Angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia and Kimura disease overlap, with evidence of diffuse visceral involvement.

A relationship between Kimura disease (KD) and angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia (ALHE) has been debated. Given substantial clinical and histological overlap, these entities were once considered to represent a disease spectrum; however, they are now widely considered to be nosologically distinct. A diagnosis of either condition is further complicated by resemblance to various malignancies, which must be carefully excluded. Coexistence of ALHE and KD in a patient is extremely rare, with only four cases reported in the English literature. We report what is to our knowledge the first case of ALHE and KD overlap with evidence of diffuse visceral involvement.

Adenopathy and extensive skin patch overlying a plasmacytoma with unusual histologic findings in a patient with polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal protein and skin changes syndrome and Castleman disease.

A 56-year-old previously healthy man presented to the dermatology clinic with a 2-year history of an expanding, violaceous, infiltrated plaque on the right flank. Biopsy revealed a diffuse dermal vascular proliferation of bland, capillary-sized vessels admixed with conspicuous fibrohistiocytic cells including scattered multinucleated floret cells. Further workup revealed a monoclonal gammopathy, an osteolytic chest wall plasmacytoma underlying the plaque, and regional lymphadenopathy leading to a diagnosis of adenopathy and extensive skin patch overlying a plasmacytoma (AESOP). Biopsy of an enlarged lymph node revealed Castleman disease. The patient subsequently developed polyneuropathy and peripheral edema, which supported an additional diagnosis of polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal protein, and skin changes (POEMS) syndrome. Herein, we discuss the unique findings of our patient, the potential pathogenesis of AESOP, and the link between these three rare paraneoplastic entities along with review of the literature.

Melanoma Reporting Practices of United States Dermatologists.

BACKGROUND: Accuracy of US cancer statistics depends on physicians' knowledge of and adherence to reporting mandates. Significant knowledge and practice gaps have been documented in regards to melanoma reporting requirements. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the gaps in dermatologists' knowledge and practice of melanoma reporting persist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors performed a survey of US dermatologists attending a national conference. The proportion aware of the melanoma reporting mandate and the proportion who routinely report newly diagnosed cases were calculated. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent (158/174) of those sampled completed the survey. Forty-nine percent correctly identified melanoma as being a disease of mandated reporting. Only 34% reported newly diagnosed cases to their state registry. Dermatologists seeing low melanoma volumes were less likely to routinely report newly diagnosed cases to registries than those seeing high volumes (22.9% vs 45.4%, p = .004). Those in practice for ≤10 years were less likely to be aware of the mandate than those in practice longer (32.6% vs 57.0%, p = .006). CONCLUSION: Most dermatologists remain unaware of melanoma reporting requirements. Resultant underestimates of the true incidence of melanoma could have resource allocation implications. Interventions aimed at improving knowledge of the mandate should focus on younger clinicians and those with lower melanoma case volumes.