Extramammary Paget’s disease (EMPD) is an extremely rare cutaneous malignancy that represents a slow-growing, erythematous, ulcerative or eczematous plaque in areas of the body that possess a high concentration of apocrine glands. It is frequently observed in the genital region of Caucasian females, with the perianal region representing an uncommon site of involvement. Here, we report a case of primary extramammary Paget’s disease in the perianal region of a 55-year-old male, offering new insights into this elusive and poorly understood dermatologic condition.

A 55-year-old male sought consultation for a solitary, well-defined, irregularly shaped, erythematous to violaceous, ulcerated plaque in the perianal area of one-year duration. A clinical diagnosis of primary EMPD was confirmed by histopathologic findings of Paget cells, a cytokeratin 7 positive/cytokeratin 20 negative immunophenotype, and the absence of underlying malignancy. A wide excision with negative margin control and a bilateral V-Y fasciocutaneous advancement flap were performed with good results.

Extramammary Paget’s disease is a rare but insidious dermatologic malignancy often easily disregarded as a benign inflammatory condition. It underscores the need for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion to provide an early, accurate diagnosis, leading to a multidisciplinary treatment approach to prevent potential complications.

Human ; Male ; Middle Aged: 45-64 Yrs Old

: Pityriasis lichenoides (PL) is an inflammatory papulosquamous condition that exists in a continuous spectrum that consists mainly of pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta and pityriasis lichenoides chronica (PLC). The condition has been reported to erupt in response to infections, radiocontrast media, medications and vaccines. Most case reports on vaccine-related eruption involve the acute PL, hence, this report aimed to present a case presenting with lesions of the chronic variant. : A 21-year-old female presented with multiple erythematous to hyperpigmented ill defined plaques, some ulceronecrotic, topped with fine scales and excoriations on the upper and lower extremities, periumbilical area and back of 4 months duration, following rabies vaccinations. : Histopathologic findings, including interface dermatitis, parakeratosis, spongiosis, and mixed inflammatory infiltrates, confirmed the diagnosis of PLC. The patient responded well to oral corticosteroids and heliotherapy. PL is rare and requires additional research. The potential role of vaccination as an etiologic agent represented a crucial area of this investigation. Additionally, heliotherapy should be considered as a viable therapeutic alternative when phototherapy is not feasible.. Further research is needed to elucidate the pathogenesis of PL and establish evidence-based treatment protocols.
Pityriasis lichenoides chronica ; Pityriasis lichenoides ; heliotherapy ; vaccine

Introduction: COVID-19 has emerged as a global problem with vaccines being established as one of the best tools in its control. Of particular interest in dermatology are risks and manifestations of cutaneous reactions from such countermeasures, with strides made in documenting and associating skin reactions with vaccines against COVID-19. This study aimed to determine the incidence of cutaneous adverse reactions in recipients of recombinant ChAdOx1-S and inactivated SARS-COV-2 vaccines among healthcare personnel and employees of UERMMMCI. Methods: A cross-sectional study was done were respondents, chosen through randomized stratified cluster sampling, were given a questionnaire to elicit cutaneous adverse effects associated with COVID-19 vaccines. Results: There were198 respondents, of which 29.3% were male and 70.7% were female, with a mean age of 26.07 years. Of these respondents, 72 (36.36%) received recombinant ChAdOx1-S and 126 (63.64%) received inactivated SARS-COV-2 vaccine. For the first dose, cutaneous reactions developed in 6 (8.33%) recipients of recombinant ChAdOx1-S, and 2 (1.59%) recipients of inactivated SARS-COV-2. For the second dose, no reactions followed vaccination with recombinant ChAdOx1-S while 4 (3.17%) reactions developed after inactivated SARS-COV-2 vaccination. Lesions were mostly confined to the injection site presenting with erythema for both vaccine types. One urticarial, widespread reaction was associated with a second dose of inactivated SARS-COV-2 vaccine. Conclusions Adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccinations have been documented which may be attributed to respective excipients rather than vaccine antigens. Due to the rare occurrence of severe anaphylactic reactions, vaccine use is recommended as they confer protection even to those with prior infections. Documented reactions in this study were observed to be mild and self- limiting similar to larger studies.
Vaccines ; COVID-19 ; Pandemics