MDedge Dermatology

A 2,940-nm and 1,470-nm hybrid fractional laser was found to be safe and effective for treating the genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), results from a pilot trial showed.

“The genitourinary syndrome of menopause causes suffering in breast cancer survivors and postmenopausal women,” Jill S. Waibel, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. A common side effect for breast cancer survivors is early onset of menopause that is brought on by treatment, specifically aromatase-inhibitor therapies, she noted.

The symptoms of GSM include discomfort during sex, impaired sexual function, burning or sensation or irritation of the genital area, vaginal constriction, frequent urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and vaginal laxity, said Dr. Waibel, owner and medical director of the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute. Nonhormonal treatments have included OTC vaginal lubricants, OTC moisturizers, low-dose vaginal estrogen – which increases the risk of breast cancer – and systemic estrogen therapy, which also can increase the risk of breast and endometrial cancer. “So, we need a healthy, nondrug option,” she said.

The objective of the pilot study was to determine the safety and efficacy of the diVa hybrid fractional laser as a treatment for symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause, early menopause after breast cancer, or vaginal atrophy. The laser applies tunable nonablative (1,470-nm) and ablative (2,940-nm) wavelengths to the same microscopic treatment zone to maximize results and reduce downtime. The device features a motorized precision guidance system and calibrated rotation for homogeneous pulsing.

“The 2,940-nm wavelength is used to ablate to a depth of 0-800 micrometers while the 1,470-nm wavelength is used to coagulate the epithelium and the lamina propria at a depth of 100-700 micrometers,” said Dr. Waibel, who is also subsection chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital of Miami. “This combination is used for epithelial tissue to heal quickly and the lamina propria to remodel slowly over time, laying down more collagen in tissue.” Each procedure is delivered via a single-use dilator, which expands the vaginal canal for increased treatment area. “The tip length is 5.5 cm and the diameter is 1 cm,” she said. “The clear tip acts as a hygienic barrier between the tip and the handpiece.”

Study participants included 25 women between the ages of 40 and 70 with early menopause after breast cancer or vaginal atrophy: 20 in the treatment arm and 5 in the sham-treatment arm. Dr. Waibel performed three procedures 2 weeks apart. An ob.gyn. assessed the primary endpoints, which included the Vaginal Health Index Scale (VHIS), the Vaginal Maturation Index (VMI), the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire, and the Day-to-Day Impact of Vaginal Aging (DIVA) questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were histology and a satisfaction questionnaire.

Of the women in the treated group, there were data available for 19 at 3 months follow-up and 17 at 6 months follow-up. Based on the results in these patients, there were statistically significant improvements in nearly all domains of the FSFI treatment arm at 3 and 6 months when compared to baseline, especially arousal (P values of .05 at 3 months and .01 at 6 months) and lubrication (P values of .009 at three months and .001 at 6 months).

Between 3 and 6 months, patients in the treatment arm experienced improvements in four dimensions of the DIVA questionnaire: daily activities (P value of .01 at 3 months to .010 at 6 months), emotional well-being (P value of .06 at 3 months to .014 at 6 months), sexual function (P value of .30 at 3 months to .003 at 6 months), and self-concept/body image (P value of .002 at 3 months to .001 at 6 months).

As for satisfaction, a majority of those in the treatment arm were “somewhat satisfied” with the treatment and would “somewhat likely” repeat and recommend the treatment to friends and family, Dr. Waibel said. Results among the women in the control arm, who were also surveyed, were in the similar range, she noted. (No other results for women in the control arm were available.)

Following treatments, histology revealed that the collagen was denser, fibroblasts were more dense, and vascularity was more notable. No adverse events were observed. “The hybrid fractional laser is safe and effective for treating GSM, early menopause after breast cancer, or vaginal atrophy,” Dr. Waibel concluded. Further studies are important to improve the understanding of “laser dosimetry, frequency of treatments, and longevity of effect. Collaboration between ob.gyns. and dermatologists is important as we learn about laser therapy in GSM.”

Dr. Waibel disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board of Sciton, which manufactures the diVa laser. She has also conducted clinical trials for many other device and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A 2,940-nm and 1,470-nm hybrid fractional laser was found to be safe and effective for treating the genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), results from a pilot trial showed.

“The genitourinary syndrome of menopause causes suffering in breast cancer survivors and postmenopausal women,” Jill S. Waibel, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. A common side effect for breast cancer survivors is early onset of menopause that is brought on by treatment, specifically aromatase-inhibitor therapies, she noted.

The symptoms of GSM include discomfort during sex, impaired sexual function, burning or sensation or irritation of the genital area, vaginal constriction, frequent urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and vaginal laxity, said Dr. Waibel, owner and medical director of the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute. Nonhormonal treatments have included OTC vaginal lubricants, OTC moisturizers, low-dose vaginal estrogen – which increases the risk of breast cancer – and systemic estrogen therapy, which also can increase the risk of breast and endometrial cancer. “So, we need a healthy, nondrug option,” she said.

The objective of the pilot study was to determine the safety and efficacy of the diVa hybrid fractional laser as a treatment for symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause, early menopause after breast cancer, or vaginal atrophy. The laser applies tunable nonablative (1,470-nm) and ablative (2,940-nm) wavelengths to the same microscopic treatment zone to maximize results and reduce downtime. The device features a motorized precision guidance system and calibrated rotation for homogeneous pulsing.

“The 2,940-nm wavelength is used to ablate to a depth of 0-800 micrometers while the 1,470-nm wavelength is used to coagulate the epithelium and the lamina propria at a depth of 100-700 micrometers,” said Dr. Waibel, who is also subsection chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital of Miami. “This combination is used for epithelial tissue to heal quickly and the lamina propria to remodel slowly over time, laying down more collagen in tissue.” Each procedure is delivered via a single-use dilator, which expands the vaginal canal for increased treatment area. “The tip length is 5.5 cm and the diameter is 1 cm,” she said. “The clear tip acts as a hygienic barrier between the tip and the handpiece.”

Study participants included 25 women between the ages of 40 and 70 with early menopause after breast cancer or vaginal atrophy: 20 in the treatment arm and 5 in the sham-treatment arm. Dr. Waibel performed three procedures 2 weeks apart. An ob.gyn. assessed the primary endpoints, which included the Vaginal Health Index Scale (VHIS), the Vaginal Maturation Index (VMI), the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire, and the Day-to-Day Impact of Vaginal Aging (DIVA) questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were histology and a satisfaction questionnaire.

Of the women in the treated group, there were data available for 19 at 3 months follow-up and 17 at 6 months follow-up. Based on the results in these patients, there were statistically significant improvements in nearly all domains of the FSFI treatment arm at 3 and 6 months when compared to baseline, especially arousal (P values of .05 at 3 months and .01 at 6 months) and lubrication (P values of .009 at three months and .001 at 6 months).

Between 3 and 6 months, patients in the treatment arm experienced improvements in four dimensions of the DIVA questionnaire: daily activities (P value of .01 at 3 months to .010 at 6 months), emotional well-being (P value of .06 at 3 months to .014 at 6 months), sexual function (P value of .30 at 3 months to .003 at 6 months), and self-concept/body image (P value of .002 at 3 months to .001 at 6 months).

As for satisfaction, a majority of those in the treatment arm were “somewhat satisfied” with the treatment and would “somewhat likely” repeat and recommend the treatment to friends and family, Dr. Waibel said. Results among the women in the control arm, who were also surveyed, were in the similar range, she noted. (No other results for women in the control arm were available.)

Following treatments, histology revealed that the collagen was denser, fibroblasts were more dense, and vascularity was more notable. No adverse events were observed. “The hybrid fractional laser is safe and effective for treating GSM, early menopause after breast cancer, or vaginal atrophy,” Dr. Waibel concluded. Further studies are important to improve the understanding of “laser dosimetry, frequency of treatments, and longevity of effect. Collaboration between ob.gyns. and dermatologists is important as we learn about laser therapy in GSM.”

Dr. Waibel disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board of Sciton, which manufactures the diVa laser. She has also conducted clinical trials for many other device and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

A 2,940-nm and 1,470-nm hybrid fractional laser was found to be safe and effective for treating the genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), results from a pilot trial showed.

“The genitourinary syndrome of menopause causes suffering in breast cancer survivors and postmenopausal women,” Jill S. Waibel, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. A common side effect for breast cancer survivors is early onset of menopause that is brought on by treatment, specifically aromatase-inhibitor therapies, she noted.

The symptoms of GSM include discomfort during sex, impaired sexual function, burning or sensation or irritation of the genital area, vaginal constriction, frequent urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and vaginal laxity, said Dr. Waibel, owner and medical director of the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute. Nonhormonal treatments have included OTC vaginal lubricants, OTC moisturizers, low-dose vaginal estrogen – which increases the risk of breast cancer – and systemic estrogen therapy, which also can increase the risk of breast and endometrial cancer. “So, we need a healthy, nondrug option,” she said.

The objective of the pilot study was to determine the safety and efficacy of the diVa hybrid fractional laser as a treatment for symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause, early menopause after breast cancer, or vaginal atrophy. The laser applies tunable nonablative (1,470-nm) and ablative (2,940-nm) wavelengths to the same microscopic treatment zone to maximize results and reduce downtime. The device features a motorized precision guidance system and calibrated rotation for homogeneous pulsing.

“The 2,940-nm wavelength is used to ablate to a depth of 0-800 micrometers while the 1,470-nm wavelength is used to coagulate the epithelium and the lamina propria at a depth of 100-700 micrometers,” said Dr. Waibel, who is also subsection chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital of Miami. “This combination is used for epithelial tissue to heal quickly and the lamina propria to remodel slowly over time, laying down more collagen in tissue.” Each procedure is delivered via a single-use dilator, which expands the vaginal canal for increased treatment area. “The tip length is 5.5 cm and the diameter is 1 cm,” she said. “The clear tip acts as a hygienic barrier between the tip and the handpiece.”

Study participants included 25 women between the ages of 40 and 70 with early menopause after breast cancer or vaginal atrophy: 20 in the treatment arm and 5 in the sham-treatment arm. Dr. Waibel performed three procedures 2 weeks apart. An ob.gyn. assessed the primary endpoints, which included the Vaginal Health Index Scale (VHIS), the Vaginal Maturation Index (VMI), the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire, and the Day-to-Day Impact of Vaginal Aging (DIVA) questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were histology and a satisfaction questionnaire.

Of the women in the treated group, there were data available for 19 at 3 months follow-up and 17 at 6 months follow-up. Based on the results in these patients, there were statistically significant improvements in nearly all domains of the FSFI treatment arm at 3 and 6 months when compared to baseline, especially arousal (P values of .05 at 3 months and .01 at 6 months) and lubrication (P values of .009 at three months and .001 at 6 months).

Between 3 and 6 months, patients in the treatment arm experienced improvements in four dimensions of the DIVA questionnaire: daily activities (P value of .01 at 3 months to .010 at 6 months), emotional well-being (P value of .06 at 3 months to .014 at 6 months), sexual function (P value of .30 at 3 months to .003 at 6 months), and self-concept/body image (P value of .002 at 3 months to .001 at 6 months).

As for satisfaction, a majority of those in the treatment arm were “somewhat satisfied” with the treatment and would “somewhat likely” repeat and recommend the treatment to friends and family, Dr. Waibel said. Results among the women in the control arm, who were also surveyed, were in the similar range, she noted. (No other results for women in the control arm were available.)

Following treatments, histology revealed that the collagen was denser, fibroblasts were more dense, and vascularity was more notable. No adverse events were observed. “The hybrid fractional laser is safe and effective for treating GSM, early menopause after breast cancer, or vaginal atrophy,” Dr. Waibel concluded. Further studies are important to improve the understanding of “laser dosimetry, frequency of treatments, and longevity of effect. Collaboration between ob.gyns. and dermatologists is important as we learn about laser therapy in GSM.”

Dr. Waibel disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board of Sciton, which manufactures the diVa laser. She has also conducted clinical trials for many other device and pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

I just completed the third edition of my Cosmetic Dermatology textbook (McGraw Hill), which will come out later this year. Although writing it is a huge effort, I really enjoy all the basic science. While I was working on the book, I was most surprised by the findings on cellular senescence and autophagy, and I would like to share what I learned. These will be buzz words in the skin care field in the future.

Right now, it is too early, and we don’t know enough yet, to have cosmeceuticals that affect cellular senescence and autophagy. But, it’s not too early to learn about this research, to avoid falling prey to any pseudoscience that invariably ends up affecting cosmeceuticals on the market. The following is a brief primer on cellular senescence, skin aging, and cosmeceuticals; it represents what we currently know.
 

Cell phases

Keratinocytes and fibroblasts go through five different phases: stem, proliferation, differentiation, senescence, and apoptosis. The difference between apoptotic cells and senescent cells is that apoptotic cells are not viable and are eliminated, while senescent cells, even though they have gone into cell cycle arrest, remain functional and are not eliminated from the skin.

What are senescent cells?

Senescent cells have lost the ability to proliferate but have not undergone apoptosis. Senescent human skin fibroblasts in cell culture lose the youthful spindlelike shape and become enlarged and flattened.¹ Their lysosomes and mitochondria lose functionality.² The presence of senescent cells is associated with increased aging and seems to speed aging.
 

Senescent cells and skin aging

Senescent cells are increased in the age-related phenotype³ because of an age-related decline of senescent cell removal systems, such as the immune system⁴ and the autophagy-lysosomal pathway.⁵ Senescent cells are deleterious because they develop into a senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), which is believed to be one of the major causes of aging. SASP cells communicate with nearby cells using proinflammatory cytokines, which include catabolic modulators such as Matrix metalloproteinases. They are known to release growth factors, cytokines, chemokines, matrix-modeling enzymes, lipids, and extracellular vesicles. The last are lipid bilayer-lined vesicles that can transport functional RNA and microRNA and facilitate other modes of communication between cells.⁶

The SASP is likely a natural tumor suppressive mode employed by cells to prevent cells with cancerous mutations from undergoing replication;⁷ however, when it comes to aging, the deleterious effects of SASP outweigh the beneficial effects. For example, SASP contributes to a prolonged state of inflammation, known as “inflammaging,”⁸ which is detrimental to the skin’s appearance. Human fibroblasts that have assumed the SASP secrete proinflammatory cytokines and MMPs and release reactive oxygen species,^9,10 resulting in degradation of the surrounding extracellular matrix (ECM). Loss of the ECM leads to fibroblast compaction and reduced DNA synthesis, all caused by SASPs.⁹
 

What causes cellular senescence?

Activation of the nuclear factor-erythroid 2-related transcription factor 2 (NRF2) induces cellular senescence via direct targeting of certain ECM genes. NRF2 is a key regulator of the skin’s antioxidant defense system, which controls the transcription of genes encoding reactive oxygen species–detoxifying enzymes and various other antioxidant proteins.¹¹ Loss of mitochondrial autophagy also induces senescence, as do activation of the TP53 gene, inactivity of SIRT-1, and short telomeres.

Cellular senescence and skin aging

Timely clearance of senescent cells before they create too much damage postpones the onset and severity of age-related diseases and extends the life span of mice.^12,6 Antiaging treatments should focus on decreasing the number of senescent cells and reverting senescent cells to the more juvenile forms: proliferating or differentiating cells as an approach to prevent skin aging.¹³ Restoration of the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis has been shown to revert SASP back to a juvenile status. Normalization of the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis is a prerequisite to reverse senescence.¹⁴

Cellular senescence, autophagy, the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis, and cosmeceuticals

Autophagy is the important process of organelles, like mitochondria,¹⁵ self-digesting their cytoplasmic material into lysosomes for degradation. Mitochondrial autophagy is very important in slowing the aging process because damaged mitochondria generate free radicals. As you can imagine, much research is focused on this area, but it is too early for any research to translate to efficacious cosmeceuticals.

Conclusion

To summarize, activation of sirtuin-1 (SIRT-1) has been shown to extend the lifespan of mammals, as does caloric restriction.¹⁶ This extension occurs because SIRT-1 decreases senescence and activates autophagy.

Although we do not yet know whether topical skincare products could affect senescence or autophagy, there are data to show that oral resveratrol16 and melatonin¹⁷ activate SIRT-1 and increase autophagy. I am closely watching this research and will let you know if there are any similar data on topical cosmeceuticals targeting senescence or autophagy. Stay tuned!
 

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Papadopoulou A et al. Biogerontology. 2020 Dec;21(6):695-708.

2. López-Otin C et al. Cell. 2013 June 6;153, 1194–217.

3. Yoon J E et al. Theranostics. 2018 Sep 9;8(17):4620-32.

4. Rodier F, Campisi J. J Cell Biol. 2011 Feb 21;192(4):547-56.

5. Dutta D et al. Circ Res. 2012 Apr 13;110(8):1125-38.

6. Terlecki-Zaniewicz L et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2019 Dec;139(12):2425-36.e5.

7. Campisi J et al. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007 Sep;8(9):729-40.

8. Franceschi C and Campisi J. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014 Jun;69 Suppl 1:S4-9.

9. Nelson G et al. Aging Cell. 2012 Apr;11(2):345-9.

10. Passos JF et al. PLoS Biol. 2007 May;5(5):e110.

11. Hiebert P et al. Dev Cell.  2018 Jul 16;46(2):145-61.e10.

12. Baker DJ et al. Nature. 2016 Feb 11:530(7589):184-9.

13. Mavrogonatou E et al. Matrix Biol. 2019 Jan;75-76:27-42.

14. Park JT et al. Ageing Res Rev. 2018 Nov;47:176-82.

15. Levine B and Kroemer G. Cell. 2019 Jan 10;176(1-2):11-42.

16. Morselli E et al. Cell Death Dis. 2010;1(1):e10.

17. Lee JH et al. Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 15;7(11):12075-88.

I just completed the third edition of my Cosmetic Dermatology textbook (McGraw Hill), which will come out later this year. Although writing it is a huge effort, I really enjoy all the basic science. While I was working on the book, I was most surprised by the findings on cellular senescence and autophagy, and I would like to share what I learned. These will be buzz words in the skin care field in the future.

Right now, it is too early, and we don’t know enough yet, to have cosmeceuticals that affect cellular senescence and autophagy. But, it’s not too early to learn about this research, to avoid falling prey to any pseudoscience that invariably ends up affecting cosmeceuticals on the market. The following is a brief primer on cellular senescence, skin aging, and cosmeceuticals; it represents what we currently know.
 

Cell phases

Keratinocytes and fibroblasts go through five different phases: stem, proliferation, differentiation, senescence, and apoptosis. The difference between apoptotic cells and senescent cells is that apoptotic cells are not viable and are eliminated, while senescent cells, even though they have gone into cell cycle arrest, remain functional and are not eliminated from the skin.

What are senescent cells?

Senescent cells have lost the ability to proliferate but have not undergone apoptosis. Senescent human skin fibroblasts in cell culture lose the youthful spindlelike shape and become enlarged and flattened.¹ Their lysosomes and mitochondria lose functionality.² The presence of senescent cells is associated with increased aging and seems to speed aging.
 

Senescent cells and skin aging

Senescent cells are increased in the age-related phenotype³ because of an age-related decline of senescent cell removal systems, such as the immune system⁴ and the autophagy-lysosomal pathway.⁵ Senescent cells are deleterious because they develop into a senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), which is believed to be one of the major causes of aging. SASP cells communicate with nearby cells using proinflammatory cytokines, which include catabolic modulators such as Matrix metalloproteinases. They are known to release growth factors, cytokines, chemokines, matrix-modeling enzymes, lipids, and extracellular vesicles. The last are lipid bilayer-lined vesicles that can transport functional RNA and microRNA and facilitate other modes of communication between cells.⁶

The SASP is likely a natural tumor suppressive mode employed by cells to prevent cells with cancerous mutations from undergoing replication;⁷ however, when it comes to aging, the deleterious effects of SASP outweigh the beneficial effects. For example, SASP contributes to a prolonged state of inflammation, known as “inflammaging,”⁸ which is detrimental to the skin’s appearance. Human fibroblasts that have assumed the SASP secrete proinflammatory cytokines and MMPs and release reactive oxygen species,^9,10 resulting in degradation of the surrounding extracellular matrix (ECM). Loss of the ECM leads to fibroblast compaction and reduced DNA synthesis, all caused by SASPs.⁹
 

What causes cellular senescence?

Activation of the nuclear factor-erythroid 2-related transcription factor 2 (NRF2) induces cellular senescence via direct targeting of certain ECM genes. NRF2 is a key regulator of the skin’s antioxidant defense system, which controls the transcription of genes encoding reactive oxygen species–detoxifying enzymes and various other antioxidant proteins.¹¹ Loss of mitochondrial autophagy also induces senescence, as do activation of the TP53 gene, inactivity of SIRT-1, and short telomeres.

Cellular senescence and skin aging

Timely clearance of senescent cells before they create too much damage postpones the onset and severity of age-related diseases and extends the life span of mice.^12,6 Antiaging treatments should focus on decreasing the number of senescent cells and reverting senescent cells to the more juvenile forms: proliferating or differentiating cells as an approach to prevent skin aging.¹³ Restoration of the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis has been shown to revert SASP back to a juvenile status. Normalization of the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis is a prerequisite to reverse senescence.¹⁴

Cellular senescence, autophagy, the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis, and cosmeceuticals

Autophagy is the important process of organelles, like mitochondria,¹⁵ self-digesting their cytoplasmic material into lysosomes for degradation. Mitochondrial autophagy is very important in slowing the aging process because damaged mitochondria generate free radicals. As you can imagine, much research is focused on this area, but it is too early for any research to translate to efficacious cosmeceuticals.

Conclusion

To summarize, activation of sirtuin-1 (SIRT-1) has been shown to extend the lifespan of mammals, as does caloric restriction.¹⁶ This extension occurs because SIRT-1 decreases senescence and activates autophagy.

Although we do not yet know whether topical skincare products could affect senescence or autophagy, there are data to show that oral resveratrol16 and melatonin¹⁷ activate SIRT-1 and increase autophagy. I am closely watching this research and will let you know if there are any similar data on topical cosmeceuticals targeting senescence or autophagy. Stay tuned!
 

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Papadopoulou A et al. Biogerontology. 2020 Dec;21(6):695-708.

2. López-Otin C et al. Cell. 2013 June 6;153, 1194–217.

3. Yoon J E et al. Theranostics. 2018 Sep 9;8(17):4620-32.

4. Rodier F, Campisi J. J Cell Biol. 2011 Feb 21;192(4):547-56.

5. Dutta D et al. Circ Res. 2012 Apr 13;110(8):1125-38.

6. Terlecki-Zaniewicz L et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2019 Dec;139(12):2425-36.e5.

7. Campisi J et al. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007 Sep;8(9):729-40.

8. Franceschi C and Campisi J. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014 Jun;69 Suppl 1:S4-9.

9. Nelson G et al. Aging Cell. 2012 Apr;11(2):345-9.

10. Passos JF et al. PLoS Biol. 2007 May;5(5):e110.

11. Hiebert P et al. Dev Cell.  2018 Jul 16;46(2):145-61.e10.

12. Baker DJ et al. Nature. 2016 Feb 11:530(7589):184-9.

13. Mavrogonatou E et al. Matrix Biol. 2019 Jan;75-76:27-42.

14. Park JT et al. Ageing Res Rev. 2018 Nov;47:176-82.

15. Levine B and Kroemer G. Cell. 2019 Jan 10;176(1-2):11-42.

16. Morselli E et al. Cell Death Dis. 2010;1(1):e10.

17. Lee JH et al. Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 15;7(11):12075-88.

I just completed the third edition of my Cosmetic Dermatology textbook (McGraw Hill), which will come out later this year. Although writing it is a huge effort, I really enjoy all the basic science. While I was working on the book, I was most surprised by the findings on cellular senescence and autophagy, and I would like to share what I learned. These will be buzz words in the skin care field in the future.

Right now, it is too early, and we don’t know enough yet, to have cosmeceuticals that affect cellular senescence and autophagy. But, it’s not too early to learn about this research, to avoid falling prey to any pseudoscience that invariably ends up affecting cosmeceuticals on the market. The following is a brief primer on cellular senescence, skin aging, and cosmeceuticals; it represents what we currently know.
 

Cell phases

Keratinocytes and fibroblasts go through five different phases: stem, proliferation, differentiation, senescence, and apoptosis. The difference between apoptotic cells and senescent cells is that apoptotic cells are not viable and are eliminated, while senescent cells, even though they have gone into cell cycle arrest, remain functional and are not eliminated from the skin.

What are senescent cells?

Senescent cells have lost the ability to proliferate but have not undergone apoptosis. Senescent human skin fibroblasts in cell culture lose the youthful spindlelike shape and become enlarged and flattened.¹ Their lysosomes and mitochondria lose functionality.² The presence of senescent cells is associated with increased aging and seems to speed aging.
 

Senescent cells and skin aging

Senescent cells are increased in the age-related phenotype³ because of an age-related decline of senescent cell removal systems, such as the immune system⁴ and the autophagy-lysosomal pathway.⁵ Senescent cells are deleterious because they develop into a senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), which is believed to be one of the major causes of aging. SASP cells communicate with nearby cells using proinflammatory cytokines, which include catabolic modulators such as Matrix metalloproteinases. They are known to release growth factors, cytokines, chemokines, matrix-modeling enzymes, lipids, and extracellular vesicles. The last are lipid bilayer-lined vesicles that can transport functional RNA and microRNA and facilitate other modes of communication between cells.⁶

The SASP is likely a natural tumor suppressive mode employed by cells to prevent cells with cancerous mutations from undergoing replication;⁷ however, when it comes to aging, the deleterious effects of SASP outweigh the beneficial effects. For example, SASP contributes to a prolonged state of inflammation, known as “inflammaging,”⁸ which is detrimental to the skin’s appearance. Human fibroblasts that have assumed the SASP secrete proinflammatory cytokines and MMPs and release reactive oxygen species,^9,10 resulting in degradation of the surrounding extracellular matrix (ECM). Loss of the ECM leads to fibroblast compaction and reduced DNA synthesis, all caused by SASPs.⁹
 

What causes cellular senescence?

Activation of the nuclear factor-erythroid 2-related transcription factor 2 (NRF2) induces cellular senescence via direct targeting of certain ECM genes. NRF2 is a key regulator of the skin’s antioxidant defense system, which controls the transcription of genes encoding reactive oxygen species–detoxifying enzymes and various other antioxidant proteins.¹¹ Loss of mitochondrial autophagy also induces senescence, as do activation of the TP53 gene, inactivity of SIRT-1, and short telomeres.

Cellular senescence and skin aging

Timely clearance of senescent cells before they create too much damage postpones the onset and severity of age-related diseases and extends the life span of mice.^12,6 Antiaging treatments should focus on decreasing the number of senescent cells and reverting senescent cells to the more juvenile forms: proliferating or differentiating cells as an approach to prevent skin aging.¹³ Restoration of the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis has been shown to revert SASP back to a juvenile status. Normalization of the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis is a prerequisite to reverse senescence.¹⁴

Cellular senescence, autophagy, the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis, and cosmeceuticals

Autophagy is the important process of organelles, like mitochondria,¹⁵ self-digesting their cytoplasmic material into lysosomes for degradation. Mitochondrial autophagy is very important in slowing the aging process because damaged mitochondria generate free radicals. As you can imagine, much research is focused on this area, but it is too early for any research to translate to efficacious cosmeceuticals.

Conclusion

To summarize, activation of sirtuin-1 (SIRT-1) has been shown to extend the lifespan of mammals, as does caloric restriction.¹⁶ This extension occurs because SIRT-1 decreases senescence and activates autophagy.

Although we do not yet know whether topical skincare products could affect senescence or autophagy, there are data to show that oral resveratrol16 and melatonin¹⁷ activate SIRT-1 and increase autophagy. I am closely watching this research and will let you know if there are any similar data on topical cosmeceuticals targeting senescence or autophagy. Stay tuned!
 

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Papadopoulou A et al. Biogerontology. 2020 Dec;21(6):695-708.

2. López-Otin C et al. Cell. 2013 June 6;153, 1194–217.

3. Yoon J E et al. Theranostics. 2018 Sep 9;8(17):4620-32.

4. Rodier F, Campisi J. J Cell Biol. 2011 Feb 21;192(4):547-56.

5. Dutta D et al. Circ Res. 2012 Apr 13;110(8):1125-38.

6. Terlecki-Zaniewicz L et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2019 Dec;139(12):2425-36.e5.

7. Campisi J et al. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007 Sep;8(9):729-40.

8. Franceschi C and Campisi J. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014 Jun;69 Suppl 1:S4-9.

9. Nelson G et al. Aging Cell. 2012 Apr;11(2):345-9.

10. Passos JF et al. PLoS Biol. 2007 May;5(5):e110.

11. Hiebert P et al. Dev Cell.  2018 Jul 16;46(2):145-61.e10.

12. Baker DJ et al. Nature. 2016 Feb 11:530(7589):184-9.

13. Mavrogonatou E et al. Matrix Biol. 2019 Jan;75-76:27-42.

14. Park JT et al. Ageing Res Rev. 2018 Nov;47:176-82.

15. Levine B and Kroemer G. Cell. 2019 Jan 10;176(1-2):11-42.

16. Morselli E et al. Cell Death Dis. 2010;1(1):e10.

17. Lee JH et al. Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 15;7(11):12075-88.

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

The Comparison

A Pink scaling plaques and erythematous erosions in the antecubital fossae of a 6-year-old White boy.

B Violaceous, hyperpigmented, nummular plaques on the back and extensor surface of the right arm of a 16-month-old Black girl.

C Atopic dermatitis and follicular prominence/accentuation on the neck of a young Black girl.

Epidemiology

People of African descent have the highest atopic dermatitis prevalence and severity.

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• follicular prominence
• papular morphology
• prurigo nodules
• hyperpigmented, violaceous-brown or gray plaques instead of erythematous plaques
• lichenification
• treatment resistant.^1,2

Worth noting
Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and postinflammatory hypopigmentation may be more distressing to the patient/family than the atopic dermatitis itself.

Health disparity highlight
In the United States, patients with skin of color are more likely to be hospitalized with severe atopic dermatitis, have more substantial out-ofpocket costs, be underinsured, and have an increased number of missed days of work. Limited access to outpatient health care plays a role in exacerbating this health disparity.^3,4

The Comparison

A Pink scaling plaques and erythematous erosions in the antecubital fossae of a 6-year-old White boy.

B Violaceous, hyperpigmented, nummular plaques on the back and extensor surface of the right arm of a 16-month-old Black girl.

C Atopic dermatitis and follicular prominence/accentuation on the neck of a young Black girl.

Epidemiology

People of African descent have the highest atopic dermatitis prevalence and severity.

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• follicular prominence
• papular morphology
• prurigo nodules
• hyperpigmented, violaceous-brown or gray plaques instead of erythematous plaques
• lichenification
• treatment resistant.^1,2

Worth noting
Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and postinflammatory hypopigmentation may be more distressing to the patient/family than the atopic dermatitis itself.

Health disparity highlight
In the United States, patients with skin of color are more likely to be hospitalized with severe atopic dermatitis, have more substantial out-ofpocket costs, be underinsured, and have an increased number of missed days of work. Limited access to outpatient health care plays a role in exacerbating this health disparity.^3,4

The Comparison

A Pink scaling plaques and erythematous erosions in the antecubital fossae of a 6-year-old White boy.

B Violaceous, hyperpigmented, nummular plaques on the back and extensor surface of the right arm of a 16-month-old Black girl.

C Atopic dermatitis and follicular prominence/accentuation on the neck of a young Black girl.

Epidemiology

People of African descent have the highest atopic dermatitis prevalence and severity.

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones include:

• follicular prominence
• papular morphology
• prurigo nodules
• hyperpigmented, violaceous-brown or gray plaques instead of erythematous plaques
• lichenification
• treatment resistant.^1,2

Worth noting
Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and postinflammatory hypopigmentation may be more distressing to the patient/family than the atopic dermatitis itself.

Health disparity highlight
In the United States, patients with skin of color are more likely to be hospitalized with severe atopic dermatitis, have more substantial out-ofpocket costs, be underinsured, and have an increased number of missed days of work. Limited access to outpatient health care plays a role in exacerbating this health disparity.^3,4

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The Diagnosis: Degos Disease 

The pathophysiology of Degos disease (malignant atrophic papulosis) is unknown.¹ Histopathology demonstrates a wedge-shaped area of dermal necrosis with edema and mucin deposition extending from the papillary dermis to the deep reticular dermis. Occluded vessels, thrombosis, and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates also may be seen, particularly at the dermal subcutaneous junction and at the periphery of the wedge-shaped infarction. The vascular damage that occurs may be the result of vasculitis, coagulopathy, or endothelial cell dysfunction.¹  

Patients typically present with small, round, erythematous papules that eventually develop atrophic porcelain white centers and telangiectatic rims. These lesions most commonly occur on the trunk and arms. In the benign form of atrophic papulosis, only the skin is involved; however, systemic involvement of the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system can occur, resulting in bowel perforation and stroke, respectively.¹ Although there is no definitive treatment of Degos disease, successful therapy with aspirin or dipyridamole has been reported.¹ Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds C5, and treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog, are emerging treatment options.^2,3 The differential diagnosis of Degos disease may include granuloma annulare, guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus, livedoid vasculopathy, and lymphomatoid papulosis.  

Granuloma annulare may clinically mimic the erythematous papules seen in early Degos disease, and histopathology can be used to distinguish between these two disease processes. Localized granuloma annulare is the most common variant and clinically presents as pink papules and plaques in an annular configuration.⁴ Histopathology demonstrates an unremarkable epidermis; however, the dermis contains degenerated collagen surrounded by palisading histiocytes as well as lymphocytes. Similar to Degos disease, increased mucin is seen within these areas of degeneration, but occluded vessels and thrombosis typically are not seen (Figure 1).^4,5  

Guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus initially presents as polygonal, bluish white papules that coalesce into plaques.⁶ Over time, these lesions become more atrophic and may mimic Degos disease but appear differently on histopathology. Histopathology of lichen sclerosus classically demonstrates atrophy of the epidermis with loss of the rete ridges and vacuolar surface changes. Homogenization of the superficial/papillary dermis with an underlying bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate also is seen (Figure 2).⁶

Livedoid vasculopathy is characterized by chronic recurrent ulceration of the legs secondary to thrombosis and subsequent ischemia. In the initial phase of this disease, livedo reticularis is seen followed by the development of ulcerations. As these ulcerations heal, they leave behind porcelain white scars referred to as atrophie blanche.⁷ The areas of scarring in livedoid vasculopathy are broad and angulated, differentiating them from the small, round, porcelain white macules in end-stage Degos disease. Histopathology demonstrates thrombosis and fibrin occlusion of the upper and mid dermal vessels. Very minimal perivascular infiltrate typically is seen, but when it is present, the infiltrate mostly is lymphocytic. Hyalinization of the vessel walls also is seen, particularly in the atrophie blanche stage (Figure 3).⁷  

Lymphomatoid papulosis classically presents with pruritic red papules that often spontaneously involute. After resolution of the primary lesions, atrophic varioliform scars may be left behind that can resemble Degos disease.⁸ Classically, there are 5 histopathologic subtypes: A, B, C, D, and E. Type A is the most common type of lymphomatoid papulosis, and histopathology demonstrates a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate that consists of cells arranged in small clusters. Numerous medium- to large-sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli and abundant cytoplasm are seen, and mitotic figures are common (Figure 4).⁸ 

Our case was particularly interesting because the patient was 2 to 3 weeks pregnant. Degos disease in pregnancy appears to be quite exceptional. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Degos disease and pregnancy revealed only 4 other cases reported in the literature.^9-12 With the exception of a single case that was complicated by severe abdominal pain requiring labor induction, the other reported cases resulted in uncomplicated pregnancies.^9-12 Conversely, our patient's pregnancy was complicated by gestational hypertension and fetal hydrops requiring a preterm cesarean delivery. Furthermore, the infant had multiple complications, which were attributed to both placental insufficiency and a coagulopathic state.  

Our patient also was found to have a heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation on workup. A PubMed search using the terms factor V Leiden mutation and Degos disease revealed 2 other cases of factor V Leiden mutation-associated Degos disease.^13,14 The importance of factor V Leiden mutations in patients with Degos disease currently is unclear. 

The Diagnosis: Degos Disease 

The pathophysiology of Degos disease (malignant atrophic papulosis) is unknown.¹ Histopathology demonstrates a wedge-shaped area of dermal necrosis with edema and mucin deposition extending from the papillary dermis to the deep reticular dermis. Occluded vessels, thrombosis, and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates also may be seen, particularly at the dermal subcutaneous junction and at the periphery of the wedge-shaped infarction. The vascular damage that occurs may be the result of vasculitis, coagulopathy, or endothelial cell dysfunction.¹  

Patients typically present with small, round, erythematous papules that eventually develop atrophic porcelain white centers and telangiectatic rims. These lesions most commonly occur on the trunk and arms. In the benign form of atrophic papulosis, only the skin is involved; however, systemic involvement of the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system can occur, resulting in bowel perforation and stroke, respectively.¹ Although there is no definitive treatment of Degos disease, successful therapy with aspirin or dipyridamole has been reported.¹ Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds C5, and treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog, are emerging treatment options.^2,3 The differential diagnosis of Degos disease may include granuloma annulare, guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus, livedoid vasculopathy, and lymphomatoid papulosis.  

Granuloma annulare may clinically mimic the erythematous papules seen in early Degos disease, and histopathology can be used to distinguish between these two disease processes. Localized granuloma annulare is the most common variant and clinically presents as pink papules and plaques in an annular configuration.⁴ Histopathology demonstrates an unremarkable epidermis; however, the dermis contains degenerated collagen surrounded by palisading histiocytes as well as lymphocytes. Similar to Degos disease, increased mucin is seen within these areas of degeneration, but occluded vessels and thrombosis typically are not seen (Figure 1).^4,5  

Guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus initially presents as polygonal, bluish white papules that coalesce into plaques.⁶ Over time, these lesions become more atrophic and may mimic Degos disease but appear differently on histopathology. Histopathology of lichen sclerosus classically demonstrates atrophy of the epidermis with loss of the rete ridges and vacuolar surface changes. Homogenization of the superficial/papillary dermis with an underlying bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate also is seen (Figure 2).⁶

Livedoid vasculopathy is characterized by chronic recurrent ulceration of the legs secondary to thrombosis and subsequent ischemia. In the initial phase of this disease, livedo reticularis is seen followed by the development of ulcerations. As these ulcerations heal, they leave behind porcelain white scars referred to as atrophie blanche.⁷ The areas of scarring in livedoid vasculopathy are broad and angulated, differentiating them from the small, round, porcelain white macules in end-stage Degos disease. Histopathology demonstrates thrombosis and fibrin occlusion of the upper and mid dermal vessels. Very minimal perivascular infiltrate typically is seen, but when it is present, the infiltrate mostly is lymphocytic. Hyalinization of the vessel walls also is seen, particularly in the atrophie blanche stage (Figure 3).⁷  

Lymphomatoid papulosis classically presents with pruritic red papules that often spontaneously involute. After resolution of the primary lesions, atrophic varioliform scars may be left behind that can resemble Degos disease.⁸ Classically, there are 5 histopathologic subtypes: A, B, C, D, and E. Type A is the most common type of lymphomatoid papulosis, and histopathology demonstrates a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate that consists of cells arranged in small clusters. Numerous medium- to large-sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli and abundant cytoplasm are seen, and mitotic figures are common (Figure 4).⁸ 

Our case was particularly interesting because the patient was 2 to 3 weeks pregnant. Degos disease in pregnancy appears to be quite exceptional. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Degos disease and pregnancy revealed only 4 other cases reported in the literature.^9-12 With the exception of a single case that was complicated by severe abdominal pain requiring labor induction, the other reported cases resulted in uncomplicated pregnancies.^9-12 Conversely, our patient's pregnancy was complicated by gestational hypertension and fetal hydrops requiring a preterm cesarean delivery. Furthermore, the infant had multiple complications, which were attributed to both placental insufficiency and a coagulopathic state.  

Our patient also was found to have a heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation on workup. A PubMed search using the terms factor V Leiden mutation and Degos disease revealed 2 other cases of factor V Leiden mutation-associated Degos disease.^13,14 The importance of factor V Leiden mutations in patients with Degos disease currently is unclear. 

The Diagnosis: Degos Disease 

The pathophysiology of Degos disease (malignant atrophic papulosis) is unknown.¹ Histopathology demonstrates a wedge-shaped area of dermal necrosis with edema and mucin deposition extending from the papillary dermis to the deep reticular dermis. Occluded vessels, thrombosis, and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates also may be seen, particularly at the dermal subcutaneous junction and at the periphery of the wedge-shaped infarction. The vascular damage that occurs may be the result of vasculitis, coagulopathy, or endothelial cell dysfunction.¹  

Patients typically present with small, round, erythematous papules that eventually develop atrophic porcelain white centers and telangiectatic rims. These lesions most commonly occur on the trunk and arms. In the benign form of atrophic papulosis, only the skin is involved; however, systemic involvement of the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system can occur, resulting in bowel perforation and stroke, respectively.¹ Although there is no definitive treatment of Degos disease, successful therapy with aspirin or dipyridamole has been reported.¹ Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds C5, and treprostinil, a prostacyclin analog, are emerging treatment options.^2,3 The differential diagnosis of Degos disease may include granuloma annulare, guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus, livedoid vasculopathy, and lymphomatoid papulosis.  

Granuloma annulare may clinically mimic the erythematous papules seen in early Degos disease, and histopathology can be used to distinguish between these two disease processes. Localized granuloma annulare is the most common variant and clinically presents as pink papules and plaques in an annular configuration.⁴ Histopathology demonstrates an unremarkable epidermis; however, the dermis contains degenerated collagen surrounded by palisading histiocytes as well as lymphocytes. Similar to Degos disease, increased mucin is seen within these areas of degeneration, but occluded vessels and thrombosis typically are not seen (Figure 1).^4,5  

Guttate extragenital lichen sclerosus initially presents as polygonal, bluish white papules that coalesce into plaques.⁶ Over time, these lesions become more atrophic and may mimic Degos disease but appear differently on histopathology. Histopathology of lichen sclerosus classically demonstrates atrophy of the epidermis with loss of the rete ridges and vacuolar surface changes. Homogenization of the superficial/papillary dermis with an underlying bandlike lymphocytic infiltrate also is seen (Figure 2).⁶

Livedoid vasculopathy is characterized by chronic recurrent ulceration of the legs secondary to thrombosis and subsequent ischemia. In the initial phase of this disease, livedo reticularis is seen followed by the development of ulcerations. As these ulcerations heal, they leave behind porcelain white scars referred to as atrophie blanche.⁷ The areas of scarring in livedoid vasculopathy are broad and angulated, differentiating them from the small, round, porcelain white macules in end-stage Degos disease. Histopathology demonstrates thrombosis and fibrin occlusion of the upper and mid dermal vessels. Very minimal perivascular infiltrate typically is seen, but when it is present, the infiltrate mostly is lymphocytic. Hyalinization of the vessel walls also is seen, particularly in the atrophie blanche stage (Figure 3).⁷  

Lymphomatoid papulosis classically presents with pruritic red papules that often spontaneously involute. After resolution of the primary lesions, atrophic varioliform scars may be left behind that can resemble Degos disease.⁸ Classically, there are 5 histopathologic subtypes: A, B, C, D, and E. Type A is the most common type of lymphomatoid papulosis, and histopathology demonstrates a dermal lymphocytic infiltrate that consists of cells arranged in small clusters. Numerous medium- to large-sized atypical lymphocytes with prominent nucleoli and abundant cytoplasm are seen, and mitotic figures are common (Figure 4).⁸ 

Our case was particularly interesting because the patient was 2 to 3 weeks pregnant. Degos disease in pregnancy appears to be quite exceptional. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms Degos disease and pregnancy revealed only 4 other cases reported in the literature.^9-12 With the exception of a single case that was complicated by severe abdominal pain requiring labor induction, the other reported cases resulted in uncomplicated pregnancies.^9-12 Conversely, our patient's pregnancy was complicated by gestational hypertension and fetal hydrops requiring a preterm cesarean delivery. Furthermore, the infant had multiple complications, which were attributed to both placental insufficiency and a coagulopathic state.  

Our patient also was found to have a heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation on workup. A PubMed search using the terms factor V Leiden mutation and Degos disease revealed 2 other cases of factor V Leiden mutation-associated Degos disease.^13,14 The importance of factor V Leiden mutations in patients with Degos disease currently is unclear. 

In the first clinical trial of a topical histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, remetinostat showed clinical efficacy across several basal cell carcinoma (BCC) tumor types, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Our results demonstrate a clinically significant decrease in tumor size in response to 6 weeks of topical 1% remetinostat therapy in 70% of per-protocol tumors, with 55% reaching complete pathological resolution,” James M. Kilgour, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Sarin Lab at Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the meeting.

Surgical excision is the preferred treatment for BCC, but there is still a need for noninvasive treatment options, Dr. Kilgour said. “Given the potential morbidity associated with excision, particularly for patients experiencing multiple or recurrent tumors, such as the immunosuppressed or patients with Gorlin syndrome, an effective and tolerable topical therapy would be a significant benefit,” he noted.

Previously, in an in silico screen experiment, Dr. Kilgour and colleagues identified HDAC inhibitors as a “top predicted therapeutic” for BCC treatment, and found that in mice studies, HDAC inhibitors were able to suppress the growth of BCC cell lines and BCC allografts.

Remetinostat, a pan-HDAC inhibitor, is being investigated as a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

HDAC inhibitors are thought to “alter expression of key oncogenes and tumor suppressors through epigenetic modification of histone and nonhistone proteins,” he noted.

To evaluate the efficacy of topical remetinostat for BCC, the investigators enrolled 30 patients with 49 BCC tumors in a phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial. Participants had tumors that were greater than 5 mm in diameter and had been referred to surgery at Stanford before enrollment. Patients were a mean of 59 years old, 63% were men, and 90% were White; 59.2% of participants had tumors with a diameter greater than 10 mm, the rest had tumors with a diameter of 10 mm or less.

After the tumors were photographed and measured, participants received 6 weeks of topical remetinostat therapy, followed by final measurement and photography of the tumors at 8 weeks and surgical excision. Topical remetinostat 1% gel was applied three times per day under bandage occlusion.

Overall, 25 participants with 33 tumors were included in the per-protocol analysis. At 8 weeks, there was at least a 30% decrease in diameter from baseline for 69.7% of tumors in these patients, with 17 of 33 tumors showing a complete response by week 8.

Regarding tumor subtypes, there was a 100% overall response rate for the 6 superficial BCC tumors (1 partial response, 5 complete responses), a 68.2% ORR for the 22 nodular tumors (5 partial responses, 10 complete responses), and a 66.7% ORR for the 3 infiltrative tumors (no partial responses, 2 complete responses). There were no partial or complete responses for the two micronodular tumors.

Most adverse events in the study were localized drug reactions, with no serious or systemic adverse events, Dr. Kilgour noted, with 10 tumors demonstrating either no reaction or a grade 1 reaction, and 23 tumors having a grade 2 or grade 3 response.

The investigators also used imaging (ImageJ) software to evaluate the average decrease in cross-sectional tumor area. The results of the analysis showed an average decrease at 8 weeks from baseline of 71.5%. In addition, histological assessment at 8 weeks demonstrated that 54.8% of tumors had complete pathological resolution.

“In the future, we advocate for a follow-up blinded, randomized, controlled trial of remetinostat with greater participant diversity,” Dr. Kilgour said. “Specifically, greater power is needed to understand which histological subtypes of BCC will respond best to the treatment and we need to understand the long-term durability of tumor resolution.”

 

Remetinostat promising as topical BCC therapy

In an interview, Beth G. Goldstein, MD, a dermatologist and Mohs surgeon in Chapel Hill, N.C., noted that the preliminary study was “an exciting report of a safe, well-tolerated nonsurgical option for patients with superficial BCCs on the trunk and extremities,” which has potential to be used in the future for nonsuperficial BCCs. The study shows that superficial BCCs can respond at a rate of 100% on nonfacial areas, said Dr. Goldstein, who was not involved in the research. “These lesions can be quite large with higher chances of recurrence and difficulty with wound care.

“This type of directed therapy hopefully continues to be perfected for treatment of BCC that avoids scarring and is well tolerated,” she added.

Dr. Goldstein commented that complete pathological resolution of 54.8% “was still unacceptably low for the remaining tumor types.” For those cases, she said remetinostat could possibly “provide a topical option as an adjunctive treatment for potentially reducing the size of the BCC prior to surgical removal,” as an alternative to a systemic therapy like vismodegib (Erivedge).

Dr. Goldstein said the strengths of the study were in the variety of tumors, close follow-up with histologic evaluation and safety signals. In terms of limitations, she said whether there were any cases of Gorlin syndrome was not clear. In addition, at least 30% of BCCs have a mixed tumor type on Mohs surgery that differs from the original biopsy, and “there was no mention if the residual tumor remained with the same histology,” she said.

In the future, a large, randomized trial is warranted to stratify for Gorlin syndrome, patients who are immunosuppressed, and additional tumor types that were underrepresented in this study, such as micronodular tumors, Dr. Goldstein said. Future studies also should examine how remetinostat impacts BCC in facial areas, the effect of multiple applications, and how the therapy performs as an adjunctive treatment before surgery.

This study was funded by Medivir, the Damon Runyon Foundation, National Cancer Institute, an American Skin Association Hambrick Medical Student grant, and Stanford Medical Scholars. Dr. Kilgour and Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial disclosures.

In the first clinical trial of a topical histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, remetinostat showed clinical efficacy across several basal cell carcinoma (BCC) tumor types, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Our results demonstrate a clinically significant decrease in tumor size in response to 6 weeks of topical 1% remetinostat therapy in 70% of per-protocol tumors, with 55% reaching complete pathological resolution,” James M. Kilgour, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Sarin Lab at Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the meeting.

Surgical excision is the preferred treatment for BCC, but there is still a need for noninvasive treatment options, Dr. Kilgour said. “Given the potential morbidity associated with excision, particularly for patients experiencing multiple or recurrent tumors, such as the immunosuppressed or patients with Gorlin syndrome, an effective and tolerable topical therapy would be a significant benefit,” he noted.

Previously, in an in silico screen experiment, Dr. Kilgour and colleagues identified HDAC inhibitors as a “top predicted therapeutic” for BCC treatment, and found that in mice studies, HDAC inhibitors were able to suppress the growth of BCC cell lines and BCC allografts.

Remetinostat, a pan-HDAC inhibitor, is being investigated as a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

HDAC inhibitors are thought to “alter expression of key oncogenes and tumor suppressors through epigenetic modification of histone and nonhistone proteins,” he noted.

To evaluate the efficacy of topical remetinostat for BCC, the investigators enrolled 30 patients with 49 BCC tumors in a phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial. Participants had tumors that were greater than 5 mm in diameter and had been referred to surgery at Stanford before enrollment. Patients were a mean of 59 years old, 63% were men, and 90% were White; 59.2% of participants had tumors with a diameter greater than 10 mm, the rest had tumors with a diameter of 10 mm or less.

After the tumors were photographed and measured, participants received 6 weeks of topical remetinostat therapy, followed by final measurement and photography of the tumors at 8 weeks and surgical excision. Topical remetinostat 1% gel was applied three times per day under bandage occlusion.

Overall, 25 participants with 33 tumors were included in the per-protocol analysis. At 8 weeks, there was at least a 30% decrease in diameter from baseline for 69.7% of tumors in these patients, with 17 of 33 tumors showing a complete response by week 8.

Regarding tumor subtypes, there was a 100% overall response rate for the 6 superficial BCC tumors (1 partial response, 5 complete responses), a 68.2% ORR for the 22 nodular tumors (5 partial responses, 10 complete responses), and a 66.7% ORR for the 3 infiltrative tumors (no partial responses, 2 complete responses). There were no partial or complete responses for the two micronodular tumors.

Most adverse events in the study were localized drug reactions, with no serious or systemic adverse events, Dr. Kilgour noted, with 10 tumors demonstrating either no reaction or a grade 1 reaction, and 23 tumors having a grade 2 or grade 3 response.

The investigators also used imaging (ImageJ) software to evaluate the average decrease in cross-sectional tumor area. The results of the analysis showed an average decrease at 8 weeks from baseline of 71.5%. In addition, histological assessment at 8 weeks demonstrated that 54.8% of tumors had complete pathological resolution.

“In the future, we advocate for a follow-up blinded, randomized, controlled trial of remetinostat with greater participant diversity,” Dr. Kilgour said. “Specifically, greater power is needed to understand which histological subtypes of BCC will respond best to the treatment and we need to understand the long-term durability of tumor resolution.”

 

Remetinostat promising as topical BCC therapy

In an interview, Beth G. Goldstein, MD, a dermatologist and Mohs surgeon in Chapel Hill, N.C., noted that the preliminary study was “an exciting report of a safe, well-tolerated nonsurgical option for patients with superficial BCCs on the trunk and extremities,” which has potential to be used in the future for nonsuperficial BCCs. The study shows that superficial BCCs can respond at a rate of 100% on nonfacial areas, said Dr. Goldstein, who was not involved in the research. “These lesions can be quite large with higher chances of recurrence and difficulty with wound care.

“This type of directed therapy hopefully continues to be perfected for treatment of BCC that avoids scarring and is well tolerated,” she added.

Dr. Goldstein commented that complete pathological resolution of 54.8% “was still unacceptably low for the remaining tumor types.” For those cases, she said remetinostat could possibly “provide a topical option as an adjunctive treatment for potentially reducing the size of the BCC prior to surgical removal,” as an alternative to a systemic therapy like vismodegib (Erivedge).

Dr. Goldstein said the strengths of the study were in the variety of tumors, close follow-up with histologic evaluation and safety signals. In terms of limitations, she said whether there were any cases of Gorlin syndrome was not clear. In addition, at least 30% of BCCs have a mixed tumor type on Mohs surgery that differs from the original biopsy, and “there was no mention if the residual tumor remained with the same histology,” she said.

In the future, a large, randomized trial is warranted to stratify for Gorlin syndrome, patients who are immunosuppressed, and additional tumor types that were underrepresented in this study, such as micronodular tumors, Dr. Goldstein said. Future studies also should examine how remetinostat impacts BCC in facial areas, the effect of multiple applications, and how the therapy performs as an adjunctive treatment before surgery.

This study was funded by Medivir, the Damon Runyon Foundation, National Cancer Institute, an American Skin Association Hambrick Medical Student grant, and Stanford Medical Scholars. Dr. Kilgour and Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial disclosures.

In the first clinical trial of a topical histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, remetinostat showed clinical efficacy across several basal cell carcinoma (BCC) tumor types, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Our results demonstrate a clinically significant decrease in tumor size in response to 6 weeks of topical 1% remetinostat therapy in 70% of per-protocol tumors, with 55% reaching complete pathological resolution,” James M. Kilgour, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Sarin Lab at Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the meeting.

Surgical excision is the preferred treatment for BCC, but there is still a need for noninvasive treatment options, Dr. Kilgour said. “Given the potential morbidity associated with excision, particularly for patients experiencing multiple or recurrent tumors, such as the immunosuppressed or patients with Gorlin syndrome, an effective and tolerable topical therapy would be a significant benefit,” he noted.

Previously, in an in silico screen experiment, Dr. Kilgour and colleagues identified HDAC inhibitors as a “top predicted therapeutic” for BCC treatment, and found that in mice studies, HDAC inhibitors were able to suppress the growth of BCC cell lines and BCC allografts.

Remetinostat, a pan-HDAC inhibitor, is being investigated as a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

HDAC inhibitors are thought to “alter expression of key oncogenes and tumor suppressors through epigenetic modification of histone and nonhistone proteins,” he noted.

To evaluate the efficacy of topical remetinostat for BCC, the investigators enrolled 30 patients with 49 BCC tumors in a phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial. Participants had tumors that were greater than 5 mm in diameter and had been referred to surgery at Stanford before enrollment. Patients were a mean of 59 years old, 63% were men, and 90% were White; 59.2% of participants had tumors with a diameter greater than 10 mm, the rest had tumors with a diameter of 10 mm or less.

After the tumors were photographed and measured, participants received 6 weeks of topical remetinostat therapy, followed by final measurement and photography of the tumors at 8 weeks and surgical excision. Topical remetinostat 1% gel was applied three times per day under bandage occlusion.

Overall, 25 participants with 33 tumors were included in the per-protocol analysis. At 8 weeks, there was at least a 30% decrease in diameter from baseline for 69.7% of tumors in these patients, with 17 of 33 tumors showing a complete response by week 8.

Regarding tumor subtypes, there was a 100% overall response rate for the 6 superficial BCC tumors (1 partial response, 5 complete responses), a 68.2% ORR for the 22 nodular tumors (5 partial responses, 10 complete responses), and a 66.7% ORR for the 3 infiltrative tumors (no partial responses, 2 complete responses). There were no partial or complete responses for the two micronodular tumors.

Most adverse events in the study were localized drug reactions, with no serious or systemic adverse events, Dr. Kilgour noted, with 10 tumors demonstrating either no reaction or a grade 1 reaction, and 23 tumors having a grade 2 or grade 3 response.

The investigators also used imaging (ImageJ) software to evaluate the average decrease in cross-sectional tumor area. The results of the analysis showed an average decrease at 8 weeks from baseline of 71.5%. In addition, histological assessment at 8 weeks demonstrated that 54.8% of tumors had complete pathological resolution.

“In the future, we advocate for a follow-up blinded, randomized, controlled trial of remetinostat with greater participant diversity,” Dr. Kilgour said. “Specifically, greater power is needed to understand which histological subtypes of BCC will respond best to the treatment and we need to understand the long-term durability of tumor resolution.”

 

Remetinostat promising as topical BCC therapy

In an interview, Beth G. Goldstein, MD, a dermatologist and Mohs surgeon in Chapel Hill, N.C., noted that the preliminary study was “an exciting report of a safe, well-tolerated nonsurgical option for patients with superficial BCCs on the trunk and extremities,” which has potential to be used in the future for nonsuperficial BCCs. The study shows that superficial BCCs can respond at a rate of 100% on nonfacial areas, said Dr. Goldstein, who was not involved in the research. “These lesions can be quite large with higher chances of recurrence and difficulty with wound care.

“This type of directed therapy hopefully continues to be perfected for treatment of BCC that avoids scarring and is well tolerated,” she added.

Dr. Goldstein commented that complete pathological resolution of 54.8% “was still unacceptably low for the remaining tumor types.” For those cases, she said remetinostat could possibly “provide a topical option as an adjunctive treatment for potentially reducing the size of the BCC prior to surgical removal,” as an alternative to a systemic therapy like vismodegib (Erivedge).

Dr. Goldstein said the strengths of the study were in the variety of tumors, close follow-up with histologic evaluation and safety signals. In terms of limitations, she said whether there were any cases of Gorlin syndrome was not clear. In addition, at least 30% of BCCs have a mixed tumor type on Mohs surgery that differs from the original biopsy, and “there was no mention if the residual tumor remained with the same histology,” she said.

In the future, a large, randomized trial is warranted to stratify for Gorlin syndrome, patients who are immunosuppressed, and additional tumor types that were underrepresented in this study, such as micronodular tumors, Dr. Goldstein said. Future studies also should examine how remetinostat impacts BCC in facial areas, the effect of multiple applications, and how the therapy performs as an adjunctive treatment before surgery.

This study was funded by Medivir, the Damon Runyon Foundation, National Cancer Institute, an American Skin Association Hambrick Medical Student grant, and Stanford Medical Scholars. Dr. Kilgour and Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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.