Conclusion
Our case suggests that paraneoplastic BP is a genuine entity. Indeed, the primary tumor itself may be the immunologic stimulus in the development of BP. Recalcitrant BP should raise the question of a neoplastic process that is exposing the BP antigen. If a thorough review of systems accompanied by corroborating laboratory studies suggests a neoplastic process, the suspect lesion should be further evaluated and surgically excised if clinically indicated. Further evaluation of neoplasms with advanced staining methods may aid in establishing the causative nature of tumors in the development of BP.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to John Stanley, MD, and Aimee Payne, MD (both from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), for theirinsights into this case.