Lymphomatoid contact dermatitis

Noneczematous contact dermatitis

Irritant or allergic contact dermatitis usually presents as an eczematous process, clinically characterized by erythematoedematovesicous lesions with intense itching in the acute phase. Such manifestations become erythematous-scaly as the condition progresses to the subacute phase and papular-hyperkeratotic in the chronic phase. Not infrequently, however, contact dermatitis presents with noneczematous features. The reasons underlying this clinical polymorphism lie in the different noxae and contact modalities, as well as in the individual susceptibility and the various targeted cutaneous structures. The most represented forms of non-eczematous contact dermatitis include the erythema multiforme-like, the purpuric, the lichenoid, and the pigmented kinds. These clinical entities must obviously be discerned from the corresponding “pure” dermatitis, which are not associated with contact with exogenous agents.

Lymphomatoid contact dermatitis to para-tertyl-butyl phenol resin

Lymphomatoid contact dermatitis refers to the relatively little known phenomenon of allergic contact dermatitis producing histological features suggestive of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. We report the first case of lymphomatoid contact dermatitis in response to para-tertyl-butyl phenol resin.

Cutaneous pseudolymphoma, lymphomatoid contact dermatitis type, as an unusual cause of symmetrical upper eyelid nodules

We describe a 74-year-old woman who rapidly developed bilateral voluminous nodules on the upper eyelids, following 4 months' treatment for chalazion. Histological and immunohistochemical findings were suggestive of cutaneous pseudolymphoma (CPL), and extensive screening for malignant lymphoma (ML) remained negative. Cutaneous pseudolymphomas are inflammatory diseases that can simulate ML either clinically, histopathologically, or both. They are a rare cause of nodules of the upper eyelids, usually characterized by a benign evolution, that can be secondary to ultraviolet sensitivity, adverse reactions to systemic medications and contact sensitization, among others. In our case, epicutaneous patch tests were strongly positive for a series of allergens contained in the ophthalmological preparations used; therefore, they were suggestive that the patient had CPL, lymphomatoid contact dermatitis type. In addition, the patient had been treated previously with several drugs, known to cause CPL and immune dysregulation. Complete regression of the lesions required treatment with systemic steroids and chlorambucil. No relapse occurred within a 5-year follow-up period.

Airborne contact dermatitis: an update

This review is an update of a previously published one on airborne-induced contact dermatoses. Because reports in the literature often omit the term 'airborne', 12 volumes of Contact Dermatitis (July 1985-April 1991) were screened, and the cases cited were classified as to history, lesion locations, causative agents, and other factors. The number of reports of airborne dermatoses has increased considerably in recent years.

Epicutaneous patch testing: current trends and controversial topics

In the 20th century, epicutaneous patch testing has played an integral and central role in the assessment of allergic contact dermatitis and therefore in general dermatologic practice. After recent verification of the safety and accuracy of patch testing by the Food and Drug Administration, domestic distribution of testing materials has resumed for the first time in 5 years. Because of the importance of this procedure, it is timely to review current standards of epicutaneous patch testing with emphasis on proper use and interpretation, clinical applications, trends in allergic contact dermatitis, and selected controversial issues.