MDedge Dermatology

The obesity epidemic in the United States may be slowing improvements in cancer mortality, according to a new analysis of over 50 million cancer and heart disease deaths.

“By integrating 20 years of cancer mortality data, we demonstrated that trends in obesity-associated cancer mortality showed signs of recent deceleration, consistent with recent findings for heart disease mortality,” Christy L. Avery, PhD, and associates wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Improvements in mortality related to heart disease slowed after 2011, a phenomenon that has been associated with rising obesity rates. The age-adjusted mortality rate (AAMR) declined at an average of 3.8 deaths per 100,000 persons from 1999 to 2011 but only 0.7 deaths per 100,000 from 2011 to 2018, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER).

To understand trends in cancer mortality and their possible connection with obesity, data for 1999-2018 from the WONDER database were divided into obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated categories and compared with heart disease mortality, they explained. The database included more than 50 million deaths that matched inclusion criteria.

The analysis showed there was difference between obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated cancers that was obscured when all cancer deaths were considered together. The average annual change in AAMR for obesity-associated cancers slowed from –1.19 deaths per 100,000 in 1999-2011 to –0.83 in 2011-2018, Dr. Avery and associates reported.

For non–obesity-associated cancers, the annual change in AAMR increased from –1.62 per 100,000 for 1999-2011 to –2.29 for 2011-2018, following the trend for all cancers: –1.48 per 100,000 during 1999-2011 and –1.77 in 2011-2018, they said.

“The largest mortality decreases were observed for melanoma of the skin and lung cancer, two cancers not associated with obesity. For obesity-associated cancers, stable or increasing mortality rates have been observed for liver and pancreatic cancer among both men and women as well as for uterine cancer among women,” the investigators wrote.

Demographically, however, the slowing improvement in mortality for obesity-associated cancers did not follow the trend for heart disease. The deceleration for cancer was more pronounced for women and for non-Hispanic Whites and not seen at all in non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander individuals. “For heart disease, evidence of a deceleration was consistent across sex, race, and ethnicity,” they said.

There are “longstanding disparities in obesity” among various populations in the United States, and the recent trend of obesity occurring earlier in life may be having an effect. “Whether the findings of decelerating mortality rates potentially signal a changing profile of cancer and heart disease mortality as the consequences of the obesity epidemic are realized remains to be seen,” they concluded.

The investigators reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study, but no other disclosures were reported.

[email protected]

The obesity epidemic in the United States may be slowing improvements in cancer mortality, according to a new analysis of over 50 million cancer and heart disease deaths.

“By integrating 20 years of cancer mortality data, we demonstrated that trends in obesity-associated cancer mortality showed signs of recent deceleration, consistent with recent findings for heart disease mortality,” Christy L. Avery, PhD, and associates wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Improvements in mortality related to heart disease slowed after 2011, a phenomenon that has been associated with rising obesity rates. The age-adjusted mortality rate (AAMR) declined at an average of 3.8 deaths per 100,000 persons from 1999 to 2011 but only 0.7 deaths per 100,000 from 2011 to 2018, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER).

To understand trends in cancer mortality and their possible connection with obesity, data for 1999-2018 from the WONDER database were divided into obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated categories and compared with heart disease mortality, they explained. The database included more than 50 million deaths that matched inclusion criteria.

The analysis showed there was difference between obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated cancers that was obscured when all cancer deaths were considered together. The average annual change in AAMR for obesity-associated cancers slowed from –1.19 deaths per 100,000 in 1999-2011 to –0.83 in 2011-2018, Dr. Avery and associates reported.

For non–obesity-associated cancers, the annual change in AAMR increased from –1.62 per 100,000 for 1999-2011 to –2.29 for 2011-2018, following the trend for all cancers: –1.48 per 100,000 during 1999-2011 and –1.77 in 2011-2018, they said.

“The largest mortality decreases were observed for melanoma of the skin and lung cancer, two cancers not associated with obesity. For obesity-associated cancers, stable or increasing mortality rates have been observed for liver and pancreatic cancer among both men and women as well as for uterine cancer among women,” the investigators wrote.

Demographically, however, the slowing improvement in mortality for obesity-associated cancers did not follow the trend for heart disease. The deceleration for cancer was more pronounced for women and for non-Hispanic Whites and not seen at all in non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander individuals. “For heart disease, evidence of a deceleration was consistent across sex, race, and ethnicity,” they said.

There are “longstanding disparities in obesity” among various populations in the United States, and the recent trend of obesity occurring earlier in life may be having an effect. “Whether the findings of decelerating mortality rates potentially signal a changing profile of cancer and heart disease mortality as the consequences of the obesity epidemic are realized remains to be seen,” they concluded.

The investigators reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study, but no other disclosures were reported.

[email protected]

The obesity epidemic in the United States may be slowing improvements in cancer mortality, according to a new analysis of over 50 million cancer and heart disease deaths.

“By integrating 20 years of cancer mortality data, we demonstrated that trends in obesity-associated cancer mortality showed signs of recent deceleration, consistent with recent findings for heart disease mortality,” Christy L. Avery, PhD, and associates wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Improvements in mortality related to heart disease slowed after 2011, a phenomenon that has been associated with rising obesity rates. The age-adjusted mortality rate (AAMR) declined at an average of 3.8 deaths per 100,000 persons from 1999 to 2011 but only 0.7 deaths per 100,000 from 2011 to 2018, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER).

To understand trends in cancer mortality and their possible connection with obesity, data for 1999-2018 from the WONDER database were divided into obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated categories and compared with heart disease mortality, they explained. The database included more than 50 million deaths that matched inclusion criteria.

The analysis showed there was difference between obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated cancers that was obscured when all cancer deaths were considered together. The average annual change in AAMR for obesity-associated cancers slowed from –1.19 deaths per 100,000 in 1999-2011 to –0.83 in 2011-2018, Dr. Avery and associates reported.

For non–obesity-associated cancers, the annual change in AAMR increased from –1.62 per 100,000 for 1999-2011 to –2.29 for 2011-2018, following the trend for all cancers: –1.48 per 100,000 during 1999-2011 and –1.77 in 2011-2018, they said.

“The largest mortality decreases were observed for melanoma of the skin and lung cancer, two cancers not associated with obesity. For obesity-associated cancers, stable or increasing mortality rates have been observed for liver and pancreatic cancer among both men and women as well as for uterine cancer among women,” the investigators wrote.

Demographically, however, the slowing improvement in mortality for obesity-associated cancers did not follow the trend for heart disease. The deceleration for cancer was more pronounced for women and for non-Hispanic Whites and not seen at all in non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander individuals. “For heart disease, evidence of a deceleration was consistent across sex, race, and ethnicity,” they said.

There are “longstanding disparities in obesity” among various populations in the United States, and the recent trend of obesity occurring earlier in life may be having an effect. “Whether the findings of decelerating mortality rates potentially signal a changing profile of cancer and heart disease mortality as the consequences of the obesity epidemic are realized remains to be seen,” they concluded.

The investigators reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study, but no other disclosures were reported.

[email protected]

Debulking large exophytic basal cell carcinomas prior to hedgehog inhibitor therapy might improve outcomes, according to Allison Vidimos, MD, a Mohs surgeon and chair of the department of dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.

She and her colleagues have noticed an accelerated and durable response to hedgehog inhibitors after debulking and are studying cell signaling before and after debulking to better understand the issue.

Dr. Vidimos shared a remarkable case to illustrate the point during a clinical pearls talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

An 82-year-old woman presented with a crusted, hemorrhagic, nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC) that had overgrown over nearly her entire nose and left lower eyelid. A recurrence of a previous BCC, the tumor had been growing for a decade and had invaded her nasal bones but not the periorbital tissue.

An outside surgeon suggested a full rhinectomy and removal of the lower eyelid, but the woman refused.

Dr. Vidimos decided to treat her with vismodegib, but prior to doing so, she debulked the tumor to help with the pain and bleeding. She did not curette the portion of tumor extending through the ala into the nasal vestibule. “I let the vismodegib take care of that,” she said.

After 9 months, the tumor was virtually gone, with no recurrence after 3 years. Surgical debulking prior to hedgehog inhibition “reduces the tumor burden and may increase the efficacy and shorten the course of therapy,” Dr. Vidimos said.

The hedgehog inhibitors vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib Odomzo are both approved for treating locally advanced BCC, with a complete response of 31% of locally advanced disease with vismodegib, according to one report.

But monotherapy is limited by intolerable side effects, most commonly muscle spasms, alopecia, and dysgeusia. To minimize the impact, Dr. Vidimos generally puts patients on treatment with Monday through Friday dosing and gives them the weekends off, a schedule she and her colleagues have reported works as well as daily dosing.

Still, many patients discontinue the drugs because of the side effects. Hedgehog inhibitors are also expensive and responses aren’t always durable. To increase efficacy and shorten the course of therapy, “we need alternative treatment strategies,” Dr. Vidimos said.

Up-front tumor debulking is one such strategy. Altered cell signaling pathways associated with tissue remodeling might improve response, and debulking may reduce the genetic heterogeneity of tumor cells, rendering remaining cells less resistant to hedgehog inhibition, she explained.

“It is exciting to see how tumor debulking may reduce tumor burden and heterogeneity, and thus lead to a durable response in extensive tumors,” said Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who heard the presentation. “More investigation is needed to reproduce these results, but this approach may lead to improved outcomes with targeted therapies,” he said in an interview.

Combination therapy with other agents is another option, and there also seems to be a synergistic effect with radiation, with hedgehog inhibitors increasing cellular response to radiation therapy, Dr. Vidimos said.

Hedgehog inhibitors can also be used to shrink tumors before surgery. One small series found a 27% decrease in the area of the tumor after 3 to 6 months of preoperative vismodegib.

Dr. Vidimos shared another case to illustrate the point.

A 64-year-old woman fainted and presented to the ED with a hemoglobin of 3.2 mg/dL because of chronic blood loss from an ulcerated BCC on her upper back. The lesion measured 25 cm by 9 cm, and was 3.5 cm deep with no bone involvement. The woman was addicted to opioids by the time she presented.

She was started on vismodegib; the ulcer shrunk considerably after 6 months, and the woman underwent a resection. Only one small focus of BCC was found across 78 specimens submitted to Dr. Vidimos for Mohs reading.

Resection was followed by a muscle flap repair and radiation. At 5 and a half years, there is no evidence of disease; the only sign that the lesion had been there was a scar running along the woman’s upper spine.

The approach “was very successful for a very aggressive and worrisome tumor,” Dr. Vidimos said.

Dr. Vidimos did not have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Patel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Debulking large exophytic basal cell carcinomas prior to hedgehog inhibitor therapy might improve outcomes, according to Allison Vidimos, MD, a Mohs surgeon and chair of the department of dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.

She and her colleagues have noticed an accelerated and durable response to hedgehog inhibitors after debulking and are studying cell signaling before and after debulking to better understand the issue.

Dr. Vidimos shared a remarkable case to illustrate the point during a clinical pearls talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

An 82-year-old woman presented with a crusted, hemorrhagic, nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC) that had overgrown over nearly her entire nose and left lower eyelid. A recurrence of a previous BCC, the tumor had been growing for a decade and had invaded her nasal bones but not the periorbital tissue.

An outside surgeon suggested a full rhinectomy and removal of the lower eyelid, but the woman refused.

Dr. Vidimos decided to treat her with vismodegib, but prior to doing so, she debulked the tumor to help with the pain and bleeding. She did not curette the portion of tumor extending through the ala into the nasal vestibule. “I let the vismodegib take care of that,” she said.

After 9 months, the tumor was virtually gone, with no recurrence after 3 years. Surgical debulking prior to hedgehog inhibition “reduces the tumor burden and may increase the efficacy and shorten the course of therapy,” Dr. Vidimos said.

The hedgehog inhibitors vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib Odomzo are both approved for treating locally advanced BCC, with a complete response of 31% of locally advanced disease with vismodegib, according to one report.

But monotherapy is limited by intolerable side effects, most commonly muscle spasms, alopecia, and dysgeusia. To minimize the impact, Dr. Vidimos generally puts patients on treatment with Monday through Friday dosing and gives them the weekends off, a schedule she and her colleagues have reported works as well as daily dosing.

Still, many patients discontinue the drugs because of the side effects. Hedgehog inhibitors are also expensive and responses aren’t always durable. To increase efficacy and shorten the course of therapy, “we need alternative treatment strategies,” Dr. Vidimos said.

Up-front tumor debulking is one such strategy. Altered cell signaling pathways associated with tissue remodeling might improve response, and debulking may reduce the genetic heterogeneity of tumor cells, rendering remaining cells less resistant to hedgehog inhibition, she explained.

“It is exciting to see how tumor debulking may reduce tumor burden and heterogeneity, and thus lead to a durable response in extensive tumors,” said Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who heard the presentation. “More investigation is needed to reproduce these results, but this approach may lead to improved outcomes with targeted therapies,” he said in an interview.

Combination therapy with other agents is another option, and there also seems to be a synergistic effect with radiation, with hedgehog inhibitors increasing cellular response to radiation therapy, Dr. Vidimos said.

Hedgehog inhibitors can also be used to shrink tumors before surgery. One small series found a 27% decrease in the area of the tumor after 3 to 6 months of preoperative vismodegib.

Dr. Vidimos shared another case to illustrate the point.

A 64-year-old woman fainted and presented to the ED with a hemoglobin of 3.2 mg/dL because of chronic blood loss from an ulcerated BCC on her upper back. The lesion measured 25 cm by 9 cm, and was 3.5 cm deep with no bone involvement. The woman was addicted to opioids by the time she presented.

She was started on vismodegib; the ulcer shrunk considerably after 6 months, and the woman underwent a resection. Only one small focus of BCC was found across 78 specimens submitted to Dr. Vidimos for Mohs reading.

Resection was followed by a muscle flap repair and radiation. At 5 and a half years, there is no evidence of disease; the only sign that the lesion had been there was a scar running along the woman’s upper spine.

The approach “was very successful for a very aggressive and worrisome tumor,” Dr. Vidimos said.

Dr. Vidimos did not have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Patel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Debulking large exophytic basal cell carcinomas prior to hedgehog inhibitor therapy might improve outcomes, according to Allison Vidimos, MD, a Mohs surgeon and chair of the department of dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.

She and her colleagues have noticed an accelerated and durable response to hedgehog inhibitors after debulking and are studying cell signaling before and after debulking to better understand the issue.

Dr. Vidimos shared a remarkable case to illustrate the point during a clinical pearls talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

An 82-year-old woman presented with a crusted, hemorrhagic, nodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC) that had overgrown over nearly her entire nose and left lower eyelid. A recurrence of a previous BCC, the tumor had been growing for a decade and had invaded her nasal bones but not the periorbital tissue.

An outside surgeon suggested a full rhinectomy and removal of the lower eyelid, but the woman refused.

Dr. Vidimos decided to treat her with vismodegib, but prior to doing so, she debulked the tumor to help with the pain and bleeding. She did not curette the portion of tumor extending through the ala into the nasal vestibule. “I let the vismodegib take care of that,” she said.

After 9 months, the tumor was virtually gone, with no recurrence after 3 years. Surgical debulking prior to hedgehog inhibition “reduces the tumor burden and may increase the efficacy and shorten the course of therapy,” Dr. Vidimos said.

The hedgehog inhibitors vismodegib (Erivedge) and sonidegib Odomzo are both approved for treating locally advanced BCC, with a complete response of 31% of locally advanced disease with vismodegib, according to one report.

But monotherapy is limited by intolerable side effects, most commonly muscle spasms, alopecia, and dysgeusia. To minimize the impact, Dr. Vidimos generally puts patients on treatment with Monday through Friday dosing and gives them the weekends off, a schedule she and her colleagues have reported works as well as daily dosing.

Still, many patients discontinue the drugs because of the side effects. Hedgehog inhibitors are also expensive and responses aren’t always durable. To increase efficacy and shorten the course of therapy, “we need alternative treatment strategies,” Dr. Vidimos said.

Up-front tumor debulking is one such strategy. Altered cell signaling pathways associated with tissue remodeling might improve response, and debulking may reduce the genetic heterogeneity of tumor cells, rendering remaining cells less resistant to hedgehog inhibition, she explained.

“It is exciting to see how tumor debulking may reduce tumor burden and heterogeneity, and thus lead to a durable response in extensive tumors,” said Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who heard the presentation. “More investigation is needed to reproduce these results, but this approach may lead to improved outcomes with targeted therapies,” he said in an interview.

Combination therapy with other agents is another option, and there also seems to be a synergistic effect with radiation, with hedgehog inhibitors increasing cellular response to radiation therapy, Dr. Vidimos said.

Hedgehog inhibitors can also be used to shrink tumors before surgery. One small series found a 27% decrease in the area of the tumor after 3 to 6 months of preoperative vismodegib.

Dr. Vidimos shared another case to illustrate the point.

A 64-year-old woman fainted and presented to the ED with a hemoglobin of 3.2 mg/dL because of chronic blood loss from an ulcerated BCC on her upper back. The lesion measured 25 cm by 9 cm, and was 3.5 cm deep with no bone involvement. The woman was addicted to opioids by the time she presented.

She was started on vismodegib; the ulcer shrunk considerably after 6 months, and the woman underwent a resection. Only one small focus of BCC was found across 78 specimens submitted to Dr. Vidimos for Mohs reading.

Resection was followed by a muscle flap repair and radiation. At 5 and a half years, there is no evidence of disease; the only sign that the lesion had been there was a scar running along the woman’s upper spine.

The approach “was very successful for a very aggressive and worrisome tumor,” Dr. Vidimos said.

Dr. Vidimos did not have any relevant disclosures. Dr. Patel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

The first clinical trial of fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with psoriatic arthritis has found the procedure to be as safe as a sham procedure, but it didn’t show any effectiveness in decreasing PsA symptoms over 6 months, a team of researchers in Denmark reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2021 Apr 29. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219511).

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

Nonetheless, the investigators said the trial indicates fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is worthy of further study.

“Overall, we think that the results are very interesting and that the feasibility and safety aspects as well as the clinical results of the trial may encourage more research into the potential of FMT in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis and may help guide the direction of future trials within the field,” lead author Maja S. Kragsnaes, MD, PhD, and principal investigator Torkell Ellingsen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital said together in an interview.

“The most important findings from this trial is that FMT appears to be safe in patients with PsA and that the patients find the treatment acceptable, and it supports future research into the therapeutic potential of FMT in PsA,” they said.

The study evaluated 6-month outcomes of 31 patients randomized to the FMT and sham groups. FMT patients were three times more likely to experience treatment failure – defined by the need for treatment intensification – with failure rates of 60% versus 20% in the sham group.

As a secondary endpoint, the study used 6-month change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20). The sham group demonstrated a greater decrease in HAQ-DI, indicating better physical function (–0.30 vs. –0.07; P = .031). The proportion of ACR20 responders was similar between both groups: 47% for the FMT patients (7 of 15) and 53% for sham (8 of 15).

The study included adults aged 18-75 years with active peripheral disease, defined as three or more swollen joints, who’d been taking at least15 mg methotrexate a week for at least 3 months before enrolling in the study, with a washout period of 12 weeks (26 weeks for those on biologic agents). Four healthy donors provided the stool transplants.

In the study, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen acknowledged that FMT has been shown to be safe for Clostridioides difficile infection or inflammatory bowel disease when “thoroughly screened stool” is used. “Hence,” they wrote, “our findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting a gut-joint axis in the pathogenesis of PsA.”

Factors that may influence the effectiveness of FMT in PsA merit further investigation, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said. “From FMT trials in patients with active ulcerative colitis, higher dose and repeated administration appear to be effective and safe in inducing remission,” they said in their joint statement, pointing to research from China.

“Moreover,” they added, “successes of FMT in inflammatory bowel disease appear to have been driven by ‘superdonors’ characterized by the presence or absence of specific bacteria species.”

They said will continue to investigate the effectiveness of FMT in immune-mediated diseases, including how to characterize superdonors.

“We will conduct new randomized trials using different FMT strategies – by changing the type of administration form, dose, and treatment frequency – to explore whether microbial dysbiosis or specific bacteria are common or decisive mediators of disease activity in inflammatory diseases and whether this proposed relation can be modified without exacerbating the disease,” Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said.

Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

The first clinical trial of fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with psoriatic arthritis has found the procedure to be as safe as a sham procedure, but it didn’t show any effectiveness in decreasing PsA symptoms over 6 months, a team of researchers in Denmark reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2021 Apr 29. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219511).

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

Nonetheless, the investigators said the trial indicates fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is worthy of further study.

“Overall, we think that the results are very interesting and that the feasibility and safety aspects as well as the clinical results of the trial may encourage more research into the potential of FMT in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis and may help guide the direction of future trials within the field,” lead author Maja S. Kragsnaes, MD, PhD, and principal investigator Torkell Ellingsen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital said together in an interview.

“The most important findings from this trial is that FMT appears to be safe in patients with PsA and that the patients find the treatment acceptable, and it supports future research into the therapeutic potential of FMT in PsA,” they said.

The study evaluated 6-month outcomes of 31 patients randomized to the FMT and sham groups. FMT patients were three times more likely to experience treatment failure – defined by the need for treatment intensification – with failure rates of 60% versus 20% in the sham group.

As a secondary endpoint, the study used 6-month change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20). The sham group demonstrated a greater decrease in HAQ-DI, indicating better physical function (–0.30 vs. –0.07; P = .031). The proportion of ACR20 responders was similar between both groups: 47% for the FMT patients (7 of 15) and 53% for sham (8 of 15).

The study included adults aged 18-75 years with active peripheral disease, defined as three or more swollen joints, who’d been taking at least15 mg methotrexate a week for at least 3 months before enrolling in the study, with a washout period of 12 weeks (26 weeks for those on biologic agents). Four healthy donors provided the stool transplants.

In the study, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen acknowledged that FMT has been shown to be safe for Clostridioides difficile infection or inflammatory bowel disease when “thoroughly screened stool” is used. “Hence,” they wrote, “our findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting a gut-joint axis in the pathogenesis of PsA.”

Factors that may influence the effectiveness of FMT in PsA merit further investigation, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said. “From FMT trials in patients with active ulcerative colitis, higher dose and repeated administration appear to be effective and safe in inducing remission,” they said in their joint statement, pointing to research from China.

“Moreover,” they added, “successes of FMT in inflammatory bowel disease appear to have been driven by ‘superdonors’ characterized by the presence or absence of specific bacteria species.”

They said will continue to investigate the effectiveness of FMT in immune-mediated diseases, including how to characterize superdonors.

“We will conduct new randomized trials using different FMT strategies – by changing the type of administration form, dose, and treatment frequency – to explore whether microbial dysbiosis or specific bacteria are common or decisive mediators of disease activity in inflammatory diseases and whether this proposed relation can be modified without exacerbating the disease,” Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said.

Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

The first clinical trial of fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with psoriatic arthritis has found the procedure to be as safe as a sham procedure, but it didn’t show any effectiveness in decreasing PsA symptoms over 6 months, a team of researchers in Denmark reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2021 Apr 29. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219511).

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

Nonetheless, the investigators said the trial indicates fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is worthy of further study.

“Overall, we think that the results are very interesting and that the feasibility and safety aspects as well as the clinical results of the trial may encourage more research into the potential of FMT in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis and may help guide the direction of future trials within the field,” lead author Maja S. Kragsnaes, MD, PhD, and principal investigator Torkell Ellingsen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital said together in an interview.

“The most important findings from this trial is that FMT appears to be safe in patients with PsA and that the patients find the treatment acceptable, and it supports future research into the therapeutic potential of FMT in PsA,” they said.

The study evaluated 6-month outcomes of 31 patients randomized to the FMT and sham groups. FMT patients were three times more likely to experience treatment failure – defined by the need for treatment intensification – with failure rates of 60% versus 20% in the sham group.

As a secondary endpoint, the study used 6-month change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20). The sham group demonstrated a greater decrease in HAQ-DI, indicating better physical function (–0.30 vs. –0.07; P = .031). The proportion of ACR20 responders was similar between both groups: 47% for the FMT patients (7 of 15) and 53% for sham (8 of 15).

The study included adults aged 18-75 years with active peripheral disease, defined as three or more swollen joints, who’d been taking at least15 mg methotrexate a week for at least 3 months before enrolling in the study, with a washout period of 12 weeks (26 weeks for those on biologic agents). Four healthy donors provided the stool transplants.

In the study, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen acknowledged that FMT has been shown to be safe for Clostridioides difficile infection or inflammatory bowel disease when “thoroughly screened stool” is used. “Hence,” they wrote, “our findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting a gut-joint axis in the pathogenesis of PsA.”

Factors that may influence the effectiveness of FMT in PsA merit further investigation, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said. “From FMT trials in patients with active ulcerative colitis, higher dose and repeated administration appear to be effective and safe in inducing remission,” they said in their joint statement, pointing to research from China.

“Moreover,” they added, “successes of FMT in inflammatory bowel disease appear to have been driven by ‘superdonors’ characterized by the presence or absence of specific bacteria species.”

They said will continue to investigate the effectiveness of FMT in immune-mediated diseases, including how to characterize superdonors.

“We will conduct new randomized trials using different FMT strategies – by changing the type of administration form, dose, and treatment frequency – to explore whether microbial dysbiosis or specific bacteria are common or decisive mediators of disease activity in inflammatory diseases and whether this proposed relation can be modified without exacerbating the disease,” Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said.

Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Genital skin exams in girls must be conducted with special care and alertness for signs of abuse, a dermatologist told colleagues at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“One in four adult women report being childhood victims of sexual abuse, which is just a staggering number. This is an opportunity for us to identify these patients early and give them the terminology to be able to report what is happening to them,” said pediatric dermatologist Kalyani Marathe, MD, MPH, director of the division of dermatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. “We also have the chance to give them a sense of agency over their bodies.”

Dr. Marathe offered the following recommendations when performing a genital skin exam:

• Make sure a “chaperone” is present. “Chaperones are a must when you’re examining children and teens,” she said. “Ask whom they prefer. For prepubertal children, you’re going to usually use the parent who’s there with them. If the parent is their father, they might ask him to step behind the curtain, in which case you can bring over your nurse or medical assistant.” Teens may ask either parent to step out of the room, she said. In that case, a nurse, medical assistant, resident, or trainee can fill in. “If you have male residents or trainees with you and the patient really does not want to be examined by a male, honor their request. Do not force them.”
• Explain why the exam is being performed. Make sure the patient understands why she is being seen, Dr. Marathe advised. For example, say something like “your pediatrician told us that you have an itchy area” or “your mom told us that there’s some loss of color in that area, that you’re having a problem there.” She added that it’s helpful to explain the type of doctor you are, with a comment such as the following: “We’re examining you because we’re doctors who specialize in skin. ... We want to help you feel better and make sure that your skin heals and is healthy.”
• Ask both the child and the parent for permission to perform the exam. While this may seem trivial, “it’s very, very important in setting the right tone for the encounter,” she said. “If the child says yes, we turn to the mom and say: ‘Mom, is it okay for us to do this exam today?’ You can see visible relief on the part of the parent, and as the parent relaxes, the child relaxes. Just saying those few things really makes the encounter so much smoother.” However, “if they say no, you have to honor the response. ... You say: ‘Okay, we’re not going to do the exam today,” and see the patient in a few weeks. If it’s urgent, an exam under anesthesia may be an option, she added.
• Talk to the child about the terms they use for private parts. It can be helpful to ask: “Do you have any terms for your private area?” According to Dr. Marathe, “this is a good chance to educate them on the terms vulva and vagina since they may be using other terminology. Making sure that they have the correct terms will actually help patients identify and report abuse earlier.” Dr. Marathe recalled that a colleague had a patient who’d been calling her private area “pound cake” and had been “reporting to her teacher that someone had been touching her ‘pound cake.’ Her teacher did not know what she meant by that, and this led to a great delay in her childhood abuse being reported.”
• Talk about what will happen during the exam. “I like to show them any instruments that we’re going to be using,” Dr. Marathe said. “If we’re using a flashlight, for example, I like to show them a picture [of a flashlight] or show them that flashlight. If we’re using a camera to do digital photography, show them that. If we’re going to be using a Q-tip or a swab to demonstrate anything or to take a culture, I like to show them that beforehand to make sure that they know what we’re doing.” In regard to photography, “make sure the parent and child know where the photos are going to go, who’s going to see them, what are they going to be used for. If they’re going to be used for educational purposes, make sure they have given explicit permission for that and they know they’ll be deidentified.”
• Make it clear that the exam won’t be painful. It’s important to put both the patient and the parent at ease on this front, Dr. Marathe said. “A lot of parents are concerned that we’re going to do a speculum exam in their prepubertal child. So make sure that it’s clarified ahead of time that we’re not going to be doing a speculum exam.”

Commenting on this topic, Tor Shwayder, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, urged colleagues to take action if they feel suspicious about a possible sign of child abuse, even if they’re far from certain that anything is wrong. “Don’t ignore those feelings in the back of the brain,” he said in an interview.

Most states have child-abuse hotlines for medical professionals, and major hospitals will have child-abuse teams, Dr. Shwayder said. He urged dermatologists to take advantage of these resources when appropriate. “The professionals on the other side of the 800 number or at the hospital will help you. You don’t have to decide immediately whether this is child abuse. You just need to have a suspicion.”

Dr. Marathe and Dr. Shwayder report no disclosures.

Genital skin exams in girls must be conducted with special care and alertness for signs of abuse, a dermatologist told colleagues at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“One in four adult women report being childhood victims of sexual abuse, which is just a staggering number. This is an opportunity for us to identify these patients early and give them the terminology to be able to report what is happening to them,” said pediatric dermatologist Kalyani Marathe, MD, MPH, director of the division of dermatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. “We also have the chance to give them a sense of agency over their bodies.”

Dr. Marathe offered the following recommendations when performing a genital skin exam:

• Make sure a “chaperone” is present. “Chaperones are a must when you’re examining children and teens,” she said. “Ask whom they prefer. For prepubertal children, you’re going to usually use the parent who’s there with them. If the parent is their father, they might ask him to step behind the curtain, in which case you can bring over your nurse or medical assistant.” Teens may ask either parent to step out of the room, she said. In that case, a nurse, medical assistant, resident, or trainee can fill in. “If you have male residents or trainees with you and the patient really does not want to be examined by a male, honor their request. Do not force them.”
• Explain why the exam is being performed. Make sure the patient understands why she is being seen, Dr. Marathe advised. For example, say something like “your pediatrician told us that you have an itchy area” or “your mom told us that there’s some loss of color in that area, that you’re having a problem there.” She added that it’s helpful to explain the type of doctor you are, with a comment such as the following: “We’re examining you because we’re doctors who specialize in skin. ... We want to help you feel better and make sure that your skin heals and is healthy.”
• Ask both the child and the parent for permission to perform the exam. While this may seem trivial, “it’s very, very important in setting the right tone for the encounter,” she said. “If the child says yes, we turn to the mom and say: ‘Mom, is it okay for us to do this exam today?’ You can see visible relief on the part of the parent, and as the parent relaxes, the child relaxes. Just saying those few things really makes the encounter so much smoother.” However, “if they say no, you have to honor the response. ... You say: ‘Okay, we’re not going to do the exam today,” and see the patient in a few weeks. If it’s urgent, an exam under anesthesia may be an option, she added.
• Talk to the child about the terms they use for private parts. It can be helpful to ask: “Do you have any terms for your private area?” According to Dr. Marathe, “this is a good chance to educate them on the terms vulva and vagina since they may be using other terminology. Making sure that they have the correct terms will actually help patients identify and report abuse earlier.” Dr. Marathe recalled that a colleague had a patient who’d been calling her private area “pound cake” and had been “reporting to her teacher that someone had been touching her ‘pound cake.’ Her teacher did not know what she meant by that, and this led to a great delay in her childhood abuse being reported.”
• Talk about what will happen during the exam. “I like to show them any instruments that we’re going to be using,” Dr. Marathe said. “If we’re using a flashlight, for example, I like to show them a picture [of a flashlight] or show them that flashlight. If we’re using a camera to do digital photography, show them that. If we’re going to be using a Q-tip or a swab to demonstrate anything or to take a culture, I like to show them that beforehand to make sure that they know what we’re doing.” In regard to photography, “make sure the parent and child know where the photos are going to go, who’s going to see them, what are they going to be used for. If they’re going to be used for educational purposes, make sure they have given explicit permission for that and they know they’ll be deidentified.”
• Make it clear that the exam won’t be painful. It’s important to put both the patient and the parent at ease on this front, Dr. Marathe said. “A lot of parents are concerned that we’re going to do a speculum exam in their prepubertal child. So make sure that it’s clarified ahead of time that we’re not going to be doing a speculum exam.”

Commenting on this topic, Tor Shwayder, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, urged colleagues to take action if they feel suspicious about a possible sign of child abuse, even if they’re far from certain that anything is wrong. “Don’t ignore those feelings in the back of the brain,” he said in an interview.

Most states have child-abuse hotlines for medical professionals, and major hospitals will have child-abuse teams, Dr. Shwayder said. He urged dermatologists to take advantage of these resources when appropriate. “The professionals on the other side of the 800 number or at the hospital will help you. You don’t have to decide immediately whether this is child abuse. You just need to have a suspicion.”

Dr. Marathe and Dr. Shwayder report no disclosures.

Genital skin exams in girls must be conducted with special care and alertness for signs of abuse, a dermatologist told colleagues at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

“One in four adult women report being childhood victims of sexual abuse, which is just a staggering number. This is an opportunity for us to identify these patients early and give them the terminology to be able to report what is happening to them,” said pediatric dermatologist Kalyani Marathe, MD, MPH, director of the division of dermatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. “We also have the chance to give them a sense of agency over their bodies.”

Dr. Marathe offered the following recommendations when performing a genital skin exam:

• Make sure a “chaperone” is present. “Chaperones are a must when you’re examining children and teens,” she said. “Ask whom they prefer. For prepubertal children, you’re going to usually use the parent who’s there with them. If the parent is their father, they might ask him to step behind the curtain, in which case you can bring over your nurse or medical assistant.” Teens may ask either parent to step out of the room, she said. In that case, a nurse, medical assistant, resident, or trainee can fill in. “If you have male residents or trainees with you and the patient really does not want to be examined by a male, honor their request. Do not force them.”
• Explain why the exam is being performed. Make sure the patient understands why she is being seen, Dr. Marathe advised. For example, say something like “your pediatrician told us that you have an itchy area” or “your mom told us that there’s some loss of color in that area, that you’re having a problem there.” She added that it’s helpful to explain the type of doctor you are, with a comment such as the following: “We’re examining you because we’re doctors who specialize in skin. ... We want to help you feel better and make sure that your skin heals and is healthy.”
• Ask both the child and the parent for permission to perform the exam. While this may seem trivial, “it’s very, very important in setting the right tone for the encounter,” she said. “If the child says yes, we turn to the mom and say: ‘Mom, is it okay for us to do this exam today?’ You can see visible relief on the part of the parent, and as the parent relaxes, the child relaxes. Just saying those few things really makes the encounter so much smoother.” However, “if they say no, you have to honor the response. ... You say: ‘Okay, we’re not going to do the exam today,” and see the patient in a few weeks. If it’s urgent, an exam under anesthesia may be an option, she added.
• Talk to the child about the terms they use for private parts. It can be helpful to ask: “Do you have any terms for your private area?” According to Dr. Marathe, “this is a good chance to educate them on the terms vulva and vagina since they may be using other terminology. Making sure that they have the correct terms will actually help patients identify and report abuse earlier.” Dr. Marathe recalled that a colleague had a patient who’d been calling her private area “pound cake” and had been “reporting to her teacher that someone had been touching her ‘pound cake.’ Her teacher did not know what she meant by that, and this led to a great delay in her childhood abuse being reported.”
• Talk about what will happen during the exam. “I like to show them any instruments that we’re going to be using,” Dr. Marathe said. “If we’re using a flashlight, for example, I like to show them a picture [of a flashlight] or show them that flashlight. If we’re using a camera to do digital photography, show them that. If we’re going to be using a Q-tip or a swab to demonstrate anything or to take a culture, I like to show them that beforehand to make sure that they know what we’re doing.” In regard to photography, “make sure the parent and child know where the photos are going to go, who’s going to see them, what are they going to be used for. If they’re going to be used for educational purposes, make sure they have given explicit permission for that and they know they’ll be deidentified.”
• Make it clear that the exam won’t be painful. It’s important to put both the patient and the parent at ease on this front, Dr. Marathe said. “A lot of parents are concerned that we’re going to do a speculum exam in their prepubertal child. So make sure that it’s clarified ahead of time that we’re not going to be doing a speculum exam.”

Commenting on this topic, Tor Shwayder, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, urged colleagues to take action if they feel suspicious about a possible sign of child abuse, even if they’re far from certain that anything is wrong. “Don’t ignore those feelings in the back of the brain,” he said in an interview.

Most states have child-abuse hotlines for medical professionals, and major hospitals will have child-abuse teams, Dr. Shwayder said. He urged dermatologists to take advantage of these resources when appropriate. “The professionals on the other side of the 800 number or at the hospital will help you. You don’t have to decide immediately whether this is child abuse. You just need to have a suspicion.”

Dr. Marathe and Dr. Shwayder report no disclosures.

According to National Institutes of Health estimates, more than 90,000 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed in 2018.¹ Overall 5-year survival for patients with melanoma exceeds 90%, but individual survival estimates are highly dependent on stage at diagnosis, and survival decreases markedly with metastasis. Therefore, early and accurate diagnosis is critical.

Diagnosis of melanocytic neoplasms usually is performed by dermatopathologists through microscopic examination of stained tissue biopsy sections, a technically simple and effective method that enables a definitive diagnosis of benign nevus or malignant melanoma to be made in most cases. However, approximately 15% of all biopsied melanocytic lesions will exhibit some degree of histopathologic ambiguity,^2-4 meaning that some of their microscopic features will be characteristic of a benign nevus while others will suggest the possibility of malignant melanoma. Diagnostic interpretations often vary in these cases, even among experts, and a definitive diagnosis of benign or malignant may be difficult to achieve by microscopy alone.^2-4 Because of the marked reduction in survival once a melanoma has metastasized, these diagnostically ambiguous lesions often are treated as possible malignant melanomas with complete surgical excision (or re-excision). However, some experts suggest that many histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms are, in fact, benign,⁵ a notion supported by epidemiologic evidence.^6,7 Therefore, excision of many ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms might be avoided if definitive diagnosis could be achieved.

A gene expression signature was developed and validated for use as an adjunct to traditional methods of differentiating malignant melanocytic neoplasms from their benign counterparts.^8-11 This test quantifies the RNA transcripts produced by 14 genes known to be overexpressed in malignant melanomas by comparison to benign nevi. These values are then combined algorithmically with measurements of 9 reference genes to produce an objective numerical score that is classified as benign, malignant, or indeterminate. When used by board-certified dermatopathologists and dermatologists confronting ambiguous melanocytic lesions, the test produces substantial increases in definitive diagnoses and prompts changes in treatment recommendations.^12,13 However, the long-term consequences of foregoing surgical excision of melanocytic neoplasms that are diagnostically ambiguous but classified as benign by this test have not yet been formally assessed. In the current study, prospectively tested patients whose ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms were classified as benign by the gene expression signature were followed for up to 4.5 years to evaluate the long-term safety of treatment decisions aligned with benign test results.

Methods

Study Population
As part of a prior study,¹² US-based dermatopathologists submitted tissue sections from biopsied melanocytic neoplasms determined to be diagnostically ambiguous by histopathology for analysis with the gene expression signature (Myriad Genetics, Inc). Diagnostically ambiguous lesions were those lesions that were described as ambiguous, uncertain, equivocal, indeterminate, or other synonymous terms by the submitting dermatopathologist and therefore lacked a confident diagnosis of benign or malignant prior to testing. Patients initially were tested between May 2014 and August 2014, with samples submitted through a prospective clinical experience study designed to assess the impact of the test on diagnosis and treatment decisions. This study was performed under an institutional review board waiver of consent (Quorum #33403/1).

Patients were eligible for inclusion in the current study if their biopsy specimens (1) had an uncertain preliminary diagnosis according to the submitting dermatopathologist (pretest diagnosis of indeterminate); (2) received a negative (benign) score from the gene expression test; (3) were treated as benign by the dermatologist(s) involved in follow-up care; and (4) were submitted by a single site (St. Joseph Medical Center, Houston, Texas). Although a single dermatopathology site was used for this study, multiple dermatologists were involved in the final treatment of these patients. Patients with benign scores who received additional intervention were excluded, as they may have a lower rate of adverse events (ie, metastasis) than those who did not receive intervention and would therefore skew the analysis population. A total of 25 patients from the prior study met these inclusion criteria. The previously collected¹² pretest and posttest de-identified data were compiled from the commercial laboratory databases, and the patients were followed from the time of testing via medical record review performed by the dermatology providers at participating sites. Clinical follow-up data were collected using study-specific case report forms (CRFs) that captured the following: (1) the dates and results of clinical follow-up visits; (2) the type(s) of treatment and interventions (if any) performed at those visits; (3) the specific indication for any intervention performed; (4) any evidence of persistent, locally recurrent, and/or distant melanocytic neoplasia (whether definitively attributable to the tested lesion or not); and (5) death from any cause. The CRF assigned interventions to 1 of 5 categories: excision, excision with sentinel lymph node biopsy, referral to dermatologic or other surgeon, examination only (without surgical intervention), and other. Selection of other required a free-text description of the treatment and indications. Pertinent information not otherwise captured by the CRF also was recordable as free text.

Gene Expression Testing
Gene expression testing was carried out at the time of specimen submission in the prior study¹² as described previously.¹⁴ Briefly, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded, unstained tissue sections and/or tissue blocks were submitted for testing along with a single hematoxylin and eosin–stained slide used to identify and designate the representative portion(s) of the lesion to be tested. These areas were macrodissected from unstained tissue sections and pooled for RNA extraction. Expression of 14 biomarker genes and 9 reference genes was measured via quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction, performed in triplicate for each individual gene. The assay score was generated through application of a weighted algorithm to the expression values generated through quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction. Scores were plotted on a scale ranging from −16.7 to 11.1, with scores from 0.0 to 11.1 classified as malignant, scores from −16.7 to −2.1 as benign, and scores from −2.1 to −0.1 as indeterminate.

Statistical Analysis
Demographic and other baseline characteristics of the patient population were summarized. Follow-up time was calculated as the interval between the date a patient’s gene expression test result was first issued to the provider and the date of the patient’s last recorded visit during the study period. All patient dermatology office visits within the designated follow-up period were documented, with a nonstandard number of visits and follow-up time across all study patients. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc), R software version 3.5.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing), and IBM SPSS Statistics software (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25).

Results

Patient Sample
A total of 25 ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms from 25 patients met the study inclusion criteria of a benign gene expression result with subsequent treatment as a benign neoplasm during follow-up. The patient sample statistics are summarized in Table 1. Most patients were younger than 65 years, with an average age at the time of biopsy of 48.4 years. All 25 neoplasms produced negative (benign) gene expression signature scores, all were diagnosed as benign nevi posttest by the submitting dermatopathologist, and all patients were initially treated in accordance with the benign diagnosis by the dermatologist(s) involved in clinical follow-up care. Prior to testing with the gene expression signature, most of these histopathologically indeterminate lesions received differential diagnoses, the most common of which were dysplastic nevus (84%), melanoma arising from a nevus (72%), and superficial spreading melanoma (64%; eTable). After testing with the gene expression signature and receiving a benign score, most lesions received a single differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus (88%).

Follow-up and Survival
Clinical follow-up time ranged from 0.6 to 53.3 months, with a mean duration (SD) of 38.5 (16.6) months, and patients attended an average of 4 postbiopsy dermatology appointments (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.6]). According to the participating dermatology care providers, none of the 25 patients developed any indication during follow-up that the diagnosis of benign nevus was inaccurate. No patient had evidence of locally recurrent or metastatic melanoma, and none died during the study period.

Treatment/Interventions
The treatment recorded in the CRF was examination only for 21 of 25 patients, excision for 3, and other for 1 (Table 2). Because the explanation for the selection of other in this case described an excision performed at the same anatomic location as the biopsy, this treatment also was considered an excision for purposes of the study analyses. The 3 excisions all occurred at the first postbiopsy dermatology encounter. Across all follow-up visits, no additional surgical interventions occurred (Table 2).

The third excision (case 3) involved a 32-year-old woman with a pigmented lesion on the abdomen (Table 3; Figure, E and F). The clinical description was irregular-appearing black papule, nevus with atypia, and the histopathologic differential diagnosis again included dysplastic nevus, superficial spreading melanoma, and melanoma arising within a preexisting nevus. The gene expression signature result was benign (score, −7.2), and the final diagnosis issued within the accompanying pathology report was nevus with moderate junctional dysplasia. Despite the benign diagnosis, excision was performed 89 days after test result availability, with apparent residual pigmentation as the specified indication. As with the other 2 cases, the treating dermatologist confirmed that neither clinical features nor follow-up events suggested malignancy.

Comment

This study followed a cohort of 25 patients with histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms that were classified as benign by a diagnostic gene expression test with the intent of determining the outcomes of patients whose treatment aligned with their benign test result. All patients initially were managed according to their test result. During an average posttest clinical follow-up time of more than 3 years (38.5 months), the 25 biopsied lesions, most of which received a differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus, were regarded as benign nevi by their dermatologists, and the vast majority (88%) received no further surgical intervention. Three patients underwent subsequent excision of the biopsied lesion, with patient or physician preference as the indication in each instance. None of the 25 patients developed evidence of local recurrence, metastasis, or other findings that prompted doubt of the benign diagnosis. The absence of adverse events during clinical follow-up, particularly given that most lesions were not subjected to further intervention, supports use of the gene expression test as a safe and effective adjunct to the diagnosis and treatment of ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms by dermatologists and dermatopathologists.

Ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms evaluated without the aid of molecular adjuncts often result in equivocal or less-than-definitive diagnoses, and further surgical intervention is commonly undertaken to mitigate against the possibility of a missed melanoma.¹³ In this study, treatment that was aligned with the benign test result allowed most patients to avoid further surgical intervention, which suggests that adjunctive use of the gene signature can contribute to reductions in the physical and economic burdens imposed by unnecessary surgical interventions.^15,16 Moreover, any means of increasing accurate and definitive diagnoses may produce an immediate impact on health outcomes by reducing the anxiety that uncertainty often provokes in patients and health care providers alike.

Study Limitations
This study must be interpreted within the context of its limitations. Obtaining meaningful patient outcome data is a common challenge in health care research due to the requisite length of follow-up and sometimes the lack of definitive evidence of adverse events. This is particularly difficult for melanocytic neoplasms because of an apparent inclination for patients with benign diagnoses to abandon follow-up and an increasing tendency for even minimal diagnostic uncertainty to prompt complete excision. Additionally, the only definitive clinical outcome for melanocytic neoplasms is distant metastasis, which (fortunately for patients) is relatively rare. Not surprisingly, studies documenting clinical outcomes of patients with ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms tested prospectively with diagnostic adjuncts are scarce, and this study’s sample size and clinical follow-up compare favorably with the few that exist.^17,18 Although most melanomas declare themselves through recurrence or metastasis within several years of initial biopsy,^1,19 some are clinically dormant for as long as 10 years after initial detection.^20,21 This may be particularly true for the small or early-stage lesions that now comprise the majority of biopsied neoplasms, and such events would go undetected by this study and many others. It also must be recognized that uneventful follow-up, regardless of duration, cannot prove that a biopsied melanocytic neoplasm was benign. Although only 5 patients had a follow-up time of less than 2 years (the time frame in which most recurrence or metastasis will occur), it cannot be definitively proven that a minimum of 2 years recurrence- or metastasis-free survival indicates a benign lesion. Many early-stage malignant melanomas are eradicated by complete excision or even by the initial biopsy if margins are uninvolved.

Because these limitations are intrinsic to melanocytic neoplasms and current management strategies, they pertain to all investigations seeking insights into biological potential through clinical outcomes. Similarly, all current diagnostic tools and procedures have the potential for sampling error, including histopathology. The rarity of adverse outcomes (recurrence and metastasis) in patients with benign test results within this cohort indicates that false-negative results are uncommon, which is further evidenced by a similar rarity of adverse events in prior studies of the gene expression signature.^8-10,22 A particular strength of this study is that most of the ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms followed did not undergo excision after the initial biopsy, an increasingly uncommon situation that may increase their likelihood to be informative.

It must be emphasized that the gene expression test, similar to other diagnostic adjuncts, is neither a replacement for histopathologic interpretation nor a substitute for judgment. As with all tests, it can produce false-positive and false-negative results. Therefore, it should always be interpreted within the constellation of the many other data points that must be considered when making a distinction between benign nevus and malignant melanoma, including but not limited to patient age, family and personal history of melanoma, anatomic location, clinical features, and histopathologic findings. As is the case for many diseases, careful consideration of all relevant input is necessary to minimize the risk of misdiagnosis that might occur should any single data point prove inaccurate, including the results of adjunctive molecular tests.

Conclusion

Ancillary methods are emerging as useful tools for the diagnostic evaluation of melanocytic neoplasms that cannot be assigned definitive diagnoses using traditional techniques alone. This study suggests that patients with ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms may benefit from diagnoses and treatment decisions aligned with the results of a gene expression test, and that for those with a benign result, simple observation may be a safe alternative to surgical excision. This expands upon prior observations of the test’s influence on diagnoses and treatment decisions and supports its role as part of dermatopathologists’ and dermatologists’ decision-making process for histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic lesions.

According to National Institutes of Health estimates, more than 90,000 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed in 2018.¹ Overall 5-year survival for patients with melanoma exceeds 90%, but individual survival estimates are highly dependent on stage at diagnosis, and survival decreases markedly with metastasis. Therefore, early and accurate diagnosis is critical.

Diagnosis of melanocytic neoplasms usually is performed by dermatopathologists through microscopic examination of stained tissue biopsy sections, a technically simple and effective method that enables a definitive diagnosis of benign nevus or malignant melanoma to be made in most cases. However, approximately 15% of all biopsied melanocytic lesions will exhibit some degree of histopathologic ambiguity,^2-4 meaning that some of their microscopic features will be characteristic of a benign nevus while others will suggest the possibility of malignant melanoma. Diagnostic interpretations often vary in these cases, even among experts, and a definitive diagnosis of benign or malignant may be difficult to achieve by microscopy alone.^2-4 Because of the marked reduction in survival once a melanoma has metastasized, these diagnostically ambiguous lesions often are treated as possible malignant melanomas with complete surgical excision (or re-excision). However, some experts suggest that many histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms are, in fact, benign,⁵ a notion supported by epidemiologic evidence.^6,7 Therefore, excision of many ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms might be avoided if definitive diagnosis could be achieved.

A gene expression signature was developed and validated for use as an adjunct to traditional methods of differentiating malignant melanocytic neoplasms from their benign counterparts.^8-11 This test quantifies the RNA transcripts produced by 14 genes known to be overexpressed in malignant melanomas by comparison to benign nevi. These values are then combined algorithmically with measurements of 9 reference genes to produce an objective numerical score that is classified as benign, malignant, or indeterminate. When used by board-certified dermatopathologists and dermatologists confronting ambiguous melanocytic lesions, the test produces substantial increases in definitive diagnoses and prompts changes in treatment recommendations.^12,13 However, the long-term consequences of foregoing surgical excision of melanocytic neoplasms that are diagnostically ambiguous but classified as benign by this test have not yet been formally assessed. In the current study, prospectively tested patients whose ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms were classified as benign by the gene expression signature were followed for up to 4.5 years to evaluate the long-term safety of treatment decisions aligned with benign test results.

Methods

Study Population
As part of a prior study,¹² US-based dermatopathologists submitted tissue sections from biopsied melanocytic neoplasms determined to be diagnostically ambiguous by histopathology for analysis with the gene expression signature (Myriad Genetics, Inc). Diagnostically ambiguous lesions were those lesions that were described as ambiguous, uncertain, equivocal, indeterminate, or other synonymous terms by the submitting dermatopathologist and therefore lacked a confident diagnosis of benign or malignant prior to testing. Patients initially were tested between May 2014 and August 2014, with samples submitted through a prospective clinical experience study designed to assess the impact of the test on diagnosis and treatment decisions. This study was performed under an institutional review board waiver of consent (Quorum #33403/1).

Patients were eligible for inclusion in the current study if their biopsy specimens (1) had an uncertain preliminary diagnosis according to the submitting dermatopathologist (pretest diagnosis of indeterminate); (2) received a negative (benign) score from the gene expression test; (3) were treated as benign by the dermatologist(s) involved in follow-up care; and (4) were submitted by a single site (St. Joseph Medical Center, Houston, Texas). Although a single dermatopathology site was used for this study, multiple dermatologists were involved in the final treatment of these patients. Patients with benign scores who received additional intervention were excluded, as they may have a lower rate of adverse events (ie, metastasis) than those who did not receive intervention and would therefore skew the analysis population. A total of 25 patients from the prior study met these inclusion criteria. The previously collected¹² pretest and posttest de-identified data were compiled from the commercial laboratory databases, and the patients were followed from the time of testing via medical record review performed by the dermatology providers at participating sites. Clinical follow-up data were collected using study-specific case report forms (CRFs) that captured the following: (1) the dates and results of clinical follow-up visits; (2) the type(s) of treatment and interventions (if any) performed at those visits; (3) the specific indication for any intervention performed; (4) any evidence of persistent, locally recurrent, and/or distant melanocytic neoplasia (whether definitively attributable to the tested lesion or not); and (5) death from any cause. The CRF assigned interventions to 1 of 5 categories: excision, excision with sentinel lymph node biopsy, referral to dermatologic or other surgeon, examination only (without surgical intervention), and other. Selection of other required a free-text description of the treatment and indications. Pertinent information not otherwise captured by the CRF also was recordable as free text.

Gene Expression Testing
Gene expression testing was carried out at the time of specimen submission in the prior study¹² as described previously.¹⁴ Briefly, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded, unstained tissue sections and/or tissue blocks were submitted for testing along with a single hematoxylin and eosin–stained slide used to identify and designate the representative portion(s) of the lesion to be tested. These areas were macrodissected from unstained tissue sections and pooled for RNA extraction. Expression of 14 biomarker genes and 9 reference genes was measured via quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction, performed in triplicate for each individual gene. The assay score was generated through application of a weighted algorithm to the expression values generated through quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction. Scores were plotted on a scale ranging from −16.7 to 11.1, with scores from 0.0 to 11.1 classified as malignant, scores from −16.7 to −2.1 as benign, and scores from −2.1 to −0.1 as indeterminate.

Statistical Analysis
Demographic and other baseline characteristics of the patient population were summarized. Follow-up time was calculated as the interval between the date a patient’s gene expression test result was first issued to the provider and the date of the patient’s last recorded visit during the study period. All patient dermatology office visits within the designated follow-up period were documented, with a nonstandard number of visits and follow-up time across all study patients. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc), R software version 3.5.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing), and IBM SPSS Statistics software (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25).

Results

Patient Sample
A total of 25 ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms from 25 patients met the study inclusion criteria of a benign gene expression result with subsequent treatment as a benign neoplasm during follow-up. The patient sample statistics are summarized in Table 1. Most patients were younger than 65 years, with an average age at the time of biopsy of 48.4 years. All 25 neoplasms produced negative (benign) gene expression signature scores, all were diagnosed as benign nevi posttest by the submitting dermatopathologist, and all patients were initially treated in accordance with the benign diagnosis by the dermatologist(s) involved in clinical follow-up care. Prior to testing with the gene expression signature, most of these histopathologically indeterminate lesions received differential diagnoses, the most common of which were dysplastic nevus (84%), melanoma arising from a nevus (72%), and superficial spreading melanoma (64%; eTable). After testing with the gene expression signature and receiving a benign score, most lesions received a single differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus (88%).

Follow-up and Survival
Clinical follow-up time ranged from 0.6 to 53.3 months, with a mean duration (SD) of 38.5 (16.6) months, and patients attended an average of 4 postbiopsy dermatology appointments (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.6]). According to the participating dermatology care providers, none of the 25 patients developed any indication during follow-up that the diagnosis of benign nevus was inaccurate. No patient had evidence of locally recurrent or metastatic melanoma, and none died during the study period.

Treatment/Interventions
The treatment recorded in the CRF was examination only for 21 of 25 patients, excision for 3, and other for 1 (Table 2). Because the explanation for the selection of other in this case described an excision performed at the same anatomic location as the biopsy, this treatment also was considered an excision for purposes of the study analyses. The 3 excisions all occurred at the first postbiopsy dermatology encounter. Across all follow-up visits, no additional surgical interventions occurred (Table 2).

The third excision (case 3) involved a 32-year-old woman with a pigmented lesion on the abdomen (Table 3; Figure, E and F). The clinical description was irregular-appearing black papule, nevus with atypia, and the histopathologic differential diagnosis again included dysplastic nevus, superficial spreading melanoma, and melanoma arising within a preexisting nevus. The gene expression signature result was benign (score, −7.2), and the final diagnosis issued within the accompanying pathology report was nevus with moderate junctional dysplasia. Despite the benign diagnosis, excision was performed 89 days after test result availability, with apparent residual pigmentation as the specified indication. As with the other 2 cases, the treating dermatologist confirmed that neither clinical features nor follow-up events suggested malignancy.

Comment

This study followed a cohort of 25 patients with histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms that were classified as benign by a diagnostic gene expression test with the intent of determining the outcomes of patients whose treatment aligned with their benign test result. All patients initially were managed according to their test result. During an average posttest clinical follow-up time of more than 3 years (38.5 months), the 25 biopsied lesions, most of which received a differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus, were regarded as benign nevi by their dermatologists, and the vast majority (88%) received no further surgical intervention. Three patients underwent subsequent excision of the biopsied lesion, with patient or physician preference as the indication in each instance. None of the 25 patients developed evidence of local recurrence, metastasis, or other findings that prompted doubt of the benign diagnosis. The absence of adverse events during clinical follow-up, particularly given that most lesions were not subjected to further intervention, supports use of the gene expression test as a safe and effective adjunct to the diagnosis and treatment of ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms by dermatologists and dermatopathologists.

Ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms evaluated without the aid of molecular adjuncts often result in equivocal or less-than-definitive diagnoses, and further surgical intervention is commonly undertaken to mitigate against the possibility of a missed melanoma.¹³ In this study, treatment that was aligned with the benign test result allowed most patients to avoid further surgical intervention, which suggests that adjunctive use of the gene signature can contribute to reductions in the physical and economic burdens imposed by unnecessary surgical interventions.^15,16 Moreover, any means of increasing accurate and definitive diagnoses may produce an immediate impact on health outcomes by reducing the anxiety that uncertainty often provokes in patients and health care providers alike.

Study Limitations
This study must be interpreted within the context of its limitations. Obtaining meaningful patient outcome data is a common challenge in health care research due to the requisite length of follow-up and sometimes the lack of definitive evidence of adverse events. This is particularly difficult for melanocytic neoplasms because of an apparent inclination for patients with benign diagnoses to abandon follow-up and an increasing tendency for even minimal diagnostic uncertainty to prompt complete excision. Additionally, the only definitive clinical outcome for melanocytic neoplasms is distant metastasis, which (fortunately for patients) is relatively rare. Not surprisingly, studies documenting clinical outcomes of patients with ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms tested prospectively with diagnostic adjuncts are scarce, and this study’s sample size and clinical follow-up compare favorably with the few that exist.^17,18 Although most melanomas declare themselves through recurrence or metastasis within several years of initial biopsy,^1,19 some are clinically dormant for as long as 10 years after initial detection.^20,21 This may be particularly true for the small or early-stage lesions that now comprise the majority of biopsied neoplasms, and such events would go undetected by this study and many others. It also must be recognized that uneventful follow-up, regardless of duration, cannot prove that a biopsied melanocytic neoplasm was benign. Although only 5 patients had a follow-up time of less than 2 years (the time frame in which most recurrence or metastasis will occur), it cannot be definitively proven that a minimum of 2 years recurrence- or metastasis-free survival indicates a benign lesion. Many early-stage malignant melanomas are eradicated by complete excision or even by the initial biopsy if margins are uninvolved.

Because these limitations are intrinsic to melanocytic neoplasms and current management strategies, they pertain to all investigations seeking insights into biological potential through clinical outcomes. Similarly, all current diagnostic tools and procedures have the potential for sampling error, including histopathology. The rarity of adverse outcomes (recurrence and metastasis) in patients with benign test results within this cohort indicates that false-negative results are uncommon, which is further evidenced by a similar rarity of adverse events in prior studies of the gene expression signature.^8-10,22 A particular strength of this study is that most of the ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms followed did not undergo excision after the initial biopsy, an increasingly uncommon situation that may increase their likelihood to be informative.

It must be emphasized that the gene expression test, similar to other diagnostic adjuncts, is neither a replacement for histopathologic interpretation nor a substitute for judgment. As with all tests, it can produce false-positive and false-negative results. Therefore, it should always be interpreted within the constellation of the many other data points that must be considered when making a distinction between benign nevus and malignant melanoma, including but not limited to patient age, family and personal history of melanoma, anatomic location, clinical features, and histopathologic findings. As is the case for many diseases, careful consideration of all relevant input is necessary to minimize the risk of misdiagnosis that might occur should any single data point prove inaccurate, including the results of adjunctive molecular tests.

Conclusion

Ancillary methods are emerging as useful tools for the diagnostic evaluation of melanocytic neoplasms that cannot be assigned definitive diagnoses using traditional techniques alone. This study suggests that patients with ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms may benefit from diagnoses and treatment decisions aligned with the results of a gene expression test, and that for those with a benign result, simple observation may be a safe alternative to surgical excision. This expands upon prior observations of the test’s influence on diagnoses and treatment decisions and supports its role as part of dermatopathologists’ and dermatologists’ decision-making process for histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic lesions.

According to National Institutes of Health estimates, more than 90,000 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed in 2018.¹ Overall 5-year survival for patients with melanoma exceeds 90%, but individual survival estimates are highly dependent on stage at diagnosis, and survival decreases markedly with metastasis. Therefore, early and accurate diagnosis is critical.

Diagnosis of melanocytic neoplasms usually is performed by dermatopathologists through microscopic examination of stained tissue biopsy sections, a technically simple and effective method that enables a definitive diagnosis of benign nevus or malignant melanoma to be made in most cases. However, approximately 15% of all biopsied melanocytic lesions will exhibit some degree of histopathologic ambiguity,^2-4 meaning that some of their microscopic features will be characteristic of a benign nevus while others will suggest the possibility of malignant melanoma. Diagnostic interpretations often vary in these cases, even among experts, and a definitive diagnosis of benign or malignant may be difficult to achieve by microscopy alone.^2-4 Because of the marked reduction in survival once a melanoma has metastasized, these diagnostically ambiguous lesions often are treated as possible malignant melanomas with complete surgical excision (or re-excision). However, some experts suggest that many histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms are, in fact, benign,⁵ a notion supported by epidemiologic evidence.^6,7 Therefore, excision of many ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms might be avoided if definitive diagnosis could be achieved.

A gene expression signature was developed and validated for use as an adjunct to traditional methods of differentiating malignant melanocytic neoplasms from their benign counterparts.^8-11 This test quantifies the RNA transcripts produced by 14 genes known to be overexpressed in malignant melanomas by comparison to benign nevi. These values are then combined algorithmically with measurements of 9 reference genes to produce an objective numerical score that is classified as benign, malignant, or indeterminate. When used by board-certified dermatopathologists and dermatologists confronting ambiguous melanocytic lesions, the test produces substantial increases in definitive diagnoses and prompts changes in treatment recommendations.^12,13 However, the long-term consequences of foregoing surgical excision of melanocytic neoplasms that are diagnostically ambiguous but classified as benign by this test have not yet been formally assessed. In the current study, prospectively tested patients whose ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms were classified as benign by the gene expression signature were followed for up to 4.5 years to evaluate the long-term safety of treatment decisions aligned with benign test results.

Methods

Study Population
As part of a prior study,¹² US-based dermatopathologists submitted tissue sections from biopsied melanocytic neoplasms determined to be diagnostically ambiguous by histopathology for analysis with the gene expression signature (Myriad Genetics, Inc). Diagnostically ambiguous lesions were those lesions that were described as ambiguous, uncertain, equivocal, indeterminate, or other synonymous terms by the submitting dermatopathologist and therefore lacked a confident diagnosis of benign or malignant prior to testing. Patients initially were tested between May 2014 and August 2014, with samples submitted through a prospective clinical experience study designed to assess the impact of the test on diagnosis and treatment decisions. This study was performed under an institutional review board waiver of consent (Quorum #33403/1).

Patients were eligible for inclusion in the current study if their biopsy specimens (1) had an uncertain preliminary diagnosis according to the submitting dermatopathologist (pretest diagnosis of indeterminate); (2) received a negative (benign) score from the gene expression test; (3) were treated as benign by the dermatologist(s) involved in follow-up care; and (4) were submitted by a single site (St. Joseph Medical Center, Houston, Texas). Although a single dermatopathology site was used for this study, multiple dermatologists were involved in the final treatment of these patients. Patients with benign scores who received additional intervention were excluded, as they may have a lower rate of adverse events (ie, metastasis) than those who did not receive intervention and would therefore skew the analysis population. A total of 25 patients from the prior study met these inclusion criteria. The previously collected¹² pretest and posttest de-identified data were compiled from the commercial laboratory databases, and the patients were followed from the time of testing via medical record review performed by the dermatology providers at participating sites. Clinical follow-up data were collected using study-specific case report forms (CRFs) that captured the following: (1) the dates and results of clinical follow-up visits; (2) the type(s) of treatment and interventions (if any) performed at those visits; (3) the specific indication for any intervention performed; (4) any evidence of persistent, locally recurrent, and/or distant melanocytic neoplasia (whether definitively attributable to the tested lesion or not); and (5) death from any cause. The CRF assigned interventions to 1 of 5 categories: excision, excision with sentinel lymph node biopsy, referral to dermatologic or other surgeon, examination only (without surgical intervention), and other. Selection of other required a free-text description of the treatment and indications. Pertinent information not otherwise captured by the CRF also was recordable as free text.

Gene Expression Testing
Gene expression testing was carried out at the time of specimen submission in the prior study¹² as described previously.¹⁴ Briefly, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded, unstained tissue sections and/or tissue blocks were submitted for testing along with a single hematoxylin and eosin–stained slide used to identify and designate the representative portion(s) of the lesion to be tested. These areas were macrodissected from unstained tissue sections and pooled for RNA extraction. Expression of 14 biomarker genes and 9 reference genes was measured via quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction, performed in triplicate for each individual gene. The assay score was generated through application of a weighted algorithm to the expression values generated through quantitative reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction. Scores were plotted on a scale ranging from −16.7 to 11.1, with scores from 0.0 to 11.1 classified as malignant, scores from −16.7 to −2.1 as benign, and scores from −2.1 to −0.1 as indeterminate.

Statistical Analysis
Demographic and other baseline characteristics of the patient population were summarized. Follow-up time was calculated as the interval between the date a patient’s gene expression test result was first issued to the provider and the date of the patient’s last recorded visit during the study period. All patient dermatology office visits within the designated follow-up period were documented, with a nonstandard number of visits and follow-up time across all study patients. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc), R software version 3.5.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing), and IBM SPSS Statistics software (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25).

Results

Patient Sample
A total of 25 ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms from 25 patients met the study inclusion criteria of a benign gene expression result with subsequent treatment as a benign neoplasm during follow-up. The patient sample statistics are summarized in Table 1. Most patients were younger than 65 years, with an average age at the time of biopsy of 48.4 years. All 25 neoplasms produced negative (benign) gene expression signature scores, all were diagnosed as benign nevi posttest by the submitting dermatopathologist, and all patients were initially treated in accordance with the benign diagnosis by the dermatologist(s) involved in clinical follow-up care. Prior to testing with the gene expression signature, most of these histopathologically indeterminate lesions received differential diagnoses, the most common of which were dysplastic nevus (84%), melanoma arising from a nevus (72%), and superficial spreading melanoma (64%; eTable). After testing with the gene expression signature and receiving a benign score, most lesions received a single differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus (88%).

Follow-up and Survival
Clinical follow-up time ranged from 0.6 to 53.3 months, with a mean duration (SD) of 38.5 (16.6) months, and patients attended an average of 4 postbiopsy dermatology appointments (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.6]). According to the participating dermatology care providers, none of the 25 patients developed any indication during follow-up that the diagnosis of benign nevus was inaccurate. No patient had evidence of locally recurrent or metastatic melanoma, and none died during the study period.

Treatment/Interventions
The treatment recorded in the CRF was examination only for 21 of 25 patients, excision for 3, and other for 1 (Table 2). Because the explanation for the selection of other in this case described an excision performed at the same anatomic location as the biopsy, this treatment also was considered an excision for purposes of the study analyses. The 3 excisions all occurred at the first postbiopsy dermatology encounter. Across all follow-up visits, no additional surgical interventions occurred (Table 2).

The third excision (case 3) involved a 32-year-old woman with a pigmented lesion on the abdomen (Table 3; Figure, E and F). The clinical description was irregular-appearing black papule, nevus with atypia, and the histopathologic differential diagnosis again included dysplastic nevus, superficial spreading melanoma, and melanoma arising within a preexisting nevus. The gene expression signature result was benign (score, −7.2), and the final diagnosis issued within the accompanying pathology report was nevus with moderate junctional dysplasia. Despite the benign diagnosis, excision was performed 89 days after test result availability, with apparent residual pigmentation as the specified indication. As with the other 2 cases, the treating dermatologist confirmed that neither clinical features nor follow-up events suggested malignancy.

Comment

This study followed a cohort of 25 patients with histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms that were classified as benign by a diagnostic gene expression test with the intent of determining the outcomes of patients whose treatment aligned with their benign test result. All patients initially were managed according to their test result. During an average posttest clinical follow-up time of more than 3 years (38.5 months), the 25 biopsied lesions, most of which received a differential diagnosis of dysplastic nevus, were regarded as benign nevi by their dermatologists, and the vast majority (88%) received no further surgical intervention. Three patients underwent subsequent excision of the biopsied lesion, with patient or physician preference as the indication in each instance. None of the 25 patients developed evidence of local recurrence, metastasis, or other findings that prompted doubt of the benign diagnosis. The absence of adverse events during clinical follow-up, particularly given that most lesions were not subjected to further intervention, supports use of the gene expression test as a safe and effective adjunct to the diagnosis and treatment of ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms by dermatologists and dermatopathologists.

Ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms evaluated without the aid of molecular adjuncts often result in equivocal or less-than-definitive diagnoses, and further surgical intervention is commonly undertaken to mitigate against the possibility of a missed melanoma.¹³ In this study, treatment that was aligned with the benign test result allowed most patients to avoid further surgical intervention, which suggests that adjunctive use of the gene signature can contribute to reductions in the physical and economic burdens imposed by unnecessary surgical interventions.^15,16 Moreover, any means of increasing accurate and definitive diagnoses may produce an immediate impact on health outcomes by reducing the anxiety that uncertainty often provokes in patients and health care providers alike.

Study Limitations
This study must be interpreted within the context of its limitations. Obtaining meaningful patient outcome data is a common challenge in health care research due to the requisite length of follow-up and sometimes the lack of definitive evidence of adverse events. This is particularly difficult for melanocytic neoplasms because of an apparent inclination for patients with benign diagnoses to abandon follow-up and an increasing tendency for even minimal diagnostic uncertainty to prompt complete excision. Additionally, the only definitive clinical outcome for melanocytic neoplasms is distant metastasis, which (fortunately for patients) is relatively rare. Not surprisingly, studies documenting clinical outcomes of patients with ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms tested prospectively with diagnostic adjuncts are scarce, and this study’s sample size and clinical follow-up compare favorably with the few that exist.^17,18 Although most melanomas declare themselves through recurrence or metastasis within several years of initial biopsy,^1,19 some are clinically dormant for as long as 10 years after initial detection.^20,21 This may be particularly true for the small or early-stage lesions that now comprise the majority of biopsied neoplasms, and such events would go undetected by this study and many others. It also must be recognized that uneventful follow-up, regardless of duration, cannot prove that a biopsied melanocytic neoplasm was benign. Although only 5 patients had a follow-up time of less than 2 years (the time frame in which most recurrence or metastasis will occur), it cannot be definitively proven that a minimum of 2 years recurrence- or metastasis-free survival indicates a benign lesion. Many early-stage malignant melanomas are eradicated by complete excision or even by the initial biopsy if margins are uninvolved.

Because these limitations are intrinsic to melanocytic neoplasms and current management strategies, they pertain to all investigations seeking insights into biological potential through clinical outcomes. Similarly, all current diagnostic tools and procedures have the potential for sampling error, including histopathology. The rarity of adverse outcomes (recurrence and metastasis) in patients with benign test results within this cohort indicates that false-negative results are uncommon, which is further evidenced by a similar rarity of adverse events in prior studies of the gene expression signature.^8-10,22 A particular strength of this study is that most of the ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms followed did not undergo excision after the initial biopsy, an increasingly uncommon situation that may increase their likelihood to be informative.

It must be emphasized that the gene expression test, similar to other diagnostic adjuncts, is neither a replacement for histopathologic interpretation nor a substitute for judgment. As with all tests, it can produce false-positive and false-negative results. Therefore, it should always be interpreted within the constellation of the many other data points that must be considered when making a distinction between benign nevus and malignant melanoma, including but not limited to patient age, family and personal history of melanoma, anatomic location, clinical features, and histopathologic findings. As is the case for many diseases, careful consideration of all relevant input is necessary to minimize the risk of misdiagnosis that might occur should any single data point prove inaccurate, including the results of adjunctive molecular tests.

Conclusion

Ancillary methods are emerging as useful tools for the diagnostic evaluation of melanocytic neoplasms that cannot be assigned definitive diagnoses using traditional techniques alone. This study suggests that patients with ambiguous melanocytic neoplasms may benefit from diagnoses and treatment decisions aligned with the results of a gene expression test, and that for those with a benign result, simple observation may be a safe alternative to surgical excision. This expands upon prior observations of the test’s influence on diagnoses and treatment decisions and supports its role as part of dermatopathologists’ and dermatologists’ decision-making process for histopathologically ambiguous melanocytic lesions.

Recent advances in the immunopathogenesis and therapy of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) have shown great promise for the care of patients with mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS).^1-3 Research into the tumor microenvironment, microbiome, and molecular genetics may yield further information as we strive to develop MF/SS therapy from the bench to the bedside.³ Although progress has been made on multiple fronts in MF, some important—particularly epidemiologic and clinical—questions remain unanswered.

Racial disparities are well known to exist in CTCLs, particularly MF and SS.^4-7 The incidence of MF and SS in the United States is higher in African American/Black patients than in White patients⁴; in addition, MF has an earlier age at onset in Black patients compared with White patients.^4,5 Gender disparities also exist, with relatively more Black females than males affected with MF^4-6; in particular, early-onset MF (ie, <40 years of age) is more common in Black females than Black males.^6,7 According to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data⁴ and the US National Cancer Database,⁵ African American/Black patients with MF have worse outcomes compared with other races (shorter overall survival and higher mortality) and also exhibit higher stages of disease at presentation (stage IIb or higher).⁵ Black race also was found to be a predictor of poor overall survival after accounting for disease characteristics, socioeconomicfactors, and types of treatment. The factors responsible for these racial disparities remain unclear.

A fortuitous collision of interests and technology may have helped to shed light on some of the reasons for these racial disparities in MF. Nearly 2 decades ago, high-quality, whole-body digital cutaneous photography was implemented by the Dermatology Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Dermatology Service (New York, New York).⁸ Although the standardized 20-pose positioning images initially were used for the follow-up evaluation of patients with multiple nevi and melanomas, we incorporated the same photography technique into our multidisciplinary Cutaneous Lymphoma Clinic at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The multiplicity and clinical heterogeneity of MF lesions is well known, as is the fact that individual MF lesions may develop, respond to therapy, or change independently of other lesions in a given patient. We regularly reviewed these digital images with patients during their visits to assess treatment responses, discussed the need for changes in therapy in the face of progressive disease, and provided encouragement and positive reinforcement for those who improved with time-consuming regimens (eg, phototherapy).

Ultimately, as we became more familiar with looking at images in skin of color, we recognized different clinical features among our Black patients. In the literature, hypopigmented MF is a variant that typically is characterized by CD8⁺-predominant T cells and is seen more frequently in dark-skinned patients.⁹ In contrast, hyperpigmented MF has been considered a relatively rare presentation of MF.¹⁰ However, using only clinical and demographic information, we were able to identify 2 very different prognostic groups: those with hypopigmented lesions and those with only hyperpigmented and/or erythematous skin lesions.¹¹ In our retrospective review of 157 African American/Black MF patients at our institution—122 with early-stage and 35 with late-stage MF—45% of patients had hypopigmented lesions vs 52% with hyperpigmented and/or erythematous lesions but no hypopigmentation. Those with hypopigmentation had superior outcomes, with better overall survival (P=.002) and progression-free survival (P=.014). In addition, more than 80% of patients who progressed or died from disease had hyperpigmented and/or erythematous lesions without hypopigmentation.¹¹

Sometimes we have to go backward to go forward. Going from the bedside to the bench in our Black MF/SS patients—initially through the clinical recognition of prognostically different lesions, and then through clinicopathologic correlation with immunophenotyping and molecular studies—should provide important clues. Further investigation of Black patients who share similar pigmentary phenotypes of MF also may shed light on the pathogenetic mechanisms responsible for these prognostically significant skin findings. Through these efforts, we hope to identify higher-risk patients, which ultimately will lead to earlier intervention, more effective therapeutic regimens, and improved outcomes.

Recent advances in the immunopathogenesis and therapy of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) have shown great promise for the care of patients with mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS).^1-3 Research into the tumor microenvironment, microbiome, and molecular genetics may yield further information as we strive to develop MF/SS therapy from the bench to the bedside.³ Although progress has been made on multiple fronts in MF, some important—particularly epidemiologic and clinical—questions remain unanswered.

Racial disparities are well known to exist in CTCLs, particularly MF and SS.^4-7 The incidence of MF and SS in the United States is higher in African American/Black patients than in White patients⁴; in addition, MF has an earlier age at onset in Black patients compared with White patients.^4,5 Gender disparities also exist, with relatively more Black females than males affected with MF^4-6; in particular, early-onset MF (ie, <40 years of age) is more common in Black females than Black males.^6,7 According to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data⁴ and the US National Cancer Database,⁵ African American/Black patients with MF have worse outcomes compared with other races (shorter overall survival and higher mortality) and also exhibit higher stages of disease at presentation (stage IIb or higher).⁵ Black race also was found to be a predictor of poor overall survival after accounting for disease characteristics, socioeconomicfactors, and types of treatment. The factors responsible for these racial disparities remain unclear.

A fortuitous collision of interests and technology may have helped to shed light on some of the reasons for these racial disparities in MF. Nearly 2 decades ago, high-quality, whole-body digital cutaneous photography was implemented by the Dermatology Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Dermatology Service (New York, New York).⁸ Although the standardized 20-pose positioning images initially were used for the follow-up evaluation of patients with multiple nevi and melanomas, we incorporated the same photography technique into our multidisciplinary Cutaneous Lymphoma Clinic at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The multiplicity and clinical heterogeneity of MF lesions is well known, as is the fact that individual MF lesions may develop, respond to therapy, or change independently of other lesions in a given patient. We regularly reviewed these digital images with patients during their visits to assess treatment responses, discussed the need for changes in therapy in the face of progressive disease, and provided encouragement and positive reinforcement for those who improved with time-consuming regimens (eg, phototherapy).

Ultimately, as we became more familiar with looking at images in skin of color, we recognized different clinical features among our Black patients. In the literature, hypopigmented MF is a variant that typically is characterized by CD8⁺-predominant T cells and is seen more frequently in dark-skinned patients.⁹ In contrast, hyperpigmented MF has been considered a relatively rare presentation of MF.¹⁰ However, using only clinical and demographic information, we were able to identify 2 very different prognostic groups: those with hypopigmented lesions and those with only hyperpigmented and/or erythematous skin lesions.¹¹ In our retrospective review of 157 African American/Black MF patients at our institution—122 with early-stage and 35 with late-stage MF—45% of patients had hypopigmented lesions vs 52% with hyperpigmented and/or erythematous lesions but no hypopigmentation. Those with hypopigmentation had superior outcomes, with better overall survival (P=.002) and progression-free survival (P=.014). In addition, more than 80% of patients who progressed or died from disease had hyperpigmented and/or erythematous lesions without hypopigmentation.¹¹

Sometimes we have to go backward to go forward. Going from the bedside to the bench in our Black MF/SS patients—initially through the clinical recognition of prognostically different lesions, and then through clinicopathologic correlation with immunophenotyping and molecular studies—should provide important clues. Further investigation of Black patients who share similar pigmentary phenotypes of MF also may shed light on the pathogenetic mechanisms responsible for these prognostically significant skin findings. Through these efforts, we hope to identify higher-risk patients, which ultimately will lead to earlier intervention, more effective therapeutic regimens, and improved outcomes.

Recent advances in the immunopathogenesis and therapy of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) have shown great promise for the care of patients with mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS).^1-3 Research into the tumor microenvironment, microbiome, and molecular genetics may yield further information as we strive to develop MF/SS therapy from the bench to the bedside.³ Although progress has been made on multiple fronts in MF, some important—particularly epidemiologic and clinical—questions remain unanswered.

Racial disparities are well known to exist in CTCLs, particularly MF and SS.^4-7 The incidence of MF and SS in the United States is higher in African American/Black patients than in White patients⁴; in addition, MF has an earlier age at onset in Black patients compared with White patients.^4,5 Gender disparities also exist, with relatively more Black females than males affected with MF^4-6; in particular, early-onset MF (ie, <40 years of age) is more common in Black females than Black males.^6,7 According to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data⁴ and the US National Cancer Database,⁵ African American/Black patients with MF have worse outcomes compared with other races (shorter overall survival and higher mortality) and also exhibit higher stages of disease at presentation (stage IIb or higher).⁵ Black race also was found to be a predictor of poor overall survival after accounting for disease characteristics, socioeconomicfactors, and types of treatment. The factors responsible for these racial disparities remain unclear.

A fortuitous collision of interests and technology may have helped to shed light on some of the reasons for these racial disparities in MF. Nearly 2 decades ago, high-quality, whole-body digital cutaneous photography was implemented by the Dermatology Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Dermatology Service (New York, New York).⁸ Although the standardized 20-pose positioning images initially were used for the follow-up evaluation of patients with multiple nevi and melanomas, we incorporated the same photography technique into our multidisciplinary Cutaneous Lymphoma Clinic at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The multiplicity and clinical heterogeneity of MF lesions is well known, as is the fact that individual MF lesions may develop, respond to therapy, or change independently of other lesions in a given patient. We regularly reviewed these digital images with patients during their visits to assess treatment responses, discussed the need for changes in therapy in the face of progressive disease, and provided encouragement and positive reinforcement for those who improved with time-consuming regimens (eg, phototherapy).

Ultimately, as we became more familiar with looking at images in skin of color, we recognized different clinical features among our Black patients. In the literature, hypopigmented MF is a variant that typically is characterized by CD8⁺-predominant T cells and is seen more frequently in dark-skinned patients.⁹ In contrast, hyperpigmented MF has been considered a relatively rare presentation of MF.¹⁰ However, using only clinical and demographic information, we were able to identify 2 very different prognostic groups: those with hypopigmented lesions and those with only hyperpigmented and/or erythematous skin lesions.¹¹ In our retrospective review of 157 African American/Black MF patients at our institution—122 with early-stage and 35 with late-stage MF—45% of patients had hypopigmented lesions vs 52% with hyperpigmented and/or erythematous lesions but no hypopigmentation. Those with hypopigmentation had superior outcomes, with better overall survival (P=.002) and progression-free survival (P=.014). In addition, more than 80% of patients who progressed or died from disease had hyperpigmented and/or erythematous lesions without hypopigmentation.¹¹

Sometimes we have to go backward to go forward. Going from the bedside to the bench in our Black MF/SS patients—initially through the clinical recognition of prognostically different lesions, and then through clinicopathologic correlation with immunophenotyping and molecular studies—should provide important clues. Further investigation of Black patients who share similar pigmentary phenotypes of MF also may shed light on the pathogenetic mechanisms responsible for these prognostically significant skin findings. Through these efforts, we hope to identify higher-risk patients, which ultimately will lead to earlier intervention, more effective therapeutic regimens, and improved outcomes.

Practice Gap

Reconstruction of a lip defect poses challenges to the dermatologic surgeon. The lip is a free margin, where excess tension can cause noticeable distortion in facial aesthetics. Distortion of that free margin might not only disrupt the appearance of the lip but affect function by impairing oral competency and mobility; therefore, when choosing a method of reconstruction, the surgeon must take free margin distortion into account. Misalignment of the vermilion border upon reconstruction will cause a poor aesthetic result in the absence of free margin distortion. When a surgical defect involves more than one cosmetic subunit of the lip, great care must be taken to repair each subunit individually to achieve the best cosmetic and functional results.

The suitability of traditional approaches to reconstruction of a defect that crosses the vermilion border—healing by secondary intention, primary linear repair, full-thickness wedge repair, partial-thickness wedge repair, and combined cutaneous and mucosal advancement¹—depends on the depth of the lesion.

Clinical Presentation

A 66-year-old woman with a 4×6-mm, invasive, well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma of the left lower lip was referred for Mohs micrographic surgery. Removal of the tumor required 2 stages to obtain clear margins, leaving a 1.0×1.2-cm defect that crossed the vermilion border (Figure, A). How would you repair this defect?

Selecting a Technique to Close the Surgical Defect

For this patient, we had several options to consider in approaching closure, including several that we rejected. Because the defect crossed cosmetic subunit boundaries, healing by secondary intention was avoided, as it would cause contraction, obliterate the vermilion border, and result in poor functional and cosmetic results. We decided against primary closure, even with careful attention to reapproximation of the vermilion border, because the width of the defect would have required a large Burow triangle that extended into the oral cavity. For defects less than one-third the width of the lip, full-thickness wedge repair can yield excellent cosmetic results but, in this case, would decrease the oral aperture and was deemed too extensive a procedure for a relatively shallow defect.²

Instead, we chose to perform repair with V to Y advancement of skin below the cutaneous defect, up to the location of the absent vermilion border, combined with small, horizontal, linear closure of the mucosal portion of the defect. This approach is a variation of a repair described by Jin et al,³ who described using 2 opposing V-Y advancement flaps to repair defects of the lip. This repair has provided excellent cosmetic results for a small series of our patients, preserving the oral aperture and maintaining the important aesthetic location of the vermilion border. In addition, the technique makes it unnecessary for the patient to undergo a much larger repair, such as a full- or partial-thickness wedge when the initial defect is relatively shallow.

Closure Technique

It is essential to properly outline the vermilion border of the lip before initiating the repair, ideally before any infiltration of local anesthesia if the surgeon anticipates that tumor extirpation might cross the vermilion border.

Repair
Closing then proceeds as follows:

• The cutaneous portion of the defect is drawn out in standard V to Y fashion, carrying the incision through the dermis and into subcutaneous tissue. The pedicle of the flap is maintained at the base of the island, serving as the blood supply to the flap.

• The periphery of the flap and surrounding tissue is undermined to facilitate movement superiorly into the cutaneous portion of the defect.

• A single buried vertical mattress suture can be placed at the advancing border of the island, holding it in place at the anticipated location of the vermilion border. The secondary defect created by the advancing V is closed to help push the island into place and prevent downward tension on the free margin of the lip.

• The remaining defect of the vermilion lip is closed by removing Burow triangles at the horizontal edges on each side of the remaining defect (Figure, B). The triangles are removed completely within the mucosal lip, with the inferior edge of the triangle placed at the vermilion border.

• The defect is closed in a primary linear horizontal fashion, using buried vertical mattress sutures and cutaneous approximation.

The final appearance of the sutured defect yields a small lateral extension at the superior edge of the V to Y closure, giving the appearance of wings on the Y, prompting us to term the closure V-to-flying-Y (Figure, C).

Although the limited portion of the mucosal lip that is closed in this fashion might appear thinner than the remaining lip, it generally yields a cosmetically acceptable result in the properly selected patient. Our experience also has shown an improvement in this difference in the months following repair. A full mucosal advancement flap might result in a more uniform appearance of the lower lip, but it is a larger and more difficult procedure for the patient to endure. Additionally, a full mucosal advancement flap risks uniformly creating a much thinner lip.

Postoperative Course
Sutures were removed 1 week postoperatively. Proper location of the vermilion border, without distortion of the free margin, was demonstrated. At 11-month follow-up, excellent cosmetic and functional results were noted (Figure, D).

Practice Implications

This repair (1) demonstrates an elegant method of closing a relatively shallow defect that crosses the vermilion border and (2) allows the surgeon to address each cosmetic subunit individually. We have found that this repair provides excellent cosmetic and functional results, with little morbidity.

The lip is a common site of nonmelanoma squamous cell carcinoma. Poorly planned closing after excision of the tumor risks notable impairment of function or cosmetic distortion. When a defect of the lip crosses cosmetic subunits, it is helpful to repair each subunit individually. V-to-flying-Y closure is an effective method to close defects that cross the vermilion border, resulting in well-preserved cosmetic appearance and function.

Practice Gap

Reconstruction of a lip defect poses challenges to the dermatologic surgeon. The lip is a free margin, where excess tension can cause noticeable distortion in facial aesthetics. Distortion of that free margin might not only disrupt the appearance of the lip but affect function by impairing oral competency and mobility; therefore, when choosing a method of reconstruction, the surgeon must take free margin distortion into account. Misalignment of the vermilion border upon reconstruction will cause a poor aesthetic result in the absence of free margin distortion. When a surgical defect involves more than one cosmetic subunit of the lip, great care must be taken to repair each subunit individually to achieve the best cosmetic and functional results.

The suitability of traditional approaches to reconstruction of a defect that crosses the vermilion border—healing by secondary intention, primary linear repair, full-thickness wedge repair, partial-thickness wedge repair, and combined cutaneous and mucosal advancement¹—depends on the depth of the lesion.

Clinical Presentation

A 66-year-old woman with a 4×6-mm, invasive, well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma of the left lower lip was referred for Mohs micrographic surgery. Removal of the tumor required 2 stages to obtain clear margins, leaving a 1.0×1.2-cm defect that crossed the vermilion border (Figure, A). How would you repair this defect?

Selecting a Technique to Close the Surgical Defect

For this patient, we had several options to consider in approaching closure, including several that we rejected. Because the defect crossed cosmetic subunit boundaries, healing by secondary intention was avoided, as it would cause contraction, obliterate the vermilion border, and result in poor functional and cosmetic results. We decided against primary closure, even with careful attention to reapproximation of the vermilion border, because the width of the defect would have required a large Burow triangle that extended into the oral cavity. For defects less than one-third the width of the lip, full-thickness wedge repair can yield excellent cosmetic results but, in this case, would decrease the oral aperture and was deemed too extensive a procedure for a relatively shallow defect.²

Instead, we chose to perform repair with V to Y advancement of skin below the cutaneous defect, up to the location of the absent vermilion border, combined with small, horizontal, linear closure of the mucosal portion of the defect. This approach is a variation of a repair described by Jin et al,³ who described using 2 opposing V-Y advancement flaps to repair defects of the lip. This repair has provided excellent cosmetic results for a small series of our patients, preserving the oral aperture and maintaining the important aesthetic location of the vermilion border. In addition, the technique makes it unnecessary for the patient to undergo a much larger repair, such as a full- or partial-thickness wedge when the initial defect is relatively shallow.

Closure Technique

It is essential to properly outline the vermilion border of the lip before initiating the repair, ideally before any infiltration of local anesthesia if the surgeon anticipates that tumor extirpation might cross the vermilion border.

Repair
Closing then proceeds as follows:

• The cutaneous portion of the defect is drawn out in standard V to Y fashion, carrying the incision through the dermis and into subcutaneous tissue. The pedicle of the flap is maintained at the base of the island, serving as the blood supply to the flap.

• The periphery of the flap and surrounding tissue is undermined to facilitate movement superiorly into the cutaneous portion of the defect.

• A single buried vertical mattress suture can be placed at the advancing border of the island, holding it in place at the anticipated location of the vermilion border. The secondary defect created by the advancing V is closed to help push the island into place and prevent downward tension on the free margin of the lip.

• The remaining defect of the vermilion lip is closed by removing Burow triangles at the horizontal edges on each side of the remaining defect (Figure, B). The triangles are removed completely within the mucosal lip, with the inferior edge of the triangle placed at the vermilion border.

• The defect is closed in a primary linear horizontal fashion, using buried vertical mattress sutures and cutaneous approximation.

The final appearance of the sutured defect yields a small lateral extension at the superior edge of the V to Y closure, giving the appearance of wings on the Y, prompting us to term the closure V-to-flying-Y (Figure, C).

Although the limited portion of the mucosal lip that is closed in this fashion might appear thinner than the remaining lip, it generally yields a cosmetically acceptable result in the properly selected patient. Our experience also has shown an improvement in this difference in the months following repair. A full mucosal advancement flap might result in a more uniform appearance of the lower lip, but it is a larger and more difficult procedure for the patient to endure. Additionally, a full mucosal advancement flap risks uniformly creating a much thinner lip.

Postoperative Course
Sutures were removed 1 week postoperatively. Proper location of the vermilion border, without distortion of the free margin, was demonstrated. At 11-month follow-up, excellent cosmetic and functional results were noted (Figure, D).

Practice Implications

This repair (1) demonstrates an elegant method of closing a relatively shallow defect that crosses the vermilion border and (2) allows the surgeon to address each cosmetic subunit individually. We have found that this repair provides excellent cosmetic and functional results, with little morbidity.

The lip is a common site of nonmelanoma squamous cell carcinoma. Poorly planned closing after excision of the tumor risks notable impairment of function or cosmetic distortion. When a defect of the lip crosses cosmetic subunits, it is helpful to repair each subunit individually. V-to-flying-Y closure is an effective method to close defects that cross the vermilion border, resulting in well-preserved cosmetic appearance and function.

Practice Gap

Reconstruction of a lip defect poses challenges to the dermatologic surgeon. The lip is a free margin, where excess tension can cause noticeable distortion in facial aesthetics. Distortion of that free margin might not only disrupt the appearance of the lip but affect function by impairing oral competency and mobility; therefore, when choosing a method of reconstruction, the surgeon must take free margin distortion into account. Misalignment of the vermilion border upon reconstruction will cause a poor aesthetic result in the absence of free margin distortion. When a surgical defect involves more than one cosmetic subunit of the lip, great care must be taken to repair each subunit individually to achieve the best cosmetic and functional results.

The suitability of traditional approaches to reconstruction of a defect that crosses the vermilion border—healing by secondary intention, primary linear repair, full-thickness wedge repair, partial-thickness wedge repair, and combined cutaneous and mucosal advancement¹—depends on the depth of the lesion.

Clinical Presentation

A 66-year-old woman with a 4×6-mm, invasive, well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma of the left lower lip was referred for Mohs micrographic surgery. Removal of the tumor required 2 stages to obtain clear margins, leaving a 1.0×1.2-cm defect that crossed the vermilion border (Figure, A). How would you repair this defect?

Selecting a Technique to Close the Surgical Defect

For this patient, we had several options to consider in approaching closure, including several that we rejected. Because the defect crossed cosmetic subunit boundaries, healing by secondary intention was avoided, as it would cause contraction, obliterate the vermilion border, and result in poor functional and cosmetic results. We decided against primary closure, even with careful attention to reapproximation of the vermilion border, because the width of the defect would have required a large Burow triangle that extended into the oral cavity. For defects less than one-third the width of the lip, full-thickness wedge repair can yield excellent cosmetic results but, in this case, would decrease the oral aperture and was deemed too extensive a procedure for a relatively shallow defect.²

Instead, we chose to perform repair with V to Y advancement of skin below the cutaneous defect, up to the location of the absent vermilion border, combined with small, horizontal, linear closure of the mucosal portion of the defect. This approach is a variation of a repair described by Jin et al,³ who described using 2 opposing V-Y advancement flaps to repair defects of the lip. This repair has provided excellent cosmetic results for a small series of our patients, preserving the oral aperture and maintaining the important aesthetic location of the vermilion border. In addition, the technique makes it unnecessary for the patient to undergo a much larger repair, such as a full- or partial-thickness wedge when the initial defect is relatively shallow.

Closure Technique

It is essential to properly outline the vermilion border of the lip before initiating the repair, ideally before any infiltration of local anesthesia if the surgeon anticipates that tumor extirpation might cross the vermilion border.

Repair
Closing then proceeds as follows:

• The cutaneous portion of the defect is drawn out in standard V to Y fashion, carrying the incision through the dermis and into subcutaneous tissue. The pedicle of the flap is maintained at the base of the island, serving as the blood supply to the flap.

• The periphery of the flap and surrounding tissue is undermined to facilitate movement superiorly into the cutaneous portion of the defect.

• A single buried vertical mattress suture can be placed at the advancing border of the island, holding it in place at the anticipated location of the vermilion border. The secondary defect created by the advancing V is closed to help push the island into place and prevent downward tension on the free margin of the lip.

• The remaining defect of the vermilion lip is closed by removing Burow triangles at the horizontal edges on each side of the remaining defect (Figure, B). The triangles are removed completely within the mucosal lip, with the inferior edge of the triangle placed at the vermilion border.

• The defect is closed in a primary linear horizontal fashion, using buried vertical mattress sutures and cutaneous approximation.

The final appearance of the sutured defect yields a small lateral extension at the superior edge of the V to Y closure, giving the appearance of wings on the Y, prompting us to term the closure V-to-flying-Y (Figure, C).

Although the limited portion of the mucosal lip that is closed in this fashion might appear thinner than the remaining lip, it generally yields a cosmetically acceptable result in the properly selected patient. Our experience also has shown an improvement in this difference in the months following repair. A full mucosal advancement flap might result in a more uniform appearance of the lower lip, but it is a larger and more difficult procedure for the patient to endure. Additionally, a full mucosal advancement flap risks uniformly creating a much thinner lip.

Postoperative Course
Sutures were removed 1 week postoperatively. Proper location of the vermilion border, without distortion of the free margin, was demonstrated. At 11-month follow-up, excellent cosmetic and functional results were noted (Figure, D).

Practice Implications

This repair (1) demonstrates an elegant method of closing a relatively shallow defect that crosses the vermilion border and (2) allows the surgeon to address each cosmetic subunit individually. We have found that this repair provides excellent cosmetic and functional results, with little morbidity.

The lip is a common site of nonmelanoma squamous cell carcinoma. Poorly planned closing after excision of the tumor risks notable impairment of function or cosmetic distortion. When a defect of the lip crosses cosmetic subunits, it is helpful to repair each subunit individually. V-to-flying-Y closure is an effective method to close defects that cross the vermilion border, resulting in well-preserved cosmetic appearance and function.

Intentional tanning—through sun exposure and tanning beds—is an easily avoidable contributor to skin cancer development and an important area for public education. Since the advent of social media, a correlation between social media use and increased indoor tanning behaviors has been reported.¹ In 2010, 11.3% of US adults aged 18 to 29 years reported using a tanning bed in the last 12 months.² The American Academy of Dermatology first published their “Position Statement on Indoor Tanning” in 1998, endorsing a ban on the sale of indoor tanning equipment for nonmedical purposes.³

Although there has been no outright ban on indoor tanning, regulations have been put in place in many states—including Texas, where (as of 2013) a person younger than 18 years must have written consent from their parent(s) to use a tanning bed. Despite efforts of organizations including the American Academy of Dermatology and the government to educate the public on skin cancer prevention and sun safety, the skin cancer rate has been steadily increasing over the last 20 years.

There is a constant campaign among dermatologists to educate their patients on how to reduce or avoid the risk for skin cancer, including the use of sunscreen and avoidance of tanning. Adolescents and young adults are an especially important demographic to reach and educate because increased UV light exposure during these years leads to a greatly increased risk for skin cancer later in life.⁴ Data on the overall prevalence of tanning and the demographics of participation in tanning activities are important to capture and can be used to efficiently target higher-risk populations.

In this study, we aimed to investigate the attitudes and behaviors of adolescents and young adults regarding sun protection and tanning. We also aimed to determine which avenues, including social media, would be most effective at educating about skin cancer awareness and sun protection to the higher-risk younger population.

Materials and Methods

We developed an institutional review board–approved protocol for the prospective collection of data from registered patients at the dermatology clinic of the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health at San Antonio. A paper survey containing 15 rating-scale questions was administered to 60 patients aged 13 to 27 years. Surveys were administered during intake, prior to the patients’ visit with a dermatologist; all visits were of a functional (not cosmetic) nature. Data collection spanned June to August 2018. Survey results were entered into Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software for qualitative analysis.

Results

Sixty patients responded to the survey. The mean age of respondents was 19.5 years. No surveys were excluded from the data set. Table 1 provides baseline characteristics of respondents. Some respondents left questions unanswered, resulting in questions with fewer than 60 responses.

Among respondents to the survey, 70% (42/60) reported it is very important to protect their skin from sun exposure, and 30% (18/60) reported it is somewhat important. Regarding sunscreen use, 70% (42/60) indicated they use sunscreen only before outdoor activities, 12% (7/60) use sunscreen daily, and 17% (10/60) never use sunscreen. Of those who use sunscreen, 52% (28/54) do so to prevent skin damage and aging and 44% (24/54) to prevent skin cancer. Twenty-three percent (13/56) of respondents reported finding tanned skin attractive; 26% (14/55) reported wanting to be tan. Looking at race, 28% (10/36) of Whites, 25% (5/20) of Spanish/Hispanic/Latinos, and 22% (2/9) of Asians found tanned skin attractive; no Black respondents found tanned skin attractive.

Regarding tanning, 12% (7/57) reported using a tanning bed in their lifetime and 4% (2/57) in the last year; 34% (19/56) reported deliberately tanning outdoors; and 9% (5/56) reported using sunless or spray-on tanning. Dermatologists (75% [42/56]), primary care physicians (69.6% [39/56]), and parents (46.4% [26/56]) were perceived as more effective sources of skin care education; among media modalities, television (33.9% [19/56]), Instagram (30.4% [17/60]), and YouTube (23.2% [13/60]) were perceived as more effective sources of skin care education (Table 2).

Comment

Perceptions of Tanning
Almost one-quarter of respondents found tanned skin attractive, which might reflect a shift from prior generations. Compared to the 11% of respondents in the 2010 survey,² only 3.5% (2/57) of our respondents reported using a tanning bed in the last year, which could reflect the results of recent Texas legislation restricting the use of tanning beds by adolescents.

An alarming number of respondents reported going outdoors with the intention of tanning; although it appears that indoor tanning education has been successful, this finding shows that there is still a need for sun protection education because outdoor tanning is not a suitable alternative. A small number of respondents reported getting a sunless or spray-on tan, which is a risk-free alternative to indoor tanning.

Despite all respondents stating that protecting skin from the sun is important, most respondents surveyed do not use sunscreen daily. More respondents use sunscreen to prevent damage and aging than to prevent skin cancer. Young people might be more alarmed by the threat of early aging and losing their “youthful appearance” than by the possibility of developing skin cancer in the distant future. This discrepancy might indicate a lack of knowledge and be an important focus for future education efforts.

Perceptions of Trustworthiness of Education Sources
Our findings show dermatologists and primary care physicians are important educators on skin protection. Primary care physicians should remain vigilant to recognize at-risk patients who would benefit from skin protection education, especially those who do not see a dermatologist. Education of young people focusing on their concern over maintaining a youthful appearance instead of the possibility of developing skin cancer in the future might be more effective.

Although education provided by a physician is effective, using media—particularly social media—might be more efficient. Television, Instagram, and YouTube were listed by respondents as the 3 most preferred media outlets for skin health education, which shows important areas of focus for future advertising. Facebook was listed at a surprisingly low level, possibly showing the change in use of certain social media websites among this age group. According to the Pew Research Center, the most widely used social media apps among young adults aged 18 to 29 years are YouTube (91%), Facebook (63%), Instagram (67%), and Snapchat (62%). More than half of the same demographic visit Facebook (74%), Instagram (63%), Snapchat (61%), and YouTube (51%) daily.⁵ Although respondents to our survey were not specifically asked about the frequency of their use of social media and our data set includes patients younger than 18 years, we know that social media use has been increasing over the last decade among adolescents.¹ Therefore, we assume that more than one-half of respondents to our survey use their reported social media platforms daily.

Social media is an underused medium for skin cancer prevention education and can reach those who do not regularly see a dermatologist. Unlike printed pamphlets and posters, advertisements through social media can use metrics such as age, race, gender, and interests to target high-risk individuals.

Study Limitations
This was a single-site study of currently enrolled dermatology patients who might be more aware of skin protection than the general population because they are being treated by a dermatologist. Survey questions regarding demographics, required by our institution, could not effectively differentiate Hispanic and White patients. Respondents could have been subject to the Hawthorne effect—awareness that their behavior is being observed—when responding to the survey because it was administered in the office prior to being seen by a dermatologist.

Intentional tanning—through sun exposure and tanning beds—is an easily avoidable contributor to skin cancer development and an important area for public education. Since the advent of social media, a correlation between social media use and increased indoor tanning behaviors has been reported.¹ In 2010, 11.3% of US adults aged 18 to 29 years reported using a tanning bed in the last 12 months.² The American Academy of Dermatology first published their “Position Statement on Indoor Tanning” in 1998, endorsing a ban on the sale of indoor tanning equipment for nonmedical purposes.³

Although there has been no outright ban on indoor tanning, regulations have been put in place in many states—including Texas, where (as of 2013) a person younger than 18 years must have written consent from their parent(s) to use a tanning bed. Despite efforts of organizations including the American Academy of Dermatology and the government to educate the public on skin cancer prevention and sun safety, the skin cancer rate has been steadily increasing over the last 20 years.

There is a constant campaign among dermatologists to educate their patients on how to reduce or avoid the risk for skin cancer, including the use of sunscreen and avoidance of tanning. Adolescents and young adults are an especially important demographic to reach and educate because increased UV light exposure during these years leads to a greatly increased risk for skin cancer later in life.⁴ Data on the overall prevalence of tanning and the demographics of participation in tanning activities are important to capture and can be used to efficiently target higher-risk populations.

In this study, we aimed to investigate the attitudes and behaviors of adolescents and young adults regarding sun protection and tanning. We also aimed to determine which avenues, including social media, would be most effective at educating about skin cancer awareness and sun protection to the higher-risk younger population.

Materials and Methods

We developed an institutional review board–approved protocol for the prospective collection of data from registered patients at the dermatology clinic of the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health at San Antonio. A paper survey containing 15 rating-scale questions was administered to 60 patients aged 13 to 27 years. Surveys were administered during intake, prior to the patients’ visit with a dermatologist; all visits were of a functional (not cosmetic) nature. Data collection spanned June to August 2018. Survey results were entered into Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software for qualitative analysis.

Results

Sixty patients responded to the survey. The mean age of respondents was 19.5 years. No surveys were excluded from the data set. Table 1 provides baseline characteristics of respondents. Some respondents left questions unanswered, resulting in questions with fewer than 60 responses.

Among respondents to the survey, 70% (42/60) reported it is very important to protect their skin from sun exposure, and 30% (18/60) reported it is somewhat important. Regarding sunscreen use, 70% (42/60) indicated they use sunscreen only before outdoor activities, 12% (7/60) use sunscreen daily, and 17% (10/60) never use sunscreen. Of those who use sunscreen, 52% (28/54) do so to prevent skin damage and aging and 44% (24/54) to prevent skin cancer. Twenty-three percent (13/56) of respondents reported finding tanned skin attractive; 26% (14/55) reported wanting to be tan. Looking at race, 28% (10/36) of Whites, 25% (5/20) of Spanish/Hispanic/Latinos, and 22% (2/9) of Asians found tanned skin attractive; no Black respondents found tanned skin attractive.

Regarding tanning, 12% (7/57) reported using a tanning bed in their lifetime and 4% (2/57) in the last year; 34% (19/56) reported deliberately tanning outdoors; and 9% (5/56) reported using sunless or spray-on tanning. Dermatologists (75% [42/56]), primary care physicians (69.6% [39/56]), and parents (46.4% [26/56]) were perceived as more effective sources of skin care education; among media modalities, television (33.9% [19/56]), Instagram (30.4% [17/60]), and YouTube (23.2% [13/60]) were perceived as more effective sources of skin care education (Table 2).

Comment

Perceptions of Tanning
Almost one-quarter of respondents found tanned skin attractive, which might reflect a shift from prior generations. Compared to the 11% of respondents in the 2010 survey,² only 3.5% (2/57) of our respondents reported using a tanning bed in the last year, which could reflect the results of recent Texas legislation restricting the use of tanning beds by adolescents.

An alarming number of respondents reported going outdoors with the intention of tanning; although it appears that indoor tanning education has been successful, this finding shows that there is still a need for sun protection education because outdoor tanning is not a suitable alternative. A small number of respondents reported getting a sunless or spray-on tan, which is a risk-free alternative to indoor tanning.

Despite all respondents stating that protecting skin from the sun is important, most respondents surveyed do not use sunscreen daily. More respondents use sunscreen to prevent damage and aging than to prevent skin cancer. Young people might be more alarmed by the threat of early aging and losing their “youthful appearance” than by the possibility of developing skin cancer in the distant future. This discrepancy might indicate a lack of knowledge and be an important focus for future education efforts.

Perceptions of Trustworthiness of Education Sources
Our findings show dermatologists and primary care physicians are important educators on skin protection. Primary care physicians should remain vigilant to recognize at-risk patients who would benefit from skin protection education, especially those who do not see a dermatologist. Education of young people focusing on their concern over maintaining a youthful appearance instead of the possibility of developing skin cancer in the future might be more effective.

Although education provided by a physician is effective, using media—particularly social media—might be more efficient. Television, Instagram, and YouTube were listed by respondents as the 3 most preferred media outlets for skin health education, which shows important areas of focus for future advertising. Facebook was listed at a surprisingly low level, possibly showing the change in use of certain social media websites among this age group. According to the Pew Research Center, the most widely used social media apps among young adults aged 18 to 29 years are YouTube (91%), Facebook (63%), Instagram (67%), and Snapchat (62%). More than half of the same demographic visit Facebook (74%), Instagram (63%), Snapchat (61%), and YouTube (51%) daily.⁵ Although respondents to our survey were not specifically asked about the frequency of their use of social media and our data set includes patients younger than 18 years, we know that social media use has been increasing over the last decade among adolescents.¹ Therefore, we assume that more than one-half of respondents to our survey use their reported social media platforms daily.

Social media is an underused medium for skin cancer prevention education and can reach those who do not regularly see a dermatologist. Unlike printed pamphlets and posters, advertisements through social media can use metrics such as age, race, gender, and interests to target high-risk individuals.

Study Limitations
This was a single-site study of currently enrolled dermatology patients who might be more aware of skin protection than the general population because they are being treated by a dermatologist. Survey questions regarding demographics, required by our institution, could not effectively differentiate Hispanic and White patients. Respondents could have been subject to the Hawthorne effect—awareness that their behavior is being observed—when responding to the survey because it was administered in the office prior to being seen by a dermatologist.

Intentional tanning—through sun exposure and tanning beds—is an easily avoidable contributor to skin cancer development and an important area for public education. Since the advent of social media, a correlation between social media use and increased indoor tanning behaviors has been reported.¹ In 2010, 11.3% of US adults aged 18 to 29 years reported using a tanning bed in the last 12 months.² The American Academy of Dermatology first published their “Position Statement on Indoor Tanning” in 1998, endorsing a ban on the sale of indoor tanning equipment for nonmedical purposes.³

Although there has been no outright ban on indoor tanning, regulations have been put in place in many states—including Texas, where (as of 2013) a person younger than 18 years must have written consent from their parent(s) to use a tanning bed. Despite efforts of organizations including the American Academy of Dermatology and the government to educate the public on skin cancer prevention and sun safety, the skin cancer rate has been steadily increasing over the last 20 years.

There is a constant campaign among dermatologists to educate their patients on how to reduce or avoid the risk for skin cancer, including the use of sunscreen and avoidance of tanning. Adolescents and young adults are an especially important demographic to reach and educate because increased UV light exposure during these years leads to a greatly increased risk for skin cancer later in life.⁴ Data on the overall prevalence of tanning and the demographics of participation in tanning activities are important to capture and can be used to efficiently target higher-risk populations.

In this study, we aimed to investigate the attitudes and behaviors of adolescents and young adults regarding sun protection and tanning. We also aimed to determine which avenues, including social media, would be most effective at educating about skin cancer awareness and sun protection to the higher-risk younger population.

Materials and Methods

We developed an institutional review board–approved protocol for the prospective collection of data from registered patients at the dermatology clinic of the Mays Cancer Center at the University of Texas Health at San Antonio. A paper survey containing 15 rating-scale questions was administered to 60 patients aged 13 to 27 years. Surveys were administered during intake, prior to the patients’ visit with a dermatologist; all visits were of a functional (not cosmetic) nature. Data collection spanned June to August 2018. Survey results were entered into Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software for qualitative analysis.

Results

Sixty patients responded to the survey. The mean age of respondents was 19.5 years. No surveys were excluded from the data set. Table 1 provides baseline characteristics of respondents. Some respondents left questions unanswered, resulting in questions with fewer than 60 responses.

Among respondents to the survey, 70% (42/60) reported it is very important to protect their skin from sun exposure, and 30% (18/60) reported it is somewhat important. Regarding sunscreen use, 70% (42/60) indicated they use sunscreen only before outdoor activities, 12% (7/60) use sunscreen daily, and 17% (10/60) never use sunscreen. Of those who use sunscreen, 52% (28/54) do so to prevent skin damage and aging and 44% (24/54) to prevent skin cancer. Twenty-three percent (13/56) of respondents reported finding tanned skin attractive; 26% (14/55) reported wanting to be tan. Looking at race, 28% (10/36) of Whites, 25% (5/20) of Spanish/Hispanic/Latinos, and 22% (2/9) of Asians found tanned skin attractive; no Black respondents found tanned skin attractive.

Regarding tanning, 12% (7/57) reported using a tanning bed in their lifetime and 4% (2/57) in the last year; 34% (19/56) reported deliberately tanning outdoors; and 9% (5/56) reported using sunless or spray-on tanning. Dermatologists (75% [42/56]), primary care physicians (69.6% [39/56]), and parents (46.4% [26/56]) were perceived as more effective sources of skin care education; among media modalities, television (33.9% [19/56]), Instagram (30.4% [17/60]), and YouTube (23.2% [13/60]) were perceived as more effective sources of skin care education (Table 2).

Comment

Perceptions of Tanning
Almost one-quarter of respondents found tanned skin attractive, which might reflect a shift from prior generations. Compared to the 11% of respondents in the 2010 survey,² only 3.5% (2/57) of our respondents reported using a tanning bed in the last year, which could reflect the results of recent Texas legislation restricting the use of tanning beds by adolescents.

An alarming number of respondents reported going outdoors with the intention of tanning; although it appears that indoor tanning education has been successful, this finding shows that there is still a need for sun protection education because outdoor tanning is not a suitable alternative. A small number of respondents reported getting a sunless or spray-on tan, which is a risk-free alternative to indoor tanning.

Despite all respondents stating that protecting skin from the sun is important, most respondents surveyed do not use sunscreen daily. More respondents use sunscreen to prevent damage and aging than to prevent skin cancer. Young people might be more alarmed by the threat of early aging and losing their “youthful appearance” than by the possibility of developing skin cancer in the distant future. This discrepancy might indicate a lack of knowledge and be an important focus for future education efforts.

Perceptions of Trustworthiness of Education Sources
Our findings show dermatologists and primary care physicians are important educators on skin protection. Primary care physicians should remain vigilant to recognize at-risk patients who would benefit from skin protection education, especially those who do not see a dermatologist. Education of young people focusing on their concern over maintaining a youthful appearance instead of the possibility of developing skin cancer in the future might be more effective.

Although education provided by a physician is effective, using media—particularly social media—might be more efficient. Television, Instagram, and YouTube were listed by respondents as the 3 most preferred media outlets for skin health education, which shows important areas of focus for future advertising. Facebook was listed at a surprisingly low level, possibly showing the change in use of certain social media websites among this age group. According to the Pew Research Center, the most widely used social media apps among young adults aged 18 to 29 years are YouTube (91%), Facebook (63%), Instagram (67%), and Snapchat (62%). More than half of the same demographic visit Facebook (74%), Instagram (63%), Snapchat (61%), and YouTube (51%) daily.⁵ Although respondents to our survey were not specifically asked about the frequency of their use of social media and our data set includes patients younger than 18 years, we know that social media use has been increasing over the last decade among adolescents.¹ Therefore, we assume that more than one-half of respondents to our survey use their reported social media platforms daily.

Social media is an underused medium for skin cancer prevention education and can reach those who do not regularly see a dermatologist. Unlike printed pamphlets and posters, advertisements through social media can use metrics such as age, race, gender, and interests to target high-risk individuals.

Study Limitations
This was a single-site study of currently enrolled dermatology patients who might be more aware of skin protection than the general population because they are being treated by a dermatologist. Survey questions regarding demographics, required by our institution, could not effectively differentiate Hispanic and White patients. Respondents could have been subject to the Hawthorne effect—awareness that their behavior is being observed—when responding to the survey because it was administered in the office prior to being seen by a dermatologist.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) entails multiple time-consuming surgical and histological examinations for each patient. As surgical stages are performed and histological sections are processed, an efficient communication method among providers, medical assistants, histotechnologists, and patients is necessary to avoid delays. To address these and other communication issues, providers have focused on ways to increase clinic efficiency and improve patient-reported outcomes by utilizing new or repurposed communication technologies in their Mohs practice. 

Prior reports have highlighted the utility of hands-free headsets that allow real-time communication among staff members as a means of increasing clinic efficiency and decreasing patient wait times.^1-4 These systems may mediate a more rapid turnover between stages by mitigating the need for surgeons and support staff to assemble within a designated workspace.^1,3,4 However, there is no single or standardized communication method that best suits all surgical suites and MMS practices. Our study aimed to identify the current communication strategies employed by Mohs surgeons and thereby ascertain which method(s) portend(s) the highest benefit in average daily time savings and provider-perceived patient satisfaction.

Materials and Methods

Survey Instrument
A new 10-question electronic survey was published on the SurveyMonkey website, and a link to the survey was provided in a quarterly email that originated from the American College of Mohs Surgery and was distributed to all 1735 active members. Responses were obtained from January 2019 to February 2019.

Statistical Analysis
A statistical analysis was done to determine any significant associations among the providers’ responses. P<.05 was used to determine statistical significance. A Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to identify significant associations between the number of rooms and the communication systems that were used. Thus, 7 total tests—1 for each device (whiteboard, light system, flag system, wired intercom, wireless intercom, walkie-talkie, or headset)—were conducted. The Cochran-Armitage test also was used to determine whether the probability of using the device was affected by the number of stations/surgical rooms that were attended by the Mohs surgeons. To determine whether the communication devices used were associated with higher patient satisfaction, a χ² test was conducted for each device (7 total tests), testing the categories of using that device (yes/no) and patient satisfaction (yes/no). A Fisher exact test of independence was used in any case where the proportion for the device and patient satisfaction was 25% or higher. To determine whether the communication method was associated with increased time savings, 7 total Cochran-Armitage tests were conducted, 1 for each device. A logistic regression model was used to determine whether there was a significant association between the number of stations and the likelihood of reporting patient satisfaction.

Results

Eighty-eight surgeons responded to the survey, with a response rate of 5% (88/1735). A total of 55 surgeons completed the survey in its entirety and were included in the data analysis. The most commonly used communication mediums were whiteboards (29/55 [53%]), followed by a flag system (16/55 [29%]) and a light system (13/55 [24%]). Most Mohs surgeons (52/55 [95%]) used the communication media to communicate with their staff only, and 76% (42/55) of Mohs surgeons believed that their communication media contributed to higher patient satisfaction. Overall, 58% (32/55) of Mohs surgeons stated that their communication media saved more than 15 minutes (on average) per day. The use of a whiteboard and/or flag system was reported as the least efficient method, with average daily time savings of 13 minutes. With the introduction of newer technology (wired or wireless intercoms, headsets, walkie-talkies, or internal messaging systems such as Skype) to the whiteboard and/or flag system, the time savings increased by 10 minutes per day. Nearly 25% (14/55) of surgeons utilized more than 1 communication system.

As the number of stations in an MMS suite increased, the probability of using a whiteboard to track the progress of the cases decreased. There were no statistically significant associations identified between the number of stations and the use of other communication devices (ie, flag system, light system, wireless intercom, wired intercom, walkie-talkie, headset). The stratified percentages of the amount of time savings for each communication modality are presented in the Figure (whiteboards and headsets were excluded because they did not increase time savings). The use of a light system was the only communication modality found to be statistically associated with an increase in provider-reported time savings (P=.0482; Figure). In addition, our analysis did not show an improvement in provider-reported patient satisfaction with any of the current systems used in MMS clinics.

Comment

The process of transmitting information among the medical team during MMS is a complex interplay involving the relay of crucial information, with many opportunities for the introduction of distraction and error. Despite numerous improvements in the efficiency of the preparation of histological specimens and implementation of various time-saving and tissue-saving surgical interventions, relatively little attention has been given to address the sometimes chaotic and challenging process of organizing results from each stage of multiple patients in an MMS surgical suite.⁵

As demonstrated by our survey, incorporation of a light-based system into an MMS clinic may improve workplace efficiency by decreasing the redundant use of support staff and allowing Mohs surgeons to transition from one station to the next seamlessly. Light-based communication systems provide an immediate notification for support staff via color-coded and/or numerically coded indicators on input switches located outside and inside the examination/surgery rooms. The switch indicators can be depressed with minimal disruption from station to station, thereby foregoing the need to interrupt an ongoing excision or closure to convey the status of the case. These systems may then permit enhanced clinic and workflow efficiency, which may help to shorten patient wait times.

Conclusion

Our study supports the use of light-based communication systems in MMS suites to improve efficiency in the clinic. Based on our analysis, light-based communication methods were significantly associated with improved time savings (P=.0482). Our study did not show an improvement in provider-reported satisfaction with any of the current systems used in MMS clinics. We hope that this information will help guide providers in implementing new communication techniques to improve clinic efficiency. 



Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ms. Kathy Kyler (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) for her assistance in preparing this manuscript. Support for Dr. Chen and Mr. Stubblefield was provided through National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences [Grant 2U54GM104938-06, PI Judith James].

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) entails multiple time-consuming surgical and histological examinations for each patient. As surgical stages are performed and histological sections are processed, an efficient communication method among providers, medical assistants, histotechnologists, and patients is necessary to avoid delays. To address these and other communication issues, providers have focused on ways to increase clinic efficiency and improve patient-reported outcomes by utilizing new or repurposed communication technologies in their Mohs practice. 

Prior reports have highlighted the utility of hands-free headsets that allow real-time communication among staff members as a means of increasing clinic efficiency and decreasing patient wait times.^1-4 These systems may mediate a more rapid turnover between stages by mitigating the need for surgeons and support staff to assemble within a designated workspace.^1,3,4 However, there is no single or standardized communication method that best suits all surgical suites and MMS practices. Our study aimed to identify the current communication strategies employed by Mohs surgeons and thereby ascertain which method(s) portend(s) the highest benefit in average daily time savings and provider-perceived patient satisfaction.

Materials and Methods

Survey Instrument
A new 10-question electronic survey was published on the SurveyMonkey website, and a link to the survey was provided in a quarterly email that originated from the American College of Mohs Surgery and was distributed to all 1735 active members. Responses were obtained from January 2019 to February 2019.

Statistical Analysis
A statistical analysis was done to determine any significant associations among the providers’ responses. P<.05 was used to determine statistical significance. A Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to identify significant associations between the number of rooms and the communication systems that were used. Thus, 7 total tests—1 for each device (whiteboard, light system, flag system, wired intercom, wireless intercom, walkie-talkie, or headset)—were conducted. The Cochran-Armitage test also was used to determine whether the probability of using the device was affected by the number of stations/surgical rooms that were attended by the Mohs surgeons. To determine whether the communication devices used were associated with higher patient satisfaction, a χ² test was conducted for each device (7 total tests), testing the categories of using that device (yes/no) and patient satisfaction (yes/no). A Fisher exact test of independence was used in any case where the proportion for the device and patient satisfaction was 25% or higher. To determine whether the communication method was associated with increased time savings, 7 total Cochran-Armitage tests were conducted, 1 for each device. A logistic regression model was used to determine whether there was a significant association between the number of stations and the likelihood of reporting patient satisfaction.

Results

Eighty-eight surgeons responded to the survey, with a response rate of 5% (88/1735). A total of 55 surgeons completed the survey in its entirety and were included in the data analysis. The most commonly used communication mediums were whiteboards (29/55 [53%]), followed by a flag system (16/55 [29%]) and a light system (13/55 [24%]). Most Mohs surgeons (52/55 [95%]) used the communication media to communicate with their staff only, and 76% (42/55) of Mohs surgeons believed that their communication media contributed to higher patient satisfaction. Overall, 58% (32/55) of Mohs surgeons stated that their communication media saved more than 15 minutes (on average) per day. The use of a whiteboard and/or flag system was reported as the least efficient method, with average daily time savings of 13 minutes. With the introduction of newer technology (wired or wireless intercoms, headsets, walkie-talkies, or internal messaging systems such as Skype) to the whiteboard and/or flag system, the time savings increased by 10 minutes per day. Nearly 25% (14/55) of surgeons utilized more than 1 communication system.

As the number of stations in an MMS suite increased, the probability of using a whiteboard to track the progress of the cases decreased. There were no statistically significant associations identified between the number of stations and the use of other communication devices (ie, flag system, light system, wireless intercom, wired intercom, walkie-talkie, headset). The stratified percentages of the amount of time savings for each communication modality are presented in the Figure (whiteboards and headsets were excluded because they did not increase time savings). The use of a light system was the only communication modality found to be statistically associated with an increase in provider-reported time savings (P=.0482; Figure). In addition, our analysis did not show an improvement in provider-reported patient satisfaction with any of the current systems used in MMS clinics.

Comment

The process of transmitting information among the medical team during MMS is a complex interplay involving the relay of crucial information, with many opportunities for the introduction of distraction and error. Despite numerous improvements in the efficiency of the preparation of histological specimens and implementation of various time-saving and tissue-saving surgical interventions, relatively little attention has been given to address the sometimes chaotic and challenging process of organizing results from each stage of multiple patients in an MMS surgical suite.⁵

As demonstrated by our survey, incorporation of a light-based system into an MMS clinic may improve workplace efficiency by decreasing the redundant use of support staff and allowing Mohs surgeons to transition from one station to the next seamlessly. Light-based communication systems provide an immediate notification for support staff via color-coded and/or numerically coded indicators on input switches located outside and inside the examination/surgery rooms. The switch indicators can be depressed with minimal disruption from station to station, thereby foregoing the need to interrupt an ongoing excision or closure to convey the status of the case. These systems may then permit enhanced clinic and workflow efficiency, which may help to shorten patient wait times.

Conclusion

Our study supports the use of light-based communication systems in MMS suites to improve efficiency in the clinic. Based on our analysis, light-based communication methods were significantly associated with improved time savings (P=.0482). Our study did not show an improvement in provider-reported satisfaction with any of the current systems used in MMS clinics. We hope that this information will help guide providers in implementing new communication techniques to improve clinic efficiency. 



Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ms. Kathy Kyler (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) for her assistance in preparing this manuscript. Support for Dr. Chen and Mr. Stubblefield was provided through National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences [Grant 2U54GM104938-06, PI Judith James].

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) entails multiple time-consuming surgical and histological examinations for each patient. As surgical stages are performed and histological sections are processed, an efficient communication method among providers, medical assistants, histotechnologists, and patients is necessary to avoid delays. To address these and other communication issues, providers have focused on ways to increase clinic efficiency and improve patient-reported outcomes by utilizing new or repurposed communication technologies in their Mohs practice. 

Prior reports have highlighted the utility of hands-free headsets that allow real-time communication among staff members as a means of increasing clinic efficiency and decreasing patient wait times.^1-4 These systems may mediate a more rapid turnover between stages by mitigating the need for surgeons and support staff to assemble within a designated workspace.^1,3,4 However, there is no single or standardized communication method that best suits all surgical suites and MMS practices. Our study aimed to identify the current communication strategies employed by Mohs surgeons and thereby ascertain which method(s) portend(s) the highest benefit in average daily time savings and provider-perceived patient satisfaction.

Materials and Methods

Survey Instrument
A new 10-question electronic survey was published on the SurveyMonkey website, and a link to the survey was provided in a quarterly email that originated from the American College of Mohs Surgery and was distributed to all 1735 active members. Responses were obtained from January 2019 to February 2019.

Statistical Analysis
A statistical analysis was done to determine any significant associations among the providers’ responses. P<.05 was used to determine statistical significance. A Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to identify significant associations between the number of rooms and the communication systems that were used. Thus, 7 total tests—1 for each device (whiteboard, light system, flag system, wired intercom, wireless intercom, walkie-talkie, or headset)—were conducted. The Cochran-Armitage test also was used to determine whether the probability of using the device was affected by the number of stations/surgical rooms that were attended by the Mohs surgeons. To determine whether the communication devices used were associated with higher patient satisfaction, a χ² test was conducted for each device (7 total tests), testing the categories of using that device (yes/no) and patient satisfaction (yes/no). A Fisher exact test of independence was used in any case where the proportion for the device and patient satisfaction was 25% or higher. To determine whether the communication method was associated with increased time savings, 7 total Cochran-Armitage tests were conducted, 1 for each device. A logistic regression model was used to determine whether there was a significant association between the number of stations and the likelihood of reporting patient satisfaction.

Results

Eighty-eight surgeons responded to the survey, with a response rate of 5% (88/1735). A total of 55 surgeons completed the survey in its entirety and were included in the data analysis. The most commonly used communication mediums were whiteboards (29/55 [53%]), followed by a flag system (16/55 [29%]) and a light system (13/55 [24%]). Most Mohs surgeons (52/55 [95%]) used the communication media to communicate with their staff only, and 76% (42/55) of Mohs surgeons believed that their communication media contributed to higher patient satisfaction. Overall, 58% (32/55) of Mohs surgeons stated that their communication media saved more than 15 minutes (on average) per day. The use of a whiteboard and/or flag system was reported as the least efficient method, with average daily time savings of 13 minutes. With the introduction of newer technology (wired or wireless intercoms, headsets, walkie-talkies, or internal messaging systems such as Skype) to the whiteboard and/or flag system, the time savings increased by 10 minutes per day. Nearly 25% (14/55) of surgeons utilized more than 1 communication system.

As the number of stations in an MMS suite increased, the probability of using a whiteboard to track the progress of the cases decreased. There were no statistically significant associations identified between the number of stations and the use of other communication devices (ie, flag system, light system, wireless intercom, wired intercom, walkie-talkie, headset). The stratified percentages of the amount of time savings for each communication modality are presented in the Figure (whiteboards and headsets were excluded because they did not increase time savings). The use of a light system was the only communication modality found to be statistically associated with an increase in provider-reported time savings (P=.0482; Figure). In addition, our analysis did not show an improvement in provider-reported patient satisfaction with any of the current systems used in MMS clinics.

Comment

The process of transmitting information among the medical team during MMS is a complex interplay involving the relay of crucial information, with many opportunities for the introduction of distraction and error. Despite numerous improvements in the efficiency of the preparation of histological specimens and implementation of various time-saving and tissue-saving surgical interventions, relatively little attention has been given to address the sometimes chaotic and challenging process of organizing results from each stage of multiple patients in an MMS surgical suite.⁵

As demonstrated by our survey, incorporation of a light-based system into an MMS clinic may improve workplace efficiency by decreasing the redundant use of support staff and allowing Mohs surgeons to transition from one station to the next seamlessly. Light-based communication systems provide an immediate notification for support staff via color-coded and/or numerically coded indicators on input switches located outside and inside the examination/surgery rooms. The switch indicators can be depressed with minimal disruption from station to station, thereby foregoing the need to interrupt an ongoing excision or closure to convey the status of the case. These systems may then permit enhanced clinic and workflow efficiency, which may help to shorten patient wait times.

Conclusion

Our study supports the use of light-based communication systems in MMS suites to improve efficiency in the clinic. Based on our analysis, light-based communication methods were significantly associated with improved time savings (P=.0482). Our study did not show an improvement in provider-reported satisfaction with any of the current systems used in MMS clinics. We hope that this information will help guide providers in implementing new communication techniques to improve clinic efficiency. 



Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ms. Kathy Kyler (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) for her assistance in preparing this manuscript. Support for Dr. Chen and Mr. Stubblefield was provided through National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences [Grant 2U54GM104938-06, PI Judith James].