4.1 Article

Erythema nodosum after azacitidine in a patient with acute myeloid leukemia

Journal

JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PHARMACY PRACTICE
Volume 29, Issue 1, Pages 226-229

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/10781552221098422

Keywords

AML; azacitidine; erythema nodosum

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article reports a rare case of treatment-related erythema nodosum (EN) in a patient with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), which was treated with topical and oral steroids. The focus of the discussion is on considering EN as an alternative diagnosis when determining the correct diagnosis.
Introduction Nodular skin lesions in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) raise clinical suspicion for leukemia cutis versus fungal infections. Here, we report a rare case of treatment-related erythema nodosum (EN) in a patient with AML. Case Report Approximately 5 weeks after the initiation of sorafenib and one week after azacitidine initiation, a 32-year-old man with primary refractory AML presented with several painful red nodules on the lower extremities. Histological examination established a diagnosis of EN. Management and Outcome Treatment with topical and oral steroids led to complete resolution of the nodules. However, once the dose of steroids was reduced, the lesions rapidly recurred. Higher dose steroids were reinitiated, again with a resolution of the nodules, confirming steroid responsiveness of the underlying process. Discussion Given the onset of lesions one week after the initiation of azacitidine and 5 weeks after the initiation of sorafenib, azacitidine was considered the more likely culprit. Only 2 cases of EN-like eruption after azacitidine and 1 case after sorafenib have been reported. Although fungal infections and leukemia cutis are the top differentials considered for skin nodules in a patient with AML, EN should be considered as an alternative diagnosis. Correct diagnosis is critical because it will guide treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available