The Keloid Disorder keloid treatment. Finally, the recent change in keloid nomenclature will be discussed, which has moved away from identifying keloids solely as abnormal scars with a purely cosmetic association toward understanding keloids for the fibroproliferative disorder that they are.

No abstract

SummaryBackground The pathogenesis underlying keloid formation is still poorly understood. Research has focused mostly on dermal abnormalities, while the epidermis has not yet been studied. Objectives To identify differences within the epidermis of mature keloid scars compared with normal skin and mature normotrophic and hypertrophic scars. Methods Rete ridge formation and epidermal thickness were evaluated in tissue sections. Epidermal proliferation was assessed using immunohistochemistry (Ki67, keratins 6, 16 and 17) and with an in vitro proliferation assay. Epidermal differentiation was evaluated using immunohistochemistry (keratin 10, involucrin, loricrin, filaggrin, SPRR2, SKALP), reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (involucrin) and transmission electron microscopy (stratum corneum). Results All scars showed flattening of the epidermis. A trend of increasing epidermal thickness correlating to increasing scar abnormality was observed when comparing normal skin, normotrophic scars, hypertrophic scars and keloids. No difference in epidermal proliferation was observed. Only the early differentiation marker involucrin showed abnormal expression in scars. Involucrin was restricted to the granular layer in healthy skin, but showed panepidermal expression in keloids. Normotrophic scars expressed involucrin in the granular and upper spinous layers, while hypertrophic scars resembled normotrophic scars or keloids. Abnormal differentiation was associated with ultrastructural disorganization of the stratum corneum in keloids compared with normal skin. Conclusions Keloids showed increased epidermal thickness compared with normal skin and normotrophic and hypertrophic scars. This was not due to hyperproliferation, but possibly caused by abnormal early terminal differentiation, which affects stratum corneum formation. Our findings indicate that the epidermis is associated with keloid pathogenesis and identify involucrin as a potential diagnostic marker for abnormal scarring.

Most cutaneous wounds heal with scar formation. Ideally, an inconspicuous normotrophic scar is formed, but an abnormal scar (hypertrophic scar or keloid) can also develop. A major challenge to scientists and physicians is to prevent adverse scar formation after severe trauma (e.g. burn injury) and understand why some individuals will form adverse scars even after relatively minor injury. Currently, many different models exist to study scar formation, ranging from simple monolayer cell culture to 3D tissue-engineered models even to humanized mouse models. Currently, these high-/medium-throughput test models avoid the main questions referring to why an adverse scar forms instead of a normotrophic scar and what causes a hypertrophic scar to form rather than a keloid scar and also, how is the genetic predisposition of the individual and the immune system involved. This information is essential if we are to identify new drug targets and develop optimal strategies in the future to prevent adverse scar formation. This viewpoint review summarizes the progress on in vitro and animal scar models, stresses the limitations in the current models and identifies the future challenges if scar-free healing is to be achieved in the future.

Wound healing comprises a series of carefully orchestrated processes that ideally culminate in the development of a relatively inconspicuous, flat and thin-lined normotrophic scar (Figure 1). In the event of excessive wound healing however, abnormal scars may develop instead. Two types of abnormal scars are commonly recognized: hypertrophic scars and keloids (Figure 1). Both these

Summary Background Our understanding of the pathogenesis underlying keloid scar formation is still very limited, and the morphological distinction between hypertrophic and keloid scars remains difficult. Objectives To test whether hypertrophic and keloid scars may reflect an inability to progress from immaturity to the desired mature normotrophic scar phenotype. Methods Using whole‐biopsy imaging and an objectively quantifiable way to analyse immunoreactivity, we have compared the immunohistopathological profiles of young immature scars with mature normotrophic scars, hypertrophic scars, and keloids with their surrounding‐normal‐skin. Results Abnormal scars (hypertrophic scars and keloids) maintain the immature scar phenotype, characterized by a CD34− (tumour biomarker) and α‐smooth muscle actin (α‐SMA)+ (myofibroblast) dermal region. This is in contrast to normal skin, surrounding‐normal‐skin and mature normotrophic scars that were CD34+/ α‐SMA−. Immature, hypertrophic and keloid scars showed abnormal epidermal differentiation (involucrin), but only hypertrophic scars and keloids showed increased epidermal thickness. Immature scars did show increased epidermal and dermal proliferation (Ki67), which was absent from abnormal scars, where mesenchymal hypercellularity (vimentin) and senescence (p16) were predominant. Keloidal collagen and α‐SMA were previously considered to distinguish between hypertrophic scars and keloids. However, α‐SMA staining was present in both abnormal scar types, while keloidal collagen was present mostly in keloids. There were no obvious signs of heterogeneity within keloid scars, and the surrounding‐normal‐skin resembled normal skin. Conclusions Both abnormal scar types showed a unique CD34−/α‐SMA+/p16+ scar phenotype, but the differences between hypertrophic scars and keloids observed in this study were of a gradient rather than absolute nature. This suggests that scar progression to the mature normal scar phenotype is, for as yet unknown reasons, hindered in hypertrophic and keloid scars. What's already known about this topic? Hypertrophic and keloid scars both have sustained epidermal barrier dysfunction, suggesting the persistence of an immature scar phenotype. Morphological distinction between hypertrophic and keloid scars remains a topic of debate, although α‐smooth muscle actin (α‐SMA) and keloidal collagen have been considered distinguishing features of hypertrophic and keloid scars, respectively. It has been suggested that keloids are not simply homogeneous growths, as heterogeneity within keloid scars and possible involvement of the surrounding‐normal‐skin have been reported. What does this study add? An extensive whole‐biopsy imaging and quantifiable immunohistochemical assessment of immature, mature normal, hypertrophic and keloid scars, including normal skin surrounding keloids. Hypertrophic and keloid scars maintain dermal characteristics of immature scars, rather than transitioning into the normal mature phenotype. Differences between hypertrophic and keloid scars...

To understand scar pathology, develop new drugs, and provide a platform for personalized medicine, physiologically relevant human scar models are required, which are characteristic of different scar pathologies. Hypertrophic scars and keloids are two types of abnormal scar resulting from unknown abnormalities in the wound healing process. While they display different clinical behavior, differentiation between the two can be difficult-which in turn means that it is difficult to develop optimal therapeutic strategies. The aim of this study was to develop in vitro reconstructed human hypertrophic and keloid scar models and compare these to normotrophic scar and normal skin models to identify distinguishing biomarkers. Keratinocytes and fibroblasts from normal skin and scar types (normotrophic, hypertrophic, keloid) were used to reconstruct skin models. All skin models showed a reconstructed differentiated epidermis on a fibroblast populated collagen-elastin matrix. Both abnormal scar types showed increased contraction, dermal thickness, and myofibroblast staining compared to normal skin and normotrophic scar. Notably, the expression of extracellular matrix associated genes showed distinguishing profiles between all scar types and normal skin (hyaluronan synthase-1, matrix-metalloprotease-3), between keloid and normal skin (collagen type IV), between normal scar and keloid (laminin α1), and between keloid and hypertrophic scar (matrix-metalloprotease-1, integrin α5). Also, inflammatory cytokine and growth factor secretion (CCL5, CXCL1, CXCL8, CCL27, IL-6, HGF) showed differential secretion between scar types. Our results strongly suggest that abnormal scars arise from different pathologies rather than simply being on different ends of the scarring spectrum. Furthermore, such normal skin and scar models together with biomarkers, which distinguish the different scar types, would provide an animal free, physiologically relevant scar diagnostic and drug testing platform for the future.

Keloid scars are often described as having an actively growing peripheral margin with a regressing centre. The aim of this study was to examine the possible heterogeneity within keloids and the involvement of different regions within and around keloid scars in the pathogenesis, using an in vitro keloid scar model. In vitro skin models were constructed from keratinocytes and fibroblasts from normal skin and different regions within and around keloid scars: periphery, centre, and (adjacent) surrounding-normal-skin regions. Additionally, fibroblasts were isolated from the superficial-central and deep-central regions of the keloid and combined with central keratinocytes. All keloid regions showed increased contraction compared to normal skin models, particularly in central regions. Myofibroblasts were present in all keloid regions but were more abundant in models containing central-deep keloid fibroblasts. Secretion of anti-fibrotic HGF and extracellular matrix collagen IV gene expression was reduced in the central deep keloid compared to normal skin. No significant differences between peripheral and central regions within keloids were observed for inflammatory cytokine CCL20, CCL27, CXCL8, IL-6 and IL-18 secretion. Parameters for surrounding-normal-skin showed similarities to both non-lesional normal skin and keloids. In conclusion, a simple but elegant method of culturing keloid-derived keratinocytes and fibroblasts in an organotypic 3D scar model was developed, for the dual purpose of studying the underlying pathology and ultimately testing new therapeutics. In this study, these tissue engineered scar models show that the central keloid region shows a more aggressive keloid scar phenotype than the periphery and that the surrounding-normal-skin also shares certain abnormalities characteristic for keloids.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00403-018-1873-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.