Advertisement
Letter to the Editor| Volume 90, ISSUE 3, P366-367, June 2018

Lymph stasis promotes tumor growth

Published:February 15, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdermsci.2018.02.010
      We have read with great interest the paper by Nakamura and colleagues [
      • Nakamura Y.
      • Fujisawa Y.
      • Okiyama N.
      • Watanabe R.
      • Tanaka R.
      • Ishitsuka Y.
      • Tahara H.
      • Fujimoto M.
      Surgical damage to the lymphatic system promotes tumor growth via impaired adaptive immune response.
      ] demonstrating that surgical damage to the lymphatic system promotes skin cancer growth by impairing adaptive immune response.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Dermatological Science
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Nakamura Y.
        • Fujisawa Y.
        • Okiyama N.
        • Watanabe R.
        • Tanaka R.
        • Ishitsuka Y.
        • Tahara H.
        • Fujimoto M.
        Surgical damage to the lymphatic system promotes tumor growth via impaired adaptive immune response.
        J. Dermatol. Sci. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdermsci.2017.12.016
        • Ruocco V.
        • Schwartz R.A.
        • Ruocco E.
        Lymphedema: an immunologically vulnerable site for development of neoplasms.
        J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2002; 47: 124-127
        • Ruocco E.
        • Puca R.V.
        • Brunetti G.
        • Schwartz R.A.
        • Ruocco V.
        Lymphedematous areas: privileged sites for tumors, infections, and immune disorders.
        Int. J. Dermatol. 2007; 46: 662
        • Ruocco V.
        • Brunetti G.
        • Puca R.V.
        • Ruocco E.
        The immunocompromised district: a unifying concept for lymphoedematous, herpes-infected and otherwise damaged sites.
        J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2009; 23: 1364-1373
        • Ruocco V.
        • Ruocco E.
        • Brunetti G.
        • Sangiuliano S.
        • Wolf R.
        Opportunistic localization of skin lesions on vulnerable areas.
        Clin. Dermatol. 2011; 29: 483-488
        • Ruocco V.
        • Ruocco E.
        • Piccolo V.
        • et al.
        The immunocompromised district in dermatology: a unifying pathogenic view of the regional immune dysregulation.
        Clin. Dermatol. 2014; 32: 569-576
        • Grada A.A.
        • Phillips T.J.
        Lymphedema: pathophysiology and clinical manifestations.
        J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2017; 77: 1009-1020
        • Fabbrocini G.
        • Ruocco E.
        • De Vita V.
        • Monfrecola G.
        Squamous cell carcinoma arising in long-standing hidradenitis suppurativa: an overlooked facet of the immunocompromised district.
        Clin. Dermatol. 2017; 35: 225-227
        • De Vita V.
        • Ruocco E.
        Letter to the Editor referring to Hessam et al. -Squamous cell carcinoma arising in hidradenitis suppurativa: subclinical lymphedema may have favored the tumor onset.
        J. Dtsch. Dermatol. Ges. 2017; 15: 580-582
        • De Vita V.
        • Ruocco E.
        The concept of immunocompromised district might explain the carcinogenic progression in hidradenitis suppurativa.
        Acta. Oncol. 2017; 56: 1330-1331
        • De Vita V.
        • Ruocco E.
        Mucinous adenocarcinoma in association with hidradenitis suppurativa: a new example of isoscartopic response.
        Clin. Exp. Dermatol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1111/ced.13338
        • Piccolo V.
        • Baroni A.
        • Russo T.
        • Schwartz R.A.
        Ruocco's immunocompromised cutaneous district.
        Int. J. Dermatol. 2016; 55: 135-141