance of the umbilicus, or urinary tract infections.^2,3 In adults, the most common symptoms include hematuria, pain, or dysuria. Alternatively, they may be asympomatic³ or present with periumbilical dermatitis⁴ or abscess. Rodrigues and Gandhi⁵ reported another case of a symptomatic calculus formed within a urachal remnant. Calcifications in urachal remnants are rare and usually are reported as incidental radiologic findings.

Overall, visible umbilical masses occur infrequently. In addition to urachal anomalies, the differential diagnosis includes several benign and malignant pathologies. Benign causes include epidermoid cysts, foreign body granulomas, pyogenic granulomas, abscesses, hamartomas, nevi, hemangiomas, dermatofibromas, neurofibromas, lipomas, granular cell tumors, desmoid tumors, keloid scars, omphaliths, hernias, or omphalomesenteric duct remnants.⁶ Primary malignancies (eg, skin cancers, urachal adenocarcinoma, mesenchymal tumors) or metastasis (ie, Sister Mary Joseph nodule) also can present as umbilical nodules.

The wide range of clinical presentations of urachal anomalies combined with the rarity make diagnosis difficult. Thus, it is essential to have a high index of suspicion and awareness of how they can present. Ultrasonography and CT scan are useful tools in making the diagnosis. Urachal anomalies are prone to infection or can be associated with malignancy; therefore, timely and correct diagnosis is critical. Although surgical removal is the primary treatment for urachal anomalies, it may not be the primary treatment of the other entities included in the differential diagnosis of umbilical nodules. For example, the Sister Mary Joseph nodule can be associated with various primary malignancies, which should be treated accordingly.

To the Editor:

An otherwise healthy 26-year-old man presented to our outpatient clinic with a 15- to 20-mm, shiny, friable-appearing, red umbilical nodule with clear malodorous discharge (Figure 1). The lesion developed 2 weeks prior and gradually increased in size and discomfort. The patient reported mild associated abdominal pain. He had no fever, changes in urination or bowel movements, or prior history of umbilical growths or drainage. The abdomen was tender to palpation.

Differential diagnoses included pyogenic granuloma, umbilical hernia, epidermoid cyst or abscess, and malignancy (low suspicion). A biopsy was not performed due to concern for bleeding or communication with the bowel. A complete blood cell count, comprehensive metabolic panel, and urinalysis were unremarkable except for mild leukocytosis and elevated C-reactive protein. Ultrasonography revealed a 1.4×1.3-cm inflammatory umbilical mass with no communication with the bowel. The patient was referred to the emergency department (ED) for further evaluation. Computed tomography (CT) revealed periumbilical inflammation and an associated 1-cm calcification that appeared to be connected to a potential tract from the bladder, suggestive of a urachal remnant calcification (Figure 2). The patient was diagnosed with a persistent urachal remnant, discharged home with ciprofloxacin, and scheduled for a follow-up with urology.

The patient returned to the ED 3 days later with painful umbilical bleeding (Figure 3). While there, the patient extracted a 1-cm stone from the lesion, consistent with the calcification visualized on CT scan. Computed tomographic virtual cystoscopy showed no connection between the bladder and umbilicus. He was diagnosed with an umbilical-urachal sinus. Complete surgical excision was recommended and performed by urology without complication.

We report an unusual presentation of a symptomatic urachal remnant in an adult. During embryogenesis, the urachus connects the umbilicus to the developing bladder and normally involutes during development. Incomplete regression can cause rare pathological urachal anomalies. The clinical presentation is nonspecific and differs between children and adults, with most cases presenting during infancy or childhood.¹ Pediatric urachal abnormalities often present with umbilical drainage, abdominal pain, a palpable mass, an abnormal appearance of the umbilicus, or urinary tract infections.^2,3 In adults, the most common symptoms include hematuria, pain, or dysuria. Alternatively, they may be asympomatic³ or present with periumbilical dermatitis⁴ or abscess. Rodrigues and Gandhi⁵ reported another case of a symptomatic calculus formed within a urachal remnant. Calcifications in urachal remnants are rare and usually are reported as incidental radiologic findings.

Overall, visible umbilical masses occur infrequently. In addition to urachal anomalies, the differential diagnosis includes several benign and malignant pathologies. Benign causes include epidermoid cysts, foreign body granulomas, pyogenic granulomas, abscesses, hamartomas, nevi, hemangiomas, dermatofibromas, neurofibromas, lipomas, granular cell tumors, desmoid tumors, keloid scars, omphaliths, hernias, or omphalomesenteric duct remnants.⁶ Primary malignancies (eg, skin cancers, urachal adenocarcinoma, mesenchymal tumors) or metastasis (ie, Sister Mary Joseph nodule) also can present as umbilical nodules.

The wide range of clinical presentations of urachal anomalies combined with the rarity make diagnosis difficult. Thus, it is essential to have a high index of suspicion and awareness of how they can present. Ultrasonography and CT scan are useful tools in making the diagnosis. Urachal anomalies are prone to infection or can be associated with malignancy; therefore, timely and correct diagnosis is critical. Although surgical removal is the primary treatment for urachal anomalies, it may not be the primary treatment of the other entities included in the differential diagnosis of umbilical nodules. For example, the Sister Mary Joseph nodule can be associated with various primary malignancies, which should be treated accordingly.

To the Editor:

The use of sunless tanners has become an alternative for individuals who wish to have tan skin without exposure to UV radiation.¹ We present a case of a patient who experienced persistent hyperpigmented patches on the hands months after the use of a sunless tanner containing dihydroxyacetone (DHA), a carbohydrate that reacts with amino acids in the stratum corneum to produce pigments called melanoidins. The hyperpigmentation caused by DHA is due to the Maillard reaction, which is the nonenzymatic glycation of amino groups of proteins by the carbonyl groups of sugar.² Many sunless tanners contain DHA at varying concentrations. Dermatologists should be aware of the benefits and potential side effects of these alternative products so that they can appropriately counsel patients.

A 20-year-old woman with no history of skin disease presented for evaluation of hyperpigmented patches on the dorsal hands of several months’ duration. Physical examination revealed ill-defined hyperpigmented patches on the dorsal fingers without associated scale or erythema (Figure 1). She had a remote history of Hodgkin lymphoma treated with chemotherapy and was in remission for 5 years prior to the current presentation. Her hematologists referred her to dermatology for evaluation, as they did not believe the patches could be related to her chemotherapy given that she had completed the treatment years before.

Products with DHA only confer a sun protection factor of approximately 3⁴; although patients may appear tan, they have no actual decreased risk for sunburn after use. Reports have shown that the use of sunless tanners containing DHA can alter the appearance of melanocytic lesions clinically and has caused pseudochromhidrosis on the palms.^3,5,6 A study performed on a human keratinocyte cell line, HaCaT, showed that DHA can induce DNA damage, cell-cycle block, and apoptosis.⁷ In addition, as described in our case, patients may experience prolonged hyperpigmentation after use.

This case demonstrates the potential for persistent hyperpigmentation months after the use of sunless tanners containing DHA. Asking patients specific questions regarding their history of tanning product use is essential in identifying the pathology. Although a skin biopsy may not be strictly indicated, it may aid diagnosis, especially when the history is unclear. As more dermatologists support the use of sunless tanner, we must be aware of this possible outcome, especially on more cosmetically sensitive areas such as the fingers in this patient. Clinicians should be aware that the US Food and Drug Administration recommends avoiding contact with mucous membranes when applying products containing DHA and also recommends use of a test spot prior to treating the entire body with the product.⁸ Patients must not only be educated on the benefits of using sunless tanners but on the potential side effects with use of these products as well.

To the Editor:

The use of sunless tanners has become an alternative for individuals who wish to have tan skin without exposure to UV radiation.¹ We present a case of a patient who experienced persistent hyperpigmented patches on the hands months after the use of a sunless tanner containing dihydroxyacetone (DHA), a carbohydrate that reacts with amino acids in the stratum corneum to produce pigments called melanoidins. The hyperpigmentation caused by DHA is due to the Maillard reaction, which is the nonenzymatic glycation of amino groups of proteins by the carbonyl groups of sugar.² Many sunless tanners contain DHA at varying concentrations. Dermatologists should be aware of the benefits and potential side effects of these alternative products so that they can appropriately counsel patients.

A 20-year-old woman with no history of skin disease presented for evaluation of hyperpigmented patches on the dorsal hands of several months’ duration. Physical examination revealed ill-defined hyperpigmented patches on the dorsal fingers without associated scale or erythema (Figure 1). She had a remote history of Hodgkin lymphoma treated with chemotherapy and was in remission for 5 years prior to the current presentation. Her hematologists referred her to dermatology for evaluation, as they did not believe the patches could be related to her chemotherapy given that she had completed the treatment years before.

Products with DHA only confer a sun protection factor of approximately 3⁴; although patients may appear tan, they have no actual decreased risk for sunburn after use. Reports have shown that the use of sunless tanners containing DHA can alter the appearance of melanocytic lesions clinically and has caused pseudochromhidrosis on the palms.^3,5,6 A study performed on a human keratinocyte cell line, HaCaT, showed that DHA can induce DNA damage, cell-cycle block, and apoptosis.⁷ In addition, as described in our case, patients may experience prolonged hyperpigmentation after use.

This case demonstrates the potential for persistent hyperpigmentation months after the use of sunless tanners containing DHA. Asking patients specific questions regarding their history of tanning product use is essential in identifying the pathology. Although a skin biopsy may not be strictly indicated, it may aid diagnosis, especially when the history is unclear. As more dermatologists support the use of sunless tanner, we must be aware of this possible outcome, especially on more cosmetically sensitive areas such as the fingers in this patient. Clinicians should be aware that the US Food and Drug Administration recommends avoiding contact with mucous membranes when applying products containing DHA and also recommends use of a test spot prior to treating the entire body with the product.⁸ Patients must not only be educated on the benefits of using sunless tanners but on the potential side effects with use of these products as well.

To the Editor:

The use of sunless tanners has become an alternative for individuals who wish to have tan skin without exposure to UV radiation.¹ We present a case of a patient who experienced persistent hyperpigmented patches on the hands months after the use of a sunless tanner containing dihydroxyacetone (DHA), a carbohydrate that reacts with amino acids in the stratum corneum to produce pigments called melanoidins. The hyperpigmentation caused by DHA is due to the Maillard reaction, which is the nonenzymatic glycation of amino groups of proteins by the carbonyl groups of sugar.² Many sunless tanners contain DHA at varying concentrations. Dermatologists should be aware of the benefits and potential side effects of these alternative products so that they can appropriately counsel patients.

A 20-year-old woman with no history of skin disease presented for evaluation of hyperpigmented patches on the dorsal hands of several months’ duration. Physical examination revealed ill-defined hyperpigmented patches on the dorsal fingers without associated scale or erythema (Figure 1). She had a remote history of Hodgkin lymphoma treated with chemotherapy and was in remission for 5 years prior to the current presentation. Her hematologists referred her to dermatology for evaluation, as they did not believe the patches could be related to her chemotherapy given that she had completed the treatment years before.

Products with DHA only confer a sun protection factor of approximately 3⁴; although patients may appear tan, they have no actual decreased risk for sunburn after use. Reports have shown that the use of sunless tanners containing DHA can alter the appearance of melanocytic lesions clinically and has caused pseudochromhidrosis on the palms.^3,5,6 A study performed on a human keratinocyte cell line, HaCaT, showed that DHA can induce DNA damage, cell-cycle block, and apoptosis.⁷ In addition, as described in our case, patients may experience prolonged hyperpigmentation after use.

This case demonstrates the potential for persistent hyperpigmentation months after the use of sunless tanners containing DHA. Asking patients specific questions regarding their history of tanning product use is essential in identifying the pathology. Although a skin biopsy may not be strictly indicated, it may aid diagnosis, especially when the history is unclear. As more dermatologists support the use of sunless tanner, we must be aware of this possible outcome, especially on more cosmetically sensitive areas such as the fingers in this patient. Clinicians should be aware that the US Food and Drug Administration recommends avoiding contact with mucous membranes when applying products containing DHA and also recommends use of a test spot prior to treating the entire body with the product.⁸ Patients must not only be educated on the benefits of using sunless tanners but on the potential side effects with use of these products as well.