Please login or create an account. If you do not have access to this content, you will be shown a 30 second preview and licensing options.

Presentation

Dermal Pseudomonas Infection and Digital Papillary Sweat Gland Neoplasm

Description

The speaker presented two dermatopathology cases. The first was an inflamed catheter-site lesion in an immunosuppressed patient whose biopsy showed smudgy dermal necrosis extending into subcutis; after correlation with culture growing Pseudomonas, it was interpreted as a dermal Pseudomonas infection rather than ecthyma gangrenosum. The discussion emphasized the difficulty of distinguishing bacteria on histology alone, the limited agreement between histology and culture, and the low utility of tissue Gram stains, especially for gram-negative organisms. The second case was a long-standing wrist nodule that was shaved off and showed a papillary sweat gland neoplasm with minimal atypia. The main issue was whether it represented a benign tubular/papillary adenoma or digital papillary adenocarcinoma. Newer ancillary studies were discussed, including HPV low-risk/HPV42 positivity and BRAF staining, which may help separate benign from malignant lesions, though the speaker stressed that more study is needed and that clinical behavior remains the ultimate test. The consultants favored a benign sweat gland neoplasm based on the stains.

View more

Conclusions

Clinical and histologic correlation is essential because tissue appearance alone can be misleading, especially when infection is subtle or when bacteria may be overcalled on routine sections.
In suspected dermal Pseudomonas infection, culture confirmation is critical, since histology and culture often disagree and gram stains on tissue have limited sensitivity, particularly for gram-negative organisms.
Not every smudgy or granular dermal change represents bacteria; lesions such as solar elastosis with purpura or mucinosis can mimic infection.
The term ecthyma gangrenosum should be reserved for the classic clinical setting of widespread necrotic lesions with systemic Pseudomonas infection rather than used broadly for any dermal Pseudomonas-positive biopsy.
For digital papillary tumors, traditional histologic criteria such as atypia, necrosis, pleomorphism, and invasiveness have not reliably predicted behavior, so morphology alone is insufficient to distinguish benign from malignant lesions.
Newer immunohistochemical and molecular markers, especially HPV42 and BRAF, appear useful for separating digital papillary adenocarcinoma from tubular adenoma, but the evidence base is still small and needs more validation.
A practical working pattern is that HPV42 positivity with BRAF negativity favors digital papillary adenocarcinoma, whereas HPV42 negativity with BRAF positivity favors tubular adenoma.
Overall, the presentation argues for cautious interpretation, use of ancillary studies, and acknowledgment of diagnostic uncertainty in both infectious and adnexal tumor pathology.

Arch Dermatol. 2000;136:1271.
Stagg et al. JCP 2023.
Kao, Helwig, and Graham, AFIP, 1987.
Duke, Sherrod, and Lupton, 2000.
Shuchak, 2012.
Vanderbilt et al. Modern Pathol. 2022.
Bui et al. J Cutaneous Pathol. 2023.
Kervarrec, Busam, JCP 2023, PMID 37057379.