MDedge Dermatology

On January 1, 2024, a new add-on complexity code, G2211, was implemented to the documentation of evaluation and management (E/M) visits.¹ Created by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), G2211 is defined as “visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious, or complex condition.”² It is an add-on code, meaning that it must be listed with either a new or established outpatient E/M visit.

G2211 originally was introduced in the 2021 Proposed Rule but was delayed via a congressional mandate for 3 years.¹ It originally was estimated that this code would be billed with 90% of all office visit claims, accounting for an approximately $3.3 billion increase in physician fee schedule spending; however, this estimate was revised with its reintroduction in the 2024 Final Rule, and it currently is estimated that it will be billed with 38% of all office visit claims.^3,4

This add-on code was created to capture the inherent complexity of an E/M visit that is derived from the longitudinal nature of the physician-patient relationship and to better account for the additional resources of these outpatient E/M visits.⁵ Although these criteria often are met in the setting of an E/M visit within a primary care specialty (eg, family practice, internal medicine, ­obstetrics/­gynecology, pediatrics), this code is not restricted to medical professionals based on specialties. The CMS noted that “the most important information used to determine whether the add-on code could be billed is the relationship between the practitioner and the patient,” specifically if they are fulfilling one of the following roles: “the continuing focal point for all needed health care services” or “ongoing care related to a patient's single, serious and complex condition.”⁶

Of note, further definitions regarding what constitutes a single, serious or complex condition have not yet been provided by CMS. The code should not be utilized when the relationship with the patient is of a discrete, routine, or time-limited nature. The resulting care should be personalized and should result in a comprehensive, longitudinal, and continuous relationship with the patient and should involve delivery of team-based care that is accessible, coordinated with other practitioners and providers, and integrated with the broader health care landscape.⁶

Herein, 5 examples are provided of scenarios when G2211 might be utilized as well as when it would not be appropriate to bill for this code.

Example 1

A 48-year-old man (an established patient) with a history of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis presents to a dermatologist for follow-up. The dermatologist has been managing both conditions for 3 years with methotrexate. The patient’s disease is well controlled at the current visit, and he presents for follow-up of disease activity and laboratory monitoring every 3 months. The dermatologist continues the patient on methotrexate after reviewing the risks, benefits, and adverse effects and orders a complete blood cell count and comprehensive metabolic panel.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—Yes, in this case it would be appropriate to bill for G2211. In this example, the physician is providing longitudinal ongoing medical care related to a patient’s single, serious or complex condition—specifically psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis—via managing methotrexate therapy.

Let’s alter the previous example slightly: A 48-year-old man (an established patient) with a history of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis presents to a dermatologist for follow-up. He is being followed by both a dermatologist and a rheumatologist. The patient is on methotrexate, which was prescribed by the rheumatologist, who also conducts the appropriate laboratory monitoring. The patient’s skin disease currently is well controlled, and the dermatologist discusses this with the patient and advises that he continue to follow up with rheumatology.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—No, in this case it would not be appropriate to utilize G2211. In this example, the dermatologist is providing longitudinal ongoing medical care; however, unlike in the first example, much of the ongoing medical care—in particular the management of the patient’s methotrexate therapy—is being performed by the rheumatologist. Therefore, although these conditions are serious or complex, the dermatologist is not the primary manager of treatment, and it would not be appropriate to bill for G2211.

Example 3

A 35-year-old woman (an established patient) presents to a dermatologist for follow-up of hidradenitis suppurativa. She currently is receiving infliximab infusions that are managed by the dermatologist. At the current presentation, physical examination reveals several persistent active lesions. After discussing possible treatment options, the dermatologist elects to continue infliximab therapy and schedule a deroofing procedure of the ­persistent areas.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—Yes, in this example it would be appropriate to utilize G2211. The patient has hidradenitis suppurativa, which would be considered a single, serious or complex condition. Additionally, the dermatologist is the primary manager of this condition by prescribing infliximab as well as counseling the patient on the appropriateness of procedural interventions and scheduling for these procedures; the dermatologist also is providing ongoing longitudinal care.

Example 4

Let’s alter the previous example slightly: A 35-year-old woman (an established patient) presents to a dermatologist for follow-up of hidradenitis suppurativa. She currently is receiving infliximab infusions, which are managed by the dermatologist. At the current presentation, physical examination reveals several persistent active lesions. After discussing possible treatment options, the dermatologist elects to perform intralesional triamcinolone injections to active areas during the current visit.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—No, in this case it would not be appropriate to bill for G2211. Similar to Example 3, the dermatologist is treating a single, serious and complex condition and is primarily managing the disease and providing longitudinal care; however, in this case the dermatologist also is performing a minor procedure during the visit: injection of intralesional triamcinolone.

Importantly, G2211 cannot be utilized when modifier -25 is being appended to an outpatient E/M visit. Modifier -25 is defined as a “significant, separately identifiable evaluation and management service by the same physician or other qualified health care professional on the same day of the procedure or other service.”⁷ Modifier -25 is utilized when a minor procedure is performed by a qualified health care professional on the same day (generally during the same visit) as an E/M visit. Therefore, G2211 cannot be utilized when a minor procedure (eg, a tangential biopsy, punch biopsy, destruction or intralesional injection into skin) is performed during a visit.

Example 5

A 6-year-old girl presents to a dermatologist for a new rash on the trunk that started 5 days after an upper respiratory infection. The dermatologist evaluates the patient and identifies a blanchable macular eruption on the trunk; the patient is diagnosed with a viral exanthem. Because the patient reported associated pruritus, topical triamcinolone is prescribed.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—No, in this case it would not be appropriate to bill for G2211. A viral exanthem would not be considered an ongoing single, serious or complex condition and would be more consistent with a discrete condition; therefore, even though the dermatologist is primarily managing the disease process, it still would not fulfill the criteria necessary to bill for G2211.

Final Thoughts

G2211 is an add-on code created by the CMS that can be utilized in conjunction with an outpatient E/M visit when certain requirements are fulfilled. Specifically, this code can be utilized when the dermatologist is the primary provider of care for a patient’s ongoing single, serious or complex condition or serves as the continuing focal point for all of the patient’s health care needs. Understanding the nuances associated with this code are critical for ­correct billing.

On January 1, 2024, a new add-on complexity code, G2211, was implemented to the documentation of evaluation and management (E/M) visits.¹ Created by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), G2211 is defined as “visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious, or complex condition.”² It is an add-on code, meaning that it must be listed with either a new or established outpatient E/M visit.

G2211 originally was introduced in the 2021 Proposed Rule but was delayed via a congressional mandate for 3 years.¹ It originally was estimated that this code would be billed with 90% of all office visit claims, accounting for an approximately $3.3 billion increase in physician fee schedule spending; however, this estimate was revised with its reintroduction in the 2024 Final Rule, and it currently is estimated that it will be billed with 38% of all office visit claims.^3,4

This add-on code was created to capture the inherent complexity of an E/M visit that is derived from the longitudinal nature of the physician-patient relationship and to better account for the additional resources of these outpatient E/M visits.⁵ Although these criteria often are met in the setting of an E/M visit within a primary care specialty (eg, family practice, internal medicine, ­obstetrics/­gynecology, pediatrics), this code is not restricted to medical professionals based on specialties. The CMS noted that “the most important information used to determine whether the add-on code could be billed is the relationship between the practitioner and the patient,” specifically if they are fulfilling one of the following roles: “the continuing focal point for all needed health care services” or “ongoing care related to a patient's single, serious and complex condition.”⁶

Of note, further definitions regarding what constitutes a single, serious or complex condition have not yet been provided by CMS. The code should not be utilized when the relationship with the patient is of a discrete, routine, or time-limited nature. The resulting care should be personalized and should result in a comprehensive, longitudinal, and continuous relationship with the patient and should involve delivery of team-based care that is accessible, coordinated with other practitioners and providers, and integrated with the broader health care landscape.⁶

Herein, 5 examples are provided of scenarios when G2211 might be utilized as well as when it would not be appropriate to bill for this code.

Example 1

A 48-year-old man (an established patient) with a history of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis presents to a dermatologist for follow-up. The dermatologist has been managing both conditions for 3 years with methotrexate. The patient’s disease is well controlled at the current visit, and he presents for follow-up of disease activity and laboratory monitoring every 3 months. The dermatologist continues the patient on methotrexate after reviewing the risks, benefits, and adverse effects and orders a complete blood cell count and comprehensive metabolic panel.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—Yes, in this case it would be appropriate to bill for G2211. In this example, the physician is providing longitudinal ongoing medical care related to a patient’s single, serious or complex condition—specifically psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis—via managing methotrexate therapy.

Let’s alter the previous example slightly: A 48-year-old man (an established patient) with a history of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis presents to a dermatologist for follow-up. He is being followed by both a dermatologist and a rheumatologist. The patient is on methotrexate, which was prescribed by the rheumatologist, who also conducts the appropriate laboratory monitoring. The patient’s skin disease currently is well controlled, and the dermatologist discusses this with the patient and advises that he continue to follow up with rheumatology.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—No, in this case it would not be appropriate to utilize G2211. In this example, the dermatologist is providing longitudinal ongoing medical care; however, unlike in the first example, much of the ongoing medical care—in particular the management of the patient’s methotrexate therapy—is being performed by the rheumatologist. Therefore, although these conditions are serious or complex, the dermatologist is not the primary manager of treatment, and it would not be appropriate to bill for G2211.

Example 3

A 35-year-old woman (an established patient) presents to a dermatologist for follow-up of hidradenitis suppurativa. She currently is receiving infliximab infusions that are managed by the dermatologist. At the current presentation, physical examination reveals several persistent active lesions. After discussing possible treatment options, the dermatologist elects to continue infliximab therapy and schedule a deroofing procedure of the ­persistent areas.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—Yes, in this example it would be appropriate to utilize G2211. The patient has hidradenitis suppurativa, which would be considered a single, serious or complex condition. Additionally, the dermatologist is the primary manager of this condition by prescribing infliximab as well as counseling the patient on the appropriateness of procedural interventions and scheduling for these procedures; the dermatologist also is providing ongoing longitudinal care.

Example 4

Let’s alter the previous example slightly: A 35-year-old woman (an established patient) presents to a dermatologist for follow-up of hidradenitis suppurativa. She currently is receiving infliximab infusions, which are managed by the dermatologist. At the current presentation, physical examination reveals several persistent active lesions. After discussing possible treatment options, the dermatologist elects to perform intralesional triamcinolone injections to active areas during the current visit.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—No, in this case it would not be appropriate to bill for G2211. Similar to Example 3, the dermatologist is treating a single, serious and complex condition and is primarily managing the disease and providing longitudinal care; however, in this case the dermatologist also is performing a minor procedure during the visit: injection of intralesional triamcinolone.

Importantly, G2211 cannot be utilized when modifier -25 is being appended to an outpatient E/M visit. Modifier -25 is defined as a “significant, separately identifiable evaluation and management service by the same physician or other qualified health care professional on the same day of the procedure or other service.”⁷ Modifier -25 is utilized when a minor procedure is performed by a qualified health care professional on the same day (generally during the same visit) as an E/M visit. Therefore, G2211 cannot be utilized when a minor procedure (eg, a tangential biopsy, punch biopsy, destruction or intralesional injection into skin) is performed during a visit.

Example 5

A 6-year-old girl presents to a dermatologist for a new rash on the trunk that started 5 days after an upper respiratory infection. The dermatologist evaluates the patient and identifies a blanchable macular eruption on the trunk; the patient is diagnosed with a viral exanthem. Because the patient reported associated pruritus, topical triamcinolone is prescribed.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—No, in this case it would not be appropriate to bill for G2211. A viral exanthem would not be considered an ongoing single, serious or complex condition and would be more consistent with a discrete condition; therefore, even though the dermatologist is primarily managing the disease process, it still would not fulfill the criteria necessary to bill for G2211.

Final Thoughts

G2211 is an add-on code created by the CMS that can be utilized in conjunction with an outpatient E/M visit when certain requirements are fulfilled. Specifically, this code can be utilized when the dermatologist is the primary provider of care for a patient’s ongoing single, serious or complex condition or serves as the continuing focal point for all of the patient’s health care needs. Understanding the nuances associated with this code are critical for ­correct billing.

On January 1, 2024, a new add-on complexity code, G2211, was implemented to the documentation of evaluation and management (E/M) visits.¹ Created by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), G2211 is defined as “visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious, or complex condition.”² It is an add-on code, meaning that it must be listed with either a new or established outpatient E/M visit.

G2211 originally was introduced in the 2021 Proposed Rule but was delayed via a congressional mandate for 3 years.¹ It originally was estimated that this code would be billed with 90% of all office visit claims, accounting for an approximately $3.3 billion increase in physician fee schedule spending; however, this estimate was revised with its reintroduction in the 2024 Final Rule, and it currently is estimated that it will be billed with 38% of all office visit claims.^3,4

This add-on code was created to capture the inherent complexity of an E/M visit that is derived from the longitudinal nature of the physician-patient relationship and to better account for the additional resources of these outpatient E/M visits.⁵ Although these criteria often are met in the setting of an E/M visit within a primary care specialty (eg, family practice, internal medicine, ­obstetrics/­gynecology, pediatrics), this code is not restricted to medical professionals based on specialties. The CMS noted that “the most important information used to determine whether the add-on code could be billed is the relationship between the practitioner and the patient,” specifically if they are fulfilling one of the following roles: “the continuing focal point for all needed health care services” or “ongoing care related to a patient's single, serious and complex condition.”⁶

Of note, further definitions regarding what constitutes a single, serious or complex condition have not yet been provided by CMS. The code should not be utilized when the relationship with the patient is of a discrete, routine, or time-limited nature. The resulting care should be personalized and should result in a comprehensive, longitudinal, and continuous relationship with the patient and should involve delivery of team-based care that is accessible, coordinated with other practitioners and providers, and integrated with the broader health care landscape.⁶

Herein, 5 examples are provided of scenarios when G2211 might be utilized as well as when it would not be appropriate to bill for this code.

Example 1

A 48-year-old man (an established patient) with a history of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis presents to a dermatologist for follow-up. The dermatologist has been managing both conditions for 3 years with methotrexate. The patient’s disease is well controlled at the current visit, and he presents for follow-up of disease activity and laboratory monitoring every 3 months. The dermatologist continues the patient on methotrexate after reviewing the risks, benefits, and adverse effects and orders a complete blood cell count and comprehensive metabolic panel.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—Yes, in this case it would be appropriate to bill for G2211. In this example, the physician is providing longitudinal ongoing medical care related to a patient’s single, serious or complex condition—specifically psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis—via managing methotrexate therapy.

Let’s alter the previous example slightly: A 48-year-old man (an established patient) with a history of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis presents to a dermatologist for follow-up. He is being followed by both a dermatologist and a rheumatologist. The patient is on methotrexate, which was prescribed by the rheumatologist, who also conducts the appropriate laboratory monitoring. The patient’s skin disease currently is well controlled, and the dermatologist discusses this with the patient and advises that he continue to follow up with rheumatology.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—No, in this case it would not be appropriate to utilize G2211. In this example, the dermatologist is providing longitudinal ongoing medical care; however, unlike in the first example, much of the ongoing medical care—in particular the management of the patient’s methotrexate therapy—is being performed by the rheumatologist. Therefore, although these conditions are serious or complex, the dermatologist is not the primary manager of treatment, and it would not be appropriate to bill for G2211.

Example 3

A 35-year-old woman (an established patient) presents to a dermatologist for follow-up of hidradenitis suppurativa. She currently is receiving infliximab infusions that are managed by the dermatologist. At the current presentation, physical examination reveals several persistent active lesions. After discussing possible treatment options, the dermatologist elects to continue infliximab therapy and schedule a deroofing procedure of the ­persistent areas.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—Yes, in this example it would be appropriate to utilize G2211. The patient has hidradenitis suppurativa, which would be considered a single, serious or complex condition. Additionally, the dermatologist is the primary manager of this condition by prescribing infliximab as well as counseling the patient on the appropriateness of procedural interventions and scheduling for these procedures; the dermatologist also is providing ongoing longitudinal care.

Example 4

Let’s alter the previous example slightly: A 35-year-old woman (an established patient) presents to a dermatologist for follow-up of hidradenitis suppurativa. She currently is receiving infliximab infusions, which are managed by the dermatologist. At the current presentation, physical examination reveals several persistent active lesions. After discussing possible treatment options, the dermatologist elects to perform intralesional triamcinolone injections to active areas during the current visit.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—No, in this case it would not be appropriate to bill for G2211. Similar to Example 3, the dermatologist is treating a single, serious and complex condition and is primarily managing the disease and providing longitudinal care; however, in this case the dermatologist also is performing a minor procedure during the visit: injection of intralesional triamcinolone.

Importantly, G2211 cannot be utilized when modifier -25 is being appended to an outpatient E/M visit. Modifier -25 is defined as a “significant, separately identifiable evaluation and management service by the same physician or other qualified health care professional on the same day of the procedure or other service.”⁷ Modifier -25 is utilized when a minor procedure is performed by a qualified health care professional on the same day (generally during the same visit) as an E/M visit. Therefore, G2211 cannot be utilized when a minor procedure (eg, a tangential biopsy, punch biopsy, destruction or intralesional injection into skin) is performed during a visit.

Example 5

A 6-year-old girl presents to a dermatologist for a new rash on the trunk that started 5 days after an upper respiratory infection. The dermatologist evaluates the patient and identifies a blanchable macular eruption on the trunk; the patient is diagnosed with a viral exanthem. Because the patient reported associated pruritus, topical triamcinolone is prescribed.

Would use of G2211 be appropriate for this visit?—No, in this case it would not be appropriate to bill for G2211. A viral exanthem would not be considered an ongoing single, serious or complex condition and would be more consistent with a discrete condition; therefore, even though the dermatologist is primarily managing the disease process, it still would not fulfill the criteria necessary to bill for G2211.

Final Thoughts

G2211 is an add-on code created by the CMS that can be utilized in conjunction with an outpatient E/M visit when certain requirements are fulfilled. Specifically, this code can be utilized when the dermatologist is the primary provider of care for a patient’s ongoing single, serious or complex condition or serves as the continuing focal point for all of the patient’s health care needs. Understanding the nuances associated with this code are critical for ­correct billing.

Practice Gap

Orodynia (OD)—together with glossodynia colloquially termed “burning mouth syndrome”—is a chronic disorder characterized by a burning sensation within the oral cavity without objective clinical signs. It is most common in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.^1,2

Orodynia is a diagnosis of exclusion and is considered after 4 to 6 months of normal imaging and laboratory test results.^1,2 Its pathophysiology is poorly understood, as it can be intermittent or continuous, manifest with a variety of symptoms, and affect various entities of the oral cavity.^3,4 The most common structure affected is the tongue, and symptoms may include xerostomia, dysgeusia, and discomfort.^1,2 Orodynia is a frustrating condition, as many patients do not respond to treatment and experience symptoms for years.^1-4

The current approach to management of OD typically involves a combination of psychosocial strategies and pharmacologic agents. The psychosocial component consists of coping mechanisms (eg, stress management techniques and behavioral therapies) aimed at alleviating the psychological impact of the condition. Pharmacologic agents such as antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and topical medications often are prescribed to address neuropathic pain and dry mouth symptoms.^1,2 Additionally, oral rinses, saliva substitutes, and dietary supplements may be recommended to counteract the discomfort associated with xerostomia.^1,2 However, there is no stepwise protocol, leaving these treatments to be trialed in a disorganized manner.²

The Tools

In our unique approach to managing OD, physicians may employ a variety of tools, including autoantibody profiles, noninvasive salivary gland analysis, saliva analysis, patch testing for allergens, and—if deemed necessary—a minor salivary gland biopsy. The use of specific prescription medications is included in the later stages of our approach.

The Technique

First, exclude inflammatory conditions such as geographic tongue, oral lichen planus, autoimmune bullous disorders, and other treatable conditions such as dyspepsia and Sjögren syndrome using the tools described above. Noninvasive modalities should be exhausted first, and dermatologists/clinicians should exercise clinical judgement to determine whether all options should be trialed, including more invasive/costly ones.

If symptoms persist, clinicians may want to obtain a culture for oral candida. If results are positive, candida may be treated quickly with oral fluconazole. If that treatment fails and fissuring is present, advise the patient on treating the tongue; we recommend lightly brushing the tongue once daily with a hydrogen peroxide 3% solution, followed by rinsing. Next, the patient can allow an active probiotic yogurt to sit on the tongue for at least 1 minute to repopulate it with healthy oral bacteria.

If symptoms persist, prescribe gabapentin 100 to 300 mg to be taken at bedtime. Cevimeline 30 mg 3 times daily can be added to treat symptoms of xerostomia. As a last resort, a low daily dose of trifluoperazine 1 to 2 mg may alleviate the dysesthesia of OD. Because this medication is an antipsychotic, there is an increased risk for adverse effects such as tardive dyskinesia; however, given that we recommend using at most one-twentieth of the dose recommended for psychiatric illnesses such as schizophrenia, the risk appears to be minimal.⁵

We have found this protocol to be more structured, and in our practice, it has led to better outcomes than previously described therapeutic interventions.

Practice Implications

As a chronic condition, OD can be frustrating for patients, as many of them have attempted multiple treatments without success. It also may be challenging for dermatologists who are unfamiliar with its management. This approach to OD provides simple step-by-step diagnostic and therapeutic plans for a condition with an often-uncertain etiology and stubborn response to initial treatments. By following this protocol, dermatologists can be confident in their ability to help patients find relief from OD.

Practice Gap

Orodynia (OD)—together with glossodynia colloquially termed “burning mouth syndrome”—is a chronic disorder characterized by a burning sensation within the oral cavity without objective clinical signs. It is most common in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.^1,2

Orodynia is a diagnosis of exclusion and is considered after 4 to 6 months of normal imaging and laboratory test results.^1,2 Its pathophysiology is poorly understood, as it can be intermittent or continuous, manifest with a variety of symptoms, and affect various entities of the oral cavity.^3,4 The most common structure affected is the tongue, and symptoms may include xerostomia, dysgeusia, and discomfort.^1,2 Orodynia is a frustrating condition, as many patients do not respond to treatment and experience symptoms for years.^1-4

The current approach to management of OD typically involves a combination of psychosocial strategies and pharmacologic agents. The psychosocial component consists of coping mechanisms (eg, stress management techniques and behavioral therapies) aimed at alleviating the psychological impact of the condition. Pharmacologic agents such as antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and topical medications often are prescribed to address neuropathic pain and dry mouth symptoms.^1,2 Additionally, oral rinses, saliva substitutes, and dietary supplements may be recommended to counteract the discomfort associated with xerostomia.^1,2 However, there is no stepwise protocol, leaving these treatments to be trialed in a disorganized manner.²

The Tools

In our unique approach to managing OD, physicians may employ a variety of tools, including autoantibody profiles, noninvasive salivary gland analysis, saliva analysis, patch testing for allergens, and—if deemed necessary—a minor salivary gland biopsy. The use of specific prescription medications is included in the later stages of our approach.

The Technique

First, exclude inflammatory conditions such as geographic tongue, oral lichen planus, autoimmune bullous disorders, and other treatable conditions such as dyspepsia and Sjögren syndrome using the tools described above. Noninvasive modalities should be exhausted first, and dermatologists/clinicians should exercise clinical judgement to determine whether all options should be trialed, including more invasive/costly ones.

If symptoms persist, clinicians may want to obtain a culture for oral candida. If results are positive, candida may be treated quickly with oral fluconazole. If that treatment fails and fissuring is present, advise the patient on treating the tongue; we recommend lightly brushing the tongue once daily with a hydrogen peroxide 3% solution, followed by rinsing. Next, the patient can allow an active probiotic yogurt to sit on the tongue for at least 1 minute to repopulate it with healthy oral bacteria.

If symptoms persist, prescribe gabapentin 100 to 300 mg to be taken at bedtime. Cevimeline 30 mg 3 times daily can be added to treat symptoms of xerostomia. As a last resort, a low daily dose of trifluoperazine 1 to 2 mg may alleviate the dysesthesia of OD. Because this medication is an antipsychotic, there is an increased risk for adverse effects such as tardive dyskinesia; however, given that we recommend using at most one-twentieth of the dose recommended for psychiatric illnesses such as schizophrenia, the risk appears to be minimal.⁵

We have found this protocol to be more structured, and in our practice, it has led to better outcomes than previously described therapeutic interventions.

Practice Implications

As a chronic condition, OD can be frustrating for patients, as many of them have attempted multiple treatments without success. It also may be challenging for dermatologists who are unfamiliar with its management. This approach to OD provides simple step-by-step diagnostic and therapeutic plans for a condition with an often-uncertain etiology and stubborn response to initial treatments. By following this protocol, dermatologists can be confident in their ability to help patients find relief from OD.

Practice Gap

Orodynia (OD)—together with glossodynia colloquially termed “burning mouth syndrome”—is a chronic disorder characterized by a burning sensation within the oral cavity without objective clinical signs. It is most common in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.^1,2

Orodynia is a diagnosis of exclusion and is considered after 4 to 6 months of normal imaging and laboratory test results.^1,2 Its pathophysiology is poorly understood, as it can be intermittent or continuous, manifest with a variety of symptoms, and affect various entities of the oral cavity.^3,4 The most common structure affected is the tongue, and symptoms may include xerostomia, dysgeusia, and discomfort.^1,2 Orodynia is a frustrating condition, as many patients do not respond to treatment and experience symptoms for years.^1-4

The current approach to management of OD typically involves a combination of psychosocial strategies and pharmacologic agents. The psychosocial component consists of coping mechanisms (eg, stress management techniques and behavioral therapies) aimed at alleviating the psychological impact of the condition. Pharmacologic agents such as antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and topical medications often are prescribed to address neuropathic pain and dry mouth symptoms.^1,2 Additionally, oral rinses, saliva substitutes, and dietary supplements may be recommended to counteract the discomfort associated with xerostomia.^1,2 However, there is no stepwise protocol, leaving these treatments to be trialed in a disorganized manner.²

The Tools

In our unique approach to managing OD, physicians may employ a variety of tools, including autoantibody profiles, noninvasive salivary gland analysis, saliva analysis, patch testing for allergens, and—if deemed necessary—a minor salivary gland biopsy. The use of specific prescription medications is included in the later stages of our approach.

The Technique

First, exclude inflammatory conditions such as geographic tongue, oral lichen planus, autoimmune bullous disorders, and other treatable conditions such as dyspepsia and Sjögren syndrome using the tools described above. Noninvasive modalities should be exhausted first, and dermatologists/clinicians should exercise clinical judgement to determine whether all options should be trialed, including more invasive/costly ones.

If symptoms persist, clinicians may want to obtain a culture for oral candida. If results are positive, candida may be treated quickly with oral fluconazole. If that treatment fails and fissuring is present, advise the patient on treating the tongue; we recommend lightly brushing the tongue once daily with a hydrogen peroxide 3% solution, followed by rinsing. Next, the patient can allow an active probiotic yogurt to sit on the tongue for at least 1 minute to repopulate it with healthy oral bacteria.

If symptoms persist, prescribe gabapentin 100 to 300 mg to be taken at bedtime. Cevimeline 30 mg 3 times daily can be added to treat symptoms of xerostomia. As a last resort, a low daily dose of trifluoperazine 1 to 2 mg may alleviate the dysesthesia of OD. Because this medication is an antipsychotic, there is an increased risk for adverse effects such as tardive dyskinesia; however, given that we recommend using at most one-twentieth of the dose recommended for psychiatric illnesses such as schizophrenia, the risk appears to be minimal.⁵

We have found this protocol to be more structured, and in our practice, it has led to better outcomes than previously described therapeutic interventions.

Practice Implications

As a chronic condition, OD can be frustrating for patients, as many of them have attempted multiple treatments without success. It also may be challenging for dermatologists who are unfamiliar with its management. This approach to OD provides simple step-by-step diagnostic and therapeutic plans for a condition with an often-uncertain etiology and stubborn response to initial treatments. By following this protocol, dermatologists can be confident in their ability to help patients find relief from OD.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Differences in prodromal or early symptoms of mpox between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color suggest healthcare disparities in vulnerable populations.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited information on the populations disproportionately affected by the recent global mpox outbreak, particularly in individuals with HIV and racial and ethnic minorities.
• To investigate morphologic and clinical presentations of mpox in diverse populations, researchers conducted a review of the records of 54 individuals (mean age, 42.4 years) diagnosed with mpox at a San Francisco clinic for patients with HIV or at high risk for HIV, between June and October 2022.
• All patients were assigned male at birth, and three identified themselves as transgender women.
• Morphologic descriptions were documented through either photographic evidence or physical examination notes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pustules or pseudopustules were the most common morphologic finding in 57.1% of the White non-Hispanic patients and 62.5% of the patients of color (P = .72).
• White non-Hispanic patients were more likely to have no prodromal symptoms (50.0% vs 17.5%; P = .02) and were more likely to have genital lesions (78.6% vs 40.0%; P = .01) than patients of color. These differences were significant or nearly significant when White non-Hispanic patients were compared with Hispanic patients but not in other ethnic or racial groups.
• There were no differences in HIV viral loads or CD4 counts between racial and ethnic groups, and no variations in clinical presentations were observed based on CD4 counts.
• Patients with higher HIV viral loads were more likely to have concurrent sexually transmitted infections (57.1% vs 25%; P = .03).
• Symptoms resolved in all patients, regardless of medical intervention, within weeks of initial presentation, and there were no hospitalizations or deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

Considering that HIV viral burden was not significantly different between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color, the difference in presentation of the prodrome “may indicate disparities in vulnerable populations,” the authors wrote, noting that more research in large groups is needed to confirm their results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Richard W. Kim, BS, from the University of California San Francisco, was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Inclusion of “other” racial category in the records highlighted potential inaccuracies in data representation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Differences in prodromal or early symptoms of mpox between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color suggest healthcare disparities in vulnerable populations.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited information on the populations disproportionately affected by the recent global mpox outbreak, particularly in individuals with HIV and racial and ethnic minorities.
• To investigate morphologic and clinical presentations of mpox in diverse populations, researchers conducted a review of the records of 54 individuals (mean age, 42.4 years) diagnosed with mpox at a San Francisco clinic for patients with HIV or at high risk for HIV, between June and October 2022.
• All patients were assigned male at birth, and three identified themselves as transgender women.
• Morphologic descriptions were documented through either photographic evidence or physical examination notes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pustules or pseudopustules were the most common morphologic finding in 57.1% of the White non-Hispanic patients and 62.5% of the patients of color (P = .72).
• White non-Hispanic patients were more likely to have no prodromal symptoms (50.0% vs 17.5%; P = .02) and were more likely to have genital lesions (78.6% vs 40.0%; P = .01) than patients of color. These differences were significant or nearly significant when White non-Hispanic patients were compared with Hispanic patients but not in other ethnic or racial groups.
• There were no differences in HIV viral loads or CD4 counts between racial and ethnic groups, and no variations in clinical presentations were observed based on CD4 counts.
• Patients with higher HIV viral loads were more likely to have concurrent sexually transmitted infections (57.1% vs 25%; P = .03).
• Symptoms resolved in all patients, regardless of medical intervention, within weeks of initial presentation, and there were no hospitalizations or deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

Considering that HIV viral burden was not significantly different between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color, the difference in presentation of the prodrome “may indicate disparities in vulnerable populations,” the authors wrote, noting that more research in large groups is needed to confirm their results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Richard W. Kim, BS, from the University of California San Francisco, was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Inclusion of “other” racial category in the records highlighted potential inaccuracies in data representation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Differences in prodromal or early symptoms of mpox between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color suggest healthcare disparities in vulnerable populations.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited information on the populations disproportionately affected by the recent global mpox outbreak, particularly in individuals with HIV and racial and ethnic minorities.
• To investigate morphologic and clinical presentations of mpox in diverse populations, researchers conducted a review of the records of 54 individuals (mean age, 42.4 years) diagnosed with mpox at a San Francisco clinic for patients with HIV or at high risk for HIV, between June and October 2022.
• All patients were assigned male at birth, and three identified themselves as transgender women.
• Morphologic descriptions were documented through either photographic evidence or physical examination notes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pustules or pseudopustules were the most common morphologic finding in 57.1% of the White non-Hispanic patients and 62.5% of the patients of color (P = .72).
• White non-Hispanic patients were more likely to have no prodromal symptoms (50.0% vs 17.5%; P = .02) and were more likely to have genital lesions (78.6% vs 40.0%; P = .01) than patients of color. These differences were significant or nearly significant when White non-Hispanic patients were compared with Hispanic patients but not in other ethnic or racial groups.
• There were no differences in HIV viral loads or CD4 counts between racial and ethnic groups, and no variations in clinical presentations were observed based on CD4 counts.
• Patients with higher HIV viral loads were more likely to have concurrent sexually transmitted infections (57.1% vs 25%; P = .03).
• Symptoms resolved in all patients, regardless of medical intervention, within weeks of initial presentation, and there were no hospitalizations or deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

Considering that HIV viral burden was not significantly different between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color, the difference in presentation of the prodrome “may indicate disparities in vulnerable populations,” the authors wrote, noting that more research in large groups is needed to confirm their results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Richard W. Kim, BS, from the University of California San Francisco, was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Inclusion of “other” racial category in the records highlighted potential inaccuracies in data representation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

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

This retrospective observational study investigates skin cancer prevalence and care patterns within the Military Health System (MHS) from 2017 to 2022. Utilizing the MHS Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (most commonly called M2), we analyzed more than 5 million patient encounters and documented skin cancer prevalence in the MHS beneficiary population utilizing available demographic data. Notable findings included an increased prevalence of skin cancer in the military population compared with the civilian population, a substantial decline in direct care (DC) visits at military treatment facilities compared with civilian purchased care (PC) visits, and a decreased total number of visits during COVID-19 restrictions.

The Military Health System (MHS) is a worldwide health care delivery system that serves 9.6 million beneficiaries, including military service members, retirees, and their families.¹ Its mission is 2-fold: provide a medically ready force, and provide a medical benefit in keeping with the service and sacrifice of active-duty personnel, military retirees, and their families. For fiscal year (FY) 2022, active-duty service members and their families comprised 16.7% and 19.9% of beneficiaries, respectively, while retired service members and their families comprised 27% and 32% of beneficiaries, respectively.

The MHS operates under the authority of the Department of Defense (DoD) and is supported by an annual budget of approximately $50 billion.¹ Health care provision within the MHS is managed by TRICARE regional networks.² Within these networks, MHS beneficiaries may receive health care in 2 categories: direct care (DC) and purchased care (PC). Direct care is rendered in military treatment facilities by military or civilian providers contracted by the DoD, and PC is administered by civilian providers at civilian health care facilities within the TRICARE network, which is comprised of individual providers, clinics, and hospitals that have agreed to accept TRICARE beneficiaries.¹ Purchased care is fee-for-service and paid for by the MHS. Of note, the MHS differs from the Veterans Affairs health care system in that the MHS through DC and PC sees only active-duty service members, active-duty dependents, retirees, and retirees’ dependents (primarily spouses), whereas Veterans Affairs sees only veterans (not necessarily retirees) discharged from military service with compensable medical conditions or disabilities.

Skin cancer presents a notable concern for the US Military, as the risk for skin cancer is thought to be higher than in the general population.^3,4 This elevated risk is attributed to numerous factors inherent to active-duty service, including time spent in tropical environments, increased exposure to UV radiation, time spent at high altitudes, and decreased rates of sun-protective behaviors.³ Although numerous studies have explored the mechanisms that contribute to service members’ increased skin cancer risk, there are few (if any) that discuss the burden of skin cancer on the MHS and where its beneficiaries receive their skin cancer care. This study evaluated the burden of skin cancer within the MHS, as demonstrated by the period prevalence of skin cancer among its beneficiaries and the number and distribution of patient visits for skin cancer across both DC and PC from 2017 to 2022.

Methods

Data Collection—This retrospective observational study was designed to describe trends in outpatient visits with a skin cancer diagnosis and annual prevalence of skin cancer types in the MHS. Data are from all MHS beneficiaries who were eligible or enrolled in the analysis year. Our data source was the MHS Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (most commonly called M2), a query tool that contains the current and most recent 5 full FYs of Defense Health Agency corporate health care data including aggregated FY and calendar-year counts of MHS beneficiaries from 2017 to 2022 using encounter and claims data tables from both DC and PC. Data in M2 are coded using a pseudo-person identification number, and queries performed for this study were limited to de-identified visit and patient counts.

Skin cancer diagnoses were defined by relevant International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes recorded from outpatient visits in DC and PC. The M2 database was queried to find aggregate counts of visits and unique MHS beneficiaries with one or more diagnoses of a skin cancer type of interest (defined by relevant ICD-10-CM code) over the study period stratified by year and by patient demographic characteristics. Skin cancer types by ICD-10-CM code group included basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), malignant melanoma (MM), and other (including Merkel cell carcinoma and sebaceous carcinoma). Demographic strata included age, sex, military status (active duty, dependents of active duty, retired, or all others), sponsor military rank, and sponsor branch (army, air force, marine corps, or navy). Visit counts included diagnoses from any ICD position (for encounters that contained multiple ICD codes) to describe the total volume of care that addressed a diagnosed skin cancer. Counts of unique patients in prevalence analyses included relevant diagnoses in the primary ICD position only to increase the specificity of prevalence estimates.

Data Analysis—Descriptive analyses included the total number of outpatient visits with a skin cancer diagnosis in DC and PC over the study period, with percentages of total visits by year and by demographic strata. Separate analyses estimated annual prevalences of skin cancer types in the MHS by study year and within 2022 by demographic strata. Numerators in prevalence analyses were defined as the number of unique individuals with one or more relevant ICD codes in the analysis year. Denominators were defined as the total number of MHS beneficiaries in the analysis year and resulting period prevalences reported. Observed prevalences were qualitatively described, and trends were compared with prevalences in nonmilitary populations reported in the literature.

Ethics—This study was conducted as part of a study using secondary analyses of de-identified data from the M2 database. The study was reviewed and approved by the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center institutional review board.

Results

Encounter data were analyzed from a total of 5,374,348 visits between DC and PC over the study period for each cancer type of interest. Figures 1 and 2 show temporal trends in DC visits compared with PC visits in each beneficiary category. The percentage of total DC visits subsequently declined each year throughout the study period, with percentage decreases from 2017 to 2022 of 1.45% or 8200 fewer visits for MM, 3.41% or 7280 fewer visits for BCC, and 2.26% or 3673 fewer visits for SCC.

When stratified by beneficiary category, this trend remained consistent among dependents and retirees, with the most notable annual percentage decrease from 2019 to 2020. A higher proportion of younger adults and active-duty beneficiaries was seen in DC relative to PC, in which most visits were among retirees and others (primarily dependents of retirees, survivors, and Guard/Reserve on active duty, as well as inactive Guard/Reserve). No linear trends over time were apparent for active duty in DC and for dependents and retirees in PC. eTable 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of MHS beneficiaries being seen in DC and PC over the study period for each cancer type of interest.

The Table shows the period prevalence of skin cancer diagnoses within the MHS beneficiary population from 2017 to 2022. These data were further analyzed by MM, BCC, and SCC (eTable 2) and demographics of interest for the year 2022. By beneficiary category, the period prevalence of MM was 0.08% in active duty, 0.06% in dependents, 0.48% in others, and 1.10% in retirees; the period prevalence of BCC was 0.12% in active duty, 0.07% in dependents, 0.91% in others, and 2.50% in retirees; and the period prevalence of SCC was 0.02% in active duty, 0.01% in dependents, 0.63% in others, and 1.87% in retirees. By sponsor branch, the period prevalence of MM was 0.35% in the army, 0.62% in the air force, 0.35% in the marine corps, and 0.65% in the navy; the period prevalence of BCC was 0.74% in the army, 1.30% in the air force, 0.74% in the marine corps, and 1.36% in the navy; and the period prevalence of SCC was 0.52% in the army, 0.92% in the air force, 0.51% in the marine corps, and 0.97% in the navy.

Comment

This study aimed to provide insight into the burden of skin cancer within the MHS beneficiary population and to identify temporal trends in where these beneficiaries receive their care. We examined patient encounter data from more than 9.6 million MHS beneficiaries.

The utilization of ICD codes from patient encounters to estimate the prevalence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) has demonstrated a high positive predictive value. In one study, NMSC cases were confirmed in 96.5% of ICD code–identified patients.⁵ We presented an extensive collection of epidemiologic data on BCC and SCC, which posed unique challenges for tracking, as they are not reported to or monitored by cancer registries such as the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.⁶

MHS Compared to the US Population—A study using the Global Burden of Disease 2019 database revealed an increasing trend in the incidence and prevalence of NMSC and melanoma since 1990. The same study found the period prevalence in 2019 of MM, SCC, and BCC in the general US population to be 0.13%, 0.31%, and 0.05%, respectively.⁷ In contrast, among MHS beneficiaries, we observed a higher prevalence in the same year, with figures of 0.66% for MM, 0.72% for SCC, and 1.02% for BCC. According to the SEER database, the period prevalence of MM within the general US population in 2020 was 0.4%.⁸ That same year, we identified a higher period prevalence of MM—0.54%—within the MHS beneficiary population. Specifically, within the MHS retiree population, the prevalence in 2022 was double that of the general MHS population, with a rate of 1.10%, underscoring the importance of skin cancer screening in older, at-risk adult populations. Prior studies similarly found increased rates of skin cancer within the military beneficiary population. Further studies are needed to compare age-adjusted rates in the MHS vs US population.^9-11

COVID-19 Trends—Our data showed an overall decreasing prevalence of skin cancer in the MHS from 2019 to 2021. We suspect that the apparent decrease in skin cancer prevalence may be attributed to underdiagnosis from COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. During that time, many dermatology clinics at military treatment facilities underwent temporary closures, and some dermatologists were sent on nondermatologic utilization tours. Likewise, a US multi-institutional study described declining rates of new melanomas from 2020 to 2021, with an increased proportion of patient presentations with advanced melanoma, suggesting an underdiagnosis of melanoma cases during pandemic restrictions. That study also noted an increased rate of patient-identified melanomas and a decreased rate of provider-identified melanomas during that time.¹² Contributing factors may include excess hospital demand, increased patient complexity and acute care needs, and long outpatient clinic backlogs during this time.¹³Financial Burden—Over our 5-year study period, there were 5,374,348 patient encounters addressing skin cancer, both in DC and PC (Figures 1 and 2; eTable 1). In 2016 to 2018, the average annual cost of treating skin cancer in the US civilian, noninstitutionalized population was $1243 for NMSC (BCC and SCC) and $2430 for melanoma.⁶ Using this metric, the estimated total cost of care rendered in the MHS in 2018 for NMSC and melanoma was $202,510,803 and $156,516,300, respectively.

Trends in DC vs PC—In the years examined, we found a notable decrease in the number of beneficiaries receiving treatment for MM, BCC, and SCC in DC. Simultaneously, there has been an increase in the number of beneficiaries receiving PC for BCC and SCC, though this trend was not apparent for MM.

Our data provided interesting insights into the percentage of PC compared with DC offered within the MHS. Importantly, our findings suggested that the majority of skin cancer in active-duty service members is managed with DC within the military treatment facility setting (61% DC management over the period analyzed). This finding was true across all years of data analyzed, suggesting that the COVID-19 pandemic did not result in a quantifiable shift in care of skin cancer within the active-duty component to outside providers. One of the critical roles of dermatologists in the MHS is to diagnose and treat skin cancer, and our study suggested that the current global manning and staffing for MHS dermatologists may not be sufficient to meet the burden of skin cancers encountered within our active-duty troops, as only 61% are managed with DC. In particular, service members in more austere and/or overseas locations may not have ready access to a dermatologist.

The burden of skin cancer shifts dramatically when analyzing care of all other populations included in these data, including dependents of active-duty service members, retirees, and the category of “other” (ie, principally dependents of retirees). Within these populations, the rate of DC falls to 30%, with 70% of active-duty dependent care being deferred to network. The findings are even more noticeable for retirees and others within these 2 cohorts in all types of skin cancer analyzed, where DC only accounted for 5.2% of those skin cancers encountered and managed across TRICARE-eligible beneficiaries. For MM, BCC, and SCC, percentages of DC were 5.4%, 5.8%, and 3.5%, respectively. Although it is interesting to note the lower percentage of SCC managed via DC, our data did not allow for extrapolation as to why more SCC cases may be deferred to network. The shift to PC may align with DoD initiatives to increase the private sector’s involvement in military medicine and transition to civilianizing the MHS.¹⁴ In the end, the findings are remarkable, with approximately 95% of skin cancer care and management provided overall via PC.

These findings differ from previously published data regarding DC and PC from other specialty areas. Results from an analysis of DC vs PC for plastic surgery for the entire MHS from 2016 to 2019 found 83.2% of cases were deferred to network.¹⁵ A similar publication in the orthopedics literature examined TRICARE claims for patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasties between 2006 and 2019 and found 84.6% of cases were referred for PC. Notably, the authors utilized generalized linear models for cost analysis and found that DC was more expensive than PC, though this likely was a result of higher rates of hospital readmission within DC cases.¹⁶ Lastly, an article on the DC vs PC disposition of MHS patients with breast cancer from 2003 to 2008 found 46% of cases managed with DC vs 26.% with PC and 27.8% receiving a combination. In this case, the authors found a reduced cost associated with DC vs PC.¹⁷

Little additional literature exists regarding the costs of DC vs PC. An article published in 2016 designed to assess costs of DC vs PC showed that almost all military treatment facilities have higher costs than their private sector counterparts, with a few exceptions.¹⁸ This does not assess the costs of specific procedures, however, and only the overall cost to maintain a treatment facility. Importantly, this study was based on data from FY 2014 and has not been updated to reflect complex changes within the MHS system and the private health care system. Indeed, a US Government Accountability Office FY 2023 study highlighted staffing and efficiency issues within this transition to civilian medicine; subsequently, the 2024 President’s Budget suspended all planned clinical medical military end strength divestitures, underscoring the potential ineffectiveness of a civilianized MHS at meeting the health care needs of its beneficiaries.^19,20 Future research on a national scale will be necessary to see if there is a reversal of this trend to PC and if doing so has any impact on access to DC for active-duty troops or active-duty dependents.

In addition to PC vs DC trends, we also can get a sense of the impact of the COVID pandemic restrictions on access to DC vs PC by assessing the change in rates seen in the data from the pre-COVID years (2017-2019) to the “post-COVID” years (2020-2022) included. Overall, rates of DC decreased uniformly from their already low percentages. In our study, rates of DC decreased from 5.8% in 2019 to 4.8% in 2022 for MM, from 6.6% to 4.3% for BCC, and from 4.2% to 2.9% for SCC. Although these changes seem small at first, they represent a 30.6% overall decrease in DC for BCC and an overall decrease of 55.4% in DC for SCC. Although our data do not allow us to extrapolate the real cost of this reduction across a nationwide health care system and more than 5 million care encounters, the financial and personal (ie, lost man-hours) costs of this decrease in DC likely are substantial.

In addition to costs, qualitative aspects that contribute to the burden of skin cancer include treatment-related morbidity, such as scarring, pain, and time spent away from family, work, and hobbies, as well as overall patient satisfaction with the quality of care they receive.²¹ Future work is critical to assess the real cost of this immense burden of PC for the treatment and management of skin cancers within the DoD beneficiary population.

Limitations—This study is limited by its observational nature. Given the mechanism of our data collection, we may have underestimated disease prevalence, as not all patients are seen for their diagnosis annually. Furthermore, reported demographic strata (eg, age, sex) were limited to those available and valid in the M2 reporting system. Finally, our study only collected data from those service members or former service members seen within the MHS and does not reflect any care rendered to those who are no longer active duty but did not officially retire from the military (ie, nonretired service members receiving care in the Veterans Affairs system for skin cancer).

Conclusion

We describe the annual burden of care for skin cancer in the MHS beneficiary population. Noteworthy findings observed were an overall decrease in beneficiaries being treated for skin cancer through DC; a decreasing annual prevalence of skin cancer diagnosis between 2019 and 2021, which may represent underdiagnosis or decreased follow-up in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic; and a higher rate of skin cancer in the military beneficiary population compared to the civilian population.

This retrospective observational study investigates skin cancer prevalence and care patterns within the Military Health System (MHS) from 2017 to 2022. Utilizing the MHS Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (most commonly called M2), we analyzed more than 5 million patient encounters and documented skin cancer prevalence in the MHS beneficiary population utilizing available demographic data. Notable findings included an increased prevalence of skin cancer in the military population compared with the civilian population, a substantial decline in direct care (DC) visits at military treatment facilities compared with civilian purchased care (PC) visits, and a decreased total number of visits during COVID-19 restrictions.

The Military Health System (MHS) is a worldwide health care delivery system that serves 9.6 million beneficiaries, including military service members, retirees, and their families.¹ Its mission is 2-fold: provide a medically ready force, and provide a medical benefit in keeping with the service and sacrifice of active-duty personnel, military retirees, and their families. For fiscal year (FY) 2022, active-duty service members and their families comprised 16.7% and 19.9% of beneficiaries, respectively, while retired service members and their families comprised 27% and 32% of beneficiaries, respectively.

The MHS operates under the authority of the Department of Defense (DoD) and is supported by an annual budget of approximately $50 billion.¹ Health care provision within the MHS is managed by TRICARE regional networks.² Within these networks, MHS beneficiaries may receive health care in 2 categories: direct care (DC) and purchased care (PC). Direct care is rendered in military treatment facilities by military or civilian providers contracted by the DoD, and PC is administered by civilian providers at civilian health care facilities within the TRICARE network, which is comprised of individual providers, clinics, and hospitals that have agreed to accept TRICARE beneficiaries.¹ Purchased care is fee-for-service and paid for by the MHS. Of note, the MHS differs from the Veterans Affairs health care system in that the MHS through DC and PC sees only active-duty service members, active-duty dependents, retirees, and retirees’ dependents (primarily spouses), whereas Veterans Affairs sees only veterans (not necessarily retirees) discharged from military service with compensable medical conditions or disabilities.

Skin cancer presents a notable concern for the US Military, as the risk for skin cancer is thought to be higher than in the general population.^3,4 This elevated risk is attributed to numerous factors inherent to active-duty service, including time spent in tropical environments, increased exposure to UV radiation, time spent at high altitudes, and decreased rates of sun-protective behaviors.³ Although numerous studies have explored the mechanisms that contribute to service members’ increased skin cancer risk, there are few (if any) that discuss the burden of skin cancer on the MHS and where its beneficiaries receive their skin cancer care. This study evaluated the burden of skin cancer within the MHS, as demonstrated by the period prevalence of skin cancer among its beneficiaries and the number and distribution of patient visits for skin cancer across both DC and PC from 2017 to 2022.

Methods

Data Collection—This retrospective observational study was designed to describe trends in outpatient visits with a skin cancer diagnosis and annual prevalence of skin cancer types in the MHS. Data are from all MHS beneficiaries who were eligible or enrolled in the analysis year. Our data source was the MHS Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (most commonly called M2), a query tool that contains the current and most recent 5 full FYs of Defense Health Agency corporate health care data including aggregated FY and calendar-year counts of MHS beneficiaries from 2017 to 2022 using encounter and claims data tables from both DC and PC. Data in M2 are coded using a pseudo-person identification number, and queries performed for this study were limited to de-identified visit and patient counts.

Skin cancer diagnoses were defined by relevant International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes recorded from outpatient visits in DC and PC. The M2 database was queried to find aggregate counts of visits and unique MHS beneficiaries with one or more diagnoses of a skin cancer type of interest (defined by relevant ICD-10-CM code) over the study period stratified by year and by patient demographic characteristics. Skin cancer types by ICD-10-CM code group included basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), malignant melanoma (MM), and other (including Merkel cell carcinoma and sebaceous carcinoma). Demographic strata included age, sex, military status (active duty, dependents of active duty, retired, or all others), sponsor military rank, and sponsor branch (army, air force, marine corps, or navy). Visit counts included diagnoses from any ICD position (for encounters that contained multiple ICD codes) to describe the total volume of care that addressed a diagnosed skin cancer. Counts of unique patients in prevalence analyses included relevant diagnoses in the primary ICD position only to increase the specificity of prevalence estimates.

Data Analysis—Descriptive analyses included the total number of outpatient visits with a skin cancer diagnosis in DC and PC over the study period, with percentages of total visits by year and by demographic strata. Separate analyses estimated annual prevalences of skin cancer types in the MHS by study year and within 2022 by demographic strata. Numerators in prevalence analyses were defined as the number of unique individuals with one or more relevant ICD codes in the analysis year. Denominators were defined as the total number of MHS beneficiaries in the analysis year and resulting period prevalences reported. Observed prevalences were qualitatively described, and trends were compared with prevalences in nonmilitary populations reported in the literature.

Ethics—This study was conducted as part of a study using secondary analyses of de-identified data from the M2 database. The study was reviewed and approved by the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center institutional review board.

Results

Encounter data were analyzed from a total of 5,374,348 visits between DC and PC over the study period for each cancer type of interest. Figures 1 and 2 show temporal trends in DC visits compared with PC visits in each beneficiary category. The percentage of total DC visits subsequently declined each year throughout the study period, with percentage decreases from 2017 to 2022 of 1.45% or 8200 fewer visits for MM, 3.41% or 7280 fewer visits for BCC, and 2.26% or 3673 fewer visits for SCC.

When stratified by beneficiary category, this trend remained consistent among dependents and retirees, with the most notable annual percentage decrease from 2019 to 2020. A higher proportion of younger adults and active-duty beneficiaries was seen in DC relative to PC, in which most visits were among retirees and others (primarily dependents of retirees, survivors, and Guard/Reserve on active duty, as well as inactive Guard/Reserve). No linear trends over time were apparent for active duty in DC and for dependents and retirees in PC. eTable 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of MHS beneficiaries being seen in DC and PC over the study period for each cancer type of interest.

The Table shows the period prevalence of skin cancer diagnoses within the MHS beneficiary population from 2017 to 2022. These data were further analyzed by MM, BCC, and SCC (eTable 2) and demographics of interest for the year 2022. By beneficiary category, the period prevalence of MM was 0.08% in active duty, 0.06% in dependents, 0.48% in others, and 1.10% in retirees; the period prevalence of BCC was 0.12% in active duty, 0.07% in dependents, 0.91% in others, and 2.50% in retirees; and the period prevalence of SCC was 0.02% in active duty, 0.01% in dependents, 0.63% in others, and 1.87% in retirees. By sponsor branch, the period prevalence of MM was 0.35% in the army, 0.62% in the air force, 0.35% in the marine corps, and 0.65% in the navy; the period prevalence of BCC was 0.74% in the army, 1.30% in the air force, 0.74% in the marine corps, and 1.36% in the navy; and the period prevalence of SCC was 0.52% in the army, 0.92% in the air force, 0.51% in the marine corps, and 0.97% in the navy.

Comment

This study aimed to provide insight into the burden of skin cancer within the MHS beneficiary population and to identify temporal trends in where these beneficiaries receive their care. We examined patient encounter data from more than 9.6 million MHS beneficiaries.

The utilization of ICD codes from patient encounters to estimate the prevalence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) has demonstrated a high positive predictive value. In one study, NMSC cases were confirmed in 96.5% of ICD code–identified patients.⁵ We presented an extensive collection of epidemiologic data on BCC and SCC, which posed unique challenges for tracking, as they are not reported to or monitored by cancer registries such as the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.⁶

MHS Compared to the US Population—A study using the Global Burden of Disease 2019 database revealed an increasing trend in the incidence and prevalence of NMSC and melanoma since 1990. The same study found the period prevalence in 2019 of MM, SCC, and BCC in the general US population to be 0.13%, 0.31%, and 0.05%, respectively.⁷ In contrast, among MHS beneficiaries, we observed a higher prevalence in the same year, with figures of 0.66% for MM, 0.72% for SCC, and 1.02% for BCC. According to the SEER database, the period prevalence of MM within the general US population in 2020 was 0.4%.⁸ That same year, we identified a higher period prevalence of MM—0.54%—within the MHS beneficiary population. Specifically, within the MHS retiree population, the prevalence in 2022 was double that of the general MHS population, with a rate of 1.10%, underscoring the importance of skin cancer screening in older, at-risk adult populations. Prior studies similarly found increased rates of skin cancer within the military beneficiary population. Further studies are needed to compare age-adjusted rates in the MHS vs US population.^9-11

COVID-19 Trends—Our data showed an overall decreasing prevalence of skin cancer in the MHS from 2019 to 2021. We suspect that the apparent decrease in skin cancer prevalence may be attributed to underdiagnosis from COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. During that time, many dermatology clinics at military treatment facilities underwent temporary closures, and some dermatologists were sent on nondermatologic utilization tours. Likewise, a US multi-institutional study described declining rates of new melanomas from 2020 to 2021, with an increased proportion of patient presentations with advanced melanoma, suggesting an underdiagnosis of melanoma cases during pandemic restrictions. That study also noted an increased rate of patient-identified melanomas and a decreased rate of provider-identified melanomas during that time.¹² Contributing factors may include excess hospital demand, increased patient complexity and acute care needs, and long outpatient clinic backlogs during this time.¹³Financial Burden—Over our 5-year study period, there were 5,374,348 patient encounters addressing skin cancer, both in DC and PC (Figures 1 and 2; eTable 1). In 2016 to 2018, the average annual cost of treating skin cancer in the US civilian, noninstitutionalized population was $1243 for NMSC (BCC and SCC) and $2430 for melanoma.⁶ Using this metric, the estimated total cost of care rendered in the MHS in 2018 for NMSC and melanoma was $202,510,803 and $156,516,300, respectively.

Trends in DC vs PC—In the years examined, we found a notable decrease in the number of beneficiaries receiving treatment for MM, BCC, and SCC in DC. Simultaneously, there has been an increase in the number of beneficiaries receiving PC for BCC and SCC, though this trend was not apparent for MM.

Our data provided interesting insights into the percentage of PC compared with DC offered within the MHS. Importantly, our findings suggested that the majority of skin cancer in active-duty service members is managed with DC within the military treatment facility setting (61% DC management over the period analyzed). This finding was true across all years of data analyzed, suggesting that the COVID-19 pandemic did not result in a quantifiable shift in care of skin cancer within the active-duty component to outside providers. One of the critical roles of dermatologists in the MHS is to diagnose and treat skin cancer, and our study suggested that the current global manning and staffing for MHS dermatologists may not be sufficient to meet the burden of skin cancers encountered within our active-duty troops, as only 61% are managed with DC. In particular, service members in more austere and/or overseas locations may not have ready access to a dermatologist.

The burden of skin cancer shifts dramatically when analyzing care of all other populations included in these data, including dependents of active-duty service members, retirees, and the category of “other” (ie, principally dependents of retirees). Within these populations, the rate of DC falls to 30%, with 70% of active-duty dependent care being deferred to network. The findings are even more noticeable for retirees and others within these 2 cohorts in all types of skin cancer analyzed, where DC only accounted for 5.2% of those skin cancers encountered and managed across TRICARE-eligible beneficiaries. For MM, BCC, and SCC, percentages of DC were 5.4%, 5.8%, and 3.5%, respectively. Although it is interesting to note the lower percentage of SCC managed via DC, our data did not allow for extrapolation as to why more SCC cases may be deferred to network. The shift to PC may align with DoD initiatives to increase the private sector’s involvement in military medicine and transition to civilianizing the MHS.¹⁴ In the end, the findings are remarkable, with approximately 95% of skin cancer care and management provided overall via PC.

These findings differ from previously published data regarding DC and PC from other specialty areas. Results from an analysis of DC vs PC for plastic surgery for the entire MHS from 2016 to 2019 found 83.2% of cases were deferred to network.¹⁵ A similar publication in the orthopedics literature examined TRICARE claims for patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasties between 2006 and 2019 and found 84.6% of cases were referred for PC. Notably, the authors utilized generalized linear models for cost analysis and found that DC was more expensive than PC, though this likely was a result of higher rates of hospital readmission within DC cases.¹⁶ Lastly, an article on the DC vs PC disposition of MHS patients with breast cancer from 2003 to 2008 found 46% of cases managed with DC vs 26.% with PC and 27.8% receiving a combination. In this case, the authors found a reduced cost associated with DC vs PC.¹⁷

Little additional literature exists regarding the costs of DC vs PC. An article published in 2016 designed to assess costs of DC vs PC showed that almost all military treatment facilities have higher costs than their private sector counterparts, with a few exceptions.¹⁸ This does not assess the costs of specific procedures, however, and only the overall cost to maintain a treatment facility. Importantly, this study was based on data from FY 2014 and has not been updated to reflect complex changes within the MHS system and the private health care system. Indeed, a US Government Accountability Office FY 2023 study highlighted staffing and efficiency issues within this transition to civilian medicine; subsequently, the 2024 President’s Budget suspended all planned clinical medical military end strength divestitures, underscoring the potential ineffectiveness of a civilianized MHS at meeting the health care needs of its beneficiaries.^19,20 Future research on a national scale will be necessary to see if there is a reversal of this trend to PC and if doing so has any impact on access to DC for active-duty troops or active-duty dependents.

In addition to PC vs DC trends, we also can get a sense of the impact of the COVID pandemic restrictions on access to DC vs PC by assessing the change in rates seen in the data from the pre-COVID years (2017-2019) to the “post-COVID” years (2020-2022) included. Overall, rates of DC decreased uniformly from their already low percentages. In our study, rates of DC decreased from 5.8% in 2019 to 4.8% in 2022 for MM, from 6.6% to 4.3% for BCC, and from 4.2% to 2.9% for SCC. Although these changes seem small at first, they represent a 30.6% overall decrease in DC for BCC and an overall decrease of 55.4% in DC for SCC. Although our data do not allow us to extrapolate the real cost of this reduction across a nationwide health care system and more than 5 million care encounters, the financial and personal (ie, lost man-hours) costs of this decrease in DC likely are substantial.

In addition to costs, qualitative aspects that contribute to the burden of skin cancer include treatment-related morbidity, such as scarring, pain, and time spent away from family, work, and hobbies, as well as overall patient satisfaction with the quality of care they receive.²¹ Future work is critical to assess the real cost of this immense burden of PC for the treatment and management of skin cancers within the DoD beneficiary population.

Limitations—This study is limited by its observational nature. Given the mechanism of our data collection, we may have underestimated disease prevalence, as not all patients are seen for their diagnosis annually. Furthermore, reported demographic strata (eg, age, sex) were limited to those available and valid in the M2 reporting system. Finally, our study only collected data from those service members or former service members seen within the MHS and does not reflect any care rendered to those who are no longer active duty but did not officially retire from the military (ie, nonretired service members receiving care in the Veterans Affairs system for skin cancer).

Conclusion

We describe the annual burden of care for skin cancer in the MHS beneficiary population. Noteworthy findings observed were an overall decrease in beneficiaries being treated for skin cancer through DC; a decreasing annual prevalence of skin cancer diagnosis between 2019 and 2021, which may represent underdiagnosis or decreased follow-up in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic; and a higher rate of skin cancer in the military beneficiary population compared to the civilian population.

This retrospective observational study investigates skin cancer prevalence and care patterns within the Military Health System (MHS) from 2017 to 2022. Utilizing the MHS Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (most commonly called M2), we analyzed more than 5 million patient encounters and documented skin cancer prevalence in the MHS beneficiary population utilizing available demographic data. Notable findings included an increased prevalence of skin cancer in the military population compared with the civilian population, a substantial decline in direct care (DC) visits at military treatment facilities compared with civilian purchased care (PC) visits, and a decreased total number of visits during COVID-19 restrictions.

The Military Health System (MHS) is a worldwide health care delivery system that serves 9.6 million beneficiaries, including military service members, retirees, and their families.¹ Its mission is 2-fold: provide a medically ready force, and provide a medical benefit in keeping with the service and sacrifice of active-duty personnel, military retirees, and their families. For fiscal year (FY) 2022, active-duty service members and their families comprised 16.7% and 19.9% of beneficiaries, respectively, while retired service members and their families comprised 27% and 32% of beneficiaries, respectively.

The MHS operates under the authority of the Department of Defense (DoD) and is supported by an annual budget of approximately $50 billion.¹ Health care provision within the MHS is managed by TRICARE regional networks.² Within these networks, MHS beneficiaries may receive health care in 2 categories: direct care (DC) and purchased care (PC). Direct care is rendered in military treatment facilities by military or civilian providers contracted by the DoD, and PC is administered by civilian providers at civilian health care facilities within the TRICARE network, which is comprised of individual providers, clinics, and hospitals that have agreed to accept TRICARE beneficiaries.¹ Purchased care is fee-for-service and paid for by the MHS. Of note, the MHS differs from the Veterans Affairs health care system in that the MHS through DC and PC sees only active-duty service members, active-duty dependents, retirees, and retirees’ dependents (primarily spouses), whereas Veterans Affairs sees only veterans (not necessarily retirees) discharged from military service with compensable medical conditions or disabilities.

Skin cancer presents a notable concern for the US Military, as the risk for skin cancer is thought to be higher than in the general population.^3,4 This elevated risk is attributed to numerous factors inherent to active-duty service, including time spent in tropical environments, increased exposure to UV radiation, time spent at high altitudes, and decreased rates of sun-protective behaviors.³ Although numerous studies have explored the mechanisms that contribute to service members’ increased skin cancer risk, there are few (if any) that discuss the burden of skin cancer on the MHS and where its beneficiaries receive their skin cancer care. This study evaluated the burden of skin cancer within the MHS, as demonstrated by the period prevalence of skin cancer among its beneficiaries and the number and distribution of patient visits for skin cancer across both DC and PC from 2017 to 2022.

Methods

Data Collection—This retrospective observational study was designed to describe trends in outpatient visits with a skin cancer diagnosis and annual prevalence of skin cancer types in the MHS. Data are from all MHS beneficiaries who were eligible or enrolled in the analysis year. Our data source was the MHS Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (most commonly called M2), a query tool that contains the current and most recent 5 full FYs of Defense Health Agency corporate health care data including aggregated FY and calendar-year counts of MHS beneficiaries from 2017 to 2022 using encounter and claims data tables from both DC and PC. Data in M2 are coded using a pseudo-person identification number, and queries performed for this study were limited to de-identified visit and patient counts.

Skin cancer diagnoses were defined by relevant International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes recorded from outpatient visits in DC and PC. The M2 database was queried to find aggregate counts of visits and unique MHS beneficiaries with one or more diagnoses of a skin cancer type of interest (defined by relevant ICD-10-CM code) over the study period stratified by year and by patient demographic characteristics. Skin cancer types by ICD-10-CM code group included basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), malignant melanoma (MM), and other (including Merkel cell carcinoma and sebaceous carcinoma). Demographic strata included age, sex, military status (active duty, dependents of active duty, retired, or all others), sponsor military rank, and sponsor branch (army, air force, marine corps, or navy). Visit counts included diagnoses from any ICD position (for encounters that contained multiple ICD codes) to describe the total volume of care that addressed a diagnosed skin cancer. Counts of unique patients in prevalence analyses included relevant diagnoses in the primary ICD position only to increase the specificity of prevalence estimates.

Data Analysis—Descriptive analyses included the total number of outpatient visits with a skin cancer diagnosis in DC and PC over the study period, with percentages of total visits by year and by demographic strata. Separate analyses estimated annual prevalences of skin cancer types in the MHS by study year and within 2022 by demographic strata. Numerators in prevalence analyses were defined as the number of unique individuals with one or more relevant ICD codes in the analysis year. Denominators were defined as the total number of MHS beneficiaries in the analysis year and resulting period prevalences reported. Observed prevalences were qualitatively described, and trends were compared with prevalences in nonmilitary populations reported in the literature.

Ethics—This study was conducted as part of a study using secondary analyses of de-identified data from the M2 database. The study was reviewed and approved by the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center institutional review board.

Results

Encounter data were analyzed from a total of 5,374,348 visits between DC and PC over the study period for each cancer type of interest. Figures 1 and 2 show temporal trends in DC visits compared with PC visits in each beneficiary category. The percentage of total DC visits subsequently declined each year throughout the study period, with percentage decreases from 2017 to 2022 of 1.45% or 8200 fewer visits for MM, 3.41% or 7280 fewer visits for BCC, and 2.26% or 3673 fewer visits for SCC.

When stratified by beneficiary category, this trend remained consistent among dependents and retirees, with the most notable annual percentage decrease from 2019 to 2020. A higher proportion of younger adults and active-duty beneficiaries was seen in DC relative to PC, in which most visits were among retirees and others (primarily dependents of retirees, survivors, and Guard/Reserve on active duty, as well as inactive Guard/Reserve). No linear trends over time were apparent for active duty in DC and for dependents and retirees in PC. eTable 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of MHS beneficiaries being seen in DC and PC over the study period for each cancer type of interest.

The Table shows the period prevalence of skin cancer diagnoses within the MHS beneficiary population from 2017 to 2022. These data were further analyzed by MM, BCC, and SCC (eTable 2) and demographics of interest for the year 2022. By beneficiary category, the period prevalence of MM was 0.08% in active duty, 0.06% in dependents, 0.48% in others, and 1.10% in retirees; the period prevalence of BCC was 0.12% in active duty, 0.07% in dependents, 0.91% in others, and 2.50% in retirees; and the period prevalence of SCC was 0.02% in active duty, 0.01% in dependents, 0.63% in others, and 1.87% in retirees. By sponsor branch, the period prevalence of MM was 0.35% in the army, 0.62% in the air force, 0.35% in the marine corps, and 0.65% in the navy; the period prevalence of BCC was 0.74% in the army, 1.30% in the air force, 0.74% in the marine corps, and 1.36% in the navy; and the period prevalence of SCC was 0.52% in the army, 0.92% in the air force, 0.51% in the marine corps, and 0.97% in the navy.

Comment

This study aimed to provide insight into the burden of skin cancer within the MHS beneficiary population and to identify temporal trends in where these beneficiaries receive their care. We examined patient encounter data from more than 9.6 million MHS beneficiaries.

The utilization of ICD codes from patient encounters to estimate the prevalence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) has demonstrated a high positive predictive value. In one study, NMSC cases were confirmed in 96.5% of ICD code–identified patients.⁵ We presented an extensive collection of epidemiologic data on BCC and SCC, which posed unique challenges for tracking, as they are not reported to or monitored by cancer registries such as the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.⁶

MHS Compared to the US Population—A study using the Global Burden of Disease 2019 database revealed an increasing trend in the incidence and prevalence of NMSC and melanoma since 1990. The same study found the period prevalence in 2019 of MM, SCC, and BCC in the general US population to be 0.13%, 0.31%, and 0.05%, respectively.⁷ In contrast, among MHS beneficiaries, we observed a higher prevalence in the same year, with figures of 0.66% for MM, 0.72% for SCC, and 1.02% for BCC. According to the SEER database, the period prevalence of MM within the general US population in 2020 was 0.4%.⁸ That same year, we identified a higher period prevalence of MM—0.54%—within the MHS beneficiary population. Specifically, within the MHS retiree population, the prevalence in 2022 was double that of the general MHS population, with a rate of 1.10%, underscoring the importance of skin cancer screening in older, at-risk adult populations. Prior studies similarly found increased rates of skin cancer within the military beneficiary population. Further studies are needed to compare age-adjusted rates in the MHS vs US population.^9-11

COVID-19 Trends—Our data showed an overall decreasing prevalence of skin cancer in the MHS from 2019 to 2021. We suspect that the apparent decrease in skin cancer prevalence may be attributed to underdiagnosis from COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. During that time, many dermatology clinics at military treatment facilities underwent temporary closures, and some dermatologists were sent on nondermatologic utilization tours. Likewise, a US multi-institutional study described declining rates of new melanomas from 2020 to 2021, with an increased proportion of patient presentations with advanced melanoma, suggesting an underdiagnosis of melanoma cases during pandemic restrictions. That study also noted an increased rate of patient-identified melanomas and a decreased rate of provider-identified melanomas during that time.¹² Contributing factors may include excess hospital demand, increased patient complexity and acute care needs, and long outpatient clinic backlogs during this time.¹³Financial Burden—Over our 5-year study period, there were 5,374,348 patient encounters addressing skin cancer, both in DC and PC (Figures 1 and 2; eTable 1). In 2016 to 2018, the average annual cost of treating skin cancer in the US civilian, noninstitutionalized population was $1243 for NMSC (BCC and SCC) and $2430 for melanoma.⁶ Using this metric, the estimated total cost of care rendered in the MHS in 2018 for NMSC and melanoma was $202,510,803 and $156,516,300, respectively.

Trends in DC vs PC—In the years examined, we found a notable decrease in the number of beneficiaries receiving treatment for MM, BCC, and SCC in DC. Simultaneously, there has been an increase in the number of beneficiaries receiving PC for BCC and SCC, though this trend was not apparent for MM.

Our data provided interesting insights into the percentage of PC compared with DC offered within the MHS. Importantly, our findings suggested that the majority of skin cancer in active-duty service members is managed with DC within the military treatment facility setting (61% DC management over the period analyzed). This finding was true across all years of data analyzed, suggesting that the COVID-19 pandemic did not result in a quantifiable shift in care of skin cancer within the active-duty component to outside providers. One of the critical roles of dermatologists in the MHS is to diagnose and treat skin cancer, and our study suggested that the current global manning and staffing for MHS dermatologists may not be sufficient to meet the burden of skin cancers encountered within our active-duty troops, as only 61% are managed with DC. In particular, service members in more austere and/or overseas locations may not have ready access to a dermatologist.

The burden of skin cancer shifts dramatically when analyzing care of all other populations included in these data, including dependents of active-duty service members, retirees, and the category of “other” (ie, principally dependents of retirees). Within these populations, the rate of DC falls to 30%, with 70% of active-duty dependent care being deferred to network. The findings are even more noticeable for retirees and others within these 2 cohorts in all types of skin cancer analyzed, where DC only accounted for 5.2% of those skin cancers encountered and managed across TRICARE-eligible beneficiaries. For MM, BCC, and SCC, percentages of DC were 5.4%, 5.8%, and 3.5%, respectively. Although it is interesting to note the lower percentage of SCC managed via DC, our data did not allow for extrapolation as to why more SCC cases may be deferred to network. The shift to PC may align with DoD initiatives to increase the private sector’s involvement in military medicine and transition to civilianizing the MHS.¹⁴ In the end, the findings are remarkable, with approximately 95% of skin cancer care and management provided overall via PC.

These findings differ from previously published data regarding DC and PC from other specialty areas. Results from an analysis of DC vs PC for plastic surgery for the entire MHS from 2016 to 2019 found 83.2% of cases were deferred to network.¹⁵ A similar publication in the orthopedics literature examined TRICARE claims for patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasties between 2006 and 2019 and found 84.6% of cases were referred for PC. Notably, the authors utilized generalized linear models for cost analysis and found that DC was more expensive than PC, though this likely was a result of higher rates of hospital readmission within DC cases.¹⁶ Lastly, an article on the DC vs PC disposition of MHS patients with breast cancer from 2003 to 2008 found 46% of cases managed with DC vs 26.% with PC and 27.8% receiving a combination. In this case, the authors found a reduced cost associated with DC vs PC.¹⁷

Little additional literature exists regarding the costs of DC vs PC. An article published in 2016 designed to assess costs of DC vs PC showed that almost all military treatment facilities have higher costs than their private sector counterparts, with a few exceptions.¹⁸ This does not assess the costs of specific procedures, however, and only the overall cost to maintain a treatment facility. Importantly, this study was based on data from FY 2014 and has not been updated to reflect complex changes within the MHS system and the private health care system. Indeed, a US Government Accountability Office FY 2023 study highlighted staffing and efficiency issues within this transition to civilian medicine; subsequently, the 2024 President’s Budget suspended all planned clinical medical military end strength divestitures, underscoring the potential ineffectiveness of a civilianized MHS at meeting the health care needs of its beneficiaries.^19,20 Future research on a national scale will be necessary to see if there is a reversal of this trend to PC and if doing so has any impact on access to DC for active-duty troops or active-duty dependents.

In addition to PC vs DC trends, we also can get a sense of the impact of the COVID pandemic restrictions on access to DC vs PC by assessing the change in rates seen in the data from the pre-COVID years (2017-2019) to the “post-COVID” years (2020-2022) included. Overall, rates of DC decreased uniformly from their already low percentages. In our study, rates of DC decreased from 5.8% in 2019 to 4.8% in 2022 for MM, from 6.6% to 4.3% for BCC, and from 4.2% to 2.9% for SCC. Although these changes seem small at first, they represent a 30.6% overall decrease in DC for BCC and an overall decrease of 55.4% in DC for SCC. Although our data do not allow us to extrapolate the real cost of this reduction across a nationwide health care system and more than 5 million care encounters, the financial and personal (ie, lost man-hours) costs of this decrease in DC likely are substantial.

In addition to costs, qualitative aspects that contribute to the burden of skin cancer include treatment-related morbidity, such as scarring, pain, and time spent away from family, work, and hobbies, as well as overall patient satisfaction with the quality of care they receive.²¹ Future work is critical to assess the real cost of this immense burden of PC for the treatment and management of skin cancers within the DoD beneficiary population.

Limitations—This study is limited by its observational nature. Given the mechanism of our data collection, we may have underestimated disease prevalence, as not all patients are seen for their diagnosis annually. Furthermore, reported demographic strata (eg, age, sex) were limited to those available and valid in the M2 reporting system. Finally, our study only collected data from those service members or former service members seen within the MHS and does not reflect any care rendered to those who are no longer active duty but did not officially retire from the military (ie, nonretired service members receiving care in the Veterans Affairs system for skin cancer).

Conclusion

We describe the annual burden of care for skin cancer in the MHS beneficiary population. Noteworthy findings observed were an overall decrease in beneficiaries being treated for skin cancer through DC; a decreasing annual prevalence of skin cancer diagnosis between 2019 and 2021, which may represent underdiagnosis or decreased follow-up in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic; and a higher rate of skin cancer in the military beneficiary population compared to the civilian population.

Angiosarcomas are aggressive endothelial cell tumors of vascular origin that account for 1% to 2% of all soft tissue sarcomas in the United States.^1,2 They can affect any organ in the body but most commonly affect the skin and soft tissue. Cutaneous angiosarcoma (CAS) is a rare type of skin cancer that can present in 2 forms: primary and secondary. The primary form lacks a known underlying cause, but secondary CAS commonly is linked to prior radiation therapy of the breast as well as lymphedema of the breast and arm. Secondary CAS may require different treatment than primary CAS, as radiation therapy poses risks to patients with radiation-induced CAS.³ The prognosis of CAS is poor due to delayed diagnosis. Current treatment modalities have a high rate of local recurrence and/or distant metastasis, but recent advances in surgery and other therapies such as radiation and immunotherapy provide hope for more successful disease control.

Dermatologists may be responsible for the initial diagnosis and management of CAS. They must be familiar with its presentation, as this condition can be difficult to diagnose and mimics other diseases. Additionally, dermatologists must understand the role of varying treatment modalities including Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) in the management of CAS. This review will provide an overview of the epidemiology, presentation, and pathologic features of CAS and will discuss both emerging and existing treatments.

Epidemiology

Cutaneous angiosarcoma may present in various locations in the body, predominantly on the head and neck.^4,5 Approximately 85% of cases arise in patients older than 60 years, and most of these patients are White men.^1,4,5 The risk factors for the development of CAS include prior radiation exposure; chronic lymphedema (ie, Stewart-Treves syndrome); and familial syndromes including neurofibromatosis 1, BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, Maffucci syndrome, and Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome. Exogenous exposure to toxins such as vinyl chloride, thorium dioxide, or anabolic steroids also is associated with angiosarcoma, primarily in the form of visceral disease such as hepatic angiosarcoma.⁶

The average tumor size is approximately 4 to 5 cm; however, some tumors may grow larger than 10 cm.^7,8 Metastasis through hematogenous or lymphatic spread is fairly common, occurring in approximately 16% to 35% of patients. The lungs and liver are the most common sites of metastasis.^9,10 The age-adjusted incidence rate of CAS is decreasing for patients younger than 50 years, from 1.30 in 1995 to 2004 to 1.10 in 2005 to 2014, but increasing for individuals older than 70 years, from 2.53 in 1995 to 2004 to 2.87 in 2005 to 2014.⁴ The incidence of angiosarcoma also has grown in the female population, likely due to the increasing use of radiotherapy for the treatment of breast cancer.¹¹

The high rates of CAS on the head and neck may be explained by the increased vascularity and UV exposure in these locations.¹² In a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results population-based study (N=811), 43% of patients with CAS had a history of other malignancies such as breast, prostate, genitourinary, gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory tract cancers.⁴ Cutaneous angiosarcoma can develop secondary to the primary cancer treatment, as seen in patients who develop CAS following radiation therapy.¹¹

The underlying mechanism of CAS is believed to involve dysregulation of angiogenesis due to the vascular origin of these tumors. Studies have identified overexpression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), TP53 mutations, and RAS pathway mutations as potential contributing factors to the pathogenesis of angiosarcoma.⁶ Molecular differences between primary and secondary angiosarcomas are not well documented; however, radiation-associated CAS has been found to have higher expression of LYN and PRKCΘ, while non–radiation-induced lesions express FTL1 and AKT3.² Chromosomal abnormalities have been identified in a small set of primary CAS patients, but the specific role of these abnormalities in the pathogenesis of CAS remains unclear.⁷

Prognosis

Cutaneous angiosarcoma has a poor prognosis, with 3-year disease-specific survival rates as low as 40% and 5-year rates as low as 17%.^4,5,13,14 Survival rates increased from 1985 to 2014, likely due to earlier diagnoses and more effective treatments.⁴ Several factors are associated with worse prognosis, including metastatic disease, increasing age, scalp and neck tumor location, tumor size greater than 5 cm, necrosis, multiple skin lesions, and nodular and epithelioid morphology.^4,5,10,13-16 Factors including sex, race, and presence of another malignancy do not affect survival.^4,5 Prognosis in CAS may be evaluated by TNM tumor staging. The American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual (8th edition) for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) commonly is used; however, CAS is not included in this staging system because it does not share the same behavior and natural history as other types of STS. This staging system provides separate guidelines for STS of the head and neck and STS of the extremities and trunk because of the smaller size but paradoxically higher risk for head and neck tumors.¹⁷ Given that there is no agreed-upon staging system for CAS, prognosis and communication among providers may be complicated.

Early CAS typically presents as single or multifocal ill-defined, enlarging, violaceous or dusky red macules or patches (Figure 1). Lesions often rapidly develop into raised nodules and plaques that may bleed and ulcerate. Other common symptoms include pain, edema, neuropathy, anemia, and weight loss; however, it is not uncommon for lesions to be asymptomatic.^8,18-20 Nodular lesions are more common on the scalp, and patches are more common on the face and neck.¹⁶ Tumors typically extend into the dermis, and aggressive cancers may invade the subcutaneous tissue and fascia.²

Cutaneous angiosarcoma may mimic ecchymosis, hemangioma, lymphangioma, edema, cellulitis, or scarring alopecia. Its nonspecific features make it difficult to recognize without dermoscopy or ultrasonography, which often results in delayed diagnosis and treatment. The median delay typically is 5 to 7 months and up to 1 year for some patients.^7,16 Cutaneous angiosarcoma of the scalp tends to have a longer diagnostic delay than other areas of the body, which may be attributable to challenges in tumor identification and visualization by patients.¹⁶

Dermoscopy and ultrasonography can aid in the diagnosis of CAS. Dermoscopy may demonstrate a range of colors with yellow, brown, or red areas in a violaceous background. Other reported features include white veils and lines, purple ovals, pink-purple “steamlike” areas, and atypical vessels (Figure 2).^21-23 Dermoscopic findings may appear similar to other vascular tumors, such as hemangioma and Kaposi sarcoma, or nonvascular tumors, including amelanotic melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma. Ultrasonography may show ill-defined, hypoechoic areas with anechoic reticular channels and a hypoechoic subepidermal layer.²¹ Other radiologic modalities, such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or positron emission tomography, are nonspecific and are more useful in evaluating the extent of tumor spread in visceral angiosarcoma. Magnetic resonance imaging in CAS may indicate malignancy with the presence of high T2 and T1 signal intensity and high-flow serpentine vessels.²⁴

Histopathology

Histologically, angiosarcoma is characterized by anastomosing irregular vascular channels lined by a single layer of endothelial cells displaying slight to moderate atypia.²⁵ These vascular channels dissect between collagen bundles and adipocytes. Monocyte infiltration may be observed.⁶ The neoplastic endothelial cells may present as spindle-shaped, round, polygonal, or epithelioid with eosinophilic cytoplasm. Histologic features differ based on the type of clinical lesion (Figure 3). In a study of CAS in Asian populations, nodular tumors showed solid sheets of pleomorphic spindle cells, many mitotic figures, and widely hemorrhagic spaces, whereas nonnodular tumors showed irregular vascular spaces dissecting collagen.¹⁶ Poorly differentiated tumors may present with hyperchromatic nuclei and prominent nucleoli, papillary endothelial formations, mitoses, and possible hemorrhage or necrosis.^2,6,8 Histologic specimens also may reveal calcified bodies and hemosiderin particles.¹⁹ Angiosarcomas typically are invasive without a clear capsule or border.⁶

Photograph courtesy of Kim HooKim, MD (Camden, New Jersey).

Secondary CAS in the setting of lymphedema and radiation therapy has MYC amplification and is positive for MYC via immunohistochemistry, which is uncommon in primary angiosarcoma.²⁶ Immunohistochemical staining of tumor specimens is helpful to confirm the diagnosis of CAS. These markers include CD31, CD34, CD117, cytokeratin, vimentin, epithelial membrane antigen, factor VIII–related antigen, Ulex europaeus agglutinin-1, von Willebrand factor, and VEGF.^6,19,27,28 Notably, advanced angiosarcomas with progressive dedifferentiation often lose these markers.

Treatment

Surgery—The majority of patients treated for CAS undergo surgical resection, as surgery has been shown to have the best prognosis for patients.^5,9,10,13,15 Achieving R0 resection (microscopically negative margins) is the most important factor in determining the success of treatment, with incomplete surgical resection resulting in higher rates of systemic and local spread.²⁹ Abraham et al⁸ found that the median disease-specific survival of patients with microscopically negative margins was 83.7 months; patients with microscopically positive and grossly positive margins had median disease-specific survival of 63.4 and 18.1 months, respectively. In a case series of patients undergoing resection with negative surgical margins, 4 patients demonstrated no evidence of local recurrence or systemic disease at an average of 4.3 years after therapy, and the other 4 patients each had 1 local recurrence but were disease free an average of 4.8 years after removal of the recurrent lesion. In a series of 27 patients with positive surgical margins, there was local recurrence within 2 years for most patients.¹²

Large tumors invading nearby structures may not be amenable to surgical resection because of extensive local growth, propensity for skip lesions, and localization near vital organs of the head and neck.^5,7 The extended delay in diagnosis often seen in CAS allows for advanced local progression, resulting in large areas of resection. In a case series (N=8), the average surgical defect measured 14.3×11.8 cm, necessitating reconstruction with either a tissue flap or split-thickness skin graft in every case because primary closure was not possible. More than 80% of patients in this study still had positive margins after surgery, necessitating the use of additional chemotherapy or radiation to eradicate remaining disease.⁷ In several studies, multimodality therapy was associated with improved overall survival.^7,14,30

Mohs Micrographic Surgery—Mohs micrographic surgery is the standard of care for many aggressive cutaneous malignancies on the head, but its utility for the treatment of CAS is uncertain. Only a few studies have compared the efficacy of MMS vs wide local excision (WLE). There have been reports of recurrence-free follow-up at 12, 16, 18, 20, and 72 months after MMS.^31-36 The latter case showed a patient who underwent MMS with a 72-month relapse-free survival, whereas other patients who underwent WLE only survived 5 to 7 months without recurrence.³⁶ In another study, there was a local recurrence rate of 42.9% after a median follow-up of 4 years in 7 patients with CAS treated with complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment, which is less than the reported recurrence rates of 72% to 84% after standard excisional procedures.^28,37

Houpe et al³⁸ conducted a systematic review of the use of WLE vs MMS; the median overall survival was longest for WLE in conjunction with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy at 39.3 months, followed by MMS alone at 37 months. Mohs micrographic surgery in conjunction with chemotherapy and radiotherapy was used in 1 patient, with a median overall survival of 82 months. Wide local excision alone resulted in a median overall survival of 19.8 months. Although these data are promising and suggest that the combination of surgery with adjuvant therapy may be more beneficial than surgery alone, it is important to note that there were only 9 cases treated with MMS compared with 825 cases treated with WLE.³⁸

Several studies have documented that paraffin-embedded sections may be more useful than frozen sections in the determination of margin positivity from a surgical specimen, as frozen sections showed a poor negative predictive value of 33.3%.^7,35 Mohs micrographic surgery has been proposed for tumors measuring less than 5 cm; however, the most recent appropriate use criteria for MMS of the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and American Society for Mohs Surgery deemed the use of MMS for angiosarcoma uncertain.^32,33,37 Further research is necessary to elucidate the role of MMS in the management of CAS.

Radiotherapy—Radiotherapy is a common adjuvant to surgical resection but has been used palliatively in patients with tumors that are unresectable. Improved local control and disease-free survival have been observed with the combination of radiation and surgery. A dose response to radiotherapy has been demonstrated,^18,30 with 1 study showing that patients who received more than 5000 cGy of radiotherapy achieved better local control than patients who received 4500 cGy or less.¹⁸ Pawlik et al⁷ showed a decreased chance of death with the addition of adjunctive radiotherapy, and patients who underwent postoperative radiotherapy demonstrated a median survival almost 4-times longer than patients who did not receive radiation. Morrison et al³⁹ reported that radiation therapy administered to patients with no clinically evident disease after surgical resection resulted in improved local control and overall survival vs patients who were irradiated with clinically evident disease.

Complications of radiotherapy for angiosarcoma have been reported, including xerostomia, nonfunctionally significant fibrosis, chronic ulceration/cellulitis of the scalp, necrosis requiring debridement, severe ocular complications, and fibrosis of the eyelids requiring surgical intervention.¹⁴ Radiation therapy also poses unique risks to patients with radiation-induced angiosarcoma of the breast, as many of these patients have already received the maximum recommended dose of radiation in the affected areas and additional radiation could exacerbate their CAS.

Chemotherapy—Chemotherapy occasionally is used as an adjunct to surgical resection with positive margins or as palliative care when surgical resection is not possible. Unfortunately, STSs have a response rate of less than 40% to standard chemotherapy.⁴⁰ Studies in which the use of chemotherapy is evaluated for CAS have mixed results. Mark et al¹⁸ reported no significant overall survival benefit when comparing CAS treated with surgery plus radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. Torres et al⁴¹ evaluated radiation-induced angiosarcoma of the breast and found a reduced risk for local recurrence in patients receiving chemotherapy in addition to surgery, indicating that chemotherapy may be useful in this subset of patients when radiation is not recommended.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy agents such as paclitaxel, doxorubicin, or doxorubicin in combination with mesna and ifosfamide (MAI) are common.³⁹ Median progression-free survival is 5.4 months, 4 to 5.6 months, and 3.9 months for MAI, paclitaxel, and doxorubicin, respectively.^8,9,42-46 Improved prognosis with MAI may indicate that combination chemotherapy regimens are more effective than single-agent regimens. Cutaneous angiosarcomas may respond better to paclitaxel than doxorubicin, and angiosarcomas of the scalp and face have shown a better response to paclitaxel.^47,48

Other Therapies—Although there have not been large-scale studies performed on alternative treatments, there are several case reports on the use of immune modulators, biologics, β-blockers, and various other therapies in the treatment of CAS. The following studies include small sample sizes of patients with metastatic or locally aggressive disease not amenable to surgical resection, which may affect reported outcomes and survival times.^49-57 In addition, several studies include patients with visceral angiosarcoma, which may not be generalizable to the CAS population. Even so, these treatment alternatives should not be overlooked because there are few agents that are truly efficacious in the treatment of CAS.

Results on the use of VEGF and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been disappointing. There have been reports of median progression-free survival of only 3.8 months with sorafenib treatment, 3 months with pazopanib, and 6 months with bevacizumab.^49-51 However, one study of patients who were treated with bevacizumab combined with radiation and surgery resulted in a complete response in 2 patients, with no evidence of residual disease at the last follow-up of 8.5 months and 2.1 years.⁵²

Studies on the utility of β-blockers in the treatment of CAS have shown mixed results. Pasquier et al⁵³ evaluated the use of adjunctive therapy with propranolol and vinblastine-based chemotherapy, with a promising median progression-free survival of 11 months compared with an average of 3 to 6 months with conventional chemotherapy regimens. However, in vitro studies reported by Pasquier et al⁵³ indicated that the addition of propranolol to doxorubicin or paclitaxel did not result in increased efficacy. Chow et al⁵⁴ demonstrated that propranolol monotherapy resulted in a reduction of the proliferative index of scalp angiosarcoma by 34% after only 1 week of treatment. This was followed by combination therapy of propranolol, paclitaxel, and radiation, which resulted in substantial tumor regression and no evidence of metastasis after 8 months of therapy.⁵⁴

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been a recent subject of interest in the treatment of angiosarcoma. Two case reports showed improvement in CAS of the face and primary pleural angiosarcoma with a course of pembrolizumab.^55,56 In another case series, investigators used immune checkpoint inhibitors in 7 patients with cutaneous, breast, or radiation-associated angiosarcoma and found partial response in several patients treated with pembrolizumab and ipilimumab-nivolumab and complete response in 1 patient treated with anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies. The authors of this study hypothesized that treatment response was associated with the mutational profile of tumors, including mutational signatures of UV radiation with a large number of C-to-T substitutions similar to melanomas.⁵⁷

Conclusion

Cutaneous angiosarcoma is a rare and aggressive tumor with a poor prognosis due to delayed detection. A thorough skin examination and heightened awareness of CAS by dermatologists may result in early biopsy and shortened time to a definitive diagnosis. Until quality evidence allows for the creation of consensus guidelines, care at a cancer center that specializes in rare and difficult-to-treat tumors and employs a multidisciplinary approach is essential to optimizing patient outcomes. Current knowledge supports surgery with negative margins as the mainstay of treatment, with adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies as possible additions for extensive disease. The role of MMS is uncertain, and because of the lack of contiguity in CAS, it may not be an optimal treatment.

Angiosarcomas are aggressive endothelial cell tumors of vascular origin that account for 1% to 2% of all soft tissue sarcomas in the United States.^1,2 They can affect any organ in the body but most commonly affect the skin and soft tissue. Cutaneous angiosarcoma (CAS) is a rare type of skin cancer that can present in 2 forms: primary and secondary. The primary form lacks a known underlying cause, but secondary CAS commonly is linked to prior radiation therapy of the breast as well as lymphedema of the breast and arm. Secondary CAS may require different treatment than primary CAS, as radiation therapy poses risks to patients with radiation-induced CAS.³ The prognosis of CAS is poor due to delayed diagnosis. Current treatment modalities have a high rate of local recurrence and/or distant metastasis, but recent advances in surgery and other therapies such as radiation and immunotherapy provide hope for more successful disease control.

Dermatologists may be responsible for the initial diagnosis and management of CAS. They must be familiar with its presentation, as this condition can be difficult to diagnose and mimics other diseases. Additionally, dermatologists must understand the role of varying treatment modalities including Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) in the management of CAS. This review will provide an overview of the epidemiology, presentation, and pathologic features of CAS and will discuss both emerging and existing treatments.

Epidemiology

Cutaneous angiosarcoma may present in various locations in the body, predominantly on the head and neck.^4,5 Approximately 85% of cases arise in patients older than 60 years, and most of these patients are White men.^1,4,5 The risk factors for the development of CAS include prior radiation exposure; chronic lymphedema (ie, Stewart-Treves syndrome); and familial syndromes including neurofibromatosis 1, BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, Maffucci syndrome, and Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome. Exogenous exposure to toxins such as vinyl chloride, thorium dioxide, or anabolic steroids also is associated with angiosarcoma, primarily in the form of visceral disease such as hepatic angiosarcoma.⁶

The average tumor size is approximately 4 to 5 cm; however, some tumors may grow larger than 10 cm.^7,8 Metastasis through hematogenous or lymphatic spread is fairly common, occurring in approximately 16% to 35% of patients. The lungs and liver are the most common sites of metastasis.^9,10 The age-adjusted incidence rate of CAS is decreasing for patients younger than 50 years, from 1.30 in 1995 to 2004 to 1.10 in 2005 to 2014, but increasing for individuals older than 70 years, from 2.53 in 1995 to 2004 to 2.87 in 2005 to 2014.⁴ The incidence of angiosarcoma also has grown in the female population, likely due to the increasing use of radiotherapy for the treatment of breast cancer.¹¹

The high rates of CAS on the head and neck may be explained by the increased vascularity and UV exposure in these locations.¹² In a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results population-based study (N=811), 43% of patients with CAS had a history of other malignancies such as breast, prostate, genitourinary, gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory tract cancers.⁴ Cutaneous angiosarcoma can develop secondary to the primary cancer treatment, as seen in patients who develop CAS following radiation therapy.¹¹

The underlying mechanism of CAS is believed to involve dysregulation of angiogenesis due to the vascular origin of these tumors. Studies have identified overexpression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), TP53 mutations, and RAS pathway mutations as potential contributing factors to the pathogenesis of angiosarcoma.⁶ Molecular differences between primary and secondary angiosarcomas are not well documented; however, radiation-associated CAS has been found to have higher expression of LYN and PRKCΘ, while non–radiation-induced lesions express FTL1 and AKT3.² Chromosomal abnormalities have been identified in a small set of primary CAS patients, but the specific role of these abnormalities in the pathogenesis of CAS remains unclear.⁷

Prognosis

Cutaneous angiosarcoma has a poor prognosis, with 3-year disease-specific survival rates as low as 40% and 5-year rates as low as 17%.^4,5,13,14 Survival rates increased from 1985 to 2014, likely due to earlier diagnoses and more effective treatments.⁴ Several factors are associated with worse prognosis, including metastatic disease, increasing age, scalp and neck tumor location, tumor size greater than 5 cm, necrosis, multiple skin lesions, and nodular and epithelioid morphology.^4,5,10,13-16 Factors including sex, race, and presence of another malignancy do not affect survival.^4,5 Prognosis in CAS may be evaluated by TNM tumor staging. The American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual (8th edition) for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) commonly is used; however, CAS is not included in this staging system because it does not share the same behavior and natural history as other types of STS. This staging system provides separate guidelines for STS of the head and neck and STS of the extremities and trunk because of the smaller size but paradoxically higher risk for head and neck tumors.¹⁷ Given that there is no agreed-upon staging system for CAS, prognosis and communication among providers may be complicated.

Early CAS typically presents as single or multifocal ill-defined, enlarging, violaceous or dusky red macules or patches (Figure 1). Lesions often rapidly develop into raised nodules and plaques that may bleed and ulcerate. Other common symptoms include pain, edema, neuropathy, anemia, and weight loss; however, it is not uncommon for lesions to be asymptomatic.^8,18-20 Nodular lesions are more common on the scalp, and patches are more common on the face and neck.¹⁶ Tumors typically extend into the dermis, and aggressive cancers may invade the subcutaneous tissue and fascia.²

Cutaneous angiosarcoma may mimic ecchymosis, hemangioma, lymphangioma, edema, cellulitis, or scarring alopecia. Its nonspecific features make it difficult to recognize without dermoscopy or ultrasonography, which often results in delayed diagnosis and treatment. The median delay typically is 5 to 7 months and up to 1 year for some patients.^7,16 Cutaneous angiosarcoma of the scalp tends to have a longer diagnostic delay than other areas of the body, which may be attributable to challenges in tumor identification and visualization by patients.¹⁶

Dermoscopy and ultrasonography can aid in the diagnosis of CAS. Dermoscopy may demonstrate a range of colors with yellow, brown, or red areas in a violaceous background. Other reported features include white veils and lines, purple ovals, pink-purple “steamlike” areas, and atypical vessels (Figure 2).^21-23 Dermoscopic findings may appear similar to other vascular tumors, such as hemangioma and Kaposi sarcoma, or nonvascular tumors, including amelanotic melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma. Ultrasonography may show ill-defined, hypoechoic areas with anechoic reticular channels and a hypoechoic subepidermal layer.²¹ Other radiologic modalities, such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or positron emission tomography, are nonspecific and are more useful in evaluating the extent of tumor spread in visceral angiosarcoma. Magnetic resonance imaging in CAS may indicate malignancy with the presence of high T2 and T1 signal intensity and high-flow serpentine vessels.²⁴

Histopathology

Histologically, angiosarcoma is characterized by anastomosing irregular vascular channels lined by a single layer of endothelial cells displaying slight to moderate atypia.²⁵ These vascular channels dissect between collagen bundles and adipocytes. Monocyte infiltration may be observed.⁶ The neoplastic endothelial cells may present as spindle-shaped, round, polygonal, or epithelioid with eosinophilic cytoplasm. Histologic features differ based on the type of clinical lesion (Figure 3). In a study of CAS in Asian populations, nodular tumors showed solid sheets of pleomorphic spindle cells, many mitotic figures, and widely hemorrhagic spaces, whereas nonnodular tumors showed irregular vascular spaces dissecting collagen.¹⁶ Poorly differentiated tumors may present with hyperchromatic nuclei and prominent nucleoli, papillary endothelial formations, mitoses, and possible hemorrhage or necrosis.^2,6,8 Histologic specimens also may reveal calcified bodies and hemosiderin particles.¹⁹ Angiosarcomas typically are invasive without a clear capsule or border.⁶

Photograph courtesy of Kim HooKim, MD (Camden, New Jersey).

Secondary CAS in the setting of lymphedema and radiation therapy has MYC amplification and is positive for MYC via immunohistochemistry, which is uncommon in primary angiosarcoma.²⁶ Immunohistochemical staining of tumor specimens is helpful to confirm the diagnosis of CAS. These markers include CD31, CD34, CD117, cytokeratin, vimentin, epithelial membrane antigen, factor VIII–related antigen, Ulex europaeus agglutinin-1, von Willebrand factor, and VEGF.^6,19,27,28 Notably, advanced angiosarcomas with progressive dedifferentiation often lose these markers.

Treatment

Surgery—The majority of patients treated for CAS undergo surgical resection, as surgery has been shown to have the best prognosis for patients.^5,9,10,13,15 Achieving R0 resection (microscopically negative margins) is the most important factor in determining the success of treatment, with incomplete surgical resection resulting in higher rates of systemic and local spread.²⁹ Abraham et al⁸ found that the median disease-specific survival of patients with microscopically negative margins was 83.7 months; patients with microscopically positive and grossly positive margins had median disease-specific survival of 63.4 and 18.1 months, respectively. In a case series of patients undergoing resection with negative surgical margins, 4 patients demonstrated no evidence of local recurrence or systemic disease at an average of 4.3 years after therapy, and the other 4 patients each had 1 local recurrence but were disease free an average of 4.8 years after removal of the recurrent lesion. In a series of 27 patients with positive surgical margins, there was local recurrence within 2 years for most patients.¹²

Large tumors invading nearby structures may not be amenable to surgical resection because of extensive local growth, propensity for skip lesions, and localization near vital organs of the head and neck.^5,7 The extended delay in diagnosis often seen in CAS allows for advanced local progression, resulting in large areas of resection. In a case series (N=8), the average surgical defect measured 14.3×11.8 cm, necessitating reconstruction with either a tissue flap or split-thickness skin graft in every case because primary closure was not possible. More than 80% of patients in this study still had positive margins after surgery, necessitating the use of additional chemotherapy or radiation to eradicate remaining disease.⁷ In several studies, multimodality therapy was associated with improved overall survival.^7,14,30

Mohs Micrographic Surgery—Mohs micrographic surgery is the standard of care for many aggressive cutaneous malignancies on the head, but its utility for the treatment of CAS is uncertain. Only a few studies have compared the efficacy of MMS vs wide local excision (WLE). There have been reports of recurrence-free follow-up at 12, 16, 18, 20, and 72 months after MMS.^31-36 The latter case showed a patient who underwent MMS with a 72-month relapse-free survival, whereas other patients who underwent WLE only survived 5 to 7 months without recurrence.³⁶ In another study, there was a local recurrence rate of 42.9% after a median follow-up of 4 years in 7 patients with CAS treated with complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment, which is less than the reported recurrence rates of 72% to 84% after standard excisional procedures.^28,37

Houpe et al³⁸ conducted a systematic review of the use of WLE vs MMS; the median overall survival was longest for WLE in conjunction with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy at 39.3 months, followed by MMS alone at 37 months. Mohs micrographic surgery in conjunction with chemotherapy and radiotherapy was used in 1 patient, with a median overall survival of 82 months. Wide local excision alone resulted in a median overall survival of 19.8 months. Although these data are promising and suggest that the combination of surgery with adjuvant therapy may be more beneficial than surgery alone, it is important to note that there were only 9 cases treated with MMS compared with 825 cases treated with WLE.³⁸

Several studies have documented that paraffin-embedded sections may be more useful than frozen sections in the determination of margin positivity from a surgical specimen, as frozen sections showed a poor negative predictive value of 33.3%.^7,35 Mohs micrographic surgery has been proposed for tumors measuring less than 5 cm; however, the most recent appropriate use criteria for MMS of the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and American Society for Mohs Surgery deemed the use of MMS for angiosarcoma uncertain.^32,33,37 Further research is necessary to elucidate the role of MMS in the management of CAS.

Radiotherapy—Radiotherapy is a common adjuvant to surgical resection but has been used palliatively in patients with tumors that are unresectable. Improved local control and disease-free survival have been observed with the combination of radiation and surgery. A dose response to radiotherapy has been demonstrated,^18,30 with 1 study showing that patients who received more than 5000 cGy of radiotherapy achieved better local control than patients who received 4500 cGy or less.¹⁸ Pawlik et al⁷ showed a decreased chance of death with the addition of adjunctive radiotherapy, and patients who underwent postoperative radiotherapy demonstrated a median survival almost 4-times longer than patients who did not receive radiation. Morrison et al³⁹ reported that radiation therapy administered to patients with no clinically evident disease after surgical resection resulted in improved local control and overall survival vs patients who were irradiated with clinically evident disease.

Complications of radiotherapy for angiosarcoma have been reported, including xerostomia, nonfunctionally significant fibrosis, chronic ulceration/cellulitis of the scalp, necrosis requiring debridement, severe ocular complications, and fibrosis of the eyelids requiring surgical intervention.¹⁴ Radiation therapy also poses unique risks to patients with radiation-induced angiosarcoma of the breast, as many of these patients have already received the maximum recommended dose of radiation in the affected areas and additional radiation could exacerbate their CAS.

Chemotherapy—Chemotherapy occasionally is used as an adjunct to surgical resection with positive margins or as palliative care when surgical resection is not possible. Unfortunately, STSs have a response rate of less than 40% to standard chemotherapy.⁴⁰ Studies in which the use of chemotherapy is evaluated for CAS have mixed results. Mark et al¹⁸ reported no significant overall survival benefit when comparing CAS treated with surgery plus radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. Torres et al⁴¹ evaluated radiation-induced angiosarcoma of the breast and found a reduced risk for local recurrence in patients receiving chemotherapy in addition to surgery, indicating that chemotherapy may be useful in this subset of patients when radiation is not recommended.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy agents such as paclitaxel, doxorubicin, or doxorubicin in combination with mesna and ifosfamide (MAI) are common.³⁹ Median progression-free survival is 5.4 months, 4 to 5.6 months, and 3.9 months for MAI, paclitaxel, and doxorubicin, respectively.^8,9,42-46 Improved prognosis with MAI may indicate that combination chemotherapy regimens are more effective than single-agent regimens. Cutaneous angiosarcomas may respond better to paclitaxel than doxorubicin, and angiosarcomas of the scalp and face have shown a better response to paclitaxel.^47,48

Other Therapies—Although there have not been large-scale studies performed on alternative treatments, there are several case reports on the use of immune modulators, biologics, β-blockers, and various other therapies in the treatment of CAS. The following studies include small sample sizes of patients with metastatic or locally aggressive disease not amenable to surgical resection, which may affect reported outcomes and survival times.^49-57 In addition, several studies include patients with visceral angiosarcoma, which may not be generalizable to the CAS population. Even so, these treatment alternatives should not be overlooked because there are few agents that are truly efficacious in the treatment of CAS.

Results on the use of VEGF and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been disappointing. There have been reports of median progression-free survival of only 3.8 months with sorafenib treatment, 3 months with pazopanib, and 6 months with bevacizumab.^49-51 However, one study of patients who were treated with bevacizumab combined with radiation and surgery resulted in a complete response in 2 patients, with no evidence of residual disease at the last follow-up of 8.5 months and 2.1 years.⁵²

Studies on the utility of β-blockers in the treatment of CAS have shown mixed results. Pasquier et al⁵³ evaluated the use of adjunctive therapy with propranolol and vinblastine-based chemotherapy, with a promising median progression-free survival of 11 months compared with an average of 3 to 6 months with conventional chemotherapy regimens. However, in vitro studies reported by Pasquier et al⁵³ indicated that the addition of propranolol to doxorubicin or paclitaxel did not result in increased efficacy. Chow et al⁵⁴ demonstrated that propranolol monotherapy resulted in a reduction of the proliferative index of scalp angiosarcoma by 34% after only 1 week of treatment. This was followed by combination therapy of propranolol, paclitaxel, and radiation, which resulted in substantial tumor regression and no evidence of metastasis after 8 months of therapy.⁵⁴

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been a recent subject of interest in the treatment of angiosarcoma. Two case reports showed improvement in CAS of the face and primary pleural angiosarcoma with a course of pembrolizumab.^55,56 In another case series, investigators used immune checkpoint inhibitors in 7 patients with cutaneous, breast, or radiation-associated angiosarcoma and found partial response in several patients treated with pembrolizumab and ipilimumab-nivolumab and complete response in 1 patient treated with anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies. The authors of this study hypothesized that treatment response was associated with the mutational profile of tumors, including mutational signatures of UV radiation with a large number of C-to-T substitutions similar to melanomas.⁵⁷

Conclusion

Cutaneous angiosarcoma is a rare and aggressive tumor with a poor prognosis due to delayed detection. A thorough skin examination and heightened awareness of CAS by dermatologists may result in early biopsy and shortened time to a definitive diagnosis. Until quality evidence allows for the creation of consensus guidelines, care at a cancer center that specializes in rare and difficult-to-treat tumors and employs a multidisciplinary approach is essential to optimizing patient outcomes. Current knowledge supports surgery with negative margins as the mainstay of treatment, with adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies as possible additions for extensive disease. The role of MMS is uncertain, and because of the lack of contiguity in CAS, it may not be an optimal treatment.

Angiosarcomas are aggressive endothelial cell tumors of vascular origin that account for 1% to 2% of all soft tissue sarcomas in the United States.^1,2 They can affect any organ in the body but most commonly affect the skin and soft tissue. Cutaneous angiosarcoma (CAS) is a rare type of skin cancer that can present in 2 forms: primary and secondary. The primary form lacks a known underlying cause, but secondary CAS commonly is linked to prior radiation therapy of the breast as well as lymphedema of the breast and arm. Secondary CAS may require different treatment than primary CAS, as radiation therapy poses risks to patients with radiation-induced CAS.³ The prognosis of CAS is poor due to delayed diagnosis. Current treatment modalities have a high rate of local recurrence and/or distant metastasis, but recent advances in surgery and other therapies such as radiation and immunotherapy provide hope for more successful disease control.

Dermatologists may be responsible for the initial diagnosis and management of CAS. They must be familiar with its presentation, as this condition can be difficult to diagnose and mimics other diseases. Additionally, dermatologists must understand the role of varying treatment modalities including Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) in the management of CAS. This review will provide an overview of the epidemiology, presentation, and pathologic features of CAS and will discuss both emerging and existing treatments.

Epidemiology

Cutaneous angiosarcoma may present in various locations in the body, predominantly on the head and neck.^4,5 Approximately 85% of cases arise in patients older than 60 years, and most of these patients are White men.^1,4,5 The risk factors for the development of CAS include prior radiation exposure; chronic lymphedema (ie, Stewart-Treves syndrome); and familial syndromes including neurofibromatosis 1, BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, Maffucci syndrome, and Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome. Exogenous exposure to toxins such as vinyl chloride, thorium dioxide, or anabolic steroids also is associated with angiosarcoma, primarily in the form of visceral disease such as hepatic angiosarcoma.⁶

The average tumor size is approximately 4 to 5 cm; however, some tumors may grow larger than 10 cm.^7,8 Metastasis through hematogenous or lymphatic spread is fairly common, occurring in approximately 16% to 35% of patients. The lungs and liver are the most common sites of metastasis.^9,10 The age-adjusted incidence rate of CAS is decreasing for patients younger than 50 years, from 1.30 in 1995 to 2004 to 1.10 in 2005 to 2014, but increasing for individuals older than 70 years, from 2.53 in 1995 to 2004 to 2.87 in 2005 to 2014.⁴ The incidence of angiosarcoma also has grown in the female population, likely due to the increasing use of radiotherapy for the treatment of breast cancer.¹¹

The high rates of CAS on the head and neck may be explained by the increased vascularity and UV exposure in these locations.¹² In a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results population-based study (N=811), 43% of patients with CAS had a history of other malignancies such as breast, prostate, genitourinary, gastrointestinal tract, and respiratory tract cancers.⁴ Cutaneous angiosarcoma can develop secondary to the primary cancer treatment, as seen in patients who develop CAS following radiation therapy.¹¹

The underlying mechanism of CAS is believed to involve dysregulation of angiogenesis due to the vascular origin of these tumors. Studies have identified overexpression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), TP53 mutations, and RAS pathway mutations as potential contributing factors to the pathogenesis of angiosarcoma.⁶ Molecular differences between primary and secondary angiosarcomas are not well documented; however, radiation-associated CAS has been found to have higher expression of LYN and PRKCΘ, while non–radiation-induced lesions express FTL1 and AKT3.² Chromosomal abnormalities have been identified in a small set of primary CAS patients, but the specific role of these abnormalities in the pathogenesis of CAS remains unclear.⁷

Prognosis

Cutaneous angiosarcoma has a poor prognosis, with 3-year disease-specific survival rates as low as 40% and 5-year rates as low as 17%.^4,5,13,14 Survival rates increased from 1985 to 2014, likely due to earlier diagnoses and more effective treatments.⁴ Several factors are associated with worse prognosis, including metastatic disease, increasing age, scalp and neck tumor location, tumor size greater than 5 cm, necrosis, multiple skin lesions, and nodular and epithelioid morphology.^4,5,10,13-16 Factors including sex, race, and presence of another malignancy do not affect survival.^4,5 Prognosis in CAS may be evaluated by TNM tumor staging. The American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual (8th edition) for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) commonly is used; however, CAS is not included in this staging system because it does not share the same behavior and natural history as other types of STS. This staging system provides separate guidelines for STS of the head and neck and STS of the extremities and trunk because of the smaller size but paradoxically higher risk for head and neck tumors.¹⁷ Given that there is no agreed-upon staging system for CAS, prognosis and communication among providers may be complicated.

Early CAS typically presents as single or multifocal ill-defined, enlarging, violaceous or dusky red macules or patches (Figure 1). Lesions often rapidly develop into raised nodules and plaques that may bleed and ulcerate. Other common symptoms include pain, edema, neuropathy, anemia, and weight loss; however, it is not uncommon for lesions to be asymptomatic.^8,18-20 Nodular lesions are more common on the scalp, and patches are more common on the face and neck.¹⁶ Tumors typically extend into the dermis, and aggressive cancers may invade the subcutaneous tissue and fascia.²

Cutaneous angiosarcoma may mimic ecchymosis, hemangioma, lymphangioma, edema, cellulitis, or scarring alopecia. Its nonspecific features make it difficult to recognize without dermoscopy or ultrasonography, which often results in delayed diagnosis and treatment. The median delay typically is 5 to 7 months and up to 1 year for some patients.^7,16 Cutaneous angiosarcoma of the scalp tends to have a longer diagnostic delay than other areas of the body, which may be attributable to challenges in tumor identification and visualization by patients.¹⁶

Dermoscopy and ultrasonography can aid in the diagnosis of CAS. Dermoscopy may demonstrate a range of colors with yellow, brown, or red areas in a violaceous background. Other reported features include white veils and lines, purple ovals, pink-purple “steamlike” areas, and atypical vessels (Figure 2).^21-23 Dermoscopic findings may appear similar to other vascular tumors, such as hemangioma and Kaposi sarcoma, or nonvascular tumors, including amelanotic melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, and primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma. Ultrasonography may show ill-defined, hypoechoic areas with anechoic reticular channels and a hypoechoic subepidermal layer.²¹ Other radiologic modalities, such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or positron emission tomography, are nonspecific and are more useful in evaluating the extent of tumor spread in visceral angiosarcoma. Magnetic resonance imaging in CAS may indicate malignancy with the presence of high T2 and T1 signal intensity and high-flow serpentine vessels.²⁴

Histopathology

Histologically, angiosarcoma is characterized by anastomosing irregular vascular channels lined by a single layer of endothelial cells displaying slight to moderate atypia.²⁵ These vascular channels dissect between collagen bundles and adipocytes. Monocyte infiltration may be observed.⁶ The neoplastic endothelial cells may present as spindle-shaped, round, polygonal, or epithelioid with eosinophilic cytoplasm. Histologic features differ based on the type of clinical lesion (Figure 3). In a study of CAS in Asian populations, nodular tumors showed solid sheets of pleomorphic spindle cells, many mitotic figures, and widely hemorrhagic spaces, whereas nonnodular tumors showed irregular vascular spaces dissecting collagen.¹⁶ Poorly differentiated tumors may present with hyperchromatic nuclei and prominent nucleoli, papillary endothelial formations, mitoses, and possible hemorrhage or necrosis.^2,6,8 Histologic specimens also may reveal calcified bodies and hemosiderin particles.¹⁹ Angiosarcomas typically are invasive without a clear capsule or border.⁶

Photograph courtesy of Kim HooKim, MD (Camden, New Jersey).

Secondary CAS in the setting of lymphedema and radiation therapy has MYC amplification and is positive for MYC via immunohistochemistry, which is uncommon in primary angiosarcoma.²⁶ Immunohistochemical staining of tumor specimens is helpful to confirm the diagnosis of CAS. These markers include CD31, CD34, CD117, cytokeratin, vimentin, epithelial membrane antigen, factor VIII–related antigen, Ulex europaeus agglutinin-1, von Willebrand factor, and VEGF.^6,19,27,28 Notably, advanced angiosarcomas with progressive dedifferentiation often lose these markers.

Treatment

Surgery—The majority of patients treated for CAS undergo surgical resection, as surgery has been shown to have the best prognosis for patients.^5,9,10,13,15 Achieving R0 resection (microscopically negative margins) is the most important factor in determining the success of treatment, with incomplete surgical resection resulting in higher rates of systemic and local spread.²⁹ Abraham et al⁸ found that the median disease-specific survival of patients with microscopically negative margins was 83.7 months; patients with microscopically positive and grossly positive margins had median disease-specific survival of 63.4 and 18.1 months, respectively. In a case series of patients undergoing resection with negative surgical margins, 4 patients demonstrated no evidence of local recurrence or systemic disease at an average of 4.3 years after therapy, and the other 4 patients each had 1 local recurrence but were disease free an average of 4.8 years after removal of the recurrent lesion. In a series of 27 patients with positive surgical margins, there was local recurrence within 2 years for most patients.¹²

Large tumors invading nearby structures may not be amenable to surgical resection because of extensive local growth, propensity for skip lesions, and localization near vital organs of the head and neck.^5,7 The extended delay in diagnosis often seen in CAS allows for advanced local progression, resulting in large areas of resection. In a case series (N=8), the average surgical defect measured 14.3×11.8 cm, necessitating reconstruction with either a tissue flap or split-thickness skin graft in every case because primary closure was not possible. More than 80% of patients in this study still had positive margins after surgery, necessitating the use of additional chemotherapy or radiation to eradicate remaining disease.⁷ In several studies, multimodality therapy was associated with improved overall survival.^7,14,30

Mohs Micrographic Surgery—Mohs micrographic surgery is the standard of care for many aggressive cutaneous malignancies on the head, but its utility for the treatment of CAS is uncertain. Only a few studies have compared the efficacy of MMS vs wide local excision (WLE). There have been reports of recurrence-free follow-up at 12, 16, 18, 20, and 72 months after MMS.^31-36 The latter case showed a patient who underwent MMS with a 72-month relapse-free survival, whereas other patients who underwent WLE only survived 5 to 7 months without recurrence.³⁶ In another study, there was a local recurrence rate of 42.9% after a median follow-up of 4 years in 7 patients with CAS treated with complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment, which is less than the reported recurrence rates of 72% to 84% after standard excisional procedures.^28,37

Houpe et al³⁸ conducted a systematic review of the use of WLE vs MMS; the median overall survival was longest for WLE in conjunction with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy at 39.3 months, followed by MMS alone at 37 months. Mohs micrographic surgery in conjunction with chemotherapy and radiotherapy was used in 1 patient, with a median overall survival of 82 months. Wide local excision alone resulted in a median overall survival of 19.8 months. Although these data are promising and suggest that the combination of surgery with adjuvant therapy may be more beneficial than surgery alone, it is important to note that there were only 9 cases treated with MMS compared with 825 cases treated with WLE.³⁸

Several studies have documented that paraffin-embedded sections may be more useful than frozen sections in the determination of margin positivity from a surgical specimen, as frozen sections showed a poor negative predictive value of 33.3%.^7,35 Mohs micrographic surgery has been proposed for tumors measuring less than 5 cm; however, the most recent appropriate use criteria for MMS of the American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and American Society for Mohs Surgery deemed the use of MMS for angiosarcoma uncertain.^32,33,37 Further research is necessary to elucidate the role of MMS in the management of CAS.

Radiotherapy—Radiotherapy is a common adjuvant to surgical resection but has been used palliatively in patients with tumors that are unresectable. Improved local control and disease-free survival have been observed with the combination of radiation and surgery. A dose response to radiotherapy has been demonstrated,^18,30 with 1 study showing that patients who received more than 5000 cGy of radiotherapy achieved better local control than patients who received 4500 cGy or less.¹⁸ Pawlik et al⁷ showed a decreased chance of death with the addition of adjunctive radiotherapy, and patients who underwent postoperative radiotherapy demonstrated a median survival almost 4-times longer than patients who did not receive radiation. Morrison et al³⁹ reported that radiation therapy administered to patients with no clinically evident disease after surgical resection resulted in improved local control and overall survival vs patients who were irradiated with clinically evident disease.

Complications of radiotherapy for angiosarcoma have been reported, including xerostomia, nonfunctionally significant fibrosis, chronic ulceration/cellulitis of the scalp, necrosis requiring debridement, severe ocular complications, and fibrosis of the eyelids requiring surgical intervention.¹⁴ Radiation therapy also poses unique risks to patients with radiation-induced angiosarcoma of the breast, as many of these patients have already received the maximum recommended dose of radiation in the affected areas and additional radiation could exacerbate their CAS.

Chemotherapy—Chemotherapy occasionally is used as an adjunct to surgical resection with positive margins or as palliative care when surgical resection is not possible. Unfortunately, STSs have a response rate of less than 40% to standard chemotherapy.⁴⁰ Studies in which the use of chemotherapy is evaluated for CAS have mixed results. Mark et al¹⁸ reported no significant overall survival benefit when comparing CAS treated with surgery plus radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. Torres et al⁴¹ evaluated radiation-induced angiosarcoma of the breast and found a reduced risk for local recurrence in patients receiving chemotherapy in addition to surgery, indicating that chemotherapy may be useful in this subset of patients when radiation is not recommended.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy agents such as paclitaxel, doxorubicin, or doxorubicin in combination with mesna and ifosfamide (MAI) are common.³⁹ Median progression-free survival is 5.4 months, 4 to 5.6 months, and 3.9 months for MAI, paclitaxel, and doxorubicin, respectively.^8,9,42-46 Improved prognosis with MAI may indicate that combination chemotherapy regimens are more effective than single-agent regimens. Cutaneous angiosarcomas may respond better to paclitaxel than doxorubicin, and angiosarcomas of the scalp and face have shown a better response to paclitaxel.^47,48

Other Therapies—Although there have not been large-scale studies performed on alternative treatments, there are several case reports on the use of immune modulators, biologics, β-blockers, and various other therapies in the treatment of CAS. The following studies include small sample sizes of patients with metastatic or locally aggressive disease not amenable to surgical resection, which may affect reported outcomes and survival times.^49-57 In addition, several studies include patients with visceral angiosarcoma, which may not be generalizable to the CAS population. Even so, these treatment alternatives should not be overlooked because there are few agents that are truly efficacious in the treatment of CAS.

Results on the use of VEGF and tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been disappointing. There have been reports of median progression-free survival of only 3.8 months with sorafenib treatment, 3 months with pazopanib, and 6 months with bevacizumab.^49-51 However, one study of patients who were treated with bevacizumab combined with radiation and surgery resulted in a complete response in 2 patients, with no evidence of residual disease at the last follow-up of 8.5 months and 2.1 years.⁵²

Studies on the utility of β-blockers in the treatment of CAS have shown mixed results. Pasquier et al⁵³ evaluated the use of adjunctive therapy with propranolol and vinblastine-based chemotherapy, with a promising median progression-free survival of 11 months compared with an average of 3 to 6 months with conventional chemotherapy regimens. However, in vitro studies reported by Pasquier et al⁵³ indicated that the addition of propranolol to doxorubicin or paclitaxel did not result in increased efficacy. Chow et al⁵⁴ demonstrated that propranolol monotherapy resulted in a reduction of the proliferative index of scalp angiosarcoma by 34% after only 1 week of treatment. This was followed by combination therapy of propranolol, paclitaxel, and radiation, which resulted in substantial tumor regression and no evidence of metastasis after 8 months of therapy.⁵⁴

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been a recent subject of interest in the treatment of angiosarcoma. Two case reports showed improvement in CAS of the face and primary pleural angiosarcoma with a course of pembrolizumab.^55,56 In another case series, investigators used immune checkpoint inhibitors in 7 patients with cutaneous, breast, or radiation-associated angiosarcoma and found partial response in several patients treated with pembrolizumab and ipilimumab-nivolumab and complete response in 1 patient treated with anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated protein 4 antibodies. The authors of this study hypothesized that treatment response was associated with the mutational profile of tumors, including mutational signatures of UV radiation with a large number of C-to-T substitutions similar to melanomas.⁵⁷

Conclusion

Cutaneous angiosarcoma is a rare and aggressive tumor with a poor prognosis due to delayed detection. A thorough skin examination and heightened awareness of CAS by dermatologists may result in early biopsy and shortened time to a definitive diagnosis. Until quality evidence allows for the creation of consensus guidelines, care at a cancer center that specializes in rare and difficult-to-treat tumors and employs a multidisciplinary approach is essential to optimizing patient outcomes. Current knowledge supports surgery with negative margins as the mainstay of treatment, with adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies as possible additions for extensive disease. The role of MMS is uncertain, and because of the lack of contiguity in CAS, it may not be an optimal treatment.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the ear may have aggressive histologic subtypes and a greater propensity for subclinical spread than BCC in other anatomic locations. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated recurrence rates of BCC of the ear in 102 patients who underwent treatment with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) or radiation therapy (RT) at a single institution between January 2017 and December 2019. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment modality, and recurrence rates were collected from medical records. Recurrence rates were assessed over a mean follow-up time of 2.8 years. Although MMS is the gold standard for treatment of BCC of the ear, RT may be a suitable alternative for nonsurgical candidates.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the ear may have aggressive histologic subtypes and a greater propensity for subclinical spread than BCC in other anatomic locations. Given that these aggressive histologic subtypes—defined as morpheaform, basosquamous, sclerosing, infiltrative, or micronodular in any portion of the tumor—have been reported as independent predictors of recurrence,^1,2 BCC of the ear may be more likely to recur.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is the gold standard for the treatment of BCC of the ear. For nonsurgical candidates—those with high bleeding risk, low life expectancy, or other medical or social factors—definitive radiation therapy (RT) may be an option. Our study sought to examine recurrence rates in patients with BCC of the ear treated with MMS vs RT.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing treatment of BCC of the ear at Bighorn Mohs Surgery and Dermatology Center (San Diego, California) between January 2017 and December 2019 was conducted. A total of 507 medical records were reviewed, and 102 patients were included in the study. Inclusion criteria consisted of biopsy-confirmed BCC of the ear that was treated with MMS, RT, or both. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment modality, and recurrence rates were collected from medical records. This retrospective review of medical records was exempt from institutional review board approval, as it did not involve direct human research subjects, solely entailing a retrospective examination of existing data.

Results

Of the 102 patients included, 82 were male and 20 were female, with an average age of 71 years. All patients were White with the exception of 1 patient whose race was unknown. Two patients were immunocompromised. The helix was identified as the most frequently involved site on the ear (Table). Most of the tumors (56/102) exhibited aggressive histologic subtypes; 36 tumors had nonaggressive histology, and 10 had no subtype listed. Two of the BCCs demonstrated perineural invasion on biopsy. Mohs micrographic surgery was used to treat 96 BCCs, definitive RT was used to treat 5 BCCs (all of which occurred in nonsurgical candidates), and MMS and adjuvant RT were used in 1 patient given multifocal perineural involvement. All 5 patients treated with definitive RT received electron beam radiation therapy; the total dose ranged from 5100 to 6000 cGy divided into 17 to 24 fractions. The final MMS defects ranged from 6 to 55 mm in size. The average follow-up time was 2.8 years. One of the BCCs on the helix that was treated with MMS recurred after 1.3 years. The overall recurrence rate was 0.98%. None of the patients treated with definitive RT experienced recurrence after the mean follow-up time of 2.8 years.

Comment

Basal cell carcinoma is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, with approximately 2 million new cases each year.¹ Treatment modalities for localized BCC include MMS, surgical excision, electrodesiccation and curettage, topical and intralesional medications, laser therapy, and RT. For high-risk BCCs, MMS is associated with the lowest recurrence rates⁴ and remains the gold standard for treatment. For patients with contraindications to surgery, definitive RT is an alternative treatment for high-risk BCC.¹

Definitive RT can be employed for patients who are poor surgical candidates or when surgery would result in substantial morbidity, impaired function, and/or poor cosmesis.³ Radiation therapy for skin cancers of the ear commonly is administered using high-energy electrons that produce double-strand breaks in the DNA of malignant cells, leading to cell death.⁴ Disadvantages of RT compared to MMS include a longer treatment course (3 to 6 weeks), possible minimal long-term cosmetic sequelae (eg, color or texture mismatch), lack of pathologic confirmation of margin control, and small risk for secondary malignancy in the treatment field over 2 to 3 decades. For patients with incurable or metastatic disease, palliative RT can provide local control and/or symptomatic relief to improve quality of life.⁴ Adjuvant RT may be indicated if there is substantial perineural involvement or positive margins after MMS when margins are unable to be achieved or in patients who may not tolerate prolonged or extensive surgical procedures.³

Basal cell carcinoma of the ear is considered a high-risk anatomic location independent of other prognostic factors. Basal cell carcinomas of the ear have a higher propensity for more aggressive histologic subtypes and subclinical spread.⁵ Our study demonstrated a higher proportion of aggressive histologic subtypes (56/102 [54.9%]) compared with nonaggressive subtypes (36/102 [35.3%]). There was 1 recurrence of a nodular, sclerosing, and infiltrative BCC on the helix treated with MMS after 1.3 years.

Limitations of our study include that it was conducted at a single institution with a homogenous study population and with relatively short follow-up.

Conclusion

Our study further validates the well-known utility of MMS for the treatment of BCC of the ears. Definitive RT is a suitable alternative for patients who are not surgical candidates. Adjuvant RT may be considered for substantial perineural involvement or positive margins after MMS.³

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the ear may have aggressive histologic subtypes and a greater propensity for subclinical spread than BCC in other anatomic locations. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated recurrence rates of BCC of the ear in 102 patients who underwent treatment with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) or radiation therapy (RT) at a single institution between January 2017 and December 2019. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment modality, and recurrence rates were collected from medical records. Recurrence rates were assessed over a mean follow-up time of 2.8 years. Although MMS is the gold standard for treatment of BCC of the ear, RT may be a suitable alternative for nonsurgical candidates.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the ear may have aggressive histologic subtypes and a greater propensity for subclinical spread than BCC in other anatomic locations. Given that these aggressive histologic subtypes—defined as morpheaform, basosquamous, sclerosing, infiltrative, or micronodular in any portion of the tumor—have been reported as independent predictors of recurrence,^1,2 BCC of the ear may be more likely to recur.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is the gold standard for the treatment of BCC of the ear. For nonsurgical candidates—those with high bleeding risk, low life expectancy, or other medical or social factors—definitive radiation therapy (RT) may be an option. Our study sought to examine recurrence rates in patients with BCC of the ear treated with MMS vs RT.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing treatment of BCC of the ear at Bighorn Mohs Surgery and Dermatology Center (San Diego, California) between January 2017 and December 2019 was conducted. A total of 507 medical records were reviewed, and 102 patients were included in the study. Inclusion criteria consisted of biopsy-confirmed BCC of the ear that was treated with MMS, RT, or both. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment modality, and recurrence rates were collected from medical records. This retrospective review of medical records was exempt from institutional review board approval, as it did not involve direct human research subjects, solely entailing a retrospective examination of existing data.

Results

Of the 102 patients included, 82 were male and 20 were female, with an average age of 71 years. All patients were White with the exception of 1 patient whose race was unknown. Two patients were immunocompromised. The helix was identified as the most frequently involved site on the ear (Table). Most of the tumors (56/102) exhibited aggressive histologic subtypes; 36 tumors had nonaggressive histology, and 10 had no subtype listed. Two of the BCCs demonstrated perineural invasion on biopsy. Mohs micrographic surgery was used to treat 96 BCCs, definitive RT was used to treat 5 BCCs (all of which occurred in nonsurgical candidates), and MMS and adjuvant RT were used in 1 patient given multifocal perineural involvement. All 5 patients treated with definitive RT received electron beam radiation therapy; the total dose ranged from 5100 to 6000 cGy divided into 17 to 24 fractions. The final MMS defects ranged from 6 to 55 mm in size. The average follow-up time was 2.8 years. One of the BCCs on the helix that was treated with MMS recurred after 1.3 years. The overall recurrence rate was 0.98%. None of the patients treated with definitive RT experienced recurrence after the mean follow-up time of 2.8 years.

Comment

Basal cell carcinoma is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, with approximately 2 million new cases each year.¹ Treatment modalities for localized BCC include MMS, surgical excision, electrodesiccation and curettage, topical and intralesional medications, laser therapy, and RT. For high-risk BCCs, MMS is associated with the lowest recurrence rates⁴ and remains the gold standard for treatment. For patients with contraindications to surgery, definitive RT is an alternative treatment for high-risk BCC.¹

Definitive RT can be employed for patients who are poor surgical candidates or when surgery would result in substantial morbidity, impaired function, and/or poor cosmesis.³ Radiation therapy for skin cancers of the ear commonly is administered using high-energy electrons that produce double-strand breaks in the DNA of malignant cells, leading to cell death.⁴ Disadvantages of RT compared to MMS include a longer treatment course (3 to 6 weeks), possible minimal long-term cosmetic sequelae (eg, color or texture mismatch), lack of pathologic confirmation of margin control, and small risk for secondary malignancy in the treatment field over 2 to 3 decades. For patients with incurable or metastatic disease, palliative RT can provide local control and/or symptomatic relief to improve quality of life.⁴ Adjuvant RT may be indicated if there is substantial perineural involvement or positive margins after MMS when margins are unable to be achieved or in patients who may not tolerate prolonged or extensive surgical procedures.³

Basal cell carcinoma of the ear is considered a high-risk anatomic location independent of other prognostic factors. Basal cell carcinomas of the ear have a higher propensity for more aggressive histologic subtypes and subclinical spread.⁵ Our study demonstrated a higher proportion of aggressive histologic subtypes (56/102 [54.9%]) compared with nonaggressive subtypes (36/102 [35.3%]). There was 1 recurrence of a nodular, sclerosing, and infiltrative BCC on the helix treated with MMS after 1.3 years.

Limitations of our study include that it was conducted at a single institution with a homogenous study population and with relatively short follow-up.

Conclusion

Our study further validates the well-known utility of MMS for the treatment of BCC of the ears. Definitive RT is a suitable alternative for patients who are not surgical candidates. Adjuvant RT may be considered for substantial perineural involvement or positive margins after MMS.³

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the ear may have aggressive histologic subtypes and a greater propensity for subclinical spread than BCC in other anatomic locations. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated recurrence rates of BCC of the ear in 102 patients who underwent treatment with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) or radiation therapy (RT) at a single institution between January 2017 and December 2019. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment modality, and recurrence rates were collected from medical records. Recurrence rates were assessed over a mean follow-up time of 2.8 years. Although MMS is the gold standard for treatment of BCC of the ear, RT may be a suitable alternative for nonsurgical candidates.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the ear may have aggressive histologic subtypes and a greater propensity for subclinical spread than BCC in other anatomic locations. Given that these aggressive histologic subtypes—defined as morpheaform, basosquamous, sclerosing, infiltrative, or micronodular in any portion of the tumor—have been reported as independent predictors of recurrence,^1,2 BCC of the ear may be more likely to recur.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is the gold standard for the treatment of BCC of the ear. For nonsurgical candidates—those with high bleeding risk, low life expectancy, or other medical or social factors—definitive radiation therapy (RT) may be an option. Our study sought to examine recurrence rates in patients with BCC of the ear treated with MMS vs RT.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing treatment of BCC of the ear at Bighorn Mohs Surgery and Dermatology Center (San Diego, California) between January 2017 and December 2019 was conducted. A total of 507 medical records were reviewed, and 102 patients were included in the study. Inclusion criteria consisted of biopsy-confirmed BCC of the ear that was treated with MMS, RT, or both. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment modality, and recurrence rates were collected from medical records. This retrospective review of medical records was exempt from institutional review board approval, as it did not involve direct human research subjects, solely entailing a retrospective examination of existing data.

Results

Of the 102 patients included, 82 were male and 20 were female, with an average age of 71 years. All patients were White with the exception of 1 patient whose race was unknown. Two patients were immunocompromised. The helix was identified as the most frequently involved site on the ear (Table). Most of the tumors (56/102) exhibited aggressive histologic subtypes; 36 tumors had nonaggressive histology, and 10 had no subtype listed. Two of the BCCs demonstrated perineural invasion on biopsy. Mohs micrographic surgery was used to treat 96 BCCs, definitive RT was used to treat 5 BCCs (all of which occurred in nonsurgical candidates), and MMS and adjuvant RT were used in 1 patient given multifocal perineural involvement. All 5 patients treated with definitive RT received electron beam radiation therapy; the total dose ranged from 5100 to 6000 cGy divided into 17 to 24 fractions. The final MMS defects ranged from 6 to 55 mm in size. The average follow-up time was 2.8 years. One of the BCCs on the helix that was treated with MMS recurred after 1.3 years. The overall recurrence rate was 0.98%. None of the patients treated with definitive RT experienced recurrence after the mean follow-up time of 2.8 years.

Comment

Basal cell carcinoma is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, with approximately 2 million new cases each year.¹ Treatment modalities for localized BCC include MMS, surgical excision, electrodesiccation and curettage, topical and intralesional medications, laser therapy, and RT. For high-risk BCCs, MMS is associated with the lowest recurrence rates⁴ and remains the gold standard for treatment. For patients with contraindications to surgery, definitive RT is an alternative treatment for high-risk BCC.¹

Definitive RT can be employed for patients who are poor surgical candidates or when surgery would result in substantial morbidity, impaired function, and/or poor cosmesis.³ Radiation therapy for skin cancers of the ear commonly is administered using high-energy electrons that produce double-strand breaks in the DNA of malignant cells, leading to cell death.⁴ Disadvantages of RT compared to MMS include a longer treatment course (3 to 6 weeks), possible minimal long-term cosmetic sequelae (eg, color or texture mismatch), lack of pathologic confirmation of margin control, and small risk for secondary malignancy in the treatment field over 2 to 3 decades. For patients with incurable or metastatic disease, palliative RT can provide local control and/or symptomatic relief to improve quality of life.⁴ Adjuvant RT may be indicated if there is substantial perineural involvement or positive margins after MMS when margins are unable to be achieved or in patients who may not tolerate prolonged or extensive surgical procedures.³

Basal cell carcinoma of the ear is considered a high-risk anatomic location independent of other prognostic factors. Basal cell carcinomas of the ear have a higher propensity for more aggressive histologic subtypes and subclinical spread.⁵ Our study demonstrated a higher proportion of aggressive histologic subtypes (56/102 [54.9%]) compared with nonaggressive subtypes (36/102 [35.3%]). There was 1 recurrence of a nodular, sclerosing, and infiltrative BCC on the helix treated with MMS after 1.3 years.

Limitations of our study include that it was conducted at a single institution with a homogenous study population and with relatively short follow-up.

Conclusion

Our study further validates the well-known utility of MMS for the treatment of BCC of the ears. Definitive RT is a suitable alternative for patients who are not surgical candidates. Adjuvant RT may be considered for substantial perineural involvement or positive margins after MMS.³

With the increasing utilization of telemedicine since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that clinicians have an appropriate understanding of the application of virtual care resources, including teledermatology. We present a case series of 3 patients to demonstrate the clinical utility of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of various rare and/or aggressive cutaneous malignancies, including Merkel cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, and atypical fibroxanthoma. Cases were obtained from one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Each case presented includes a description of the initial teledermatology presentation and reviews the clinical timeline from initial consultation submission to in-person clinic visit with lesion biopsy. This case series demonstrates real-world examples of how teledermatology can be utilized to expedite the care of specific vulnerable patient populations.

Teledermatology is a rapidly growing digital resource with specific utility in triaging patients to determine those requiring in-person evaluation for early and accurate detection of skin malignancies. Approximately one-third of teledermatology consultations result in face-to-face clinical encounters, with malignant neoplasms being the leading cause for biopsy.^1,2 For specific populations, such as geriatric and immunocompromised patients, teledermatology may serve as a valuable tool, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, telemedicine may aid in addressing health disparities within the field of medicine and ultimately may improve access to care for vulnerable populations.³ Along with increasing access to specific subspecialty expertise, the use of teledermatology may reduce health care costs and improve the overall quality of care delivered to patients.^4,5

We describe the clinical utility of teledermatology in triaging and diagnosing skin malignancies through a series of 3 cases obtained from digital image review at one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Three unique cases with a final diagnosis of a rare or aggressive skin cancer were selected as examples, including a 75-year-old man with Merkle cell carcinoma, a 55-year-old man with aggressive pT3b malignant melanoma, and a 72-year-old man with an atypical fibroxanthoma. A clinical timeline of each case is presented, including the time intervals from initial image submission to image review, image submission to face-to-face clinical encounter, and image submission to final diagnosis. In all cases, the primary care provider submitted an order for teledermatology, and the teledermatology team obtained the images.

Case Series

Patient 1—Images of the right hand of a 75-year-old man with a medical history of basal cell carcinoma were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing store-and-forward image-capturing technology (day 1). The patient history provided with image submission indicated that the lesion had been present for 6 months and there were no associated symptoms. Clinical imaging demonstrated a pink-red pearly papule located on the proximal fourth digit of the dorsal aspect of the right hand (Figure 1). One day following the teledermatology request (day 2), the patient’s case was reviewed and triaged for an in-person visit. The patient was brought to clinic on day 34, and a biopsy was performed. On day 36, dermatopathology results indicated a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma. On day 37, the patient was referred to surgical oncology, and on day 44, the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit with a plan for wide local excision of the right fourth digit with right axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 2—Images of the left flank of a 55-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history provided with the image indicated that the lesion had been present for months to years and there were no associated symptoms, but the lesion recently had changed in color and size. Teledermatology images were reviewed on day 3 and demonstrated a 2- to 3-cm brown plaque on the left flank with color variegation and a prominent red papule protruding centrally (Figure 2). The patient was scheduled for an urgent in-person visit with biopsy. On day 6, the patient presented to clinic and an excision biopsy was performed. Dermatopathology was ordered with a RUSH indication, with results on day 7 revealing a pT3b malignant melanoma. An urgent consultation to surgical oncology was placed on the same day, and the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit on day 24 with a plan for wide local excision with left axillary and inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 3—Images of the left ear of a 72-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing review via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history indicated that the lesion had been present for 3 months with associated bleeding. Image review demonstrated a solitary pearly pink papule located on the crura of the antihelix (Figure 3). Initial teledermatology consultation was reviewed on day 2 with notification of the need for in-person evaluation. The patient presented to clinic on day 33 for a biopsy, with dermatopathology results on day 36 consistent with an atypical fibroxanthoma. The patient was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery on day 37 and underwent surgical treatment on day 64.

Comment

Teledermatology consultations from all patients demonstrated adequate image quality to be able to evaluate the lesion of concern and yielded a request for in-person evaluation with possible biopsy (Table). In this case series, the average time interval from teledermatology consultation placement to teledermatology image report was 2 days (range, 1–3 days). The average time from teledermatology consultation placement to face-to-face encounter with biopsy was 24.3 days for the 3 cases presented in this series (range, 6–34 days). The initial surgical oncology visits took place an average of 34 days after the initial teledermatology consultation was placed for the 2 patients requiring referral (44 days for patient 1; 24 days for patient 2). For patient 3, Mohs micrographic surgery was required for treatment, which was scheduled by day 37 and subsequently performed on day 64.

When specifically looking at the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancies, studies have found that the incidence of skin cancer detection is similar for teledermatology compared to in-person clinic visits.^6,7 Creighton-Smith et al⁶ performed a retrospective cohort study comparing prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic accuracy and detection rates of skin cancer between store-and-forward technology and face-to-face consultation. When adjusting for possible compounding factors including personal and family history of skin cancer, there was no notable difference in detection rates of any skin cancer, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Furthermore, the 2 cohorts of patients were found to have similar prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic concordance, with similar times from consultation being placed to requested biopsy and time from biopsy to final treatment.⁶

Clarke et al⁷ similarly analyzed the accuracy of store-and-forward teledermatology and found that there was overall concordance in diagnosis when comparing clinical dermatologists to teledermatologists. Moreover, when melanocytic lesions were excluded from the study, the decision to biopsy did not differ substantially.⁷

Areas of further study include determining what percentage of teledermatology lesions of concern for malignancy were proven to be skin cancer after in-person evaluation and biopsy, as well as investigating the effectiveness of teledermatology for melanocytic lesions, which frequently are removed from analysis in large-scale teledermatology studies.

Although teledermatology has substantial clinical utility and may serve as a great resource for specific populations, including geriatric patients and those who are immunocompromised, it is important to recognize notable limitations. Specifically, brief history and image review should not serve as replacements for a face-to-face visit with physical examination in cases where the diagnosis remains uncertain or when high-risk skin malignancies are suspected or included in the differential. Certain aggressive cutaneous malignancies such as Merkel cell carcinoma may appear as less aggressive via teledermatology due to restrictions of technology.

Conclusion

Teledermatology has had a major impact on the way health care is delivered to patients and may increase access to care, reducing unnecessary in-person visits and decreasing the number of in-person visit no-shows. With the appropriate use of a brief clinical history and image review, teledermatology can be effective to evaluate specific lesions of concern. We report 3 unique cases identified during a 1-month period at a large Midwestern medical center. These cases serve as important examples of the application of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of aggressive skin malignancies. Further research on the clinical utility of teledermatology is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank the additional providers from the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (both in Madison, Wisconsin) involved in the medical care of the patients included in this case series.

With the increasing utilization of telemedicine since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that clinicians have an appropriate understanding of the application of virtual care resources, including teledermatology. We present a case series of 3 patients to demonstrate the clinical utility of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of various rare and/or aggressive cutaneous malignancies, including Merkel cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, and atypical fibroxanthoma. Cases were obtained from one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Each case presented includes a description of the initial teledermatology presentation and reviews the clinical timeline from initial consultation submission to in-person clinic visit with lesion biopsy. This case series demonstrates real-world examples of how teledermatology can be utilized to expedite the care of specific vulnerable patient populations.

Teledermatology is a rapidly growing digital resource with specific utility in triaging patients to determine those requiring in-person evaluation for early and accurate detection of skin malignancies. Approximately one-third of teledermatology consultations result in face-to-face clinical encounters, with malignant neoplasms being the leading cause for biopsy.^1,2 For specific populations, such as geriatric and immunocompromised patients, teledermatology may serve as a valuable tool, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, telemedicine may aid in addressing health disparities within the field of medicine and ultimately may improve access to care for vulnerable populations.³ Along with increasing access to specific subspecialty expertise, the use of teledermatology may reduce health care costs and improve the overall quality of care delivered to patients.^4,5

We describe the clinical utility of teledermatology in triaging and diagnosing skin malignancies through a series of 3 cases obtained from digital image review at one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Three unique cases with a final diagnosis of a rare or aggressive skin cancer were selected as examples, including a 75-year-old man with Merkle cell carcinoma, a 55-year-old man with aggressive pT3b malignant melanoma, and a 72-year-old man with an atypical fibroxanthoma. A clinical timeline of each case is presented, including the time intervals from initial image submission to image review, image submission to face-to-face clinical encounter, and image submission to final diagnosis. In all cases, the primary care provider submitted an order for teledermatology, and the teledermatology team obtained the images.

Case Series

Patient 1—Images of the right hand of a 75-year-old man with a medical history of basal cell carcinoma were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing store-and-forward image-capturing technology (day 1). The patient history provided with image submission indicated that the lesion had been present for 6 months and there were no associated symptoms. Clinical imaging demonstrated a pink-red pearly papule located on the proximal fourth digit of the dorsal aspect of the right hand (Figure 1). One day following the teledermatology request (day 2), the patient’s case was reviewed and triaged for an in-person visit. The patient was brought to clinic on day 34, and a biopsy was performed. On day 36, dermatopathology results indicated a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma. On day 37, the patient was referred to surgical oncology, and on day 44, the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit with a plan for wide local excision of the right fourth digit with right axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 2—Images of the left flank of a 55-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history provided with the image indicated that the lesion had been present for months to years and there were no associated symptoms, but the lesion recently had changed in color and size. Teledermatology images were reviewed on day 3 and demonstrated a 2- to 3-cm brown plaque on the left flank with color variegation and a prominent red papule protruding centrally (Figure 2). The patient was scheduled for an urgent in-person visit with biopsy. On day 6, the patient presented to clinic and an excision biopsy was performed. Dermatopathology was ordered with a RUSH indication, with results on day 7 revealing a pT3b malignant melanoma. An urgent consultation to surgical oncology was placed on the same day, and the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit on day 24 with a plan for wide local excision with left axillary and inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 3—Images of the left ear of a 72-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing review via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history indicated that the lesion had been present for 3 months with associated bleeding. Image review demonstrated a solitary pearly pink papule located on the crura of the antihelix (Figure 3). Initial teledermatology consultation was reviewed on day 2 with notification of the need for in-person evaluation. The patient presented to clinic on day 33 for a biopsy, with dermatopathology results on day 36 consistent with an atypical fibroxanthoma. The patient was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery on day 37 and underwent surgical treatment on day 64.

Comment

Teledermatology consultations from all patients demonstrated adequate image quality to be able to evaluate the lesion of concern and yielded a request for in-person evaluation with possible biopsy (Table). In this case series, the average time interval from teledermatology consultation placement to teledermatology image report was 2 days (range, 1–3 days). The average time from teledermatology consultation placement to face-to-face encounter with biopsy was 24.3 days for the 3 cases presented in this series (range, 6–34 days). The initial surgical oncology visits took place an average of 34 days after the initial teledermatology consultation was placed for the 2 patients requiring referral (44 days for patient 1; 24 days for patient 2). For patient 3, Mohs micrographic surgery was required for treatment, which was scheduled by day 37 and subsequently performed on day 64.

When specifically looking at the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancies, studies have found that the incidence of skin cancer detection is similar for teledermatology compared to in-person clinic visits.^6,7 Creighton-Smith et al⁶ performed a retrospective cohort study comparing prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic accuracy and detection rates of skin cancer between store-and-forward technology and face-to-face consultation. When adjusting for possible compounding factors including personal and family history of skin cancer, there was no notable difference in detection rates of any skin cancer, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Furthermore, the 2 cohorts of patients were found to have similar prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic concordance, with similar times from consultation being placed to requested biopsy and time from biopsy to final treatment.⁶

Clarke et al⁷ similarly analyzed the accuracy of store-and-forward teledermatology and found that there was overall concordance in diagnosis when comparing clinical dermatologists to teledermatologists. Moreover, when melanocytic lesions were excluded from the study, the decision to biopsy did not differ substantially.⁷

Areas of further study include determining what percentage of teledermatology lesions of concern for malignancy were proven to be skin cancer after in-person evaluation and biopsy, as well as investigating the effectiveness of teledermatology for melanocytic lesions, which frequently are removed from analysis in large-scale teledermatology studies.

Although teledermatology has substantial clinical utility and may serve as a great resource for specific populations, including geriatric patients and those who are immunocompromised, it is important to recognize notable limitations. Specifically, brief history and image review should not serve as replacements for a face-to-face visit with physical examination in cases where the diagnosis remains uncertain or when high-risk skin malignancies are suspected or included in the differential. Certain aggressive cutaneous malignancies such as Merkel cell carcinoma may appear as less aggressive via teledermatology due to restrictions of technology.

Conclusion

Teledermatology has had a major impact on the way health care is delivered to patients and may increase access to care, reducing unnecessary in-person visits and decreasing the number of in-person visit no-shows. With the appropriate use of a brief clinical history and image review, teledermatology can be effective to evaluate specific lesions of concern. We report 3 unique cases identified during a 1-month period at a large Midwestern medical center. These cases serve as important examples of the application of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of aggressive skin malignancies. Further research on the clinical utility of teledermatology is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank the additional providers from the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (both in Madison, Wisconsin) involved in the medical care of the patients included in this case series.

With the increasing utilization of telemedicine since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that clinicians have an appropriate understanding of the application of virtual care resources, including teledermatology. We present a case series of 3 patients to demonstrate the clinical utility of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of various rare and/or aggressive cutaneous malignancies, including Merkel cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, and atypical fibroxanthoma. Cases were obtained from one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Each case presented includes a description of the initial teledermatology presentation and reviews the clinical timeline from initial consultation submission to in-person clinic visit with lesion biopsy. This case series demonstrates real-world examples of how teledermatology can be utilized to expedite the care of specific vulnerable patient populations.

Teledermatology is a rapidly growing digital resource with specific utility in triaging patients to determine those requiring in-person evaluation for early and accurate detection of skin malignancies. Approximately one-third of teledermatology consultations result in face-to-face clinical encounters, with malignant neoplasms being the leading cause for biopsy.^1,2 For specific populations, such as geriatric and immunocompromised patients, teledermatology may serve as a valuable tool, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, telemedicine may aid in addressing health disparities within the field of medicine and ultimately may improve access to care for vulnerable populations.³ Along with increasing access to specific subspecialty expertise, the use of teledermatology may reduce health care costs and improve the overall quality of care delivered to patients.^4,5

We describe the clinical utility of teledermatology in triaging and diagnosing skin malignancies through a series of 3 cases obtained from digital image review at one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Three unique cases with a final diagnosis of a rare or aggressive skin cancer were selected as examples, including a 75-year-old man with Merkle cell carcinoma, a 55-year-old man with aggressive pT3b malignant melanoma, and a 72-year-old man with an atypical fibroxanthoma. A clinical timeline of each case is presented, including the time intervals from initial image submission to image review, image submission to face-to-face clinical encounter, and image submission to final diagnosis. In all cases, the primary care provider submitted an order for teledermatology, and the teledermatology team obtained the images.

Case Series

Patient 1—Images of the right hand of a 75-year-old man with a medical history of basal cell carcinoma were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing store-and-forward image-capturing technology (day 1). The patient history provided with image submission indicated that the lesion had been present for 6 months and there were no associated symptoms. Clinical imaging demonstrated a pink-red pearly papule located on the proximal fourth digit of the dorsal aspect of the right hand (Figure 1). One day following the teledermatology request (day 2), the patient’s case was reviewed and triaged for an in-person visit. The patient was brought to clinic on day 34, and a biopsy was performed. On day 36, dermatopathology results indicated a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma. On day 37, the patient was referred to surgical oncology, and on day 44, the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit with a plan for wide local excision of the right fourth digit with right axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 2—Images of the left flank of a 55-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history provided with the image indicated that the lesion had been present for months to years and there were no associated symptoms, but the lesion recently had changed in color and size. Teledermatology images were reviewed on day 3 and demonstrated a 2- to 3-cm brown plaque on the left flank with color variegation and a prominent red papule protruding centrally (Figure 2). The patient was scheduled for an urgent in-person visit with biopsy. On day 6, the patient presented to clinic and an excision biopsy was performed. Dermatopathology was ordered with a RUSH indication, with results on day 7 revealing a pT3b malignant melanoma. An urgent consultation to surgical oncology was placed on the same day, and the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit on day 24 with a plan for wide local excision with left axillary and inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 3—Images of the left ear of a 72-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing review via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history indicated that the lesion had been present for 3 months with associated bleeding. Image review demonstrated a solitary pearly pink papule located on the crura of the antihelix (Figure 3). Initial teledermatology consultation was reviewed on day 2 with notification of the need for in-person evaluation. The patient presented to clinic on day 33 for a biopsy, with dermatopathology results on day 36 consistent with an atypical fibroxanthoma. The patient was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery on day 37 and underwent surgical treatment on day 64.

Comment

Teledermatology consultations from all patients demonstrated adequate image quality to be able to evaluate the lesion of concern and yielded a request for in-person evaluation with possible biopsy (Table). In this case series, the average time interval from teledermatology consultation placement to teledermatology image report was 2 days (range, 1–3 days). The average time from teledermatology consultation placement to face-to-face encounter with biopsy was 24.3 days for the 3 cases presented in this series (range, 6–34 days). The initial surgical oncology visits took place an average of 34 days after the initial teledermatology consultation was placed for the 2 patients requiring referral (44 days for patient 1; 24 days for patient 2). For patient 3, Mohs micrographic surgery was required for treatment, which was scheduled by day 37 and subsequently performed on day 64.

When specifically looking at the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancies, studies have found that the incidence of skin cancer detection is similar for teledermatology compared to in-person clinic visits.^6,7 Creighton-Smith et al⁶ performed a retrospective cohort study comparing prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic accuracy and detection rates of skin cancer between store-and-forward technology and face-to-face consultation. When adjusting for possible compounding factors including personal and family history of skin cancer, there was no notable difference in detection rates of any skin cancer, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Furthermore, the 2 cohorts of patients were found to have similar prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic concordance, with similar times from consultation being placed to requested biopsy and time from biopsy to final treatment.⁶

Clarke et al⁷ similarly analyzed the accuracy of store-and-forward teledermatology and found that there was overall concordance in diagnosis when comparing clinical dermatologists to teledermatologists. Moreover, when melanocytic lesions were excluded from the study, the decision to biopsy did not differ substantially.⁷

Areas of further study include determining what percentage of teledermatology lesions of concern for malignancy were proven to be skin cancer after in-person evaluation and biopsy, as well as investigating the effectiveness of teledermatology for melanocytic lesions, which frequently are removed from analysis in large-scale teledermatology studies.

Although teledermatology has substantial clinical utility and may serve as a great resource for specific populations, including geriatric patients and those who are immunocompromised, it is important to recognize notable limitations. Specifically, brief history and image review should not serve as replacements for a face-to-face visit with physical examination in cases where the diagnosis remains uncertain or when high-risk skin malignancies are suspected or included in the differential. Certain aggressive cutaneous malignancies such as Merkel cell carcinoma may appear as less aggressive via teledermatology due to restrictions of technology.

Conclusion

Teledermatology has had a major impact on the way health care is delivered to patients and may increase access to care, reducing unnecessary in-person visits and decreasing the number of in-person visit no-shows. With the appropriate use of a brief clinical history and image review, teledermatology can be effective to evaluate specific lesions of concern. We report 3 unique cases identified during a 1-month period at a large Midwestern medical center. These cases serve as important examples of the application of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of aggressive skin malignancies. Further research on the clinical utility of teledermatology is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank the additional providers from the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (both in Madison, Wisconsin) involved in the medical care of the patients included in this case series.

Sunscreen is a cornerstone of skin cancer prevention. The first commercial sunscreen was developed nearly 100 years ago,¹ yet questions and concerns about the safety of these essential topical photoprotective agents continue to occupy our minds. This article serves as an update on some of the big sunscreen questions, as informed by the available evidence.

Are sunscreens safe?

The story of sunscreen regulation in the United States is long and dry. The major pain point is that sunscreens are regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as over-the-counter drugs rather than cosmetics (as in Europe).² Regulatory hurdles created a situation wherein no new active sunscreen ingredient has been approved by the FDA since 1999, except ecamsule for use in one product line. There is hope that changes enacted under the CARES Act will streamline and expedite the sunscreen approval process in the future.³

Amid the ongoing regulatory slog, the FDA became interested in learning more about sunscreen safety. Specifically, they sought to determine the GRASE (generally regarded as safe and effective) status of the active ingredients in sunscreens. In 2019, only the inorganic (physical/mineral) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide were considered GRASE.⁴ Trolamine salicylate and para-aminobenzoic acid were not GRASE, but they currently are not used in sunscreens in the United States. For all the remaining organic (chemical) filters, additional safety data were required to establish GRASE status.⁴ In 2024, the situation remains largely unchanged. Industry is working with the FDA on testing requirements.⁵

Why the focus on safety? After all, sunscreens have been used widely for decades without any major safety signals; their only well-established adverse effects are contact dermatitis and staining of clothing.⁶ Although preclinical studies raised concerns that chemical sunscreens could be associated with endocrine, reproductive, and neurologic toxicities, to date there are no high-quality human studies demonstrating negative effects.^7,8

However, exposure patterns have evolved. Sunscreen is recommended to be applied (and reapplied) daily. Also, chemical UV filters are used in many nonsunscreen products such as cosmetics, shampoos, fragrances, and plastics. In the United States, exposure to chemical sunscreens is ubiquitous; according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004, oxybenzone was detected in 97% of more than 2500 urine samples, implying systemic absorption but not harm.⁹

The FDA confirmed the implication of systemic absorption via 2 maximal usage trials published in 2019 and 2020.^10,11 In both studies, several chemical sunscreens were applied at the recommended density of 2 mg/cm² to 75% of the body surface area multiple times over 4 days. For all tested organic UV filters, blood levels exceeded the predetermined FDA cutoff (0.5 ng/mL), even after one application.^10,11 What’s the takeaway? Simply that the FDA now requires additional safety data for chemical sunscreen filters⁵; the findings in no way imply any associated harm. Two potential mitigating factors are that no one applies sunscreen at 2 mg/cm², and the FDA’s blood level cutoff was a general estimate not specific to sunscreens.^4,12

Nevertheless, a good long-term safety record for sunscreens does not negate the need for enhanced safety data when there is clear evidence of systemic absorption. In the meantime, concerned patients should be counseled that the physical/mineral sunscreens containing zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are considered GRASE by the FDA; even in nanoparticle form, they generally have not been found to penetrate beneath the stratum corneum.^7,13

Dermatologists are confronting the conundrum of rising cases of frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). Several theories on the pathogenesis of this idiopathic scarring alopecia have been raised, one of which involves increased use of sunscreen. Proposed explanations for sunscreen’s role in FFA include a lichenoid reaction inducing hair follicle autoimmunity through an unclear mechanism; a T cell–mediated allergic reaction, which is unlikely according to contact dermatitis experts¹⁴; reactive oxygen species production by titanium nanoparticles, yet titanium has been detected in hair follicles of both patients with FFA and controls¹⁵; and endocrine disruption following systemic absorption, which has not been supported by any high-quality human studies.⁷

An association between facial sunscreen use and FFA has been reported in case-control studies¹⁶; however, they have been criticized due to methodologic issues and biases, and they provide no evidence of causality.^17,18 The jury remains out on the controversial association between sunscreen and FFA, with a need for more convincing data.

Does sunscreen impact coral reef health?

Coral reefs—crucial sources of aquatic biodiversity—are under attack from several different directions including climate change and pollution. As much as 14,000 tons of sunscreen enter coral reefs each year, and chemical sunscreen filters are detectable in waterways throughout the world—even in the Arctic.^19,20 Thus, sunscreen has come under scrutiny as a potential environmental threat, particularly with coral bleaching.

Bleaching is a process in which corals exposed to an environmental stressor expel their symbiotic photosynthetic algae and turn white; if conditions fail to improve, the corals are vulnerable to death. In a highly cited 2016 study, coral larvae exposed to oxybenzone in artificial laboratory conditions displayed concentration-dependent mortality and decreased chlorophyll fluorescence, which suggested bleaching.¹⁹ These findings influenced legislation in Hawaii and other localities banning sunscreens containing oxybenzone. Problematically, the study has been criticized for acutely exposing the most susceptible coral life-forms to unrealistic oxybenzone concentrations; more broadly, there is no standardized approach to coral toxicity testing.²¹

The bigger picture (and elephant in the room) is that the primary cause of coral bleaching is undoubtedly climate change/ocean warming.⁷ More recent studies suggest that oxybenzone probably adds insult to injury for corals already debilitated by ocean warming.^22,23

It has been posited that a narrow focus on sunscreens detracts attention from the climate issue.²⁴ Individuals can take a number of actions to reduce their carbon footprint in an effort to preserve our environment, specifically coral reefs.²⁵ Concerned patients should be counseled to use sunscreens containing the physical/mineral UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which are unlikely to contribute to coral bleaching as commercially formulated.⁷

Ongoing Questions

A lot of unknowns about sunscreen safety remain, and much hubbub has been made over studies that often are preliminary at best. At the time of this writing, absent a crystal ball, this author continues to wear chemical sunscreens; spends a lot more time worrying about their carbon footprint than what type of sunscreen to use at the beach; and believes the association of FFA with sunscreen is unlikely to be causal. Hopefully much-needed rigorous evidence will guide our future approach to sunscreen formulation and use.

Sunscreen is a cornerstone of skin cancer prevention. The first commercial sunscreen was developed nearly 100 years ago,¹ yet questions and concerns about the safety of these essential topical photoprotective agents continue to occupy our minds. This article serves as an update on some of the big sunscreen questions, as informed by the available evidence.

Are sunscreens safe?

The story of sunscreen regulation in the United States is long and dry. The major pain point is that sunscreens are regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as over-the-counter drugs rather than cosmetics (as in Europe).² Regulatory hurdles created a situation wherein no new active sunscreen ingredient has been approved by the FDA since 1999, except ecamsule for use in one product line. There is hope that changes enacted under the CARES Act will streamline and expedite the sunscreen approval process in the future.³

Amid the ongoing regulatory slog, the FDA became interested in learning more about sunscreen safety. Specifically, they sought to determine the GRASE (generally regarded as safe and effective) status of the active ingredients in sunscreens. In 2019, only the inorganic (physical/mineral) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide were considered GRASE.⁴ Trolamine salicylate and para-aminobenzoic acid were not GRASE, but they currently are not used in sunscreens in the United States. For all the remaining organic (chemical) filters, additional safety data were required to establish GRASE status.⁴ In 2024, the situation remains largely unchanged. Industry is working with the FDA on testing requirements.⁵

Why the focus on safety? After all, sunscreens have been used widely for decades without any major safety signals; their only well-established adverse effects are contact dermatitis and staining of clothing.⁶ Although preclinical studies raised concerns that chemical sunscreens could be associated with endocrine, reproductive, and neurologic toxicities, to date there are no high-quality human studies demonstrating negative effects.^7,8

However, exposure patterns have evolved. Sunscreen is recommended to be applied (and reapplied) daily. Also, chemical UV filters are used in many nonsunscreen products such as cosmetics, shampoos, fragrances, and plastics. In the United States, exposure to chemical sunscreens is ubiquitous; according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004, oxybenzone was detected in 97% of more than 2500 urine samples, implying systemic absorption but not harm.⁹

The FDA confirmed the implication of systemic absorption via 2 maximal usage trials published in 2019 and 2020.^10,11 In both studies, several chemical sunscreens were applied at the recommended density of 2 mg/cm² to 75% of the body surface area multiple times over 4 days. For all tested organic UV filters, blood levels exceeded the predetermined FDA cutoff (0.5 ng/mL), even after one application.^10,11 What’s the takeaway? Simply that the FDA now requires additional safety data for chemical sunscreen filters⁵; the findings in no way imply any associated harm. Two potential mitigating factors are that no one applies sunscreen at 2 mg/cm², and the FDA’s blood level cutoff was a general estimate not specific to sunscreens.^4,12

Nevertheless, a good long-term safety record for sunscreens does not negate the need for enhanced safety data when there is clear evidence of systemic absorption. In the meantime, concerned patients should be counseled that the physical/mineral sunscreens containing zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are considered GRASE by the FDA; even in nanoparticle form, they generally have not been found to penetrate beneath the stratum corneum.^7,13

Dermatologists are confronting the conundrum of rising cases of frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). Several theories on the pathogenesis of this idiopathic scarring alopecia have been raised, one of which involves increased use of sunscreen. Proposed explanations for sunscreen’s role in FFA include a lichenoid reaction inducing hair follicle autoimmunity through an unclear mechanism; a T cell–mediated allergic reaction, which is unlikely according to contact dermatitis experts¹⁴; reactive oxygen species production by titanium nanoparticles, yet titanium has been detected in hair follicles of both patients with FFA and controls¹⁵; and endocrine disruption following systemic absorption, which has not been supported by any high-quality human studies.⁷

An association between facial sunscreen use and FFA has been reported in case-control studies¹⁶; however, they have been criticized due to methodologic issues and biases, and they provide no evidence of causality.^17,18 The jury remains out on the controversial association between sunscreen and FFA, with a need for more convincing data.

Does sunscreen impact coral reef health?

Coral reefs—crucial sources of aquatic biodiversity—are under attack from several different directions including climate change and pollution. As much as 14,000 tons of sunscreen enter coral reefs each year, and chemical sunscreen filters are detectable in waterways throughout the world—even in the Arctic.^19,20 Thus, sunscreen has come under scrutiny as a potential environmental threat, particularly with coral bleaching.

Bleaching is a process in which corals exposed to an environmental stressor expel their symbiotic photosynthetic algae and turn white; if conditions fail to improve, the corals are vulnerable to death. In a highly cited 2016 study, coral larvae exposed to oxybenzone in artificial laboratory conditions displayed concentration-dependent mortality and decreased chlorophyll fluorescence, which suggested bleaching.¹⁹ These findings influenced legislation in Hawaii and other localities banning sunscreens containing oxybenzone. Problematically, the study has been criticized for acutely exposing the most susceptible coral life-forms to unrealistic oxybenzone concentrations; more broadly, there is no standardized approach to coral toxicity testing.²¹

The bigger picture (and elephant in the room) is that the primary cause of coral bleaching is undoubtedly climate change/ocean warming.⁷ More recent studies suggest that oxybenzone probably adds insult to injury for corals already debilitated by ocean warming.^22,23

It has been posited that a narrow focus on sunscreens detracts attention from the climate issue.²⁴ Individuals can take a number of actions to reduce their carbon footprint in an effort to preserve our environment, specifically coral reefs.²⁵ Concerned patients should be counseled to use sunscreens containing the physical/mineral UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which are unlikely to contribute to coral bleaching as commercially formulated.⁷

Ongoing Questions

A lot of unknowns about sunscreen safety remain, and much hubbub has been made over studies that often are preliminary at best. At the time of this writing, absent a crystal ball, this author continues to wear chemical sunscreens; spends a lot more time worrying about their carbon footprint than what type of sunscreen to use at the beach; and believes the association of FFA with sunscreen is unlikely to be causal. Hopefully much-needed rigorous evidence will guide our future approach to sunscreen formulation and use.

Sunscreen is a cornerstone of skin cancer prevention. The first commercial sunscreen was developed nearly 100 years ago,¹ yet questions and concerns about the safety of these essential topical photoprotective agents continue to occupy our minds. This article serves as an update on some of the big sunscreen questions, as informed by the available evidence.

Are sunscreens safe?

The story of sunscreen regulation in the United States is long and dry. The major pain point is that sunscreens are regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as over-the-counter drugs rather than cosmetics (as in Europe).² Regulatory hurdles created a situation wherein no new active sunscreen ingredient has been approved by the FDA since 1999, except ecamsule for use in one product line. There is hope that changes enacted under the CARES Act will streamline and expedite the sunscreen approval process in the future.³

Amid the ongoing regulatory slog, the FDA became interested in learning more about sunscreen safety. Specifically, they sought to determine the GRASE (generally regarded as safe and effective) status of the active ingredients in sunscreens. In 2019, only the inorganic (physical/mineral) UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide were considered GRASE.⁴ Trolamine salicylate and para-aminobenzoic acid were not GRASE, but they currently are not used in sunscreens in the United States. For all the remaining organic (chemical) filters, additional safety data were required to establish GRASE status.⁴ In 2024, the situation remains largely unchanged. Industry is working with the FDA on testing requirements.⁵

Why the focus on safety? After all, sunscreens have been used widely for decades without any major safety signals; their only well-established adverse effects are contact dermatitis and staining of clothing.⁶ Although preclinical studies raised concerns that chemical sunscreens could be associated with endocrine, reproductive, and neurologic toxicities, to date there are no high-quality human studies demonstrating negative effects.^7,8

However, exposure patterns have evolved. Sunscreen is recommended to be applied (and reapplied) daily. Also, chemical UV filters are used in many nonsunscreen products such as cosmetics, shampoos, fragrances, and plastics. In the United States, exposure to chemical sunscreens is ubiquitous; according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004, oxybenzone was detected in 97% of more than 2500 urine samples, implying systemic absorption but not harm.⁹

The FDA confirmed the implication of systemic absorption via 2 maximal usage trials published in 2019 and 2020.^10,11 In both studies, several chemical sunscreens were applied at the recommended density of 2 mg/cm² to 75% of the body surface area multiple times over 4 days. For all tested organic UV filters, blood levels exceeded the predetermined FDA cutoff (0.5 ng/mL), even after one application.^10,11 What’s the takeaway? Simply that the FDA now requires additional safety data for chemical sunscreen filters⁵; the findings in no way imply any associated harm. Two potential mitigating factors are that no one applies sunscreen at 2 mg/cm², and the FDA’s blood level cutoff was a general estimate not specific to sunscreens.^4,12

Nevertheless, a good long-term safety record for sunscreens does not negate the need for enhanced safety data when there is clear evidence of systemic absorption. In the meantime, concerned patients should be counseled that the physical/mineral sunscreens containing zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are considered GRASE by the FDA; even in nanoparticle form, they generally have not been found to penetrate beneath the stratum corneum.^7,13

Dermatologists are confronting the conundrum of rising cases of frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). Several theories on the pathogenesis of this idiopathic scarring alopecia have been raised, one of which involves increased use of sunscreen. Proposed explanations for sunscreen’s role in FFA include a lichenoid reaction inducing hair follicle autoimmunity through an unclear mechanism; a T cell–mediated allergic reaction, which is unlikely according to contact dermatitis experts¹⁴; reactive oxygen species production by titanium nanoparticles, yet titanium has been detected in hair follicles of both patients with FFA and controls¹⁵; and endocrine disruption following systemic absorption, which has not been supported by any high-quality human studies.⁷

An association between facial sunscreen use and FFA has been reported in case-control studies¹⁶; however, they have been criticized due to methodologic issues and biases, and they provide no evidence of causality.^17,18 The jury remains out on the controversial association between sunscreen and FFA, with a need for more convincing data.

Does sunscreen impact coral reef health?

Coral reefs—crucial sources of aquatic biodiversity—are under attack from several different directions including climate change and pollution. As much as 14,000 tons of sunscreen enter coral reefs each year, and chemical sunscreen filters are detectable in waterways throughout the world—even in the Arctic.^19,20 Thus, sunscreen has come under scrutiny as a potential environmental threat, particularly with coral bleaching.

Bleaching is a process in which corals exposed to an environmental stressor expel their symbiotic photosynthetic algae and turn white; if conditions fail to improve, the corals are vulnerable to death. In a highly cited 2016 study, coral larvae exposed to oxybenzone in artificial laboratory conditions displayed concentration-dependent mortality and decreased chlorophyll fluorescence, which suggested bleaching.¹⁹ These findings influenced legislation in Hawaii and other localities banning sunscreens containing oxybenzone. Problematically, the study has been criticized for acutely exposing the most susceptible coral life-forms to unrealistic oxybenzone concentrations; more broadly, there is no standardized approach to coral toxicity testing.²¹

The bigger picture (and elephant in the room) is that the primary cause of coral bleaching is undoubtedly climate change/ocean warming.⁷ More recent studies suggest that oxybenzone probably adds insult to injury for corals already debilitated by ocean warming.^22,23

It has been posited that a narrow focus on sunscreens detracts attention from the climate issue.²⁴ Individuals can take a number of actions to reduce their carbon footprint in an effort to preserve our environment, specifically coral reefs.²⁵ Concerned patients should be counseled to use sunscreens containing the physical/mineral UV filters zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which are unlikely to contribute to coral bleaching as commercially formulated.⁷

Ongoing Questions

A lot of unknowns about sunscreen safety remain, and much hubbub has been made over studies that often are preliminary at best. At the time of this writing, absent a crystal ball, this author continues to wear chemical sunscreens; spends a lot more time worrying about their carbon footprint than what type of sunscreen to use at the beach; and believes the association of FFA with sunscreen is unlikely to be causal. Hopefully much-needed rigorous evidence will guide our future approach to sunscreen formulation and use.

SAN DIEGO — Approximately 10 years ago in France, high throughput screening in a series of cases suggested that vaccine-derived rubella virus was the surprising cause of persistent cutaneous granulomas, but an update at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology suggests this phenomenon is not as rare as once supposed.

Based on accumulating evidence, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through collaborations with others also recognized this in pediatric patients with inborn errors of immunity, and it is now appropriate for clinicians to consider this etiology when no other infectious agents can be identified, according to Karolyn A. Wanat, MD, professor of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who spoke about rubella as a trigger in granulomatous disease at the meeting. “This is a huge evolving area of interest,” said Dr. Wanat, who has been the first author or coauthor on several published papers, including a review article published earlier this year.

In the earliest cases, including those reported in 2014, the cutaneous granulomas presumed to be causally related to vaccine-derived rubella virus were found only in those with a primary immunodeficiency. This is no longer the case. In a collaboration among US clinics, granulomas that had persisted for years in immunocompetent adults were identified, according to Dr. Wanat, the first author of a report on these findings in four adults in 2022. In addition, it now appears that wild-type rubella virus, like vaccine-derived rubella virus, can be the source of the antigenic response that underlies the development of rubella-associated cutaneous granulomas.

The phenotype of these granulomas is comparable to granulomas associated with other infectious agents. On dermatopathology, these commonly feature a robust granulomatous inflammation with multinucleated giant cells and lymphocytic infiltrate. Necrosis and fibrosis are also common.

“These are the types of granulomas that we would be thinking infection. If tissue cultures are negative, we would probably repeat them,” she said, suggesting that suspicion of an infectious etiology would probably remain high even after multiple negative tests.

Of the cases accruing in the United States and elsewhere, most but not all have been linked to inborn errors of immunity. In a 2020 CDC review, the risk of granulomas caused by compromised immunity, such as defects in T cell function, was estimated to be in the range of 0.6% to 2.5%, Dr. Wanat said.

It is now known that primary immunodeficiency is not a prerequisite, but this should not change the perception that the rubella vaccine, which was introduced in 1979, is effective and safe, according to Dr. Wanat. The vaccine is associated with few serious adverse events and is so effective that rubella was eliminated from the United States in 2004 and from the Americas in 2015.

This makes cases of granuloma associated with wild-type rubella virus surprising, but they appear to be exceedingly rare. Whether caused by vaccine exposure or another source, the mechanism of latent development of cutaneous granulomas is consistent with other infectious sources, and is not well understood.

“Rubella is a sneaky virus that can persist in some immunoprivileged sites indefinitely,” Dr. Wanat said. These sites include the eyes, joints, and placenta.

Many initial cases of rubella-associated granulomas occurred on the arms, presumably where the vaccine was administered, despite long intervals between exposure and lesion growth. This interval is often measured in years.

With more cases, it is now understood that involvement of other organs does occur even if the skin is the most common site of antigenic response in patients with immunodeficiency. The liver and lymph nodes represent other tissues that have been affected. Even lesions in the brain have been seen on autopsy.

Based on the benefit-to-risk ratio of a highly effective and successful vaccine, however, the association with a risk of granulomas “should not raise questions” about the value of the vaccine itself, Dr. Wanat noted.

“The proportion of patients who develop these granulomas is very, very low. Yet, the vaccine provides life-long immunity,” she said.

The discovery of granulomas associated with wild type rubella infection was “shocking” based on the supposition that the rubella virus had been eliminated, but this is just one of the unexpected discoveries as the still-evolving science has traced the story of rubella-associated granulomas over the past 10 years.

Cases now include children and adults through advanced ages.

Shedding of the virus and risk of infection to others has been studied but so far, the risk — if it exists — is very low. The evidence includes the many patients who have lived with the granulomas for years, even decades, without any known spread to others.

As for ongoing work in this area, Dr. Wanat said that a histopathological case definition for rubella-associated granulomas is being developed, and she and other investigators are actively seeking new cases to better characterize the disease.

So far, optimal treatment is not well defined. A number of strategies have had limited success or are considered impractical for routine use. One example is a stem cell transplant. In a case Dr. Wanat cited, complete resolution of the skin lesions was achieved with a transplant.

“I am not suggesting that those with localized disease in the skin should undergo a transplant, but it does support the role of the immune system and the potential for a reboot to clear the skin,” she said.

Other therapies associated with benefit in at least some patients include tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors with dapsone and ribavirin. The risk of adverse events for the latter might again limit its use, Dr. Wanat said.

With awareness, the number of granulomas found to be associated with rubella virus is expected to grow. Dr. Wanat speculated that those areas of the country that not yet have documented a case will do so over time. For idiopathic cases of cutaneous granulomas, rubella should be kept in mind, she said.

Characterizing rubella-associated cutaneous granulomas as “a public health concern,” Dr. Wanat urged clinicians to consider this etiology in lesions that match the phenotype, particularly when other more common infectious agents cannot be identified.

Asked for his perspective, Jeffrey P. North, MD, managing director of the UCSF Dermatopathology, and professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that rubella should be considered as a source of granulomas with a suspected infectious etiology when a pathogen cannot be found.

“It is likely much more common than we know as it has only been recently described and testing for it is limited. I suspected there are a lot of undiagnosed patients suffering from this disease,” Dr. North said in an interview.

“One of the important points for clinicians to consider is that while this has been reported mostly in patients with some form of immunodeficiency, there have also been patients reported to have this condition with no immunodeficiency,” he added. Even though the association between rubella and granulomas was made 10 years ago, awareness is only now spreading, which means the frequency with which rubella leads to granulomas remains uncertain.

“I think we will start to get a better idea of how common this is as more people learn about and testing for it expands,” Dr. North said.

Dr. Wanat reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. North reports financial relationships with AdviNow and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals.

SAN DIEGO — Approximately 10 years ago in France, high throughput screening in a series of cases suggested that vaccine-derived rubella virus was the surprising cause of persistent cutaneous granulomas, but an update at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology suggests this phenomenon is not as rare as once supposed.

Based on accumulating evidence, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through collaborations with others also recognized this in pediatric patients with inborn errors of immunity, and it is now appropriate for clinicians to consider this etiology when no other infectious agents can be identified, according to Karolyn A. Wanat, MD, professor of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who spoke about rubella as a trigger in granulomatous disease at the meeting. “This is a huge evolving area of interest,” said Dr. Wanat, who has been the first author or coauthor on several published papers, including a review article published earlier this year.

In the earliest cases, including those reported in 2014, the cutaneous granulomas presumed to be causally related to vaccine-derived rubella virus were found only in those with a primary immunodeficiency. This is no longer the case. In a collaboration among US clinics, granulomas that had persisted for years in immunocompetent adults were identified, according to Dr. Wanat, the first author of a report on these findings in four adults in 2022. In addition, it now appears that wild-type rubella virus, like vaccine-derived rubella virus, can be the source of the antigenic response that underlies the development of rubella-associated cutaneous granulomas.

The phenotype of these granulomas is comparable to granulomas associated with other infectious agents. On dermatopathology, these commonly feature a robust granulomatous inflammation with multinucleated giant cells and lymphocytic infiltrate. Necrosis and fibrosis are also common.

“These are the types of granulomas that we would be thinking infection. If tissue cultures are negative, we would probably repeat them,” she said, suggesting that suspicion of an infectious etiology would probably remain high even after multiple negative tests.

Of the cases accruing in the United States and elsewhere, most but not all have been linked to inborn errors of immunity. In a 2020 CDC review, the risk of granulomas caused by compromised immunity, such as defects in T cell function, was estimated to be in the range of 0.6% to 2.5%, Dr. Wanat said.

It is now known that primary immunodeficiency is not a prerequisite, but this should not change the perception that the rubella vaccine, which was introduced in 1979, is effective and safe, according to Dr. Wanat. The vaccine is associated with few serious adverse events and is so effective that rubella was eliminated from the United States in 2004 and from the Americas in 2015.

This makes cases of granuloma associated with wild-type rubella virus surprising, but they appear to be exceedingly rare. Whether caused by vaccine exposure or another source, the mechanism of latent development of cutaneous granulomas is consistent with other infectious sources, and is not well understood.

“Rubella is a sneaky virus that can persist in some immunoprivileged sites indefinitely,” Dr. Wanat said. These sites include the eyes, joints, and placenta.

Many initial cases of rubella-associated granulomas occurred on the arms, presumably where the vaccine was administered, despite long intervals between exposure and lesion growth. This interval is often measured in years.

With more cases, it is now understood that involvement of other organs does occur even if the skin is the most common site of antigenic response in patients with immunodeficiency. The liver and lymph nodes represent other tissues that have been affected. Even lesions in the brain have been seen on autopsy.

Based on the benefit-to-risk ratio of a highly effective and successful vaccine, however, the association with a risk of granulomas “should not raise questions” about the value of the vaccine itself, Dr. Wanat noted.

“The proportion of patients who develop these granulomas is very, very low. Yet, the vaccine provides life-long immunity,” she said.

The discovery of granulomas associated with wild type rubella infection was “shocking” based on the supposition that the rubella virus had been eliminated, but this is just one of the unexpected discoveries as the still-evolving science has traced the story of rubella-associated granulomas over the past 10 years.

Cases now include children and adults through advanced ages.

Shedding of the virus and risk of infection to others has been studied but so far, the risk — if it exists — is very low. The evidence includes the many patients who have lived with the granulomas for years, even decades, without any known spread to others.

As for ongoing work in this area, Dr. Wanat said that a histopathological case definition for rubella-associated granulomas is being developed, and she and other investigators are actively seeking new cases to better characterize the disease.

So far, optimal treatment is not well defined. A number of strategies have had limited success or are considered impractical for routine use. One example is a stem cell transplant. In a case Dr. Wanat cited, complete resolution of the skin lesions was achieved with a transplant.

“I am not suggesting that those with localized disease in the skin should undergo a transplant, but it does support the role of the immune system and the potential for a reboot to clear the skin,” she said.

Other therapies associated with benefit in at least some patients include tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors with dapsone and ribavirin. The risk of adverse events for the latter might again limit its use, Dr. Wanat said.

With awareness, the number of granulomas found to be associated with rubella virus is expected to grow. Dr. Wanat speculated that those areas of the country that not yet have documented a case will do so over time. For idiopathic cases of cutaneous granulomas, rubella should be kept in mind, she said.

Characterizing rubella-associated cutaneous granulomas as “a public health concern,” Dr. Wanat urged clinicians to consider this etiology in lesions that match the phenotype, particularly when other more common infectious agents cannot be identified.

Asked for his perspective, Jeffrey P. North, MD, managing director of the UCSF Dermatopathology, and professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that rubella should be considered as a source of granulomas with a suspected infectious etiology when a pathogen cannot be found.

“It is likely much more common than we know as it has only been recently described and testing for it is limited. I suspected there are a lot of undiagnosed patients suffering from this disease,” Dr. North said in an interview.

“One of the important points for clinicians to consider is that while this has been reported mostly in patients with some form of immunodeficiency, there have also been patients reported to have this condition with no immunodeficiency,” he added. Even though the association between rubella and granulomas was made 10 years ago, awareness is only now spreading, which means the frequency with which rubella leads to granulomas remains uncertain.

“I think we will start to get a better idea of how common this is as more people learn about and testing for it expands,” Dr. North said.

Dr. Wanat reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. North reports financial relationships with AdviNow and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals.

SAN DIEGO — Approximately 10 years ago in France, high throughput screening in a series of cases suggested that vaccine-derived rubella virus was the surprising cause of persistent cutaneous granulomas, but an update at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology suggests this phenomenon is not as rare as once supposed.

Based on accumulating evidence, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through collaborations with others also recognized this in pediatric patients with inborn errors of immunity, and it is now appropriate for clinicians to consider this etiology when no other infectious agents can be identified, according to Karolyn A. Wanat, MD, professor of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who spoke about rubella as a trigger in granulomatous disease at the meeting. “This is a huge evolving area of interest,” said Dr. Wanat, who has been the first author or coauthor on several published papers, including a review article published earlier this year.

In the earliest cases, including those reported in 2014, the cutaneous granulomas presumed to be causally related to vaccine-derived rubella virus were found only in those with a primary immunodeficiency. This is no longer the case. In a collaboration among US clinics, granulomas that had persisted for years in immunocompetent adults were identified, according to Dr. Wanat, the first author of a report on these findings in four adults in 2022. In addition, it now appears that wild-type rubella virus, like vaccine-derived rubella virus, can be the source of the antigenic response that underlies the development of rubella-associated cutaneous granulomas.

The phenotype of these granulomas is comparable to granulomas associated with other infectious agents. On dermatopathology, these commonly feature a robust granulomatous inflammation with multinucleated giant cells and lymphocytic infiltrate. Necrosis and fibrosis are also common.

“These are the types of granulomas that we would be thinking infection. If tissue cultures are negative, we would probably repeat them,” she said, suggesting that suspicion of an infectious etiology would probably remain high even after multiple negative tests.

Of the cases accruing in the United States and elsewhere, most but not all have been linked to inborn errors of immunity. In a 2020 CDC review, the risk of granulomas caused by compromised immunity, such as defects in T cell function, was estimated to be in the range of 0.6% to 2.5%, Dr. Wanat said.

It is now known that primary immunodeficiency is not a prerequisite, but this should not change the perception that the rubella vaccine, which was introduced in 1979, is effective and safe, according to Dr. Wanat. The vaccine is associated with few serious adverse events and is so effective that rubella was eliminated from the United States in 2004 and from the Americas in 2015.

This makes cases of granuloma associated with wild-type rubella virus surprising, but they appear to be exceedingly rare. Whether caused by vaccine exposure or another source, the mechanism of latent development of cutaneous granulomas is consistent with other infectious sources, and is not well understood.

“Rubella is a sneaky virus that can persist in some immunoprivileged sites indefinitely,” Dr. Wanat said. These sites include the eyes, joints, and placenta.

Many initial cases of rubella-associated granulomas occurred on the arms, presumably where the vaccine was administered, despite long intervals between exposure and lesion growth. This interval is often measured in years.

With more cases, it is now understood that involvement of other organs does occur even if the skin is the most common site of antigenic response in patients with immunodeficiency. The liver and lymph nodes represent other tissues that have been affected. Even lesions in the brain have been seen on autopsy.

Based on the benefit-to-risk ratio of a highly effective and successful vaccine, however, the association with a risk of granulomas “should not raise questions” about the value of the vaccine itself, Dr. Wanat noted.

“The proportion of patients who develop these granulomas is very, very low. Yet, the vaccine provides life-long immunity,” she said.

The discovery of granulomas associated with wild type rubella infection was “shocking” based on the supposition that the rubella virus had been eliminated, but this is just one of the unexpected discoveries as the still-evolving science has traced the story of rubella-associated granulomas over the past 10 years.

Cases now include children and adults through advanced ages.

Shedding of the virus and risk of infection to others has been studied but so far, the risk — if it exists — is very low. The evidence includes the many patients who have lived with the granulomas for years, even decades, without any known spread to others.

As for ongoing work in this area, Dr. Wanat said that a histopathological case definition for rubella-associated granulomas is being developed, and she and other investigators are actively seeking new cases to better characterize the disease.

So far, optimal treatment is not well defined. A number of strategies have had limited success or are considered impractical for routine use. One example is a stem cell transplant. In a case Dr. Wanat cited, complete resolution of the skin lesions was achieved with a transplant.

“I am not suggesting that those with localized disease in the skin should undergo a transplant, but it does support the role of the immune system and the potential for a reboot to clear the skin,” she said.

Other therapies associated with benefit in at least some patients include tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors with dapsone and ribavirin. The risk of adverse events for the latter might again limit its use, Dr. Wanat said.

With awareness, the number of granulomas found to be associated with rubella virus is expected to grow. Dr. Wanat speculated that those areas of the country that not yet have documented a case will do so over time. For idiopathic cases of cutaneous granulomas, rubella should be kept in mind, she said.

Characterizing rubella-associated cutaneous granulomas as “a public health concern,” Dr. Wanat urged clinicians to consider this etiology in lesions that match the phenotype, particularly when other more common infectious agents cannot be identified.

Asked for his perspective, Jeffrey P. North, MD, managing director of the UCSF Dermatopathology, and professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that rubella should be considered as a source of granulomas with a suspected infectious etiology when a pathogen cannot be found.

“It is likely much more common than we know as it has only been recently described and testing for it is limited. I suspected there are a lot of undiagnosed patients suffering from this disease,” Dr. North said in an interview.

“One of the important points for clinicians to consider is that while this has been reported mostly in patients with some form of immunodeficiency, there have also been patients reported to have this condition with no immunodeficiency,” he added. Even though the association between rubella and granulomas was made 10 years ago, awareness is only now spreading, which means the frequency with which rubella leads to granulomas remains uncertain.

“I think we will start to get a better idea of how common this is as more people learn about and testing for it expands,” Dr. North said.

Dr. Wanat reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. North reports financial relationships with AdviNow and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals.