Todd T. Kobayashi, MD

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia (TUGSE) is an uncommon, benign, self-limited condition that is restricted to the oral mucosa, most commonly seen in the fifth to seventh decades of life.^1-3 The pathogenesis of TUGSE is unknown, but current theory suggests trauma is the instigating factor. The presence of CD30⁺ mononuclear cells within TUGSE raises the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder in some cases.⁴ However, because CD30⁺ cells are not uncommon in other benign reactive processes, they may simply represent a reactive phenomenon.³

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia traverses multiple disciplines, including dermatology, oral surgery, dentistry, and pathology, resulting in a diverse nomenclature including traumatic granuloma of the tongue, traumatic eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa, ulcerated granuloma eosinophilicum diutinum, and eosinophilic ulcer of the oral mucosa.^1,4-6 It is important to differentiate eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa from the eosinophilic granuloma that is associated with Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Although both may present with oral ulceration, Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma typically develops from underlying bone, whereas eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa (TUGSE) is described as nonosseous.^7,8 Furthermore, the gingiva is the most common oral site in Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma, whereas the tongue is most commonly involved in TUGSE.⁸ Shapiro and Juhlin⁹ clearly distinguished TUGSE from Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma in 1970. Histologically, the 2 conditions are completely different.

When ulcerative granulomas develop in the pediatric population, usually in children younger than 2 years, it is termed Riga-Fede disease.¹⁰ These children were typically breastfeeding, suckling, or teething, suggesting trauma as a triggering event. In 1961, Hjorting-Hansen and Schmidt⁵ described 3 separate lesions similar to Riga-Fede disease in an adult patient. Subsequently, Riga-Fede disease was grouped under TUGSE.³

Histologically, TUGSE shows an ulcerated epithelium with a polymorphic inflammatory cell infiltrate that has a large predominance of eosinophils. The infiltrate affects the superficial and deep layers of the muscle tissue and penetrates into the salivary glands. Large atypical mononuclear cells with an ovoid and pale-appearing nucleus often are present. These cells may be mitotically active and stain positively for CD30.^1,4,11 CD68⁺ macrophages, T lymphocytes, and factor XIIIa–positive dendritic cells commonly are present.¹²

Given the presence of large atypical CD30⁺ cells in many lesions, the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder has been postulated by some authors. Indeed, lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) has been documented to involve the oral mucosa.^2,4

Case Report

An 81-year-old man presented with a rapidly enlarging, 1.7×1.3-cm, vascular-appearing nodule with a collarette of mucosal epithelium on the left side of the dorsal surface of the tongue of 2 weeks’ duration (Figure 1). He denied any history of trauma, tobacco chewing, weight change, fever, or fatigue; however, he did report a 30 pack-year smoking history. There was no other pertinent medical history to include medications or allergies.

The differential diagnosis included pyogenic granuloma, granular cell tumor, squamous cell carcinoma, other neoplasms (eg, oral lymphoma, salivary gland tumors), and a traumatic blood blister from tongue biting. The patient was referred to the oral maxillofacial surgery department for an excisional biopsy, which showed a solitary ulcerated nodule with associated granulation tissue, thrombus, and fibrinoid debris (Figure 2). A surrounding dense mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and numerous eosinophils was noted extending through the submucosal tissue and underlying striated muscle fibers (Figure 3). The adjacent mucosal epithelium appeared normal. CD30 staining showed only rare positive cells. These findings were consistent with TUGSE.

Due to the benign nature of TUGSE, the patient was released with symptomatic care and instructed to return for any new growth. The growth spontaneously resolved over 1 month and no recurrence or new lesions were reported 1 year later.

Comment

Despite encompassing multiple disciplines of medicine, TUGSE has minimal exposure in the dermatologic literature. It is an important clinical and histologic diagnosis that will provide reassurance to the patient when accurately identified and reduce potentially harmful treatments.

Clinical Presentation
Typically, TUGSE presents as a painful solitary nodule with a central ulcer and yellow fibrinous base. The margins of the ulcer typically have an indurated and rolled appearance.^1,4 More than 50% of the lesions develop on the tongue, specifically the dorsal or lateral surfaces, but they may present anywhere in the oral mucosa.⁷ Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia is a fast-growing lesion, typically developing in days to weeks. Although it spontaneously regresses, the lesion may take weeks or months to resolve. In one case, it resolved 1 year later.¹ Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia has a bimodal age distribution, generally appearing in the first 2 years of life and later in the fifth through seventh decades. The male-to-female predominance is equal.^1,7,11 Reoccurrence is rare, but some reports have shown patients with multiple episodes of TUGSE.^13,14

Differential Diagnosis
The clinical differential diagnosis for TUGSE includes squamous cell carcinoma, pyogenic granuloma, lymphoproliferative disorder, traumatic neuroma, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, granulomatous disorders, and oral lymphoma. Inflammatory disorders such as syphilis, Behçet’s disease, herpes, histoplasmosis, Wegener granulomatosis, and others also should be considered.

Immunohistochemistry
Immunohistochemical analysis of TUGSE lesions recently has revealed the presence of CD30⁺ cells. These cells are associated with cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders including LyP, anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), and borderline CD30⁺ lesions, among others. Systemic diseases with CD30⁺ cells include mycosis fungoides, other T-cell lymphomas, and Hodgkin lymphoma.^15,16 Once CD30⁺ cells were recognized, multiple authors began speculating there was a correlation between TUGSE and the CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorders.^1,2,13 Anaplastic large cell lymphoma and LyP of the oral mucosa have been reported in several cases.^17-20 One report described 2 cases of ulcerated CD30⁺ T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma of the oral mucosa, one of which showed eosinophilic infiltrates and was initially thought to be TUGSE. Based on these overlapping clinical and histologic features, the authors hypothesized there was a correlation between oral ALCL, LyP, and TUGSE.¹⁷ In one report, a patient developed multiple TUGSE lesions throughout his life, suggesting a pathologic process similar to LyP. The lesion biopsied showed that 70% of the T cells expressed CD30 (Ki-1) antigen.¹³

Underlying Causes
In support of an underlying immunologic process that augments the growth of these lesions, 2 separate case reports of TUGSE in the presence of human T-lymphotropic virus 1 (HTLV-1) and Epstein-Barr virus have been documented.^2,21 Concurrent presentation of TUGSE and HTLV-1 in one report demonstrated eosinophilia in both the oral lesion and peripheral blood, suggesting an immunologic relationship. Furthermore, the authors postulated that local trauma initiated the development of TUGSE, providing the catalyst for the HTLV-1 carrier to develop peripheral eosinophilia.²¹

In the second case, a 12-year-old boy developed TUGSE in the presence of Epstein-Barr virus.² Immunologically, this virus can be reactivated from its latent stage during immunosuppression. Epstein-Barr virus has been implicated in lymphoproliferative diseases of both B- and T-cell origin, including CD30⁺ ALCL and LyP.^22,23 The authors in this report again hypothesized there was a correlation between lymphoproliferative disorders and TUGSE lesions.^2,24

Alternatively, TUGSE may simply be a reactive process to trauma or another underlying trigger. It has been speculated that the presence of eosinophils correlates with antigen insertion into the oral mucosa, whereas other ulcers of the oral mucosa are devoid of eosinophils.¹ These antigens may include microorganisms, endogenous degradation products, or foreign proteins.^7,25 Additionally, the presence of CD30⁺ lymphocytes is not isolated to lymphoproliferative disorders. CD30⁺ cells have been documented in arthropod bite reactions, atopic dermatitis, drug reactions, molluscum contagiosum, and scabies, among others.^1,26

Healing and Management
The length of healing in TUGSE ulcers has substantial variability, from days to up to 1 year in an isolated case.^1,24 Sequential expression of transforming growth factor (TGF) α and TGF-β expressed by tissue eosinophils may be underlying factors associated with a quicker healing response as demonstrated by similar ulcers in hamsters.²⁷ Chronic nonhealing oral ulcers, particularly TUGSE lesions that demonstrated the typical increase in eosinophils in 11 of 12 cases, showed minimal TGF-α or TGF-β expression by eosinophils, perhaps indicating a possible mechanism leading to delayed wound healing in some cases. Interestingly, incisional biopsies often led to rapid wound healing, suggesting that the biopsy itself allowed for a transition back to the regular wound-healing processes.²⁸

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia spontaneously resolves on its own in most cases; however, because of the concern for malignancy, it has the potential to be overtreated.²⁶ Symptomatic treatment only is the mainstay of therapy. The patient should be instructed to avoid trauma, and referral to a dental professional is indicated when associated with dentures or other periprosthetic devices. Diet should consist of soft foods while avoiding spicy foods. Topical or oral analgesics may be necessary if substantial pain is associated with the lesion.² Oral prednisolone was used in a patient with concurrent HTLV-1 and TUGSE to treat peripheral eosinophilia.²¹ The patient’s peripheral eosinophils dropped to 1% in 1 day, and the patient’s oral lesion began to improve at day 3 and disappeared by day 10. Although TUGSE may spontaneously resolve within a 10-day period without steroids, it may be a reasonable treatment to improve healing time in an otherwise healthy individual.^21,26 If there is concern for malignancy, the patient should have the lesion biopsied to provide reassurance and for the added benefit of a transition to normal healing response and decreased healing time.²⁸

Clinical Recognition
The clinician should be aware of the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder, which has been associated with TUGSE in some cases, or may simulate TUGSE both clinically and histologically. Further studies are needed to clarify the relationship between these 2 entities. Whether it is a true relationship, simple coincidence, or simply overlapping clinical and histologic features remains to be determined.

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia (TUGSE) is an uncommon, benign, self-limited condition that is restricted to the oral mucosa, most commonly seen in the fifth to seventh decades of life.^1-3 The pathogenesis of TUGSE is unknown, but current theory suggests trauma is the instigating factor. The presence of CD30⁺ mononuclear cells within TUGSE raises the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder in some cases.⁴ However, because CD30⁺ cells are not uncommon in other benign reactive processes, they may simply represent a reactive phenomenon.³

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia traverses multiple disciplines, including dermatology, oral surgery, dentistry, and pathology, resulting in a diverse nomenclature including traumatic granuloma of the tongue, traumatic eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa, ulcerated granuloma eosinophilicum diutinum, and eosinophilic ulcer of the oral mucosa.^1,4-6 It is important to differentiate eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa from the eosinophilic granuloma that is associated with Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Although both may present with oral ulceration, Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma typically develops from underlying bone, whereas eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa (TUGSE) is described as nonosseous.^7,8 Furthermore, the gingiva is the most common oral site in Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma, whereas the tongue is most commonly involved in TUGSE.⁸ Shapiro and Juhlin⁹ clearly distinguished TUGSE from Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma in 1970. Histologically, the 2 conditions are completely different.

When ulcerative granulomas develop in the pediatric population, usually in children younger than 2 years, it is termed Riga-Fede disease.¹⁰ These children were typically breastfeeding, suckling, or teething, suggesting trauma as a triggering event. In 1961, Hjorting-Hansen and Schmidt⁵ described 3 separate lesions similar to Riga-Fede disease in an adult patient. Subsequently, Riga-Fede disease was grouped under TUGSE.³

Histologically, TUGSE shows an ulcerated epithelium with a polymorphic inflammatory cell infiltrate that has a large predominance of eosinophils. The infiltrate affects the superficial and deep layers of the muscle tissue and penetrates into the salivary glands. Large atypical mononuclear cells with an ovoid and pale-appearing nucleus often are present. These cells may be mitotically active and stain positively for CD30.^1,4,11 CD68⁺ macrophages, T lymphocytes, and factor XIIIa–positive dendritic cells commonly are present.¹²

Given the presence of large atypical CD30⁺ cells in many lesions, the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder has been postulated by some authors. Indeed, lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) has been documented to involve the oral mucosa.^2,4

Case Report

An 81-year-old man presented with a rapidly enlarging, 1.7×1.3-cm, vascular-appearing nodule with a collarette of mucosal epithelium on the left side of the dorsal surface of the tongue of 2 weeks’ duration (Figure 1). He denied any history of trauma, tobacco chewing, weight change, fever, or fatigue; however, he did report a 30 pack-year smoking history. There was no other pertinent medical history to include medications or allergies.

The differential diagnosis included pyogenic granuloma, granular cell tumor, squamous cell carcinoma, other neoplasms (eg, oral lymphoma, salivary gland tumors), and a traumatic blood blister from tongue biting. The patient was referred to the oral maxillofacial surgery department for an excisional biopsy, which showed a solitary ulcerated nodule with associated granulation tissue, thrombus, and fibrinoid debris (Figure 2). A surrounding dense mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and numerous eosinophils was noted extending through the submucosal tissue and underlying striated muscle fibers (Figure 3). The adjacent mucosal epithelium appeared normal. CD30 staining showed only rare positive cells. These findings were consistent with TUGSE.

Due to the benign nature of TUGSE, the patient was released with symptomatic care and instructed to return for any new growth. The growth spontaneously resolved over 1 month and no recurrence or new lesions were reported 1 year later.

Comment

Despite encompassing multiple disciplines of medicine, TUGSE has minimal exposure in the dermatologic literature. It is an important clinical and histologic diagnosis that will provide reassurance to the patient when accurately identified and reduce potentially harmful treatments.

Clinical Presentation
Typically, TUGSE presents as a painful solitary nodule with a central ulcer and yellow fibrinous base. The margins of the ulcer typically have an indurated and rolled appearance.^1,4 More than 50% of the lesions develop on the tongue, specifically the dorsal or lateral surfaces, but they may present anywhere in the oral mucosa.⁷ Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia is a fast-growing lesion, typically developing in days to weeks. Although it spontaneously regresses, the lesion may take weeks or months to resolve. In one case, it resolved 1 year later.¹ Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia has a bimodal age distribution, generally appearing in the first 2 years of life and later in the fifth through seventh decades. The male-to-female predominance is equal.^1,7,11 Reoccurrence is rare, but some reports have shown patients with multiple episodes of TUGSE.^13,14

Differential Diagnosis
The clinical differential diagnosis for TUGSE includes squamous cell carcinoma, pyogenic granuloma, lymphoproliferative disorder, traumatic neuroma, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, granulomatous disorders, and oral lymphoma. Inflammatory disorders such as syphilis, Behçet’s disease, herpes, histoplasmosis, Wegener granulomatosis, and others also should be considered.

Immunohistochemistry
Immunohistochemical analysis of TUGSE lesions recently has revealed the presence of CD30⁺ cells. These cells are associated with cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders including LyP, anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), and borderline CD30⁺ lesions, among others. Systemic diseases with CD30⁺ cells include mycosis fungoides, other T-cell lymphomas, and Hodgkin lymphoma.^15,16 Once CD30⁺ cells were recognized, multiple authors began speculating there was a correlation between TUGSE and the CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorders.^1,2,13 Anaplastic large cell lymphoma and LyP of the oral mucosa have been reported in several cases.^17-20 One report described 2 cases of ulcerated CD30⁺ T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma of the oral mucosa, one of which showed eosinophilic infiltrates and was initially thought to be TUGSE. Based on these overlapping clinical and histologic features, the authors hypothesized there was a correlation between oral ALCL, LyP, and TUGSE.¹⁷ In one report, a patient developed multiple TUGSE lesions throughout his life, suggesting a pathologic process similar to LyP. The lesion biopsied showed that 70% of the T cells expressed CD30 (Ki-1) antigen.¹³

Underlying Causes
In support of an underlying immunologic process that augments the growth of these lesions, 2 separate case reports of TUGSE in the presence of human T-lymphotropic virus 1 (HTLV-1) and Epstein-Barr virus have been documented.^2,21 Concurrent presentation of TUGSE and HTLV-1 in one report demonstrated eosinophilia in both the oral lesion and peripheral blood, suggesting an immunologic relationship. Furthermore, the authors postulated that local trauma initiated the development of TUGSE, providing the catalyst for the HTLV-1 carrier to develop peripheral eosinophilia.²¹

In the second case, a 12-year-old boy developed TUGSE in the presence of Epstein-Barr virus.² Immunologically, this virus can be reactivated from its latent stage during immunosuppression. Epstein-Barr virus has been implicated in lymphoproliferative diseases of both B- and T-cell origin, including CD30⁺ ALCL and LyP.^22,23 The authors in this report again hypothesized there was a correlation between lymphoproliferative disorders and TUGSE lesions.^2,24

Alternatively, TUGSE may simply be a reactive process to trauma or another underlying trigger. It has been speculated that the presence of eosinophils correlates with antigen insertion into the oral mucosa, whereas other ulcers of the oral mucosa are devoid of eosinophils.¹ These antigens may include microorganisms, endogenous degradation products, or foreign proteins.^7,25 Additionally, the presence of CD30⁺ lymphocytes is not isolated to lymphoproliferative disorders. CD30⁺ cells have been documented in arthropod bite reactions, atopic dermatitis, drug reactions, molluscum contagiosum, and scabies, among others.^1,26

Healing and Management
The length of healing in TUGSE ulcers has substantial variability, from days to up to 1 year in an isolated case.^1,24 Sequential expression of transforming growth factor (TGF) α and TGF-β expressed by tissue eosinophils may be underlying factors associated with a quicker healing response as demonstrated by similar ulcers in hamsters.²⁷ Chronic nonhealing oral ulcers, particularly TUGSE lesions that demonstrated the typical increase in eosinophils in 11 of 12 cases, showed minimal TGF-α or TGF-β expression by eosinophils, perhaps indicating a possible mechanism leading to delayed wound healing in some cases. Interestingly, incisional biopsies often led to rapid wound healing, suggesting that the biopsy itself allowed for a transition back to the regular wound-healing processes.²⁸

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia spontaneously resolves on its own in most cases; however, because of the concern for malignancy, it has the potential to be overtreated.²⁶ Symptomatic treatment only is the mainstay of therapy. The patient should be instructed to avoid trauma, and referral to a dental professional is indicated when associated with dentures or other periprosthetic devices. Diet should consist of soft foods while avoiding spicy foods. Topical or oral analgesics may be necessary if substantial pain is associated with the lesion.² Oral prednisolone was used in a patient with concurrent HTLV-1 and TUGSE to treat peripheral eosinophilia.²¹ The patient’s peripheral eosinophils dropped to 1% in 1 day, and the patient’s oral lesion began to improve at day 3 and disappeared by day 10. Although TUGSE may spontaneously resolve within a 10-day period without steroids, it may be a reasonable treatment to improve healing time in an otherwise healthy individual.^21,26 If there is concern for malignancy, the patient should have the lesion biopsied to provide reassurance and for the added benefit of a transition to normal healing response and decreased healing time.²⁸

Clinical Recognition
The clinician should be aware of the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder, which has been associated with TUGSE in some cases, or may simulate TUGSE both clinically and histologically. Further studies are needed to clarify the relationship between these 2 entities. Whether it is a true relationship, simple coincidence, or simply overlapping clinical and histologic features remains to be determined.

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia (TUGSE) is an uncommon, benign, self-limited condition that is restricted to the oral mucosa, most commonly seen in the fifth to seventh decades of life.^1-3 The pathogenesis of TUGSE is unknown, but current theory suggests trauma is the instigating factor. The presence of CD30⁺ mononuclear cells within TUGSE raises the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder in some cases.⁴ However, because CD30⁺ cells are not uncommon in other benign reactive processes, they may simply represent a reactive phenomenon.³

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia traverses multiple disciplines, including dermatology, oral surgery, dentistry, and pathology, resulting in a diverse nomenclature including traumatic granuloma of the tongue, traumatic eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa, ulcerated granuloma eosinophilicum diutinum, and eosinophilic ulcer of the oral mucosa.^1,4-6 It is important to differentiate eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa from the eosinophilic granuloma that is associated with Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Although both may present with oral ulceration, Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma typically develops from underlying bone, whereas eosinophilic granuloma of the oral mucosa (TUGSE) is described as nonosseous.^7,8 Furthermore, the gingiva is the most common oral site in Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma, whereas the tongue is most commonly involved in TUGSE.⁸ Shapiro and Juhlin⁹ clearly distinguished TUGSE from Langerhans cell–associated eosinophilic granuloma in 1970. Histologically, the 2 conditions are completely different.

When ulcerative granulomas develop in the pediatric population, usually in children younger than 2 years, it is termed Riga-Fede disease.¹⁰ These children were typically breastfeeding, suckling, or teething, suggesting trauma as a triggering event. In 1961, Hjorting-Hansen and Schmidt⁵ described 3 separate lesions similar to Riga-Fede disease in an adult patient. Subsequently, Riga-Fede disease was grouped under TUGSE.³

Histologically, TUGSE shows an ulcerated epithelium with a polymorphic inflammatory cell infiltrate that has a large predominance of eosinophils. The infiltrate affects the superficial and deep layers of the muscle tissue and penetrates into the salivary glands. Large atypical mononuclear cells with an ovoid and pale-appearing nucleus often are present. These cells may be mitotically active and stain positively for CD30.^1,4,11 CD68⁺ macrophages, T lymphocytes, and factor XIIIa–positive dendritic cells commonly are present.¹²

Given the presence of large atypical CD30⁺ cells in many lesions, the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder has been postulated by some authors. Indeed, lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) has been documented to involve the oral mucosa.^2,4

Case Report

An 81-year-old man presented with a rapidly enlarging, 1.7×1.3-cm, vascular-appearing nodule with a collarette of mucosal epithelium on the left side of the dorsal surface of the tongue of 2 weeks’ duration (Figure 1). He denied any history of trauma, tobacco chewing, weight change, fever, or fatigue; however, he did report a 30 pack-year smoking history. There was no other pertinent medical history to include medications or allergies.

The differential diagnosis included pyogenic granuloma, granular cell tumor, squamous cell carcinoma, other neoplasms (eg, oral lymphoma, salivary gland tumors), and a traumatic blood blister from tongue biting. The patient was referred to the oral maxillofacial surgery department for an excisional biopsy, which showed a solitary ulcerated nodule with associated granulation tissue, thrombus, and fibrinoid debris (Figure 2). A surrounding dense mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, and numerous eosinophils was noted extending through the submucosal tissue and underlying striated muscle fibers (Figure 3). The adjacent mucosal epithelium appeared normal. CD30 staining showed only rare positive cells. These findings were consistent with TUGSE.

Due to the benign nature of TUGSE, the patient was released with symptomatic care and instructed to return for any new growth. The growth spontaneously resolved over 1 month and no recurrence or new lesions were reported 1 year later.

Comment

Despite encompassing multiple disciplines of medicine, TUGSE has minimal exposure in the dermatologic literature. It is an important clinical and histologic diagnosis that will provide reassurance to the patient when accurately identified and reduce potentially harmful treatments.

Clinical Presentation
Typically, TUGSE presents as a painful solitary nodule with a central ulcer and yellow fibrinous base. The margins of the ulcer typically have an indurated and rolled appearance.^1,4 More than 50% of the lesions develop on the tongue, specifically the dorsal or lateral surfaces, but they may present anywhere in the oral mucosa.⁷ Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia is a fast-growing lesion, typically developing in days to weeks. Although it spontaneously regresses, the lesion may take weeks or months to resolve. In one case, it resolved 1 year later.¹ Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia has a bimodal age distribution, generally appearing in the first 2 years of life and later in the fifth through seventh decades. The male-to-female predominance is equal.^1,7,11 Reoccurrence is rare, but some reports have shown patients with multiple episodes of TUGSE.^13,14

Differential Diagnosis
The clinical differential diagnosis for TUGSE includes squamous cell carcinoma, pyogenic granuloma, lymphoproliferative disorder, traumatic neuroma, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, granulomatous disorders, and oral lymphoma. Inflammatory disorders such as syphilis, Behçet’s disease, herpes, histoplasmosis, Wegener granulomatosis, and others also should be considered.

Immunohistochemistry
Immunohistochemical analysis of TUGSE lesions recently has revealed the presence of CD30⁺ cells. These cells are associated with cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders including LyP, anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), and borderline CD30⁺ lesions, among others. Systemic diseases with CD30⁺ cells include mycosis fungoides, other T-cell lymphomas, and Hodgkin lymphoma.^15,16 Once CD30⁺ cells were recognized, multiple authors began speculating there was a correlation between TUGSE and the CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorders.^1,2,13 Anaplastic large cell lymphoma and LyP of the oral mucosa have been reported in several cases.^17-20 One report described 2 cases of ulcerated CD30⁺ T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma of the oral mucosa, one of which showed eosinophilic infiltrates and was initially thought to be TUGSE. Based on these overlapping clinical and histologic features, the authors hypothesized there was a correlation between oral ALCL, LyP, and TUGSE.¹⁷ In one report, a patient developed multiple TUGSE lesions throughout his life, suggesting a pathologic process similar to LyP. The lesion biopsied showed that 70% of the T cells expressed CD30 (Ki-1) antigen.¹³

Underlying Causes
In support of an underlying immunologic process that augments the growth of these lesions, 2 separate case reports of TUGSE in the presence of human T-lymphotropic virus 1 (HTLV-1) and Epstein-Barr virus have been documented.^2,21 Concurrent presentation of TUGSE and HTLV-1 in one report demonstrated eosinophilia in both the oral lesion and peripheral blood, suggesting an immunologic relationship. Furthermore, the authors postulated that local trauma initiated the development of TUGSE, providing the catalyst for the HTLV-1 carrier to develop peripheral eosinophilia.²¹

In the second case, a 12-year-old boy developed TUGSE in the presence of Epstein-Barr virus.² Immunologically, this virus can be reactivated from its latent stage during immunosuppression. Epstein-Barr virus has been implicated in lymphoproliferative diseases of both B- and T-cell origin, including CD30⁺ ALCL and LyP.^22,23 The authors in this report again hypothesized there was a correlation between lymphoproliferative disorders and TUGSE lesions.^2,24

Alternatively, TUGSE may simply be a reactive process to trauma or another underlying trigger. It has been speculated that the presence of eosinophils correlates with antigen insertion into the oral mucosa, whereas other ulcers of the oral mucosa are devoid of eosinophils.¹ These antigens may include microorganisms, endogenous degradation products, or foreign proteins.^7,25 Additionally, the presence of CD30⁺ lymphocytes is not isolated to lymphoproliferative disorders. CD30⁺ cells have been documented in arthropod bite reactions, atopic dermatitis, drug reactions, molluscum contagiosum, and scabies, among others.^1,26

Healing and Management
The length of healing in TUGSE ulcers has substantial variability, from days to up to 1 year in an isolated case.^1,24 Sequential expression of transforming growth factor (TGF) α and TGF-β expressed by tissue eosinophils may be underlying factors associated with a quicker healing response as demonstrated by similar ulcers in hamsters.²⁷ Chronic nonhealing oral ulcers, particularly TUGSE lesions that demonstrated the typical increase in eosinophils in 11 of 12 cases, showed minimal TGF-α or TGF-β expression by eosinophils, perhaps indicating a possible mechanism leading to delayed wound healing in some cases. Interestingly, incisional biopsies often led to rapid wound healing, suggesting that the biopsy itself allowed for a transition back to the regular wound-healing processes.²⁸

Traumatic ulcerative granuloma with stromal eosinophilia spontaneously resolves on its own in most cases; however, because of the concern for malignancy, it has the potential to be overtreated.²⁶ Symptomatic treatment only is the mainstay of therapy. The patient should be instructed to avoid trauma, and referral to a dental professional is indicated when associated with dentures or other periprosthetic devices. Diet should consist of soft foods while avoiding spicy foods. Topical or oral analgesics may be necessary if substantial pain is associated with the lesion.² Oral prednisolone was used in a patient with concurrent HTLV-1 and TUGSE to treat peripheral eosinophilia.²¹ The patient’s peripheral eosinophils dropped to 1% in 1 day, and the patient’s oral lesion began to improve at day 3 and disappeared by day 10. Although TUGSE may spontaneously resolve within a 10-day period without steroids, it may be a reasonable treatment to improve healing time in an otherwise healthy individual.^21,26 If there is concern for malignancy, the patient should have the lesion biopsied to provide reassurance and for the added benefit of a transition to normal healing response and decreased healing time.²⁸

Clinical Recognition
The clinician should be aware of the possibility of a CD30⁺ lymphoproliferative disorder, which has been associated with TUGSE in some cases, or may simulate TUGSE both clinically and histologically. Further studies are needed to clarify the relationship between these 2 entities. Whether it is a true relationship, simple coincidence, or simply overlapping clinical and histologic features remains to be determined.

The Diagnosis: Lymphomatoid Papulosis

A shave biopsy of an established lesion on the volar aspect of the left wrist was performed (Figure 1). The biopsy showed an ulcerated nodular lesion characterized by a dense mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate in the dermis composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, scattered neutrophils, and numerous eosinophils (Figure 2). Notably there was a minor population of large atypical cells with immunoblastic and anaplastic morphology present individually and in small clusters most prominently within the upper dermis (Figures 3 and 4). Immunohistochemistry of the anaplastic cells revealed a CD30⁺, CD3⁻, CD4⁺, CD5⁻, CD8⁻, CD2⁻, CD7⁻, CD56⁻, ALK1⁻ (anaplastic lymphoma kinase-1), PAX5⁻ (paired box protein-5), CD20⁻, and CD15⁻ phenotype. These morphologic and immunohistochemical features suggested a CD30⁺ cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorder. The clinical history of recurrent self-healing papulonodules in an otherwise-healthy patient established the diagnosis of lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP).

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a lymphoproliferative disorder characterized by recurrent crops of self-resolving eruptive papulonodular skin lesions that may show a variety of histologic features including a CD30⁺ malignant T-cell lymphoma.¹ Lymphomatoid papulosis was first described in 1968¹ but debate continues whether the condition should be considered malignant or benign.² Although the prognosis is excellent, LyP is characterized by a protracted course, often lasting many years. Additionally, these patients have a lifelong increased risk for development of a second cutaneous or systemic lymphoma such as mycosis fungoides (MF), cutaneous or nodal anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), or Hodgkin lymphoma, among others.

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a rare disease occurring in all ethnic groups and at any age, though most commonly presenting in the fifth decade of life. Finding large atypical T cells expressing CD30 in recurring skin lesions is highly suggestive of LyP; however, large CD30⁺ cells also can be seen in numerous benign reactive processes such as arthropod assault, drug eruption, viral skin infections, and other dermatoses, thus clinical correlation is always paramount. The cause of LyP is largely unknown; however, spontaneous regression may be explained by CD30-CD30 ligand interaction³ as well as an increased proapoptotic milieu.⁴ Specific translocations such as interferon regulatory factor-4 have been hypothesized as a risk factor for malignant progression.^5-7 Additionally, an inactivating gene mutation resulting in loss of transforming growth factor β1 receptor expression and subsequent unresponsiveness to the growth inhibitory effect of transforming growth factor β may play a role in progression of LyP to ALCL.⁸

Clinically, LyP consists of red-brown papules and nodules generally smaller than 2 cm, often with central hemorrhage, necrosis, and crusting. Lesions are at different stages of eruption and resolution. They are often grouped but may be disseminated. Spontaneous regression typically occurs within 3 to 8 weeks. Pruritus or mild tenderness may occur as well as residual hyperpigmentation or scarring. Systemic symptoms are notably absent.

The histologic features of LyP vary according to the age of the lesion and subtype.² Early lesions may only show a few inflammatory cells, but as lesions evolve, larger immunoblastlike CD30⁺ atypical cells accumulate that may resemble the Reed-Sternberg cells of Hodgkin lymphoma. Of the 5 subtypes, the most common is type A. It is characterized by a wedge-shaped infiltrate with a mixed population of scattered or clustered, large, atypical CD30⁺ cells, lymphocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, and histiocytes.⁹ Frequent mitoses often are seen. Type B appears similar to MF due to a predominantly epidermotropic infiltrate of CD3⁺ and often CD30⁻ atypical cells. Spontaneously regressing papules favor LyP, whereas persistent patches or plaques favor MF. Type C appears identical to ALCL with diffuse sheets of large atypical CD30⁺ cells and relatively few inflammatory cells, but spontaneously regressing lesions again favor LyP, whereas persistent tumors favor ALCL. Type D appears similar to primary cutaneous aggressive epidermotropic CD8⁺ cytotoxic T cell lymphoma due to a markedly epidermotropic infiltrate of small atypical CD8⁺ and CD30⁺ lymphocytes, often TIA-1⁺ (T-cell intracytoplasmic antigen-1) or granzyme B⁺, but CD30 positivity and self-resolving lesions favor LyP. Type E mimics extranodal natural killer/T cell lymphoma (nasal type) due to angioinvasive CD30⁺ and beta F1⁺ T lymphocytes, often CD8⁺ and/or TIA-1⁺, but self-resolving lesions again favor LyP, as well as absence of Epstein-Barr virus and CD56⁻.⁹

The most common therapeutic approaches to LyP include topical steroids, phototherapy, and low-dose methotrexate.¹⁰ However, treatment does not change overall disease course or reduce the future risk for developing an associated lymphoma. Accordingly, abstaining from active therapeutic intervention is reasonable, especially in patients with only a few asymptomatic lesions.

The Diagnosis: Lymphomatoid Papulosis

A shave biopsy of an established lesion on the volar aspect of the left wrist was performed (Figure 1). The biopsy showed an ulcerated nodular lesion characterized by a dense mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate in the dermis composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, scattered neutrophils, and numerous eosinophils (Figure 2). Notably there was a minor population of large atypical cells with immunoblastic and anaplastic morphology present individually and in small clusters most prominently within the upper dermis (Figures 3 and 4). Immunohistochemistry of the anaplastic cells revealed a CD30⁺, CD3⁻, CD4⁺, CD5⁻, CD8⁻, CD2⁻, CD7⁻, CD56⁻, ALK1⁻ (anaplastic lymphoma kinase-1), PAX5⁻ (paired box protein-5), CD20⁻, and CD15⁻ phenotype. These morphologic and immunohistochemical features suggested a CD30⁺ cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorder. The clinical history of recurrent self-healing papulonodules in an otherwise-healthy patient established the diagnosis of lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP).

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a lymphoproliferative disorder characterized by recurrent crops of self-resolving eruptive papulonodular skin lesions that may show a variety of histologic features including a CD30⁺ malignant T-cell lymphoma.¹ Lymphomatoid papulosis was first described in 1968¹ but debate continues whether the condition should be considered malignant or benign.² Although the prognosis is excellent, LyP is characterized by a protracted course, often lasting many years. Additionally, these patients have a lifelong increased risk for development of a second cutaneous or systemic lymphoma such as mycosis fungoides (MF), cutaneous or nodal anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), or Hodgkin lymphoma, among others.

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a rare disease occurring in all ethnic groups and at any age, though most commonly presenting in the fifth decade of life. Finding large atypical T cells expressing CD30 in recurring skin lesions is highly suggestive of LyP; however, large CD30⁺ cells also can be seen in numerous benign reactive processes such as arthropod assault, drug eruption, viral skin infections, and other dermatoses, thus clinical correlation is always paramount. The cause of LyP is largely unknown; however, spontaneous regression may be explained by CD30-CD30 ligand interaction³ as well as an increased proapoptotic milieu.⁴ Specific translocations such as interferon regulatory factor-4 have been hypothesized as a risk factor for malignant progression.^5-7 Additionally, an inactivating gene mutation resulting in loss of transforming growth factor β1 receptor expression and subsequent unresponsiveness to the growth inhibitory effect of transforming growth factor β may play a role in progression of LyP to ALCL.⁸

Clinically, LyP consists of red-brown papules and nodules generally smaller than 2 cm, often with central hemorrhage, necrosis, and crusting. Lesions are at different stages of eruption and resolution. They are often grouped but may be disseminated. Spontaneous regression typically occurs within 3 to 8 weeks. Pruritus or mild tenderness may occur as well as residual hyperpigmentation or scarring. Systemic symptoms are notably absent.

The histologic features of LyP vary according to the age of the lesion and subtype.² Early lesions may only show a few inflammatory cells, but as lesions evolve, larger immunoblastlike CD30⁺ atypical cells accumulate that may resemble the Reed-Sternberg cells of Hodgkin lymphoma. Of the 5 subtypes, the most common is type A. It is characterized by a wedge-shaped infiltrate with a mixed population of scattered or clustered, large, atypical CD30⁺ cells, lymphocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, and histiocytes.⁹ Frequent mitoses often are seen. Type B appears similar to MF due to a predominantly epidermotropic infiltrate of CD3⁺ and often CD30⁻ atypical cells. Spontaneously regressing papules favor LyP, whereas persistent patches or plaques favor MF. Type C appears identical to ALCL with diffuse sheets of large atypical CD30⁺ cells and relatively few inflammatory cells, but spontaneously regressing lesions again favor LyP, whereas persistent tumors favor ALCL. Type D appears similar to primary cutaneous aggressive epidermotropic CD8⁺ cytotoxic T cell lymphoma due to a markedly epidermotropic infiltrate of small atypical CD8⁺ and CD30⁺ lymphocytes, often TIA-1⁺ (T-cell intracytoplasmic antigen-1) or granzyme B⁺, but CD30 positivity and self-resolving lesions favor LyP. Type E mimics extranodal natural killer/T cell lymphoma (nasal type) due to angioinvasive CD30⁺ and beta F1⁺ T lymphocytes, often CD8⁺ and/or TIA-1⁺, but self-resolving lesions again favor LyP, as well as absence of Epstein-Barr virus and CD56⁻.⁹

The most common therapeutic approaches to LyP include topical steroids, phototherapy, and low-dose methotrexate.¹⁰ However, treatment does not change overall disease course or reduce the future risk for developing an associated lymphoma. Accordingly, abstaining from active therapeutic intervention is reasonable, especially in patients with only a few asymptomatic lesions.

The Diagnosis: Lymphomatoid Papulosis

A shave biopsy of an established lesion on the volar aspect of the left wrist was performed (Figure 1). The biopsy showed an ulcerated nodular lesion characterized by a dense mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate in the dermis composed of lymphocytes, histiocytes, scattered neutrophils, and numerous eosinophils (Figure 2). Notably there was a minor population of large atypical cells with immunoblastic and anaplastic morphology present individually and in small clusters most prominently within the upper dermis (Figures 3 and 4). Immunohistochemistry of the anaplastic cells revealed a CD30⁺, CD3⁻, CD4⁺, CD5⁻, CD8⁻, CD2⁻, CD7⁻, CD56⁻, ALK1⁻ (anaplastic lymphoma kinase-1), PAX5⁻ (paired box protein-5), CD20⁻, and CD15⁻ phenotype. These morphologic and immunohistochemical features suggested a CD30⁺ cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorder. The clinical history of recurrent self-healing papulonodules in an otherwise-healthy patient established the diagnosis of lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP).

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a lymphoproliferative disorder characterized by recurrent crops of self-resolving eruptive papulonodular skin lesions that may show a variety of histologic features including a CD30⁺ malignant T-cell lymphoma.¹ Lymphomatoid papulosis was first described in 1968¹ but debate continues whether the condition should be considered malignant or benign.² Although the prognosis is excellent, LyP is characterized by a protracted course, often lasting many years. Additionally, these patients have a lifelong increased risk for development of a second cutaneous or systemic lymphoma such as mycosis fungoides (MF), cutaneous or nodal anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), or Hodgkin lymphoma, among others.

Lymphomatoid papulosis is a rare disease occurring in all ethnic groups and at any age, though most commonly presenting in the fifth decade of life. Finding large atypical T cells expressing CD30 in recurring skin lesions is highly suggestive of LyP; however, large CD30⁺ cells also can be seen in numerous benign reactive processes such as arthropod assault, drug eruption, viral skin infections, and other dermatoses, thus clinical correlation is always paramount. The cause of LyP is largely unknown; however, spontaneous regression may be explained by CD30-CD30 ligand interaction³ as well as an increased proapoptotic milieu.⁴ Specific translocations such as interferon regulatory factor-4 have been hypothesized as a risk factor for malignant progression.^5-7 Additionally, an inactivating gene mutation resulting in loss of transforming growth factor β1 receptor expression and subsequent unresponsiveness to the growth inhibitory effect of transforming growth factor β may play a role in progression of LyP to ALCL.⁸

Clinically, LyP consists of red-brown papules and nodules generally smaller than 2 cm, often with central hemorrhage, necrosis, and crusting. Lesions are at different stages of eruption and resolution. They are often grouped but may be disseminated. Spontaneous regression typically occurs within 3 to 8 weeks. Pruritus or mild tenderness may occur as well as residual hyperpigmentation or scarring. Systemic symptoms are notably absent.

The histologic features of LyP vary according to the age of the lesion and subtype.² Early lesions may only show a few inflammatory cells, but as lesions evolve, larger immunoblastlike CD30⁺ atypical cells accumulate that may resemble the Reed-Sternberg cells of Hodgkin lymphoma. Of the 5 subtypes, the most common is type A. It is characterized by a wedge-shaped infiltrate with a mixed population of scattered or clustered, large, atypical CD30⁺ cells, lymphocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, and histiocytes.⁹ Frequent mitoses often are seen. Type B appears similar to MF due to a predominantly epidermotropic infiltrate of CD3⁺ and often CD30⁻ atypical cells. Spontaneously regressing papules favor LyP, whereas persistent patches or plaques favor MF. Type C appears identical to ALCL with diffuse sheets of large atypical CD30⁺ cells and relatively few inflammatory cells, but spontaneously regressing lesions again favor LyP, whereas persistent tumors favor ALCL. Type D appears similar to primary cutaneous aggressive epidermotropic CD8⁺ cytotoxic T cell lymphoma due to a markedly epidermotropic infiltrate of small atypical CD8⁺ and CD30⁺ lymphocytes, often TIA-1⁺ (T-cell intracytoplasmic antigen-1) or granzyme B⁺, but CD30 positivity and self-resolving lesions favor LyP. Type E mimics extranodal natural killer/T cell lymphoma (nasal type) due to angioinvasive CD30⁺ and beta F1⁺ T lymphocytes, often CD8⁺ and/or TIA-1⁺, but self-resolving lesions again favor LyP, as well as absence of Epstein-Barr virus and CD56⁻.⁹

The most common therapeutic approaches to LyP include topical steroids, phototherapy, and low-dose methotrexate.¹⁰ However, treatment does not change overall disease course or reduce the future risk for developing an associated lymphoma. Accordingly, abstaining from active therapeutic intervention is reasonable, especially in patients with only a few asymptomatic lesions.

The Diagnosis: Radiation-Associated Angiosarcoma

At the time of presentation, a 4-mm lesional punch biopsy was obtained (Figure), which revealed an epithelioid neoplasm within the dermis expressing CD31 and CD34, and staining negatively for S-100, CD45, and estrogen and progesterone receptors. The histologic and immunophenotypic findings were compatible with the diagnosis of angiosarcoma. Given the patient’s history of radiation for breast carcinoma several years ago, this tumor was consistent with radiation-associated angiosarcoma (RAAS).

Development of secondary angiosarcoma has been linked to both prior radiation (RAAS) and chronic lymphedema (Stewart-Treves syndrome).¹ Radiation-associated angiosarcoma is defined as a “pathologically confirmed breast or chest wall angiosarcoma arising within a previously irradiated field.”² The incidence of RAAS is estimated to be 0.9 per 1000 individuals following radiation treatment of breast cancer over the subsequent 15 years and a mean time from radiation to development of 7 years.¹ Incidence is expected to increase in the future due to improved likelihood of surviving early-stage breast carcinoma and the increased use of external beam radiation therapy for management of breast cancer.

Differentiating between primary and secondary angiosarcoma of the breast is important. Although primary breast angiosarcoma usually arises in women aged 30 to 40 years, RAAS tends to arise in older women (mean age, 68 years) and is seen only in those women with prior radiation.² Additionally, high-level amplification of MYC, a known photo-oncogene, on chromosome 8 is a key genetic alteration of RAAS that helps to distinguish it from primary angiosarcoma, though this variance may be present in only half of RAAS cases.³ Immunohistochemical analysis of tumor cells for MYC expression correlates well with this amplification and also is helpful in distinguishing atypical vascular lesions from RAAS.⁴ Atypical vascular lesions, similar to RAAS, occur years after radiation exposure and may have a similar clinical presentation. Atypical vascular lesions do not progress to angiosarcoma in reported cases, but clinical and histologic overlap with RAAS make the diagnosis difficult.⁵ In these cases, analysis with fluorescence in situ hybridization or immunohistochemistry for the MYC amplification is important to differentiate these tumors.⁶

At the time of presentation, the majority of patients with RAAS of the breast have localized disease, often with a variable presentation. In all known cases, there have been skin changes present, emphasizing the importance of both patient and clinician vigilance on a regular basis in at-risk individuals. In one study, the most common presentation was breast ecchymosis, which was observed in 55% of patients.⁷ These lesions involve the dermis and are commonly mistaken for benign conditions such as infection or hemorrhage.² In 2 other studies, RAAS most often manifested as a skin nodule or apparent tumor, closely followed by either a rash or bruiselike presentation.^1,2

The overall recommendation for management of patients with ecchymotic skin lesions in previously irradiated regions is to obtain a biopsy specimen for tissue diagnosis. Although there is no standard of care for the management of RAAS, a multidisciplinary approach involving specialists from oncology, surgical oncology, and radiation oncology is recommended. Most often, radical surgery encompassing both the breast parenchyma and the at-risk radiated skin is performed. Extensive surgery has demonstrated the best survival benefits compared to mastectomy alone.⁷ Chemotherapeutics also may be used as adjuncts to surgery, which have been determined to decrease local recurrence rates but have no proven survival benefits.² Adverse prognostic factors for survival are tumor size greater than 10 cm and development of local and/or distant metastases.² Following the diagnosis of RAAS, our patient underwent radical mastectomy with adjuvant chemotherapy and remained disease free 6 months after surgery.

In summary, RAAS is a well-known, albeit relatively uncommon, consequence of radiation therapy. Dermatologists, oncologists, and primary care providers play an important role in recognizing this entity when evaluating patients with ecchymotic lesions as well as nodules or tumors within an irradiated field. Biopsy should be obtained promptly to prevent delay in diagnosis and to expedite referral to appropriate specialists for further evaluation and treatment.

The Diagnosis: Radiation-Associated Angiosarcoma

At the time of presentation, a 4-mm lesional punch biopsy was obtained (Figure), which revealed an epithelioid neoplasm within the dermis expressing CD31 and CD34, and staining negatively for S-100, CD45, and estrogen and progesterone receptors. The histologic and immunophenotypic findings were compatible with the diagnosis of angiosarcoma. Given the patient’s history of radiation for breast carcinoma several years ago, this tumor was consistent with radiation-associated angiosarcoma (RAAS).

Development of secondary angiosarcoma has been linked to both prior radiation (RAAS) and chronic lymphedema (Stewart-Treves syndrome).¹ Radiation-associated angiosarcoma is defined as a “pathologically confirmed breast or chest wall angiosarcoma arising within a previously irradiated field.”² The incidence of RAAS is estimated to be 0.9 per 1000 individuals following radiation treatment of breast cancer over the subsequent 15 years and a mean time from radiation to development of 7 years.¹ Incidence is expected to increase in the future due to improved likelihood of surviving early-stage breast carcinoma and the increased use of external beam radiation therapy for management of breast cancer.

Differentiating between primary and secondary angiosarcoma of the breast is important. Although primary breast angiosarcoma usually arises in women aged 30 to 40 years, RAAS tends to arise in older women (mean age, 68 years) and is seen only in those women with prior radiation.² Additionally, high-level amplification of MYC, a known photo-oncogene, on chromosome 8 is a key genetic alteration of RAAS that helps to distinguish it from primary angiosarcoma, though this variance may be present in only half of RAAS cases.³ Immunohistochemical analysis of tumor cells for MYC expression correlates well with this amplification and also is helpful in distinguishing atypical vascular lesions from RAAS.⁴ Atypical vascular lesions, similar to RAAS, occur years after radiation exposure and may have a similar clinical presentation. Atypical vascular lesions do not progress to angiosarcoma in reported cases, but clinical and histologic overlap with RAAS make the diagnosis difficult.⁵ In these cases, analysis with fluorescence in situ hybridization or immunohistochemistry for the MYC amplification is important to differentiate these tumors.⁶

At the time of presentation, the majority of patients with RAAS of the breast have localized disease, often with a variable presentation. In all known cases, there have been skin changes present, emphasizing the importance of both patient and clinician vigilance on a regular basis in at-risk individuals. In one study, the most common presentation was breast ecchymosis, which was observed in 55% of patients.⁷ These lesions involve the dermis and are commonly mistaken for benign conditions such as infection or hemorrhage.² In 2 other studies, RAAS most often manifested as a skin nodule or apparent tumor, closely followed by either a rash or bruiselike presentation.^1,2

The overall recommendation for management of patients with ecchymotic skin lesions in previously irradiated regions is to obtain a biopsy specimen for tissue diagnosis. Although there is no standard of care for the management of RAAS, a multidisciplinary approach involving specialists from oncology, surgical oncology, and radiation oncology is recommended. Most often, radical surgery encompassing both the breast parenchyma and the at-risk radiated skin is performed. Extensive surgery has demonstrated the best survival benefits compared to mastectomy alone.⁷ Chemotherapeutics also may be used as adjuncts to surgery, which have been determined to decrease local recurrence rates but have no proven survival benefits.² Adverse prognostic factors for survival are tumor size greater than 10 cm and development of local and/or distant metastases.² Following the diagnosis of RAAS, our patient underwent radical mastectomy with adjuvant chemotherapy and remained disease free 6 months after surgery.

In summary, RAAS is a well-known, albeit relatively uncommon, consequence of radiation therapy. Dermatologists, oncologists, and primary care providers play an important role in recognizing this entity when evaluating patients with ecchymotic lesions as well as nodules or tumors within an irradiated field. Biopsy should be obtained promptly to prevent delay in diagnosis and to expedite referral to appropriate specialists for further evaluation and treatment.

The Diagnosis: Radiation-Associated Angiosarcoma

At the time of presentation, a 4-mm lesional punch biopsy was obtained (Figure), which revealed an epithelioid neoplasm within the dermis expressing CD31 and CD34, and staining negatively for S-100, CD45, and estrogen and progesterone receptors. The histologic and immunophenotypic findings were compatible with the diagnosis of angiosarcoma. Given the patient’s history of radiation for breast carcinoma several years ago, this tumor was consistent with radiation-associated angiosarcoma (RAAS).

Development of secondary angiosarcoma has been linked to both prior radiation (RAAS) and chronic lymphedema (Stewart-Treves syndrome).¹ Radiation-associated angiosarcoma is defined as a “pathologically confirmed breast or chest wall angiosarcoma arising within a previously irradiated field.”² The incidence of RAAS is estimated to be 0.9 per 1000 individuals following radiation treatment of breast cancer over the subsequent 15 years and a mean time from radiation to development of 7 years.¹ Incidence is expected to increase in the future due to improved likelihood of surviving early-stage breast carcinoma and the increased use of external beam radiation therapy for management of breast cancer.

Differentiating between primary and secondary angiosarcoma of the breast is important. Although primary breast angiosarcoma usually arises in women aged 30 to 40 years, RAAS tends to arise in older women (mean age, 68 years) and is seen only in those women with prior radiation.² Additionally, high-level amplification of MYC, a known photo-oncogene, on chromosome 8 is a key genetic alteration of RAAS that helps to distinguish it from primary angiosarcoma, though this variance may be present in only half of RAAS cases.³ Immunohistochemical analysis of tumor cells for MYC expression correlates well with this amplification and also is helpful in distinguishing atypical vascular lesions from RAAS.⁴ Atypical vascular lesions, similar to RAAS, occur years after radiation exposure and may have a similar clinical presentation. Atypical vascular lesions do not progress to angiosarcoma in reported cases, but clinical and histologic overlap with RAAS make the diagnosis difficult.⁵ In these cases, analysis with fluorescence in situ hybridization or immunohistochemistry for the MYC amplification is important to differentiate these tumors.⁶

At the time of presentation, the majority of patients with RAAS of the breast have localized disease, often with a variable presentation. In all known cases, there have been skin changes present, emphasizing the importance of both patient and clinician vigilance on a regular basis in at-risk individuals. In one study, the most common presentation was breast ecchymosis, which was observed in 55% of patients.⁷ These lesions involve the dermis and are commonly mistaken for benign conditions such as infection or hemorrhage.² In 2 other studies, RAAS most often manifested as a skin nodule or apparent tumor, closely followed by either a rash or bruiselike presentation.^1,2

The overall recommendation for management of patients with ecchymotic skin lesions in previously irradiated regions is to obtain a biopsy specimen for tissue diagnosis. Although there is no standard of care for the management of RAAS, a multidisciplinary approach involving specialists from oncology, surgical oncology, and radiation oncology is recommended. Most often, radical surgery encompassing both the breast parenchyma and the at-risk radiated skin is performed. Extensive surgery has demonstrated the best survival benefits compared to mastectomy alone.⁷ Chemotherapeutics also may be used as adjuncts to surgery, which have been determined to decrease local recurrence rates but have no proven survival benefits.² Adverse prognostic factors for survival are tumor size greater than 10 cm and development of local and/or distant metastases.² Following the diagnosis of RAAS, our patient underwent radical mastectomy with adjuvant chemotherapy and remained disease free 6 months after surgery.

In summary, RAAS is a well-known, albeit relatively uncommon, consequence of radiation therapy. Dermatologists, oncologists, and primary care providers play an important role in recognizing this entity when evaluating patients with ecchymotic lesions as well as nodules or tumors within an irradiated field. Biopsy should be obtained promptly to prevent delay in diagnosis and to expedite referral to appropriate specialists for further evaluation and treatment.