Background: Octocrylene is a new emerging photoallergen. We report and discuss 50 cases of photoallergic contact dermatitis from octocrylene use and/or positive photopatch test reactions to this UV filter and draw attention to the unexpected association in adults with a history of photoallergic contact dermatitis from ketoprofen.Observations: Patients were divided in 3 groups: group A comprised 11 children; group B, 28 adults with a history of photoallergy from sunscreen products; and group C, 14 adults systematically tested with octocrylene because of a history of photoallergy from ketoprofen. All patients but 3 in group C had positive test reactions to octocrylene. Ten of 11 children in group A and 9 of 28 adults in group B had positive patch test reactions to octocrylene. One child in group A, the other 19 adults in group B, and 11 of 14 adults in group C had positive pho-

We report 4 cases of contact sensitization to propacetamol. They presented with lesions on the hands, forearms, crease of the elbows, and neck. They were all sensitized to multiple allergens and 2 of them were atopic. Patch tests to Pro-Dafalgan and propacetamol were positive; sodium citrate and paracetamol were negative. Our cases were similar to those published for the first time by Barbaud in 1995. The only allergen was propacetamol; patch tests with diethyglycine and paracetamol were negative. Propacetamol chlorhydrate is composed of a complex paracetamol-diethylglycine, which probably acts like a hapten capable of inducing cutaneous allergy. It is an occupational allergy affecting nurses who work in surgery departments or post-anesthesia recovery rooms, where high doses of analgesics are widely used. The patients were not allergic to oral paracetamol. Despite the usual precautions, the mixture of propacetamol chlorhydrate and solvent leaks onto the nurses' hands, suggesting that health care workers handling propacetamol chlorhydrate should wear gloves.

Mitomycin C is an alkylating chemotherapeutic agent which is instilled intravesically to prevent recurrence of superficial bladder carcinomas. After several cycles of mitomycin C, our patient developed a pruritic genital dermatitis and palmar desquamation. Following exclusion of a fungal infection, we performed patch tests using the standard series, the major basic ointment ingredients, disinfectants, and mitomycin C in concentrations of 0.001 to 0.1%; the resulting diagnosis was allergic contact dermatitis due to delayed-type hypersensitivity to mitomycin C. The skin rash rapidly resolved with application of topical steroids, and the intravesical chemotherapy was changed to doxorubicin. Eczematous skin reactions are quite common side effects after intravesical instillation of mitomycin C. In the majority of cases, they are caused by delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions, presumably elicited by hematogenous spread of the allergen, and not by irritation. The sensitization most likely occurs via the bladder mucosa. In order to differentiate between allergic and toxic contact dermatitis, patch tests with the above-mentioned mitomycin C concentrations are useful. In cases of mild allergic contact dermatitis the intravesical chemotherapy might be continued with concomitant topical steroids.