MDedge Dermatology

To the Editor:

In an interesting analysis, Brady and Hossler¹ (Cutis. 2020;106:315-317) highlighted the limitations of histopathologic biopsy margin evaluation for cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Taking into consideration the high prevalence of BCC and its medical and economic impact on the health care system, the issue raised by the authors is an important one. They proposed that pathologists may omit reporting margins or clarify the limitations in their reports. It is a valid suggestion; however, in practice, margin evaluation is not always a simple process and is influenced by a number of factors.

The subject of optimum margins for BCC has been debated over decades now; however, ambiguity and lack of definitive guidelines on certain aspects still remain, leading to a lack of standardization and variability in reporting, which opens potential for error. In anatomical pathology, the biopsies for malignancies are interpreted to confirm diagnosis and perform risk assessment, with evaluation of margins generally reserved for subsequent definitive resections. Typically, margins are not required by clinicians or reported by pathologists in common endoscopic (eg, stomach, colon) or needle core (eg, prostate, breast) biopsies. Skin holds a rather unique position in which margin evaluation is not just limited to excisions. With the exception of samples generated from electrodesiccation and curettage, it is common practice by some laboratories to report margins on most specimens of cutaneous malignancies.

In simple terms, when margins are labeled negative there should be no residual disease, and when they are deemed positive there should be disease still persisting in the patient. Margin evaluation for BCC on biopsies falls short on both fronts. In one analysis, 24% (34/143) of shave biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in ensuing re-excisions (negative predictive value: 76%).² Standard bread-loafing, en-face margins and inking for orientation utilized to provide a thorough margin evaluation of excisions cannot be optimally achieved on small skin biopsies. Microscopic sections for analysis are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional structures. Slides prepared can miss deeply embedded outermost margins, positioned parallel to the plane of sectioning, thereby creating blind spots where margins cannot be precisely assessed and generating an inherent limitation in evaluation. Exhaustive deeper levels done routinely can address this issue to a certain degree; however, it can be an impractical solution with cost implications and delay in turnaround time.

Conversely, it also is common to encounter absence of residual BCC in re-excisions in which the original biopsy margins were labeled positive. In one analysis, 49% of BCC patients (n=100) with positive biopsy margins did not display residual neoplasm on following re-excisions.³ Localized biopsy site immune response as a cause of postbiopsy regression of residual tumor has been hypothesized to produce this phenomenon. Moreover, initial biopsies may eliminate the majority of the tumor with only minimal disease persisting. Re-excisions submitted in toto allow for a systematic examination; however, areas in between sections still remain where minute residual tumor may hide. Searching for such occult foci generally is not aggressively pursued via deeper levels unless the margins of re-excision are in question.

Superficial-type BCC (or superficial multifocal BCC) is a major factor in precluding precise biopsy margin evaluation. In a study where initial biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in subsequent re-excisions, 91% (31/34) of residual BCCs were of superficial variety.² Clinically, superficial BCC frequently has indistinct borders with subtle subclinical peripheral progression. It has a tendency to expand radially, with the clinical appearance deceptively smaller than its true extent. In a plane of histopathologic section, superficial BCC may exhibit skip zones within the epidermis. Even though the margin may seem uninvolved on the slide, a noncontiguous focus may still emerge beyond the “negative” margin. Because superficial pattern is not unusual as one of the components of mixed histology (composite) BCC, this issue is not just limited to tumors specifically designated as superficial type.⁴

The intent of a procedure is important to recognize. If a biopsy is done with the intention of diagnosis only, the pathologic assessment can be limited to tumor identification and core data elements, with margin evaluation reserved for excisions done with therapeutic intent. However, the intent is not always clear, which adds to ambiguity on when to report margins. It is not uncommon to find saucerization shaves or large punch biopsies for BCC carried out with a therapeutic intent. The status of margin is desired in such samples; however, the intent is not always clearly communicated on requisitions. To avoid any gaps in communication, some pathologists may err on the side of caution and start routinely reporting margins on biopsies.

Taking into account the inaccuracy of margin assessment in biopsies, an argument for omitting margin reporting is plausible. Although dermatologists are the major contributors of skin samples, pathology laboratories cater to a broader clientele. Other physicians from different surgical and medical specialities also perform skin biopsies, and catering to a variety of specialities adds another layer of complexity. A dermatologist may appreciate the debate regarding reliability of margins; however, a physician from another speciality who is not as familiar with the diseases of the integument may lack proper understanding. Omitting margin reporting may lead to misinterpretations or false assumptions, such as, “The margins must be uninvolved, otherwise the pathologist would have said something.” This also can generate additional phone or email inquiries and second review requests. Rather than completely omitting them, another strategy can be to report margins in more quantitative terms. One reporting approach is to have 3 categories of involved, uninvolved, and uninvolved but close for margins less than 1 mm. The cases in the third category may require greater scrutiny by deeper levels or an added caveat in the comment addressing the limitation. If the status of margins is not reported due to a certain reason, a short comment can be added to explain the reason.

In sum, clinicians should recognize that “margin negative” on skin biopsy does not always equate to “completely excised.” Margin status on biopsies is a data item that essentially provides a probability of margin clearance. Completely omitting the margin status on all biopsies may not be the most prudent approach; however, improved guidelines and modifications to enhance the reporting are definitely required.

References

1. Brady MC, Hossler EW. Reliability of biopsy margin status for basal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study. Cutis. 2020;106:315-317.
    
2. Willardson HB, Lombardo J, Raines M, et al. Predictive value of basal cell carcinoma biopsies with negative margins: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:42-46.
    
3. Yuan Y, Duff ML, Sammons DL, et al. Retrospective chart review of skin cancer presence in the wide excisions. World J Clin Cases. 2014;2:52-56.
    
4. Cohen PR, Schulze KE, Nelson BR. Basal cell carcinoma with mixed histology: a possible pathogenesis for recurrent skin cancer. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:542-551.

Continue to: Author's Response...

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the thorough and thoughtful comments in the Letter to the Editor. We agree with the author’s assertion that negative margins on skin specimens does not equate to “completely excised” and that the intent of the clinician is not always clear, even when the pathologist has ready access to the clinician’s notes, as was the case for the majority of specimens included in our study.

There is already variability in how pathologists report margins, including the specific verbiage used, at least for melanocytic lesions.¹ The choice of whether or not to report margins and the meaning of those margins is complex due to the uncertainty inherent in margin assessment. Quantifying this uncertainty was the main reason for our study. Ultimately, the pathologist’s decision on whether and how to report margins should be focused on improving patient outcomes. There are benefits and drawbacks to all approaches, and our goal is to provide more information for clinicians and pathologists so that they may better care for their patients. Understanding the limitations of margins on submitted skin specimens—whether margins are reported or not—can only serve to guide improve clinical decision-making. 

We also agree that the breadth of specialties of submitting clinicians make reporting of margins difficult, and there is likely similar breadth in their understanding of the nuances of margin assessment and reports. The solution to this problem is adequate education regarding the limitations of a pathology report, and specifically what is meant when margins are (or are not) reported on skin specimens. How to best educate the myriad clinicians who submit biopsies is, of course, the ultimate challenge.

We hope that our study adds information to this ongoing debate regarding margin status reporting, and we appreciate the discussion points raised by the author.

Eric Hossler, MD; Mary Brady, MD

From the Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Reference

1. Sellheyer K, Bergfeld WF, Stewart E, et al. Evaluation of surgical margins in melanocytic lesions: a survey among 152 dermatopathologists.J Cutan Pathol. 2005;32:293-299.

To the Editor:

In an interesting analysis, Brady and Hossler¹ (Cutis. 2020;106:315-317) highlighted the limitations of histopathologic biopsy margin evaluation for cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Taking into consideration the high prevalence of BCC and its medical and economic impact on the health care system, the issue raised by the authors is an important one. They proposed that pathologists may omit reporting margins or clarify the limitations in their reports. It is a valid suggestion; however, in practice, margin evaluation is not always a simple process and is influenced by a number of factors.

The subject of optimum margins for BCC has been debated over decades now; however, ambiguity and lack of definitive guidelines on certain aspects still remain, leading to a lack of standardization and variability in reporting, which opens potential for error. In anatomical pathology, the biopsies for malignancies are interpreted to confirm diagnosis and perform risk assessment, with evaluation of margins generally reserved for subsequent definitive resections. Typically, margins are not required by clinicians or reported by pathologists in common endoscopic (eg, stomach, colon) or needle core (eg, prostate, breast) biopsies. Skin holds a rather unique position in which margin evaluation is not just limited to excisions. With the exception of samples generated from electrodesiccation and curettage, it is common practice by some laboratories to report margins on most specimens of cutaneous malignancies.

In simple terms, when margins are labeled negative there should be no residual disease, and when they are deemed positive there should be disease still persisting in the patient. Margin evaluation for BCC on biopsies falls short on both fronts. In one analysis, 24% (34/143) of shave biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in ensuing re-excisions (negative predictive value: 76%).² Standard bread-loafing, en-face margins and inking for orientation utilized to provide a thorough margin evaluation of excisions cannot be optimally achieved on small skin biopsies. Microscopic sections for analysis are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional structures. Slides prepared can miss deeply embedded outermost margins, positioned parallel to the plane of sectioning, thereby creating blind spots where margins cannot be precisely assessed and generating an inherent limitation in evaluation. Exhaustive deeper levels done routinely can address this issue to a certain degree; however, it can be an impractical solution with cost implications and delay in turnaround time.

Conversely, it also is common to encounter absence of residual BCC in re-excisions in which the original biopsy margins were labeled positive. In one analysis, 49% of BCC patients (n=100) with positive biopsy margins did not display residual neoplasm on following re-excisions.³ Localized biopsy site immune response as a cause of postbiopsy regression of residual tumor has been hypothesized to produce this phenomenon. Moreover, initial biopsies may eliminate the majority of the tumor with only minimal disease persisting. Re-excisions submitted in toto allow for a systematic examination; however, areas in between sections still remain where minute residual tumor may hide. Searching for such occult foci generally is not aggressively pursued via deeper levels unless the margins of re-excision are in question.

Superficial-type BCC (or superficial multifocal BCC) is a major factor in precluding precise biopsy margin evaluation. In a study where initial biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in subsequent re-excisions, 91% (31/34) of residual BCCs were of superficial variety.² Clinically, superficial BCC frequently has indistinct borders with subtle subclinical peripheral progression. It has a tendency to expand radially, with the clinical appearance deceptively smaller than its true extent. In a plane of histopathologic section, superficial BCC may exhibit skip zones within the epidermis. Even though the margin may seem uninvolved on the slide, a noncontiguous focus may still emerge beyond the “negative” margin. Because superficial pattern is not unusual as one of the components of mixed histology (composite) BCC, this issue is not just limited to tumors specifically designated as superficial type.⁴

The intent of a procedure is important to recognize. If a biopsy is done with the intention of diagnosis only, the pathologic assessment can be limited to tumor identification and core data elements, with margin evaluation reserved for excisions done with therapeutic intent. However, the intent is not always clear, which adds to ambiguity on when to report margins. It is not uncommon to find saucerization shaves or large punch biopsies for BCC carried out with a therapeutic intent. The status of margin is desired in such samples; however, the intent is not always clearly communicated on requisitions. To avoid any gaps in communication, some pathologists may err on the side of caution and start routinely reporting margins on biopsies.

Taking into account the inaccuracy of margin assessment in biopsies, an argument for omitting margin reporting is plausible. Although dermatologists are the major contributors of skin samples, pathology laboratories cater to a broader clientele. Other physicians from different surgical and medical specialities also perform skin biopsies, and catering to a variety of specialities adds another layer of complexity. A dermatologist may appreciate the debate regarding reliability of margins; however, a physician from another speciality who is not as familiar with the diseases of the integument may lack proper understanding. Omitting margin reporting may lead to misinterpretations or false assumptions, such as, “The margins must be uninvolved, otherwise the pathologist would have said something.” This also can generate additional phone or email inquiries and second review requests. Rather than completely omitting them, another strategy can be to report margins in more quantitative terms. One reporting approach is to have 3 categories of involved, uninvolved, and uninvolved but close for margins less than 1 mm. The cases in the third category may require greater scrutiny by deeper levels or an added caveat in the comment addressing the limitation. If the status of margins is not reported due to a certain reason, a short comment can be added to explain the reason.

In sum, clinicians should recognize that “margin negative” on skin biopsy does not always equate to “completely excised.” Margin status on biopsies is a data item that essentially provides a probability of margin clearance. Completely omitting the margin status on all biopsies may not be the most prudent approach; however, improved guidelines and modifications to enhance the reporting are definitely required.

References

1. Brady MC, Hossler EW. Reliability of biopsy margin status for basal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study. Cutis. 2020;106:315-317.
    
2. Willardson HB, Lombardo J, Raines M, et al. Predictive value of basal cell carcinoma biopsies with negative margins: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:42-46.
    
3. Yuan Y, Duff ML, Sammons DL, et al. Retrospective chart review of skin cancer presence in the wide excisions. World J Clin Cases. 2014;2:52-56.
    
4. Cohen PR, Schulze KE, Nelson BR. Basal cell carcinoma with mixed histology: a possible pathogenesis for recurrent skin cancer. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:542-551.

Continue to: Author's Response...

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the thorough and thoughtful comments in the Letter to the Editor. We agree with the author’s assertion that negative margins on skin specimens does not equate to “completely excised” and that the intent of the clinician is not always clear, even when the pathologist has ready access to the clinician’s notes, as was the case for the majority of specimens included in our study.

There is already variability in how pathologists report margins, including the specific verbiage used, at least for melanocytic lesions.¹ The choice of whether or not to report margins and the meaning of those margins is complex due to the uncertainty inherent in margin assessment. Quantifying this uncertainty was the main reason for our study. Ultimately, the pathologist’s decision on whether and how to report margins should be focused on improving patient outcomes. There are benefits and drawbacks to all approaches, and our goal is to provide more information for clinicians and pathologists so that they may better care for their patients. Understanding the limitations of margins on submitted skin specimens—whether margins are reported or not—can only serve to guide improve clinical decision-making. 

We also agree that the breadth of specialties of submitting clinicians make reporting of margins difficult, and there is likely similar breadth in their understanding of the nuances of margin assessment and reports. The solution to this problem is adequate education regarding the limitations of a pathology report, and specifically what is meant when margins are (or are not) reported on skin specimens. How to best educate the myriad clinicians who submit biopsies is, of course, the ultimate challenge.

We hope that our study adds information to this ongoing debate regarding margin status reporting, and we appreciate the discussion points raised by the author.

Eric Hossler, MD; Mary Brady, MD

From the Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Reference

1. Sellheyer K, Bergfeld WF, Stewart E, et al. Evaluation of surgical margins in melanocytic lesions: a survey among 152 dermatopathologists.J Cutan Pathol. 2005;32:293-299.

To the Editor:

In an interesting analysis, Brady and Hossler¹ (Cutis. 2020;106:315-317) highlighted the limitations of histopathologic biopsy margin evaluation for cutaneous basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Taking into consideration the high prevalence of BCC and its medical and economic impact on the health care system, the issue raised by the authors is an important one. They proposed that pathologists may omit reporting margins or clarify the limitations in their reports. It is a valid suggestion; however, in practice, margin evaluation is not always a simple process and is influenced by a number of factors.

The subject of optimum margins for BCC has been debated over decades now; however, ambiguity and lack of definitive guidelines on certain aspects still remain, leading to a lack of standardization and variability in reporting, which opens potential for error. In anatomical pathology, the biopsies for malignancies are interpreted to confirm diagnosis and perform risk assessment, with evaluation of margins generally reserved for subsequent definitive resections. Typically, margins are not required by clinicians or reported by pathologists in common endoscopic (eg, stomach, colon) or needle core (eg, prostate, breast) biopsies. Skin holds a rather unique position in which margin evaluation is not just limited to excisions. With the exception of samples generated from electrodesiccation and curettage, it is common practice by some laboratories to report margins on most specimens of cutaneous malignancies.

In simple terms, when margins are labeled negative there should be no residual disease, and when they are deemed positive there should be disease still persisting in the patient. Margin evaluation for BCC on biopsies falls short on both fronts. In one analysis, 24% (34/143) of shave biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in ensuing re-excisions (negative predictive value: 76%).² Standard bread-loafing, en-face margins and inking for orientation utilized to provide a thorough margin evaluation of excisions cannot be optimally achieved on small skin biopsies. Microscopic sections for analysis are 2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional structures. Slides prepared can miss deeply embedded outermost margins, positioned parallel to the plane of sectioning, thereby creating blind spots where margins cannot be precisely assessed and generating an inherent limitation in evaluation. Exhaustive deeper levels done routinely can address this issue to a certain degree; however, it can be an impractical solution with cost implications and delay in turnaround time.

Conversely, it also is common to encounter absence of residual BCC in re-excisions in which the original biopsy margins were labeled positive. In one analysis, 49% of BCC patients (n=100) with positive biopsy margins did not display residual neoplasm on following re-excisions.³ Localized biopsy site immune response as a cause of postbiopsy regression of residual tumor has been hypothesized to produce this phenomenon. Moreover, initial biopsies may eliminate the majority of the tumor with only minimal disease persisting. Re-excisions submitted in toto allow for a systematic examination; however, areas in between sections still remain where minute residual tumor may hide. Searching for such occult foci generally is not aggressively pursued via deeper levels unless the margins of re-excision are in question.

Superficial-type BCC (or superficial multifocal BCC) is a major factor in precluding precise biopsy margin evaluation. In a study where initial biopsies reported with negative margins displayed residual BCC in subsequent re-excisions, 91% (31/34) of residual BCCs were of superficial variety.² Clinically, superficial BCC frequently has indistinct borders with subtle subclinical peripheral progression. It has a tendency to expand radially, with the clinical appearance deceptively smaller than its true extent. In a plane of histopathologic section, superficial BCC may exhibit skip zones within the epidermis. Even though the margin may seem uninvolved on the slide, a noncontiguous focus may still emerge beyond the “negative” margin. Because superficial pattern is not unusual as one of the components of mixed histology (composite) BCC, this issue is not just limited to tumors specifically designated as superficial type.⁴

The intent of a procedure is important to recognize. If a biopsy is done with the intention of diagnosis only, the pathologic assessment can be limited to tumor identification and core data elements, with margin evaluation reserved for excisions done with therapeutic intent. However, the intent is not always clear, which adds to ambiguity on when to report margins. It is not uncommon to find saucerization shaves or large punch biopsies for BCC carried out with a therapeutic intent. The status of margin is desired in such samples; however, the intent is not always clearly communicated on requisitions. To avoid any gaps in communication, some pathologists may err on the side of caution and start routinely reporting margins on biopsies.

Taking into account the inaccuracy of margin assessment in biopsies, an argument for omitting margin reporting is plausible. Although dermatologists are the major contributors of skin samples, pathology laboratories cater to a broader clientele. Other physicians from different surgical and medical specialities also perform skin biopsies, and catering to a variety of specialities adds another layer of complexity. A dermatologist may appreciate the debate regarding reliability of margins; however, a physician from another speciality who is not as familiar with the diseases of the integument may lack proper understanding. Omitting margin reporting may lead to misinterpretations or false assumptions, such as, “The margins must be uninvolved, otherwise the pathologist would have said something.” This also can generate additional phone or email inquiries and second review requests. Rather than completely omitting them, another strategy can be to report margins in more quantitative terms. One reporting approach is to have 3 categories of involved, uninvolved, and uninvolved but close for margins less than 1 mm. The cases in the third category may require greater scrutiny by deeper levels or an added caveat in the comment addressing the limitation. If the status of margins is not reported due to a certain reason, a short comment can be added to explain the reason.

In sum, clinicians should recognize that “margin negative” on skin biopsy does not always equate to “completely excised.” Margin status on biopsies is a data item that essentially provides a probability of margin clearance. Completely omitting the margin status on all biopsies may not be the most prudent approach; however, improved guidelines and modifications to enhance the reporting are definitely required.

References

1. Brady MC, Hossler EW. Reliability of biopsy margin status for basal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study. Cutis. 2020;106:315-317.
    
2. Willardson HB, Lombardo J, Raines M, et al. Predictive value of basal cell carcinoma biopsies with negative margins: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79:42-46.
    
3. Yuan Y, Duff ML, Sammons DL, et al. Retrospective chart review of skin cancer presence in the wide excisions. World J Clin Cases. 2014;2:52-56.
    
4. Cohen PR, Schulze KE, Nelson BR. Basal cell carcinoma with mixed histology: a possible pathogenesis for recurrent skin cancer. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32:542-551.

Continue to: Author's Response...

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the thorough and thoughtful comments in the Letter to the Editor. We agree with the author’s assertion that negative margins on skin specimens does not equate to “completely excised” and that the intent of the clinician is not always clear, even when the pathologist has ready access to the clinician’s notes, as was the case for the majority of specimens included in our study.

There is already variability in how pathologists report margins, including the specific verbiage used, at least for melanocytic lesions.¹ The choice of whether or not to report margins and the meaning of those margins is complex due to the uncertainty inherent in margin assessment. Quantifying this uncertainty was the main reason for our study. Ultimately, the pathologist’s decision on whether and how to report margins should be focused on improving patient outcomes. There are benefits and drawbacks to all approaches, and our goal is to provide more information for clinicians and pathologists so that they may better care for their patients. Understanding the limitations of margins on submitted skin specimens—whether margins are reported or not—can only serve to guide improve clinical decision-making. 

We also agree that the breadth of specialties of submitting clinicians make reporting of margins difficult, and there is likely similar breadth in their understanding of the nuances of margin assessment and reports. The solution to this problem is adequate education regarding the limitations of a pathology report, and specifically what is meant when margins are (or are not) reported on skin specimens. How to best educate the myriad clinicians who submit biopsies is, of course, the ultimate challenge.

We hope that our study adds information to this ongoing debate regarding margin status reporting, and we appreciate the discussion points raised by the author.

Eric Hossler, MD; Mary Brady, MD

From the Department of Dermatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Reference

1. Sellheyer K, Bergfeld WF, Stewart E, et al. Evaluation of surgical margins in melanocytic lesions: a survey among 152 dermatopathologists.J Cutan Pathol. 2005;32:293-299.

To the Editor:

With a trend toward increasing pass/fail medical school curricula, residency program directors (PDs) have relied on the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 as an objective measurement of applicant achievement, which is particularly true in competitive subspecialties such as dermatology, plastic surgery, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, and neurosurgery, in which reported Step 1 scores are consistently the highest among matched applicants.¹ Program directors in dermatology have indicated that Step 1 scores are a priority when considering an applicant.² However, among PDs, the general perception of plans to change Step 1 scores to pass/fail has largely been negative.³ Although the impact of this change on the dermatology residency selection process remains unknown, we undertook a study to determine dermatology PDs’ perspectives on the scoring change and discuss its potential implications among all competitive specialties.

A 19-question survey was designed that assessed PD demographics and opinions of the changes and potential implications of the Step 1 scoring change (eTable). A list of current US dermatology PDs at osteopathic and allopathic programs was obtained through the 2019-2020 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education list of accredited programs. Surveys were piloted at our institution to assess for internal validity and misleading questions, and then were distributed electronically through REDCap software (https://www.project-redcap.org/). All responses were kept anonymous. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Variables were assessed with means, proportions, and CIs. Results were deemed statistically significant with nonoverlapping 99% CIs (P<.01).

In dermatology and other competitive specialties, in which USMLE Step 1 scores have become an important consideration, PDs and residency programs will need to identify additional metrics to compare applicants. Examples include research productivity, grades on relevant rotations, and shelf examination scores. Although more reliable subjective measures, such as interviews and performance on away rotations, are already important, they may become of greater significance.

The findings of our survey suggest that PDs are skeptical about changes to Step 1 and more diligence is necessary to maintain a fair and impartial selection process. Increased emphasis on other objective measurements, such as shelf examination scores, graded curricular components, and research productivity, could help maintain an unbiased approach. With changes to USMLE Step 1 expected to be implemented in the 2022 application cycle, programs may need to explore additional options to maintain reliable and transparent applicant review practices.

To the Editor:

With a trend toward increasing pass/fail medical school curricula, residency program directors (PDs) have relied on the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 as an objective measurement of applicant achievement, which is particularly true in competitive subspecialties such as dermatology, plastic surgery, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, and neurosurgery, in which reported Step 1 scores are consistently the highest among matched applicants.¹ Program directors in dermatology have indicated that Step 1 scores are a priority when considering an applicant.² However, among PDs, the general perception of plans to change Step 1 scores to pass/fail has largely been negative.³ Although the impact of this change on the dermatology residency selection process remains unknown, we undertook a study to determine dermatology PDs’ perspectives on the scoring change and discuss its potential implications among all competitive specialties.

A 19-question survey was designed that assessed PD demographics and opinions of the changes and potential implications of the Step 1 scoring change (eTable). A list of current US dermatology PDs at osteopathic and allopathic programs was obtained through the 2019-2020 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education list of accredited programs. Surveys were piloted at our institution to assess for internal validity and misleading questions, and then were distributed electronically through REDCap software (https://www.project-redcap.org/). All responses were kept anonymous. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Variables were assessed with means, proportions, and CIs. Results were deemed statistically significant with nonoverlapping 99% CIs (P<.01).

In dermatology and other competitive specialties, in which USMLE Step 1 scores have become an important consideration, PDs and residency programs will need to identify additional metrics to compare applicants. Examples include research productivity, grades on relevant rotations, and shelf examination scores. Although more reliable subjective measures, such as interviews and performance on away rotations, are already important, they may become of greater significance.

The findings of our survey suggest that PDs are skeptical about changes to Step 1 and more diligence is necessary to maintain a fair and impartial selection process. Increased emphasis on other objective measurements, such as shelf examination scores, graded curricular components, and research productivity, could help maintain an unbiased approach. With changes to USMLE Step 1 expected to be implemented in the 2022 application cycle, programs may need to explore additional options to maintain reliable and transparent applicant review practices.

To the Editor:

With a trend toward increasing pass/fail medical school curricula, residency program directors (PDs) have relied on the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 as an objective measurement of applicant achievement, which is particularly true in competitive subspecialties such as dermatology, plastic surgery, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, and neurosurgery, in which reported Step 1 scores are consistently the highest among matched applicants.¹ Program directors in dermatology have indicated that Step 1 scores are a priority when considering an applicant.² However, among PDs, the general perception of plans to change Step 1 scores to pass/fail has largely been negative.³ Although the impact of this change on the dermatology residency selection process remains unknown, we undertook a study to determine dermatology PDs’ perspectives on the scoring change and discuss its potential implications among all competitive specialties.

A 19-question survey was designed that assessed PD demographics and opinions of the changes and potential implications of the Step 1 scoring change (eTable). A list of current US dermatology PDs at osteopathic and allopathic programs was obtained through the 2019-2020 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education list of accredited programs. Surveys were piloted at our institution to assess for internal validity and misleading questions, and then were distributed electronically through REDCap software (https://www.project-redcap.org/). All responses were kept anonymous. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Variables were assessed with means, proportions, and CIs. Results were deemed statistically significant with nonoverlapping 99% CIs (P<.01).

In dermatology and other competitive specialties, in which USMLE Step 1 scores have become an important consideration, PDs and residency programs will need to identify additional metrics to compare applicants. Examples include research productivity, grades on relevant rotations, and shelf examination scores. Although more reliable subjective measures, such as interviews and performance on away rotations, are already important, they may become of greater significance.

The findings of our survey suggest that PDs are skeptical about changes to Step 1 and more diligence is necessary to maintain a fair and impartial selection process. Increased emphasis on other objective measurements, such as shelf examination scores, graded curricular components, and research productivity, could help maintain an unbiased approach. With changes to USMLE Step 1 expected to be implemented in the 2022 application cycle, programs may need to explore additional options to maintain reliable and transparent applicant review practices.

Practice Gap

Many cutaneous surgery wounds can be closed primarily; however, in certain cases, other repair options might be appropriate and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with input from the patient. Defects on the dorsal aspect of the hands—where nonmelanoma skin cancer is common and reserve tissue is limited—often heal by secondary intention with good cosmetic and functional results. Patients often express a desire to reduce the time spent in the surgical suite and restrictions on postoperative activity, making secondary intention healing more appealing. An additional advantage is obviation of the need to remove additional tissue in the form of Burow triangles, which would lead to a longer wound. The major disadvantage of secondary intention healing is longer time to wound maturity; we often minimize this disadvantage with purse-string closure to decrease the size of the wound defect, which can be done quickly and without removing additional tissue.

The Technique

An elderly man had 3 nonmelanoma skin cancers—all on the dorsal aspect of the left hand—that were treated on the same day, leaving 3 similar wound defects after Mohs micrographic surgery. The wound defects (distal to proximal) measured 12 mm, 12 mm, and 10 mm in diameter (Figure 1) and were repaired by primary closure, secondary intention, and purse-string circumferential closure, respectively. Purse-string closure¹ was performed with a 4-0 polyglactin 901 suture and left to heal without external sutures (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the 3 types of repairs immediately following closure. All wounds healed with excellent and essentially equivalent cosmetic results, with excellent patient satisfaction at 6-month follow-up (Figure 4).

Practical Implications

Our case illustrates different modalities of wound repair during precisely the same time frame and essentially on the same location. Skin of the dorsal hand often is tight; depending on the size of the defect, large primary closure can be tedious to perform, can lead to increased wound tension and risk of dehiscence, and can be uncomfortable for the patient during healing. However, primary closure typically will lead to faster healing.

Secondary intention healing and purse-string closure require less surgery and therefore cost less; these modalities yield similar cosmesis and satisfaction. In the appropriate context, secondary intention has been highlighted as a suitable alternative to primary closure^2-4; in our experience (and that of others⁵), patient satisfaction is not diminished with healing by secondary intention. Purse-string closure also can minimize wound size and healing time.

For small shallow wounds on the dorsal hand, dermatologic surgeons should have confidence that secondary intention healing, with or without wound reduction using purse-string repair, likely will lead to acceptable cosmetic and functional results. Of course, repair should be tailored to the circumstances and wishes of the individual patient.

Practice Gap

Many cutaneous surgery wounds can be closed primarily; however, in certain cases, other repair options might be appropriate and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with input from the patient. Defects on the dorsal aspect of the hands—where nonmelanoma skin cancer is common and reserve tissue is limited—often heal by secondary intention with good cosmetic and functional results. Patients often express a desire to reduce the time spent in the surgical suite and restrictions on postoperative activity, making secondary intention healing more appealing. An additional advantage is obviation of the need to remove additional tissue in the form of Burow triangles, which would lead to a longer wound. The major disadvantage of secondary intention healing is longer time to wound maturity; we often minimize this disadvantage with purse-string closure to decrease the size of the wound defect, which can be done quickly and without removing additional tissue.

The Technique

An elderly man had 3 nonmelanoma skin cancers—all on the dorsal aspect of the left hand—that were treated on the same day, leaving 3 similar wound defects after Mohs micrographic surgery. The wound defects (distal to proximal) measured 12 mm, 12 mm, and 10 mm in diameter (Figure 1) and were repaired by primary closure, secondary intention, and purse-string circumferential closure, respectively. Purse-string closure¹ was performed with a 4-0 polyglactin 901 suture and left to heal without external sutures (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the 3 types of repairs immediately following closure. All wounds healed with excellent and essentially equivalent cosmetic results, with excellent patient satisfaction at 6-month follow-up (Figure 4).

Practical Implications

Our case illustrates different modalities of wound repair during precisely the same time frame and essentially on the same location. Skin of the dorsal hand often is tight; depending on the size of the defect, large primary closure can be tedious to perform, can lead to increased wound tension and risk of dehiscence, and can be uncomfortable for the patient during healing. However, primary closure typically will lead to faster healing.

Secondary intention healing and purse-string closure require less surgery and therefore cost less; these modalities yield similar cosmesis and satisfaction. In the appropriate context, secondary intention has been highlighted as a suitable alternative to primary closure^2-4; in our experience (and that of others⁵), patient satisfaction is not diminished with healing by secondary intention. Purse-string closure also can minimize wound size and healing time.

For small shallow wounds on the dorsal hand, dermatologic surgeons should have confidence that secondary intention healing, with or without wound reduction using purse-string repair, likely will lead to acceptable cosmetic and functional results. Of course, repair should be tailored to the circumstances and wishes of the individual patient.

Practice Gap

Many cutaneous surgery wounds can be closed primarily; however, in certain cases, other repair options might be appropriate and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with input from the patient. Defects on the dorsal aspect of the hands—where nonmelanoma skin cancer is common and reserve tissue is limited—often heal by secondary intention with good cosmetic and functional results. Patients often express a desire to reduce the time spent in the surgical suite and restrictions on postoperative activity, making secondary intention healing more appealing. An additional advantage is obviation of the need to remove additional tissue in the form of Burow triangles, which would lead to a longer wound. The major disadvantage of secondary intention healing is longer time to wound maturity; we often minimize this disadvantage with purse-string closure to decrease the size of the wound defect, which can be done quickly and without removing additional tissue.

The Technique

An elderly man had 3 nonmelanoma skin cancers—all on the dorsal aspect of the left hand—that were treated on the same day, leaving 3 similar wound defects after Mohs micrographic surgery. The wound defects (distal to proximal) measured 12 mm, 12 mm, and 10 mm in diameter (Figure 1) and were repaired by primary closure, secondary intention, and purse-string circumferential closure, respectively. Purse-string closure¹ was performed with a 4-0 polyglactin 901 suture and left to heal without external sutures (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the 3 types of repairs immediately following closure. All wounds healed with excellent and essentially equivalent cosmetic results, with excellent patient satisfaction at 6-month follow-up (Figure 4).

Practical Implications

Our case illustrates different modalities of wound repair during precisely the same time frame and essentially on the same location. Skin of the dorsal hand often is tight; depending on the size of the defect, large primary closure can be tedious to perform, can lead to increased wound tension and risk of dehiscence, and can be uncomfortable for the patient during healing. However, primary closure typically will lead to faster healing.

Secondary intention healing and purse-string closure require less surgery and therefore cost less; these modalities yield similar cosmesis and satisfaction. In the appropriate context, secondary intention has been highlighted as a suitable alternative to primary closure^2-4; in our experience (and that of others⁵), patient satisfaction is not diminished with healing by secondary intention. Purse-string closure also can minimize wound size and healing time.

For small shallow wounds on the dorsal hand, dermatologic surgeons should have confidence that secondary intention healing, with or without wound reduction using purse-string repair, likely will lead to acceptable cosmetic and functional results. Of course, repair should be tailored to the circumstances and wishes of the individual patient.

Opioids were prescribed most often for vitiligo, hemangioma, pemphigus, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis, according to a study that used national ambulatory care data to evaluate pain medication use at dermatology visits.

“Overall, opioid prescribing rates among dermatologists were low. However, dermatologists should remain aware of risk factors for long-term opioid use and consider using nonnarcotic or nonpharmacologic interventions when possible,” Sarah P. Pourali, a medical student at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, where she presented the results.

Ms. Pourali said that although Mohs surgery and dermatologic procedures are the focus of “much of the literature” concerning opioid use in dermatology, there are limited data on medication prescribing patterns for other skin conditions treated by dermatologists.

She and her colleagues performed a cross-sectional study using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2009 to 2016 on 288,462,610 weighted dermatology visits. The researchers used International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes to identify dermatologic diseases. They also identified and grouped oral pain medication into the following categories: opiate analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and gabapentin. A linear regression analysis was used to evaluate pain medicine prescribing each year, and the researchers used a logistic regression analysis to explore how opiate prescriptions were connected to patient clinical characteristics. The analysis was adjusted for age, gender, race, ethnicity, and region.

Overall, most dermatology visits were for patients older than 65 years (36.2%) and 45-64 years old (32.1%). Over half of the dermatologist visits were for women (56.4%) and most (92.2%) visits were for patients who were White (5.1 % were for patients who were Black); most were non-Hispanic or Latino (93.5%). Most dermatology visits were in the South (35.4%) and West (25.2%), followed by the Northeast (21.9%) and Midwest (17.5%).

Opioids were prescribed in 1.3% of the visits, Ms. Pourali said. In addition, 4.7% of visits included an NSAID prescription, 0.7% an acetaminophen prescription, and 0.6% a gabapentin prescription.

Dermatologic procedure visits accounted for 43.1% of opioid prescriptions, she noted. The most common skin conditions for which opioids were prescribed included vitiligo (10.3%), hemangioma (3.8%), pemphigus (3.6%), atopic dermatitis (3.4%), and psoriasis (2.5%).

Although patients older than 65 years accounted for 36.2% of visits to dermatologists, 58.5% of opioids prescribed by dermatologists were for patients in this age group. “We hypothesize that this may be due to a higher proportion of older patients requiring skin cancer surgeries where a lot of opioids are prescribed within dermatology,” Ms. Pourali said.

The highest population-adjusted prescription rates for opiates were in the Northeast and Western regions of the United States, which “partially corroborates” previous studies that have found “higher rates of opioid prescribing in the southern and western U.S.,” she noted.

When evaluating risk-factors for long-term opiate use, Ms. Pourali and colleagues found opioids were also prescribed in 13.2% of visits where a benzodiazepine was prescribed (adjusted odds ratio, 8.17; 95% confidence interval, 5.3-12.7), 8.4% of visits where the patient had a substance abuse disorder (adjusted OR, 9.40; 95% CI, 2.0-44.4), 5.2% of visits with a patient who had depression (adjusted OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.0-5.4), and 2.4% of visits with a patient who used tobacco (adjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1).

Consider nonopioid postoperative pain management options

In an interview, Sailesh Konda, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology and director of Mohs surgery and surgical dermatology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, who was not involved with the research, noted the finding in the study that vitiligo, hemangioma, pemphigus, AD, and psoriasis were diagnoses with the highest rates of opioid prescription was surprising. “In general, these are conditions that are not routinely managed with opioids,” he said.

NAMCS contains a primary diagnosis field and space for four additional diagnoses such as chronic conditions, as well as thirty fields for medications. “If an opioid was prescribed at a visit, it could have been prescribed for any of the diagnoses related to the visit,” Dr. Konda said. “Additionally, for those opioid prescriptions associated with dermatologic procedures, it would have been helpful to have a breakdown of the specific procedures.”

Dr. Konda compared these results to a recent study of opioid prescribing patterns in the dermatology Medicare population, which found that 93.9% of the top 1% of opioid prescribers were dermatologists working in a surgical practice.

He said that recommendations for opioid prescribing should be developed for general dermatology as they have been for Mohs surgery and dermatologic surgery. For dermatologists currently prescribing opioids, he recommended monitoring prescribing patterns and to “consider nonopioid interventions, such as acetaminophen plus ibuprofen, which has been found to effectively control postoperative pain with fewer complications.”

Ms. Pourali reports no relevant financial disclosures. Her coauthors included the principal investigator, April Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Konda reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Opioids were prescribed most often for vitiligo, hemangioma, pemphigus, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis, according to a study that used national ambulatory care data to evaluate pain medication use at dermatology visits.

“Overall, opioid prescribing rates among dermatologists were low. However, dermatologists should remain aware of risk factors for long-term opioid use and consider using nonnarcotic or nonpharmacologic interventions when possible,” Sarah P. Pourali, a medical student at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, where she presented the results.

Ms. Pourali said that although Mohs surgery and dermatologic procedures are the focus of “much of the literature” concerning opioid use in dermatology, there are limited data on medication prescribing patterns for other skin conditions treated by dermatologists.

She and her colleagues performed a cross-sectional study using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2009 to 2016 on 288,462,610 weighted dermatology visits. The researchers used International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes to identify dermatologic diseases. They also identified and grouped oral pain medication into the following categories: opiate analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and gabapentin. A linear regression analysis was used to evaluate pain medicine prescribing each year, and the researchers used a logistic regression analysis to explore how opiate prescriptions were connected to patient clinical characteristics. The analysis was adjusted for age, gender, race, ethnicity, and region.

Overall, most dermatology visits were for patients older than 65 years (36.2%) and 45-64 years old (32.1%). Over half of the dermatologist visits were for women (56.4%) and most (92.2%) visits were for patients who were White (5.1 % were for patients who were Black); most were non-Hispanic or Latino (93.5%). Most dermatology visits were in the South (35.4%) and West (25.2%), followed by the Northeast (21.9%) and Midwest (17.5%).

Opioids were prescribed in 1.3% of the visits, Ms. Pourali said. In addition, 4.7% of visits included an NSAID prescription, 0.7% an acetaminophen prescription, and 0.6% a gabapentin prescription.

Dermatologic procedure visits accounted for 43.1% of opioid prescriptions, she noted. The most common skin conditions for which opioids were prescribed included vitiligo (10.3%), hemangioma (3.8%), pemphigus (3.6%), atopic dermatitis (3.4%), and psoriasis (2.5%).

Although patients older than 65 years accounted for 36.2% of visits to dermatologists, 58.5% of opioids prescribed by dermatologists were for patients in this age group. “We hypothesize that this may be due to a higher proportion of older patients requiring skin cancer surgeries where a lot of opioids are prescribed within dermatology,” Ms. Pourali said.

The highest population-adjusted prescription rates for opiates were in the Northeast and Western regions of the United States, which “partially corroborates” previous studies that have found “higher rates of opioid prescribing in the southern and western U.S.,” she noted.

When evaluating risk-factors for long-term opiate use, Ms. Pourali and colleagues found opioids were also prescribed in 13.2% of visits where a benzodiazepine was prescribed (adjusted odds ratio, 8.17; 95% confidence interval, 5.3-12.7), 8.4% of visits where the patient had a substance abuse disorder (adjusted OR, 9.40; 95% CI, 2.0-44.4), 5.2% of visits with a patient who had depression (adjusted OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.0-5.4), and 2.4% of visits with a patient who used tobacco (adjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1).

Consider nonopioid postoperative pain management options

In an interview, Sailesh Konda, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology and director of Mohs surgery and surgical dermatology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, who was not involved with the research, noted the finding in the study that vitiligo, hemangioma, pemphigus, AD, and psoriasis were diagnoses with the highest rates of opioid prescription was surprising. “In general, these are conditions that are not routinely managed with opioids,” he said.

NAMCS contains a primary diagnosis field and space for four additional diagnoses such as chronic conditions, as well as thirty fields for medications. “If an opioid was prescribed at a visit, it could have been prescribed for any of the diagnoses related to the visit,” Dr. Konda said. “Additionally, for those opioid prescriptions associated with dermatologic procedures, it would have been helpful to have a breakdown of the specific procedures.”

Dr. Konda compared these results to a recent study of opioid prescribing patterns in the dermatology Medicare population, which found that 93.9% of the top 1% of opioid prescribers were dermatologists working in a surgical practice.

He said that recommendations for opioid prescribing should be developed for general dermatology as they have been for Mohs surgery and dermatologic surgery. For dermatologists currently prescribing opioids, he recommended monitoring prescribing patterns and to “consider nonopioid interventions, such as acetaminophen plus ibuprofen, which has been found to effectively control postoperative pain with fewer complications.”

Ms. Pourali reports no relevant financial disclosures. Her coauthors included the principal investigator, April Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Konda reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Opioids were prescribed most often for vitiligo, hemangioma, pemphigus, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis, according to a study that used national ambulatory care data to evaluate pain medication use at dermatology visits.

“Overall, opioid prescribing rates among dermatologists were low. However, dermatologists should remain aware of risk factors for long-term opioid use and consider using nonnarcotic or nonpharmacologic interventions when possible,” Sarah P. Pourali, a medical student at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, where she presented the results.

Ms. Pourali said that although Mohs surgery and dermatologic procedures are the focus of “much of the literature” concerning opioid use in dermatology, there are limited data on medication prescribing patterns for other skin conditions treated by dermatologists.

She and her colleagues performed a cross-sectional study using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2009 to 2016 on 288,462,610 weighted dermatology visits. The researchers used International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes to identify dermatologic diseases. They also identified and grouped oral pain medication into the following categories: opiate analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and gabapentin. A linear regression analysis was used to evaluate pain medicine prescribing each year, and the researchers used a logistic regression analysis to explore how opiate prescriptions were connected to patient clinical characteristics. The analysis was adjusted for age, gender, race, ethnicity, and region.

Overall, most dermatology visits were for patients older than 65 years (36.2%) and 45-64 years old (32.1%). Over half of the dermatologist visits were for women (56.4%) and most (92.2%) visits were for patients who were White (5.1 % were for patients who were Black); most were non-Hispanic or Latino (93.5%). Most dermatology visits were in the South (35.4%) and West (25.2%), followed by the Northeast (21.9%) and Midwest (17.5%).

Opioids were prescribed in 1.3% of the visits, Ms. Pourali said. In addition, 4.7% of visits included an NSAID prescription, 0.7% an acetaminophen prescription, and 0.6% a gabapentin prescription.

Dermatologic procedure visits accounted for 43.1% of opioid prescriptions, she noted. The most common skin conditions for which opioids were prescribed included vitiligo (10.3%), hemangioma (3.8%), pemphigus (3.6%), atopic dermatitis (3.4%), and psoriasis (2.5%).

Although patients older than 65 years accounted for 36.2% of visits to dermatologists, 58.5% of opioids prescribed by dermatologists were for patients in this age group. “We hypothesize that this may be due to a higher proportion of older patients requiring skin cancer surgeries where a lot of opioids are prescribed within dermatology,” Ms. Pourali said.

The highest population-adjusted prescription rates for opiates were in the Northeast and Western regions of the United States, which “partially corroborates” previous studies that have found “higher rates of opioid prescribing in the southern and western U.S.,” she noted.

When evaluating risk-factors for long-term opiate use, Ms. Pourali and colleagues found opioids were also prescribed in 13.2% of visits where a benzodiazepine was prescribed (adjusted odds ratio, 8.17; 95% confidence interval, 5.3-12.7), 8.4% of visits where the patient had a substance abuse disorder (adjusted OR, 9.40; 95% CI, 2.0-44.4), 5.2% of visits with a patient who had depression (adjusted OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.0-5.4), and 2.4% of visits with a patient who used tobacco (adjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1).

Consider nonopioid postoperative pain management options

In an interview, Sailesh Konda, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology and director of Mohs surgery and surgical dermatology at the University of Florida, Gainesville, who was not involved with the research, noted the finding in the study that vitiligo, hemangioma, pemphigus, AD, and psoriasis were diagnoses with the highest rates of opioid prescription was surprising. “In general, these are conditions that are not routinely managed with opioids,” he said.

NAMCS contains a primary diagnosis field and space for four additional diagnoses such as chronic conditions, as well as thirty fields for medications. “If an opioid was prescribed at a visit, it could have been prescribed for any of the diagnoses related to the visit,” Dr. Konda said. “Additionally, for those opioid prescriptions associated with dermatologic procedures, it would have been helpful to have a breakdown of the specific procedures.”

Dr. Konda compared these results to a recent study of opioid prescribing patterns in the dermatology Medicare population, which found that 93.9% of the top 1% of opioid prescribers were dermatologists working in a surgical practice.

He said that recommendations for opioid prescribing should be developed for general dermatology as they have been for Mohs surgery and dermatologic surgery. For dermatologists currently prescribing opioids, he recommended monitoring prescribing patterns and to “consider nonopioid interventions, such as acetaminophen plus ibuprofen, which has been found to effectively control postoperative pain with fewer complications.”

Ms. Pourali reports no relevant financial disclosures. Her coauthors included the principal investigator, April Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Konda reports no relevant financial disclosures.

The Diagnosis: Paraneoplastic Acanthosis Nigricans 

Histopathologic examination demonstrated verrucous epidermal hyperplasia (Figure, A). Fungal organisms were identified with an Alcian blue and periodic acid-Schiff stain (Figure, B). The organisms demonstrated a vertical orientation in relation to the mucosal surface, which was consistent with candidal organisms.  

Given the rapid eruption of these plaques, the distribution on the oral and palmar surfaces (tripe palms), and the minimal improvement with both systemic steroids and antifungal treatment, a diagnosis of paraneoplastic acanthosis nigricans with secondary candidal infection was made. Drug-induced cheilitis was considered; however, improvement with discontinuation of the suspected offending drug would have been expected. Although chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis was possible, more prompt improvement upon initiation of systemic antifungal therapy would have been observed. Oral Crohn disease should be included in the differential, but it was unlikely given the lack of granulomas on pathology and absence of history of gastrointestinal tract symptoms. Melkersson-Rosenthal syndrome also was unlikely given the lack of facial nerve palsy as well as the lack of granulomas on pathology. Furthermore, none of these options would be associated with tripe palms, as seen in our patient.  

Acanthosis nigricans is a localized skin disorder characterized by hyperpigmented velvety plaques arising in flexural and intertriginous regions. Although most cases (80%) are associated with idiopathic or benign conditions, the link between acanthosis nigricans and an underlying malignancy has been well documented.^1-3 Most commonly associated with an underlying intra-abdominal malignancy (often gastric carcinoma), the lesions of paraneoplastic acanthosis nigricans are indistinguishable from their benign counterparts^.1,4 When the condition presents abruptly and extensively in a nonobese patient, prompt workup for malignancy should be initiated. Rapid onset and atypical distribution (ie, palmar, perioral, or mucosal) more commonly is associated with a paraneoplastic etiology.^5,6 

Histopathology for acanthosis nigricans shows hyperkeratosis and epidermal papillomatosis. Horn pseudocyst formation is possible, but usually no hyperpigmentation is observed. The findings typically are indistinguishable from seborrheic keratoses, epidermal nevi, or lesions of confluent and reticulated papillomatosis of Gougerot and Carteaud.² 

The underlying pathogenesis of acanthosis nigricans is poorly understood. In the benign subtype, insulin resistance commonly has been described. In the paraneoplastic subtype, it is proposed that the tumor produces a transforming growth factor that mimics epidermal growth factor and leads to keratinocyte proliferation.^7,8 Paraneoplastic acanthosis nigricans has the potential to arise at any point of tumor development, further contributing to the diagnostic challenge. Treatment of the skin lesions involves management of the underlying malignancy. Unfortunately, many such malignancies often are at an advanced stage, and subsequent prognosis is poor.² 

The Diagnosis: Paraneoplastic Acanthosis Nigricans 

Histopathologic examination demonstrated verrucous epidermal hyperplasia (Figure, A). Fungal organisms were identified with an Alcian blue and periodic acid-Schiff stain (Figure, B). The organisms demonstrated a vertical orientation in relation to the mucosal surface, which was consistent with candidal organisms.  

Given the rapid eruption of these plaques, the distribution on the oral and palmar surfaces (tripe palms), and the minimal improvement with both systemic steroids and antifungal treatment, a diagnosis of paraneoplastic acanthosis nigricans with secondary candidal infection was made. Drug-induced cheilitis was considered; however, improvement with discontinuation of the suspected offending drug would have been expected. Although chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis was possible, more prompt improvement upon initiation of systemic antifungal therapy would have been observed. Oral Crohn disease should be included in the differential, but it was unlikely given the lack of granulomas on pathology and absence of history of gastrointestinal tract symptoms. Melkersson-Rosenthal syndrome also was unlikely given the lack of facial nerve palsy as well as the lack of granulomas on pathology. Furthermore, none of these options would be associated with tripe palms, as seen in our patient.  

Acanthosis nigricans is a localized skin disorder characterized by hyperpigmented velvety plaques arising in flexural and intertriginous regions. Although most cases (80%) are associated with idiopathic or benign conditions, the link between acanthosis nigricans and an underlying malignancy has been well documented.^1-3 Most commonly associated with an underlying intra-abdominal malignancy (often gastric carcinoma), the lesions of paraneoplastic acanthosis nigricans are indistinguishable from their benign counterparts^.1,4 When the condition presents abruptly and extensively in a nonobese patient, prompt workup for malignancy should be initiated. Rapid onset and atypical distribution (ie, palmar, perioral, or mucosal) more commonly is associated with a paraneoplastic etiology.^5,6 

Histopathology for acanthosis nigricans shows hyperkeratosis and epidermal papillomatosis. Horn pseudocyst formation is possible, but usually no hyperpigmentation is observed. The findings typically are indistinguishable from seborrheic keratoses, epidermal nevi, or lesions of confluent and reticulated papillomatosis of Gougerot and Carteaud.² 

The underlying pathogenesis of acanthosis nigricans is poorly understood. In the benign subtype, insulin resistance commonly has been described. In the paraneoplastic subtype, it is proposed that the tumor produces a transforming growth factor that mimics epidermal growth factor and leads to keratinocyte proliferation.^7,8 Paraneoplastic acanthosis nigricans has the potential to arise at any point of tumor development, further contributing to the diagnostic challenge. Treatment of the skin lesions involves management of the underlying malignancy. Unfortunately, many such malignancies often are at an advanced stage, and subsequent prognosis is poor.² 

The Diagnosis: Paraneoplastic Acanthosis Nigricans 

Histopathologic examination demonstrated verrucous epidermal hyperplasia (Figure, A). Fungal organisms were identified with an Alcian blue and periodic acid-Schiff stain (Figure, B). The organisms demonstrated a vertical orientation in relation to the mucosal surface, which was consistent with candidal organisms.  

Given the rapid eruption of these plaques, the distribution on the oral and palmar surfaces (tripe palms), and the minimal improvement with both systemic steroids and antifungal treatment, a diagnosis of paraneoplastic acanthosis nigricans with secondary candidal infection was made. Drug-induced cheilitis was considered; however, improvement with discontinuation of the suspected offending drug would have been expected. Although chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis was possible, more prompt improvement upon initiation of systemic antifungal therapy would have been observed. Oral Crohn disease should be included in the differential, but it was unlikely given the lack of granulomas on pathology and absence of history of gastrointestinal tract symptoms. Melkersson-Rosenthal syndrome also was unlikely given the lack of facial nerve palsy as well as the lack of granulomas on pathology. Furthermore, none of these options would be associated with tripe palms, as seen in our patient.  

Acanthosis nigricans is a localized skin disorder characterized by hyperpigmented velvety plaques arising in flexural and intertriginous regions. Although most cases (80%) are associated with idiopathic or benign conditions, the link between acanthosis nigricans and an underlying malignancy has been well documented.^1-3 Most commonly associated with an underlying intra-abdominal malignancy (often gastric carcinoma), the lesions of paraneoplastic acanthosis nigricans are indistinguishable from their benign counterparts^.1,4 When the condition presents abruptly and extensively in a nonobese patient, prompt workup for malignancy should be initiated. Rapid onset and atypical distribution (ie, palmar, perioral, or mucosal) more commonly is associated with a paraneoplastic etiology.^5,6 

Histopathology for acanthosis nigricans shows hyperkeratosis and epidermal papillomatosis. Horn pseudocyst formation is possible, but usually no hyperpigmentation is observed. The findings typically are indistinguishable from seborrheic keratoses, epidermal nevi, or lesions of confluent and reticulated papillomatosis of Gougerot and Carteaud.² 

The underlying pathogenesis of acanthosis nigricans is poorly understood. In the benign subtype, insulin resistance commonly has been described. In the paraneoplastic subtype, it is proposed that the tumor produces a transforming growth factor that mimics epidermal growth factor and leads to keratinocyte proliferation.^7,8 Paraneoplastic acanthosis nigricans has the potential to arise at any point of tumor development, further contributing to the diagnostic challenge. Treatment of the skin lesions involves management of the underlying malignancy. Unfortunately, many such malignancies often are at an advanced stage, and subsequent prognosis is poor.² 

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although a phase 3 trial of lenabasum did not meet its primary endpoint for treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc), the drug led to more improvement in participants who were not receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial than that seen in participants who received the placebo. Lenabasum also had a favorable safety profile, according to findings presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involved 363 adults who had had dcSSc for up to 6 years. One third of the participants received 5 mg of oral lenabasum, one third received 20 mg, and one third received a placebo. Patients already receiving immunosuppressant therapy could continue to receive it during the trial if the dose had been stable for at least 8 weeks before screening and corticosteroid therapy did not exceed 10 mg prednisone per day or the equivalent.

“The decision to allow background immunosuppressant therapies was made to reflect real-world clinical practice,” coprincipal investigator Robert Dr. Spiera, MD, director of the Vasculitis and Scleroderma Program at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, told attendees.

“It is surprising that we do not see any added efficacy of lenabasum in this trial, given the fact that the previous phase 2 trial in 42 patients did show a clear benefit of lenabasum over placebo in the same population,” Jeska K. de Vries-Bouwstra, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center told this news organization. “Even more, the clinical response in the phase 2 study was supported by a greater change in gene expression in skin tissue of pathways involved in inflammation and fibrosis with lenabasum as compared to placebo.”

Background immunosuppressants contribute to unprecedented placebo responses

The researchers compared the ACR CRISS (Combined Response Index in Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis) score and several secondary endpoints at 52 weeks between the 123 participants who received the placebo and the 120 participants who received 20 mg of lenabasum. A total of 60% of the lenabasum group and 66% of the placebo group had a disease duration of 3 or fewer years, and the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) was 22 in the lenabasum group and 23.3 in the placebo group at baseline.

A large majority of participants in both groups – 89% in the lenabasum group and 84% in the placebo group – were receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial. Specifically, 53% of each group was taking mycophenolate, and 23% of the lenabasum group and 32% of the placebo group were taking corticosteroids. In addition, 22% of the lenabasum group and 12% of the placebo group were on methotrexate, and 27% of the lenabasum group and 22% of the placebo group were on another immunosuppressant therapy.

Half of the placebo group and 58% of the lenabasum group were taking only one immunosuppressive therapy. About one-third of the lenabasum (32%) and placebo (34%) groups were taking two or more immunosuppressive therapies.

The primary endpoint at 52 weeks was not significantly different between the two groups: a CRISS score of 0.888 in the lenabasum group and 0.887 in the placebo group. A CRISS score of 0.6 or higher indicates likelihood that a patient improved on treatment. Patients with significant worsening of renal or cardiopulmonary involvement are classified as not improved (score of 0), regardless of improvements in other core items.

“We had very high CRISS scores in all three groups, and they were comparable in all three groups,” Dr. Spiera reported. Because improvement in placebo group far exceeded expectations, the researchers were unable to discern the treatment effect of lenabasum on top of the placebo effect.

The placebo group had better outcomes than expected because of the background immunosuppressant therapy, particularly the use of mycophenolate. When the researchers looked only at placebo participants, the CRISS score was 0.936 in the 97 patients receiving background immunosuppressant therapy of any kind and 0.935 in the 29 patients taking only mycophenolate with no other immunosuppressant therapy, compared with 0.417 in the 16 patients not receiving any background therapy.

In a prespecified analysis, the researchers investigated background immunosuppressive therapy as a mediator. The CRISS score for the 10 lenabasum participants not receiving background therapy was 0.811, compared with 0.417 seen in the placebo group patients not on background therapy.

Among the 173 participants taking mycophenolate in particular, the mycophenolate “had a statistically significant improvement on CRISS score that increased with each visit,” Dr. Spiera reported. The duration of mycophenolate therapy also affected efficacy results.

Patients who had been taking mycophenolate longer saw less improvement in their CRISS score over time. Those taking it more than 2 years at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.86, compared with 0.96 for those taking it for 1-2 years at baseline and 0.98 for those taking it from 6 months to 1 year at baseline. Those who had only been taking mycophenolate for up to 6 months at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.99. Meanwhile, patients not taking any background immunosuppressant therapies only had a CRISS score of about 0.35.
 

Changes in secondary endpoints followed same pattern as CRISS

The secondary endpoints similarly showed no statistically significant difference when comparing the lenabasum and placebo groups overall. These endpoints included change in mRSS score, change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage and volume, and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score.

However, the researchers again found that duration of background therapy affected FVC.

“You were more likely to have declined [in FVC] if you were on placebo and more likely to have improved or stayed stable if you were on lenabasum if you were a patient on more than 2 years of immunomodulatory therapy at baseline,” Dr. Spiera reported. “There was evidence for an effect of lenabasum on FVC suggested by post-hoc analyses that considered the effect of background immunosuppressive therapies on outcomes, but those results would require confirmation in additional studies to determine the potential of lenabasum for treating patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis,” Dr. Spiera noted in his conclusions.

Serious adverse events occurred in 9.2% of the lenabasum group and 5.8% of the placebo group. Rates of severe adverse events were similar between the lenabasum (14.6%) and placebo (13%) groups.

Is there a subgroup for whom lenabasum would be efficacious?

Although De Vries-Bouwstra of Leiden University Medical Center acknowledged the role of mycophenolate in the trial, she does not think background therapy can totally explain the observation and speculated on other possibilities.

“For example, there were fewer males in the placebo group as compared to the phase 2 study. From previous cohort studies we know that males have higher risk of worsening of skin disease,” she said. “In addition, it could be worthwhile to evaluate antibody profiles of the population under study; some subpopulations defined by autoantibody have higher risk for skin progression, while others can show spontaneous improvement.”

Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra said that, although it’s not currently appropriate to advocate for lenabasum to treat dcSSc, it may eventually become an additional treatment in those who still show active skin or lung disease after 2 years of mycophenolate treatment if future research identifies a benefit from that application. She would also like to see an evaluation of lenabasum’s possible benefits in patients with very early and active inflammatory disease. “Ideally, one could stratify patients based on biomarkers reflecting activation in relevant pathways, for example by using gene expression analysis from skin tissue to stratify,” she said.

Jacob M. van Laar, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), also commented on the potential differences in using the drug in early versus later disease.

“Based on ex vivo analyses of skin samples from systemic sclerosis patients, one would expect such a mechanism of action to be particularly relevant in very early disease, so the observation that it might also be effective at a later disease stage is interesting,” Dr. van Laar told this news organization. “We still have a lot to learn about this complex disease.”

Given that safety does not appear to be a major concern and that there may be a benefit in a subgroup of patients, Dr. van Laar also said he hoped “the company is not deterred by the seemingly negative result of the primary endpoint.”

Dr. Spiera expressed optimism about what this trial’s findings have revealed about management of dcSSc.

“Independent of what lenabasum did or didn’t do in this trial, I think there’s going to be a lot that we’re going to learn from this trial and that we’re already learning and analyzing right now about treating scleroderma,” he said in an interview.

He reiterated the value of allowing background therapy in the trial to ensure it better replicated real-world clinical practice.

“You’re not withholding therapies that we think are probably active from patients with active disease that, once you incur organ damage, is probably not going to be reversible,” Dr. Spiera said. “The downside is that it makes it harder to see an effect of a drug on top of the background therapy if that background therapy is effective. So what we saw in terms of this absence of benefit from lenabasum really may have been a ceiling effect.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiera said the findings still strongly suggest that lenabasum is an active compound.

“It’s not an enormously powerful effect, but it probably has a role as an adjunctive therapy in people on stable background therapy who have either plateaued or are getting worse,” he said. “The thing we have to keep in mind also is this was an incredibly safe therapy. It’s not immunosuppressive.”

The trial was funded by Corbus. Dr. Spiera has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Corbus, Formation Biologics, Inflarx, Kadmon, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, CSL Behring, Sanofi, and Janssen. Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra has received consulting fees from AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim and research grants from Galapagos and Janssen. Dr. Van Laar has received grant funding or personal fees from Arthrogen, Arxx Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gesynta, Leadiant, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, and Thermofisher.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although a phase 3 trial of lenabasum did not meet its primary endpoint for treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc), the drug led to more improvement in participants who were not receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial than that seen in participants who received the placebo. Lenabasum also had a favorable safety profile, according to findings presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involved 363 adults who had had dcSSc for up to 6 years. One third of the participants received 5 mg of oral lenabasum, one third received 20 mg, and one third received a placebo. Patients already receiving immunosuppressant therapy could continue to receive it during the trial if the dose had been stable for at least 8 weeks before screening and corticosteroid therapy did not exceed 10 mg prednisone per day or the equivalent.

“The decision to allow background immunosuppressant therapies was made to reflect real-world clinical practice,” coprincipal investigator Robert Dr. Spiera, MD, director of the Vasculitis and Scleroderma Program at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, told attendees.

“It is surprising that we do not see any added efficacy of lenabasum in this trial, given the fact that the previous phase 2 trial in 42 patients did show a clear benefit of lenabasum over placebo in the same population,” Jeska K. de Vries-Bouwstra, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center told this news organization. “Even more, the clinical response in the phase 2 study was supported by a greater change in gene expression in skin tissue of pathways involved in inflammation and fibrosis with lenabasum as compared to placebo.”

Background immunosuppressants contribute to unprecedented placebo responses

The researchers compared the ACR CRISS (Combined Response Index in Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis) score and several secondary endpoints at 52 weeks between the 123 participants who received the placebo and the 120 participants who received 20 mg of lenabasum. A total of 60% of the lenabasum group and 66% of the placebo group had a disease duration of 3 or fewer years, and the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) was 22 in the lenabasum group and 23.3 in the placebo group at baseline.

A large majority of participants in both groups – 89% in the lenabasum group and 84% in the placebo group – were receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial. Specifically, 53% of each group was taking mycophenolate, and 23% of the lenabasum group and 32% of the placebo group were taking corticosteroids. In addition, 22% of the lenabasum group and 12% of the placebo group were on methotrexate, and 27% of the lenabasum group and 22% of the placebo group were on another immunosuppressant therapy.

Half of the placebo group and 58% of the lenabasum group were taking only one immunosuppressive therapy. About one-third of the lenabasum (32%) and placebo (34%) groups were taking two or more immunosuppressive therapies.

The primary endpoint at 52 weeks was not significantly different between the two groups: a CRISS score of 0.888 in the lenabasum group and 0.887 in the placebo group. A CRISS score of 0.6 or higher indicates likelihood that a patient improved on treatment. Patients with significant worsening of renal or cardiopulmonary involvement are classified as not improved (score of 0), regardless of improvements in other core items.

“We had very high CRISS scores in all three groups, and they were comparable in all three groups,” Dr. Spiera reported. Because improvement in placebo group far exceeded expectations, the researchers were unable to discern the treatment effect of lenabasum on top of the placebo effect.

The placebo group had better outcomes than expected because of the background immunosuppressant therapy, particularly the use of mycophenolate. When the researchers looked only at placebo participants, the CRISS score was 0.936 in the 97 patients receiving background immunosuppressant therapy of any kind and 0.935 in the 29 patients taking only mycophenolate with no other immunosuppressant therapy, compared with 0.417 in the 16 patients not receiving any background therapy.

In a prespecified analysis, the researchers investigated background immunosuppressive therapy as a mediator. The CRISS score for the 10 lenabasum participants not receiving background therapy was 0.811, compared with 0.417 seen in the placebo group patients not on background therapy.

Among the 173 participants taking mycophenolate in particular, the mycophenolate “had a statistically significant improvement on CRISS score that increased with each visit,” Dr. Spiera reported. The duration of mycophenolate therapy also affected efficacy results.

Patients who had been taking mycophenolate longer saw less improvement in their CRISS score over time. Those taking it more than 2 years at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.86, compared with 0.96 for those taking it for 1-2 years at baseline and 0.98 for those taking it from 6 months to 1 year at baseline. Those who had only been taking mycophenolate for up to 6 months at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.99. Meanwhile, patients not taking any background immunosuppressant therapies only had a CRISS score of about 0.35.
 

Changes in secondary endpoints followed same pattern as CRISS

The secondary endpoints similarly showed no statistically significant difference when comparing the lenabasum and placebo groups overall. These endpoints included change in mRSS score, change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage and volume, and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score.

However, the researchers again found that duration of background therapy affected FVC.

“You were more likely to have declined [in FVC] if you were on placebo and more likely to have improved or stayed stable if you were on lenabasum if you were a patient on more than 2 years of immunomodulatory therapy at baseline,” Dr. Spiera reported. “There was evidence for an effect of lenabasum on FVC suggested by post-hoc analyses that considered the effect of background immunosuppressive therapies on outcomes, but those results would require confirmation in additional studies to determine the potential of lenabasum for treating patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis,” Dr. Spiera noted in his conclusions.

Serious adverse events occurred in 9.2% of the lenabasum group and 5.8% of the placebo group. Rates of severe adverse events were similar between the lenabasum (14.6%) and placebo (13%) groups.

Is there a subgroup for whom lenabasum would be efficacious?

Although De Vries-Bouwstra of Leiden University Medical Center acknowledged the role of mycophenolate in the trial, she does not think background therapy can totally explain the observation and speculated on other possibilities.

“For example, there were fewer males in the placebo group as compared to the phase 2 study. From previous cohort studies we know that males have higher risk of worsening of skin disease,” she said. “In addition, it could be worthwhile to evaluate antibody profiles of the population under study; some subpopulations defined by autoantibody have higher risk for skin progression, while others can show spontaneous improvement.”

Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra said that, although it’s not currently appropriate to advocate for lenabasum to treat dcSSc, it may eventually become an additional treatment in those who still show active skin or lung disease after 2 years of mycophenolate treatment if future research identifies a benefit from that application. She would also like to see an evaluation of lenabasum’s possible benefits in patients with very early and active inflammatory disease. “Ideally, one could stratify patients based on biomarkers reflecting activation in relevant pathways, for example by using gene expression analysis from skin tissue to stratify,” she said.

Jacob M. van Laar, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), also commented on the potential differences in using the drug in early versus later disease.

“Based on ex vivo analyses of skin samples from systemic sclerosis patients, one would expect such a mechanism of action to be particularly relevant in very early disease, so the observation that it might also be effective at a later disease stage is interesting,” Dr. van Laar told this news organization. “We still have a lot to learn about this complex disease.”

Given that safety does not appear to be a major concern and that there may be a benefit in a subgroup of patients, Dr. van Laar also said he hoped “the company is not deterred by the seemingly negative result of the primary endpoint.”

Dr. Spiera expressed optimism about what this trial’s findings have revealed about management of dcSSc.

“Independent of what lenabasum did or didn’t do in this trial, I think there’s going to be a lot that we’re going to learn from this trial and that we’re already learning and analyzing right now about treating scleroderma,” he said in an interview.

He reiterated the value of allowing background therapy in the trial to ensure it better replicated real-world clinical practice.

“You’re not withholding therapies that we think are probably active from patients with active disease that, once you incur organ damage, is probably not going to be reversible,” Dr. Spiera said. “The downside is that it makes it harder to see an effect of a drug on top of the background therapy if that background therapy is effective. So what we saw in terms of this absence of benefit from lenabasum really may have been a ceiling effect.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiera said the findings still strongly suggest that lenabasum is an active compound.

“It’s not an enormously powerful effect, but it probably has a role as an adjunctive therapy in people on stable background therapy who have either plateaued or are getting worse,” he said. “The thing we have to keep in mind also is this was an incredibly safe therapy. It’s not immunosuppressive.”

The trial was funded by Corbus. Dr. Spiera has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Corbus, Formation Biologics, Inflarx, Kadmon, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, CSL Behring, Sanofi, and Janssen. Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra has received consulting fees from AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim and research grants from Galapagos and Janssen. Dr. Van Laar has received grant funding or personal fees from Arthrogen, Arxx Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gesynta, Leadiant, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, and Thermofisher.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although a phase 3 trial of lenabasum did not meet its primary endpoint for treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc), the drug led to more improvement in participants who were not receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial than that seen in participants who received the placebo. Lenabasum also had a favorable safety profile, according to findings presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involved 363 adults who had had dcSSc for up to 6 years. One third of the participants received 5 mg of oral lenabasum, one third received 20 mg, and one third received a placebo. Patients already receiving immunosuppressant therapy could continue to receive it during the trial if the dose had been stable for at least 8 weeks before screening and corticosteroid therapy did not exceed 10 mg prednisone per day or the equivalent.

“The decision to allow background immunosuppressant therapies was made to reflect real-world clinical practice,” coprincipal investigator Robert Dr. Spiera, MD, director of the Vasculitis and Scleroderma Program at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, told attendees.

“It is surprising that we do not see any added efficacy of lenabasum in this trial, given the fact that the previous phase 2 trial in 42 patients did show a clear benefit of lenabasum over placebo in the same population,” Jeska K. de Vries-Bouwstra, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center told this news organization. “Even more, the clinical response in the phase 2 study was supported by a greater change in gene expression in skin tissue of pathways involved in inflammation and fibrosis with lenabasum as compared to placebo.”

Background immunosuppressants contribute to unprecedented placebo responses

The researchers compared the ACR CRISS (Combined Response Index in Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis) score and several secondary endpoints at 52 weeks between the 123 participants who received the placebo and the 120 participants who received 20 mg of lenabasum. A total of 60% of the lenabasum group and 66% of the placebo group had a disease duration of 3 or fewer years, and the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) was 22 in the lenabasum group and 23.3 in the placebo group at baseline.

A large majority of participants in both groups – 89% in the lenabasum group and 84% in the placebo group – were receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial. Specifically, 53% of each group was taking mycophenolate, and 23% of the lenabasum group and 32% of the placebo group were taking corticosteroids. In addition, 22% of the lenabasum group and 12% of the placebo group were on methotrexate, and 27% of the lenabasum group and 22% of the placebo group were on another immunosuppressant therapy.

Half of the placebo group and 58% of the lenabasum group were taking only one immunosuppressive therapy. About one-third of the lenabasum (32%) and placebo (34%) groups were taking two or more immunosuppressive therapies.

The primary endpoint at 52 weeks was not significantly different between the two groups: a CRISS score of 0.888 in the lenabasum group and 0.887 in the placebo group. A CRISS score of 0.6 or higher indicates likelihood that a patient improved on treatment. Patients with significant worsening of renal or cardiopulmonary involvement are classified as not improved (score of 0), regardless of improvements in other core items.

“We had very high CRISS scores in all three groups, and they were comparable in all three groups,” Dr. Spiera reported. Because improvement in placebo group far exceeded expectations, the researchers were unable to discern the treatment effect of lenabasum on top of the placebo effect.

The placebo group had better outcomes than expected because of the background immunosuppressant therapy, particularly the use of mycophenolate. When the researchers looked only at placebo participants, the CRISS score was 0.936 in the 97 patients receiving background immunosuppressant therapy of any kind and 0.935 in the 29 patients taking only mycophenolate with no other immunosuppressant therapy, compared with 0.417 in the 16 patients not receiving any background therapy.

In a prespecified analysis, the researchers investigated background immunosuppressive therapy as a mediator. The CRISS score for the 10 lenabasum participants not receiving background therapy was 0.811, compared with 0.417 seen in the placebo group patients not on background therapy.

Among the 173 participants taking mycophenolate in particular, the mycophenolate “had a statistically significant improvement on CRISS score that increased with each visit,” Dr. Spiera reported. The duration of mycophenolate therapy also affected efficacy results.

Patients who had been taking mycophenolate longer saw less improvement in their CRISS score over time. Those taking it more than 2 years at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.86, compared with 0.96 for those taking it for 1-2 years at baseline and 0.98 for those taking it from 6 months to 1 year at baseline. Those who had only been taking mycophenolate for up to 6 months at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.99. Meanwhile, patients not taking any background immunosuppressant therapies only had a CRISS score of about 0.35.
 

Changes in secondary endpoints followed same pattern as CRISS

The secondary endpoints similarly showed no statistically significant difference when comparing the lenabasum and placebo groups overall. These endpoints included change in mRSS score, change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage and volume, and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score.

However, the researchers again found that duration of background therapy affected FVC.

“You were more likely to have declined [in FVC] if you were on placebo and more likely to have improved or stayed stable if you were on lenabasum if you were a patient on more than 2 years of immunomodulatory therapy at baseline,” Dr. Spiera reported. “There was evidence for an effect of lenabasum on FVC suggested by post-hoc analyses that considered the effect of background immunosuppressive therapies on outcomes, but those results would require confirmation in additional studies to determine the potential of lenabasum for treating patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis,” Dr. Spiera noted in his conclusions.

Serious adverse events occurred in 9.2% of the lenabasum group and 5.8% of the placebo group. Rates of severe adverse events were similar between the lenabasum (14.6%) and placebo (13%) groups.

Is there a subgroup for whom lenabasum would be efficacious?

Although De Vries-Bouwstra of Leiden University Medical Center acknowledged the role of mycophenolate in the trial, she does not think background therapy can totally explain the observation and speculated on other possibilities.

“For example, there were fewer males in the placebo group as compared to the phase 2 study. From previous cohort studies we know that males have higher risk of worsening of skin disease,” she said. “In addition, it could be worthwhile to evaluate antibody profiles of the population under study; some subpopulations defined by autoantibody have higher risk for skin progression, while others can show spontaneous improvement.”

Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra said that, although it’s not currently appropriate to advocate for lenabasum to treat dcSSc, it may eventually become an additional treatment in those who still show active skin or lung disease after 2 years of mycophenolate treatment if future research identifies a benefit from that application. She would also like to see an evaluation of lenabasum’s possible benefits in patients with very early and active inflammatory disease. “Ideally, one could stratify patients based on biomarkers reflecting activation in relevant pathways, for example by using gene expression analysis from skin tissue to stratify,” she said.

Jacob M. van Laar, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), also commented on the potential differences in using the drug in early versus later disease.

“Based on ex vivo analyses of skin samples from systemic sclerosis patients, one would expect such a mechanism of action to be particularly relevant in very early disease, so the observation that it might also be effective at a later disease stage is interesting,” Dr. van Laar told this news organization. “We still have a lot to learn about this complex disease.”

Given that safety does not appear to be a major concern and that there may be a benefit in a subgroup of patients, Dr. van Laar also said he hoped “the company is not deterred by the seemingly negative result of the primary endpoint.”

Dr. Spiera expressed optimism about what this trial’s findings have revealed about management of dcSSc.

“Independent of what lenabasum did or didn’t do in this trial, I think there’s going to be a lot that we’re going to learn from this trial and that we’re already learning and analyzing right now about treating scleroderma,” he said in an interview.

He reiterated the value of allowing background therapy in the trial to ensure it better replicated real-world clinical practice.

“You’re not withholding therapies that we think are probably active from patients with active disease that, once you incur organ damage, is probably not going to be reversible,” Dr. Spiera said. “The downside is that it makes it harder to see an effect of a drug on top of the background therapy if that background therapy is effective. So what we saw in terms of this absence of benefit from lenabasum really may have been a ceiling effect.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiera said the findings still strongly suggest that lenabasum is an active compound.

“It’s not an enormously powerful effect, but it probably has a role as an adjunctive therapy in people on stable background therapy who have either plateaued or are getting worse,” he said. “The thing we have to keep in mind also is this was an incredibly safe therapy. It’s not immunosuppressive.”

The trial was funded by Corbus. Dr. Spiera has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Corbus, Formation Biologics, Inflarx, Kadmon, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, CSL Behring, Sanofi, and Janssen. Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra has received consulting fees from AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim and research grants from Galapagos and Janssen. Dr. Van Laar has received grant funding or personal fees from Arthrogen, Arxx Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gesynta, Leadiant, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, and Thermofisher.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A dermal-wounding strategy involving fractionated laser resurfacing not only treated actinic keratoses, but it prevented the development of nonmelanoma skin cancer on treated areas, according to the results of a small, randomized trial.

“Previous research suggests a new model to explain why older patients obtain nonmelanoma skin cancer in areas of ongoing sun exposure,” presenting author Jeffrey Wargo, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Insulinlike growth factor-1 produced by dermal fibroblasts dictates how overlying skin keratinocytes respond to UVB radiation. The skin of a patient aged in their 20s produces normal levels of healthy fibroblasts, normal levels of insulinlike growth factor 1, and appropriate UVB response via activation of nucleotide excision, repair, and DNA damage checkpoint-signaling systems.”

Older patients, meanwhile, have an increase in senescent fibroblasts, decreased insulinlike growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and an inappropriate UVB response to DNA damage, continued Dr. Wargo, a dermatologist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus. Previous studies conducted by his mentor, Jeffrey B. Travers, MD, PhD, a dermatologist and pharmacologist at Wright State University, Dayton, showed that fractionated laser resurfacing (FLR) restores UVB response in older patients’ skin by resulting in new fibroblasts and increased levels of IGF 2 years post wounding.

To determine if FLR of aged skin can prevent the development of actinic keratosis (AK) and nonmelanoma skin cancer, Dr. Travers and Dr. Wargo recruited 48 patients at the Dayton VA Medical Center who were 60 years or older and had at least five AKs on each arm that were 3 mm or smaller, with nothing concerning for skin cancer at the screening visit.

Randomization of which arm was treated was based on an odd or even Social Security Number. That arm was treated with the 2,790 nm Erbium:YSSG ablative laser at 120 J/m² with one pass at 24% coverage from the elbow to hand dorsally. Previously published data reported outcomes for 30 of these patients at 3 and 6 months following treatment. Subsequent to that report, 18 additional subjects have been recruited to the study and follow-up has been extended. Of the 48 patients, 47 were male and their average age was 74, with a range between 61 and 87 years.

At 3 months following FLR, the ratio of AKs on the treated vs. untreated arms was reduced by fourfold, with a P value less than .00001^{, Dr. Wargo reported}. “Throughout the current 30-month follow-up period, this ratio has been maintained,” he said. “In fact, none of the ratios determined at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, or 30 months post FLR are significantly different. Hence, as described in our first report on this work, these data indicate FLR is an effective treatment for existing AKs. However, our model predicts that FLR treatment will also prevent the occurrence of new AK lesions.”

Among 19 of the study participants who have been followed out to 30 months, untreated arms continued to accumulate increasing number of AKs. In contrast, AKs on treated arms are decreasing with time, indicating the lack of newly initiated lesions.

“A second analysis of the data posits that, if FLR were only removing existing lesions, one would predict the number of AKs that were present at 3 months on both the untreated and FLR-treated [arms] would accumulate at the same rate subsequent to 3 months point in time,” Dr. Wargo said.

He pointed out that 12 patients were removed from the study: two at 12 months, one at 18 months, eight at 24 months, and one at 30 months, as they were found to have 20 or more AKs on their untreated arm and required treatment.

Over the entire study period, “consistent with the notion that FLR was preventing new actinic neoplasia, we noted a dramatic difference in numbers of nonmelanoma skin cancer diagnosed in the untreated areas (22) versus FLR treated areas (2),” Dr. Wargo said. The majority of nonmelanoma skin cancers diagnosed were SCC (17) and 5 basal cell carcinomas on the untreated arms, whereas the 2 diagnosed on the treated arm were SCC. “These studies indicate that a dermal-wounding strategy involving FLR, which upregulates dermal IGF-1 levels, not only treats AKs but prevents nonmelanoma skin cancer,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Travers is the principal investigator. Dr. Wargo reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

A dermal-wounding strategy involving fractionated laser resurfacing not only treated actinic keratoses, but it prevented the development of nonmelanoma skin cancer on treated areas, according to the results of a small, randomized trial.

“Previous research suggests a new model to explain why older patients obtain nonmelanoma skin cancer in areas of ongoing sun exposure,” presenting author Jeffrey Wargo, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Insulinlike growth factor-1 produced by dermal fibroblasts dictates how overlying skin keratinocytes respond to UVB radiation. The skin of a patient aged in their 20s produces normal levels of healthy fibroblasts, normal levels of insulinlike growth factor 1, and appropriate UVB response via activation of nucleotide excision, repair, and DNA damage checkpoint-signaling systems.”

Older patients, meanwhile, have an increase in senescent fibroblasts, decreased insulinlike growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and an inappropriate UVB response to DNA damage, continued Dr. Wargo, a dermatologist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus. Previous studies conducted by his mentor, Jeffrey B. Travers, MD, PhD, a dermatologist and pharmacologist at Wright State University, Dayton, showed that fractionated laser resurfacing (FLR) restores UVB response in older patients’ skin by resulting in new fibroblasts and increased levels of IGF 2 years post wounding.

To determine if FLR of aged skin can prevent the development of actinic keratosis (AK) and nonmelanoma skin cancer, Dr. Travers and Dr. Wargo recruited 48 patients at the Dayton VA Medical Center who were 60 years or older and had at least five AKs on each arm that were 3 mm or smaller, with nothing concerning for skin cancer at the screening visit.

Randomization of which arm was treated was based on an odd or even Social Security Number. That arm was treated with the 2,790 nm Erbium:YSSG ablative laser at 120 J/m² with one pass at 24% coverage from the elbow to hand dorsally. Previously published data reported outcomes for 30 of these patients at 3 and 6 months following treatment. Subsequent to that report, 18 additional subjects have been recruited to the study and follow-up has been extended. Of the 48 patients, 47 were male and their average age was 74, with a range between 61 and 87 years.

At 3 months following FLR, the ratio of AKs on the treated vs. untreated arms was reduced by fourfold, with a P value less than .00001^{, Dr. Wargo reported}. “Throughout the current 30-month follow-up period, this ratio has been maintained,” he said. “In fact, none of the ratios determined at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, or 30 months post FLR are significantly different. Hence, as described in our first report on this work, these data indicate FLR is an effective treatment for existing AKs. However, our model predicts that FLR treatment will also prevent the occurrence of new AK lesions.”

Among 19 of the study participants who have been followed out to 30 months, untreated arms continued to accumulate increasing number of AKs. In contrast, AKs on treated arms are decreasing with time, indicating the lack of newly initiated lesions.

“A second analysis of the data posits that, if FLR were only removing existing lesions, one would predict the number of AKs that were present at 3 months on both the untreated and FLR-treated [arms] would accumulate at the same rate subsequent to 3 months point in time,” Dr. Wargo said.

He pointed out that 12 patients were removed from the study: two at 12 months, one at 18 months, eight at 24 months, and one at 30 months, as they were found to have 20 or more AKs on their untreated arm and required treatment.

Over the entire study period, “consistent with the notion that FLR was preventing new actinic neoplasia, we noted a dramatic difference in numbers of nonmelanoma skin cancer diagnosed in the untreated areas (22) versus FLR treated areas (2),” Dr. Wargo said. The majority of nonmelanoma skin cancers diagnosed were SCC (17) and 5 basal cell carcinomas on the untreated arms, whereas the 2 diagnosed on the treated arm were SCC. “These studies indicate that a dermal-wounding strategy involving FLR, which upregulates dermal IGF-1 levels, not only treats AKs but prevents nonmelanoma skin cancer,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Travers is the principal investigator. Dr. Wargo reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

A dermal-wounding strategy involving fractionated laser resurfacing not only treated actinic keratoses, but it prevented the development of nonmelanoma skin cancer on treated areas, according to the results of a small, randomized trial.

“Previous research suggests a new model to explain why older patients obtain nonmelanoma skin cancer in areas of ongoing sun exposure,” presenting author Jeffrey Wargo, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Insulinlike growth factor-1 produced by dermal fibroblasts dictates how overlying skin keratinocytes respond to UVB radiation. The skin of a patient aged in their 20s produces normal levels of healthy fibroblasts, normal levels of insulinlike growth factor 1, and appropriate UVB response via activation of nucleotide excision, repair, and DNA damage checkpoint-signaling systems.”

Older patients, meanwhile, have an increase in senescent fibroblasts, decreased insulinlike growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and an inappropriate UVB response to DNA damage, continued Dr. Wargo, a dermatologist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus. Previous studies conducted by his mentor, Jeffrey B. Travers, MD, PhD, a dermatologist and pharmacologist at Wright State University, Dayton, showed that fractionated laser resurfacing (FLR) restores UVB response in older patients’ skin by resulting in new fibroblasts and increased levels of IGF 2 years post wounding.

To determine if FLR of aged skin can prevent the development of actinic keratosis (AK) and nonmelanoma skin cancer, Dr. Travers and Dr. Wargo recruited 48 patients at the Dayton VA Medical Center who were 60 years or older and had at least five AKs on each arm that were 3 mm or smaller, with nothing concerning for skin cancer at the screening visit.

Randomization of which arm was treated was based on an odd or even Social Security Number. That arm was treated with the 2,790 nm Erbium:YSSG ablative laser at 120 J/m² with one pass at 24% coverage from the elbow to hand dorsally. Previously published data reported outcomes for 30 of these patients at 3 and 6 months following treatment. Subsequent to that report, 18 additional subjects have been recruited to the study and follow-up has been extended. Of the 48 patients, 47 were male and their average age was 74, with a range between 61 and 87 years.

At 3 months following FLR, the ratio of AKs on the treated vs. untreated arms was reduced by fourfold, with a P value less than .00001^{, Dr. Wargo reported}. “Throughout the current 30-month follow-up period, this ratio has been maintained,” he said. “In fact, none of the ratios determined at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, or 30 months post FLR are significantly different. Hence, as described in our first report on this work, these data indicate FLR is an effective treatment for existing AKs. However, our model predicts that FLR treatment will also prevent the occurrence of new AK lesions.”

Among 19 of the study participants who have been followed out to 30 months, untreated arms continued to accumulate increasing number of AKs. In contrast, AKs on treated arms are decreasing with time, indicating the lack of newly initiated lesions.

“A second analysis of the data posits that, if FLR were only removing existing lesions, one would predict the number of AKs that were present at 3 months on both the untreated and FLR-treated [arms] would accumulate at the same rate subsequent to 3 months point in time,” Dr. Wargo said.

He pointed out that 12 patients were removed from the study: two at 12 months, one at 18 months, eight at 24 months, and one at 30 months, as they were found to have 20 or more AKs on their untreated arm and required treatment.

Over the entire study period, “consistent with the notion that FLR was preventing new actinic neoplasia, we noted a dramatic difference in numbers of nonmelanoma skin cancer diagnosed in the untreated areas (22) versus FLR treated areas (2),” Dr. Wargo said. The majority of nonmelanoma skin cancers diagnosed were SCC (17) and 5 basal cell carcinomas on the untreated arms, whereas the 2 diagnosed on the treated arm were SCC. “These studies indicate that a dermal-wounding strategy involving FLR, which upregulates dermal IGF-1 levels, not only treats AKs but prevents nonmelanoma skin cancer,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Travers is the principal investigator. Dr. Wargo reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

One year after a single treatment of cellulite with the Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device, 42 out of 43 patients said that they felt good about the results, an interim analysis from a multicenter study showed.

Iuliia Mikhalitskaia/Getty Images

“I think this speaks to the duration of improvement” associated with this treatment, lead study author Elizabeth L. Tanzi, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

The study is an extension of a prospective pivotal clinical trial that Dr. Tanzi first presented during late-breaking abstract session at the 2020 virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. For the trial, she and her colleagues at four sites evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the RAP device in 62 women who were treated with a single, rapid acoustic pulse treatment comprised of 1-2 minutes on each identified dimple or large ridge of cellulite. In February 2021, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the device for the short-term improvement in the appearance of cellulite.

“The high peak pressure and fast repetition rate of this device will exploit the viscoelastic tissue compared to other acoustic wave devices that are on the market,” said Dr. Tanzi, associate clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “Those compressed pulses from electronic filtering and reflector shape eliminate cavitation, heat, and pain. So, what we see physically is fiber septa disruption, as well as other nonthermal physical effects.”

She and her colleagues used a specific photography and fixed lighting setup to record the treated areas at baseline, 12 weeks, and 52 weeks, and administered a patient satisfaction questionnaire at 12 and 52 weeks. Prior to treatment, the investigators marked the dimples and ridges intended for treatment. After placing a hydrogel dressing, it took 45-60 minutes to treat both buttocks and thighs with the RAP device. “It was completely noninvasive,” said Dr. Tanzi, who practices in Chevy Chase, Md. “There was no anesthesia used: no incisions and no needles.”

Among 57 patients who were evaluated at 12 weeks, the pain score on a scale of 0-10 was 2.4, while 61.5% strongly agreed and 35.9% agreed that their cellulite appeared improved. In addition, three blinded assessors were able to correctly identify the treated thigh 96% of the time and physician-graded Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale assessments showed 90% improvement of cellulite.

Follow-up analysis

For the current subject satisfaction analysis, the investigators evaluated results from 43 patients in the trial who were followed for at least 52 weeks (a mean of 60 weeks). Of the 43 patients, 30 (69.8%) strongly agreed and 13 (30.2%) agreed that their cellulite “appears improved.” In addition, 29 (67.4%) strongly agreed, 13 (30.2%) agreed, and 1 (2.3%) disagreed with the statement “I feel there is good improvement” of their cellulite.

“Currently, we are evaluating the blinded assessors’ view of these patients and not just going with [findings from] the patient satisfaction survey, but I think these are encouraging results,” Dr. Tanzi said. “We found that 42 out of 43 patients said, ‘yes; I feel that there was good improvement of the area at 52 weeks.’ ”

Dr. Tanzi disclosed that she is a member of the speakers bureau for Eucerin. She is a member of the advisory board for Allergan, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Pulse Biosciences, Sciton, and Soliton. Soliton markets the RAP device.

[email protected]

One year after a single treatment of cellulite with the Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device, 42 out of 43 patients said that they felt good about the results, an interim analysis from a multicenter study showed.

Iuliia Mikhalitskaia/Getty Images

“I think this speaks to the duration of improvement” associated with this treatment, lead study author Elizabeth L. Tanzi, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

The study is an extension of a prospective pivotal clinical trial that Dr. Tanzi first presented during late-breaking abstract session at the 2020 virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. For the trial, she and her colleagues at four sites evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the RAP device in 62 women who were treated with a single, rapid acoustic pulse treatment comprised of 1-2 minutes on each identified dimple or large ridge of cellulite. In February 2021, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the device for the short-term improvement in the appearance of cellulite.

“The high peak pressure and fast repetition rate of this device will exploit the viscoelastic tissue compared to other acoustic wave devices that are on the market,” said Dr. Tanzi, associate clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “Those compressed pulses from electronic filtering and reflector shape eliminate cavitation, heat, and pain. So, what we see physically is fiber septa disruption, as well as other nonthermal physical effects.”

She and her colleagues used a specific photography and fixed lighting setup to record the treated areas at baseline, 12 weeks, and 52 weeks, and administered a patient satisfaction questionnaire at 12 and 52 weeks. Prior to treatment, the investigators marked the dimples and ridges intended for treatment. After placing a hydrogel dressing, it took 45-60 minutes to treat both buttocks and thighs with the RAP device. “It was completely noninvasive,” said Dr. Tanzi, who practices in Chevy Chase, Md. “There was no anesthesia used: no incisions and no needles.”

Among 57 patients who were evaluated at 12 weeks, the pain score on a scale of 0-10 was 2.4, while 61.5% strongly agreed and 35.9% agreed that their cellulite appeared improved. In addition, three blinded assessors were able to correctly identify the treated thigh 96% of the time and physician-graded Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale assessments showed 90% improvement of cellulite.

Follow-up analysis

For the current subject satisfaction analysis, the investigators evaluated results from 43 patients in the trial who were followed for at least 52 weeks (a mean of 60 weeks). Of the 43 patients, 30 (69.8%) strongly agreed and 13 (30.2%) agreed that their cellulite “appears improved.” In addition, 29 (67.4%) strongly agreed, 13 (30.2%) agreed, and 1 (2.3%) disagreed with the statement “I feel there is good improvement” of their cellulite.

“Currently, we are evaluating the blinded assessors’ view of these patients and not just going with [findings from] the patient satisfaction survey, but I think these are encouraging results,” Dr. Tanzi said. “We found that 42 out of 43 patients said, ‘yes; I feel that there was good improvement of the area at 52 weeks.’ ”

Dr. Tanzi disclosed that she is a member of the speakers bureau for Eucerin. She is a member of the advisory board for Allergan, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Pulse Biosciences, Sciton, and Soliton. Soliton markets the RAP device.

[email protected]

One year after a single treatment of cellulite with the Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device, 42 out of 43 patients said that they felt good about the results, an interim analysis from a multicenter study showed.

Iuliia Mikhalitskaia/Getty Images

“I think this speaks to the duration of improvement” associated with this treatment, lead study author Elizabeth L. Tanzi, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

The study is an extension of a prospective pivotal clinical trial that Dr. Tanzi first presented during late-breaking abstract session at the 2020 virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. For the trial, she and her colleagues at four sites evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the RAP device in 62 women who were treated with a single, rapid acoustic pulse treatment comprised of 1-2 minutes on each identified dimple or large ridge of cellulite. In February 2021, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the device for the short-term improvement in the appearance of cellulite.

“The high peak pressure and fast repetition rate of this device will exploit the viscoelastic tissue compared to other acoustic wave devices that are on the market,” said Dr. Tanzi, associate clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “Those compressed pulses from electronic filtering and reflector shape eliminate cavitation, heat, and pain. So, what we see physically is fiber septa disruption, as well as other nonthermal physical effects.”

She and her colleagues used a specific photography and fixed lighting setup to record the treated areas at baseline, 12 weeks, and 52 weeks, and administered a patient satisfaction questionnaire at 12 and 52 weeks. Prior to treatment, the investigators marked the dimples and ridges intended for treatment. After placing a hydrogel dressing, it took 45-60 minutes to treat both buttocks and thighs with the RAP device. “It was completely noninvasive,” said Dr. Tanzi, who practices in Chevy Chase, Md. “There was no anesthesia used: no incisions and no needles.”

Among 57 patients who were evaluated at 12 weeks, the pain score on a scale of 0-10 was 2.4, while 61.5% strongly agreed and 35.9% agreed that their cellulite appeared improved. In addition, three blinded assessors were able to correctly identify the treated thigh 96% of the time and physician-graded Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale assessments showed 90% improvement of cellulite.

Follow-up analysis

For the current subject satisfaction analysis, the investigators evaluated results from 43 patients in the trial who were followed for at least 52 weeks (a mean of 60 weeks). Of the 43 patients, 30 (69.8%) strongly agreed and 13 (30.2%) agreed that their cellulite “appears improved.” In addition, 29 (67.4%) strongly agreed, 13 (30.2%) agreed, and 1 (2.3%) disagreed with the statement “I feel there is good improvement” of their cellulite.

“Currently, we are evaluating the blinded assessors’ view of these patients and not just going with [findings from] the patient satisfaction survey, but I think these are encouraging results,” Dr. Tanzi said. “We found that 42 out of 43 patients said, ‘yes; I feel that there was good improvement of the area at 52 weeks.’ ”

Dr. Tanzi disclosed that she is a member of the speakers bureau for Eucerin. She is a member of the advisory board for Allergan, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Pulse Biosciences, Sciton, and Soliton. Soliton markets the RAP device.

[email protected]

Just before Memorial Day, online pharmacy and lab Valisure announced that its testing had found benzene, a known carcinogen, in batches of 78 widely-available sunscreen and after-sun products. The company has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to recall these products, which include batches from Neutrogena, Banana Boat, CVS Health, and other brands. More than three-quarters of the products are sprays.

©Vesna Andjic/iStockphoto.com

“We’re asking our patients to put sunscreen on from 6 months of age, telling them to do it their entire life, their whole body, multiple times a day,” Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. If benzene-contaminated sunscreen proves to be a widespread problem, he said, “the benzene amounts can add up to a significant chronic exposure over a lifetime.”

In the Valisure statement announcing the findings, Dr. Bunick, who is also quoted in the petition, said that “it is critical that regulatory agencies address benzene contamination in sunscreens, and all topical medications at the manufacturing and final product level, so that all individuals feel safe using sunscreen products.”

The list of products that tested positive is included in the citizen petition, and a full list of products that did not show any contamination is available in an attachment.

Benzene is not an ingredient in sunscreen, and Valisure’s petition suggests that the findings are a result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process, not of product degradation.

“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”

Assessing the risks

There is a risk of patients taking away the wrong message from these findings.

“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview. He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from ingesting things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.

On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, ultimately to be determined by the FDA.

“Just because those particular products do pose a risk, that doesn’t erase the message that sunscreens are safe and should be used,” Dr. Bunick said. “It’s not mutually exclusive.”

And then there’s the fact that the benzene contamination appears to be fairly limited. “The majority of products we tested, over 200 of them, had no detectable amounts of benzene, and uncontaminated sunscreen should certainly continue to be used,” David Light, CEO of Valisure, told this news organization.

Advising patients

With headlines blaring the news about a carcinogen in sunscreen, patients will be reaching out for advice.

“The number one question patients will have is, ‘What sunscreen do you recommend?’” said Dr. Bunick. “The answer should be to pick a sunscreen that we know wasn’t contaminated. Reassure your patient the ingredients themselves are effective and safe, and that’s not what’s leading to the contamination.”

Dr. Friedman agrees. “We need to be mindful. Dermatologists need to be armed with the facts in order to counsel patients: Sunscreen is still a very important, effective, and safe, scientifically based way to prevent the harmful effects of the sun, in addition to things like sun protective clothing and seeking shade between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.”

As alarming as Valisure’s findings may seem initially, Dr. Bunick noted a silver lining. “The consumer, the public should feel reassured this report is out there. It shows that someone’s watching out. That’s an important safety message: These things aren’t going undetected.”
 

Just before Memorial Day, online pharmacy and lab Valisure announced that its testing had found benzene, a known carcinogen, in batches of 78 widely-available sunscreen and after-sun products. The company has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to recall these products, which include batches from Neutrogena, Banana Boat, CVS Health, and other brands. More than three-quarters of the products are sprays.

©Vesna Andjic/iStockphoto.com

“We’re asking our patients to put sunscreen on from 6 months of age, telling them to do it their entire life, their whole body, multiple times a day,” Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. If benzene-contaminated sunscreen proves to be a widespread problem, he said, “the benzene amounts can add up to a significant chronic exposure over a lifetime.”

In the Valisure statement announcing the findings, Dr. Bunick, who is also quoted in the petition, said that “it is critical that regulatory agencies address benzene contamination in sunscreens, and all topical medications at the manufacturing and final product level, so that all individuals feel safe using sunscreen products.”

The list of products that tested positive is included in the citizen petition, and a full list of products that did not show any contamination is available in an attachment.

Benzene is not an ingredient in sunscreen, and Valisure’s petition suggests that the findings are a result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process, not of product degradation.

“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”

Assessing the risks

There is a risk of patients taking away the wrong message from these findings.

“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview. He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from ingesting things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.

On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, ultimately to be determined by the FDA.

“Just because those particular products do pose a risk, that doesn’t erase the message that sunscreens are safe and should be used,” Dr. Bunick said. “It’s not mutually exclusive.”

And then there’s the fact that the benzene contamination appears to be fairly limited. “The majority of products we tested, over 200 of them, had no detectable amounts of benzene, and uncontaminated sunscreen should certainly continue to be used,” David Light, CEO of Valisure, told this news organization.

Advising patients

With headlines blaring the news about a carcinogen in sunscreen, patients will be reaching out for advice.

“The number one question patients will have is, ‘What sunscreen do you recommend?’” said Dr. Bunick. “The answer should be to pick a sunscreen that we know wasn’t contaminated. Reassure your patient the ingredients themselves are effective and safe, and that’s not what’s leading to the contamination.”

Dr. Friedman agrees. “We need to be mindful. Dermatologists need to be armed with the facts in order to counsel patients: Sunscreen is still a very important, effective, and safe, scientifically based way to prevent the harmful effects of the sun, in addition to things like sun protective clothing and seeking shade between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.”

As alarming as Valisure’s findings may seem initially, Dr. Bunick noted a silver lining. “The consumer, the public should feel reassured this report is out there. It shows that someone’s watching out. That’s an important safety message: These things aren’t going undetected.”
 

Just before Memorial Day, online pharmacy and lab Valisure announced that its testing had found benzene, a known carcinogen, in batches of 78 widely-available sunscreen and after-sun products. The company has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to recall these products, which include batches from Neutrogena, Banana Boat, CVS Health, and other brands. More than three-quarters of the products are sprays.

©Vesna Andjic/iStockphoto.com

“We’re asking our patients to put sunscreen on from 6 months of age, telling them to do it their entire life, their whole body, multiple times a day,” Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. If benzene-contaminated sunscreen proves to be a widespread problem, he said, “the benzene amounts can add up to a significant chronic exposure over a lifetime.”

In the Valisure statement announcing the findings, Dr. Bunick, who is also quoted in the petition, said that “it is critical that regulatory agencies address benzene contamination in sunscreens, and all topical medications at the manufacturing and final product level, so that all individuals feel safe using sunscreen products.”

The list of products that tested positive is included in the citizen petition, and a full list of products that did not show any contamination is available in an attachment.

Benzene is not an ingredient in sunscreen, and Valisure’s petition suggests that the findings are a result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process, not of product degradation.

“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”

Assessing the risks

There is a risk of patients taking away the wrong message from these findings.

“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview. He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from ingesting things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.

On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, ultimately to be determined by the FDA.

“Just because those particular products do pose a risk, that doesn’t erase the message that sunscreens are safe and should be used,” Dr. Bunick said. “It’s not mutually exclusive.”

And then there’s the fact that the benzene contamination appears to be fairly limited. “The majority of products we tested, over 200 of them, had no detectable amounts of benzene, and uncontaminated sunscreen should certainly continue to be used,” David Light, CEO of Valisure, told this news organization.

Advising patients

With headlines blaring the news about a carcinogen in sunscreen, patients will be reaching out for advice.

“The number one question patients will have is, ‘What sunscreen do you recommend?’” said Dr. Bunick. “The answer should be to pick a sunscreen that we know wasn’t contaminated. Reassure your patient the ingredients themselves are effective and safe, and that’s not what’s leading to the contamination.”

Dr. Friedman agrees. “We need to be mindful. Dermatologists need to be armed with the facts in order to counsel patients: Sunscreen is still a very important, effective, and safe, scientifically based way to prevent the harmful effects of the sun, in addition to things like sun protective clothing and seeking shade between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.”

As alarming as Valisure’s findings may seem initially, Dr. Bunick noted a silver lining. “The consumer, the public should feel reassured this report is out there. It shows that someone’s watching out. That’s an important safety message: These things aren’t going undetected.”