Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

The Diagnosis: Epithelioid Angiosarcoma 

Histopathology showed a large soft-tissue neoplasm with extensive hemorrhage (Figure 1). The epithelioid angiosarcoma (EA) consisted mostly of irregular slit-shaped vessels lined by sheets of atypical endothelial cells (Figure 2). At higher-power magnification, the cellular atypia was prominent and diffuse (Figure 3). Immunostaining of the tumor cells showed positive uptake for CD31, confirming vascular origin (Figure 4). Other vascular markers, including CD34 and factor VIII, as well as nuclear positivity for the erythroblast transformation-specific transcription factor gene, ERG, can be demonstrated by EA. Irregular, smooth muscle actin-positive spindle cells are distributed around some of the vessels. The human herpesvirus 8 stain is negative.  

Compared to classic angiosarcomas, EAs have a predilection for the extremities rather than the head and scalp. Histopathologically, the cells are epithelioid and are strongly positive for vimentin and CD31, in addition to factor VIII, friend leukemia integration 1 transcription factor, and CD34.^1,2 In contrast, epithelioid sarcomas more typically are seen in younger adults and less likely to be CD31 positive.³ An epithelioid hemangioendothelioma is more focal in cellular atypia and forms small nests and trabeculae rather than sheets of atypical cells. Melanoma cells stain positive for human melanoma black 45, Melan-A, and S-100 but not for CD31.³ Glomangiosarcomas typically stain positive for smooth muscle actin and muscle-specific actin.⁴ 

Epithelioid angiosarcomas are rare and aggressive malignancies of endothelial origin.³ They are more prevalent in men and have a peak incidence in the seventh decade of life. They most commonly occur in the deep soft tissues of the extremities but have been reported to form in a variety of primary sites, including the skin, bones, thyroid, and adrenal glands.³  

Tumors tend to be highly aggressive and demonstrate early nodal and solid organ metastases.³ Our case demonstrated the aggressive nature of this high-grade malignancy by showing neoplastic invasion through a vascular wall. Within 2 to 3 years of diagnosis, 50% of patients die of the disease, and the 5-year survival rate is estimated to be 12% to 20%.^3,5 The etiology remains unknown, but EA has been linked to prior exposure to toxic chemicals, irradiation, or Thorotrast contrast media, and it may arise in the setting of arteriovenous fistulae and chronic lymphedema.⁶ 

Although radiation therapy often is utilized, surgery is the primary treatment modality.⁵ Even with wide excision, local recurrence is common. Tumor size is one of the most important prognostic features, with a worse prognosis for tumors larger than 5 cm. Evidence suggests that paclitaxel-based chemotherapeutic regimens may improve survival, and a combination of paclitaxel and sorafenib has been reported to induce remission in metastatic angiosarcoma of parietal EA.⁵ Currently, no standardized treatment regimen for this condition exists.  

Acknowledgment
The authors thank Amanda Marsch, MD (Chicago, Illinois), for obtaining outside pathology consultation.  

The Diagnosis: Epithelioid Angiosarcoma 

Histopathology showed a large soft-tissue neoplasm with extensive hemorrhage (Figure 1). The epithelioid angiosarcoma (EA) consisted mostly of irregular slit-shaped vessels lined by sheets of atypical endothelial cells (Figure 2). At higher-power magnification, the cellular atypia was prominent and diffuse (Figure 3). Immunostaining of the tumor cells showed positive uptake for CD31, confirming vascular origin (Figure 4). Other vascular markers, including CD34 and factor VIII, as well as nuclear positivity for the erythroblast transformation-specific transcription factor gene, ERG, can be demonstrated by EA. Irregular, smooth muscle actin-positive spindle cells are distributed around some of the vessels. The human herpesvirus 8 stain is negative.  

Compared to classic angiosarcomas, EAs have a predilection for the extremities rather than the head and scalp. Histopathologically, the cells are epithelioid and are strongly positive for vimentin and CD31, in addition to factor VIII, friend leukemia integration 1 transcription factor, and CD34.^1,2 In contrast, epithelioid sarcomas more typically are seen in younger adults and less likely to be CD31 positive.³ An epithelioid hemangioendothelioma is more focal in cellular atypia and forms small nests and trabeculae rather than sheets of atypical cells. Melanoma cells stain positive for human melanoma black 45, Melan-A, and S-100 but not for CD31.³ Glomangiosarcomas typically stain positive for smooth muscle actin and muscle-specific actin.⁴ 

Epithelioid angiosarcomas are rare and aggressive malignancies of endothelial origin.³ They are more prevalent in men and have a peak incidence in the seventh decade of life. They most commonly occur in the deep soft tissues of the extremities but have been reported to form in a variety of primary sites, including the skin, bones, thyroid, and adrenal glands.³  

Tumors tend to be highly aggressive and demonstrate early nodal and solid organ metastases.³ Our case demonstrated the aggressive nature of this high-grade malignancy by showing neoplastic invasion through a vascular wall. Within 2 to 3 years of diagnosis, 50% of patients die of the disease, and the 5-year survival rate is estimated to be 12% to 20%.^3,5 The etiology remains unknown, but EA has been linked to prior exposure to toxic chemicals, irradiation, or Thorotrast contrast media, and it may arise in the setting of arteriovenous fistulae and chronic lymphedema.⁶ 

Although radiation therapy often is utilized, surgery is the primary treatment modality.⁵ Even with wide excision, local recurrence is common. Tumor size is one of the most important prognostic features, with a worse prognosis for tumors larger than 5 cm. Evidence suggests that paclitaxel-based chemotherapeutic regimens may improve survival, and a combination of paclitaxel and sorafenib has been reported to induce remission in metastatic angiosarcoma of parietal EA.⁵ Currently, no standardized treatment regimen for this condition exists.  

Acknowledgment
The authors thank Amanda Marsch, MD (Chicago, Illinois), for obtaining outside pathology consultation.  

The Diagnosis: Epithelioid Angiosarcoma 

Histopathology showed a large soft-tissue neoplasm with extensive hemorrhage (Figure 1). The epithelioid angiosarcoma (EA) consisted mostly of irregular slit-shaped vessels lined by sheets of atypical endothelial cells (Figure 2). At higher-power magnification, the cellular atypia was prominent and diffuse (Figure 3). Immunostaining of the tumor cells showed positive uptake for CD31, confirming vascular origin (Figure 4). Other vascular markers, including CD34 and factor VIII, as well as nuclear positivity for the erythroblast transformation-specific transcription factor gene, ERG, can be demonstrated by EA. Irregular, smooth muscle actin-positive spindle cells are distributed around some of the vessels. The human herpesvirus 8 stain is negative.  

Compared to classic angiosarcomas, EAs have a predilection for the extremities rather than the head and scalp. Histopathologically, the cells are epithelioid and are strongly positive for vimentin and CD31, in addition to factor VIII, friend leukemia integration 1 transcription factor, and CD34.^1,2 In contrast, epithelioid sarcomas more typically are seen in younger adults and less likely to be CD31 positive.³ An epithelioid hemangioendothelioma is more focal in cellular atypia and forms small nests and trabeculae rather than sheets of atypical cells. Melanoma cells stain positive for human melanoma black 45, Melan-A, and S-100 but not for CD31.³ Glomangiosarcomas typically stain positive for smooth muscle actin and muscle-specific actin.⁴ 

Epithelioid angiosarcomas are rare and aggressive malignancies of endothelial origin.³ They are more prevalent in men and have a peak incidence in the seventh decade of life. They most commonly occur in the deep soft tissues of the extremities but have been reported to form in a variety of primary sites, including the skin, bones, thyroid, and adrenal glands.³  

Tumors tend to be highly aggressive and demonstrate early nodal and solid organ metastases.³ Our case demonstrated the aggressive nature of this high-grade malignancy by showing neoplastic invasion through a vascular wall. Within 2 to 3 years of diagnosis, 50% of patients die of the disease, and the 5-year survival rate is estimated to be 12% to 20%.^3,5 The etiology remains unknown, but EA has been linked to prior exposure to toxic chemicals, irradiation, or Thorotrast contrast media, and it may arise in the setting of arteriovenous fistulae and chronic lymphedema.⁶ 

Although radiation therapy often is utilized, surgery is the primary treatment modality.⁵ Even with wide excision, local recurrence is common. Tumor size is one of the most important prognostic features, with a worse prognosis for tumors larger than 5 cm. Evidence suggests that paclitaxel-based chemotherapeutic regimens may improve survival, and a combination of paclitaxel and sorafenib has been reported to induce remission in metastatic angiosarcoma of parietal EA.⁵ Currently, no standardized treatment regimen for this condition exists.  

Acknowledgment
The authors thank Amanda Marsch, MD (Chicago, Illinois), for obtaining outside pathology consultation.  

Smartphone applications (apps) using so-called artificial intelligence (AI) aimed at the general public for use on suspicious skin lesions are unreliable, said U.K. researchers reporting a systematic review.
 

These apps are providing information that could lead to “potentially life-or-death decisions,” commented co-lead author Hywel C. Williams, MD, from the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham (England).

“The one thing you mustn’t do in a situation where early diagnosis can make a difference between life and death is you mustn’t miss the melanoma,” he said in an interview.

“These apps were missing melanomas, and that’s very worrisome,” he commented.

The review included nine studies of skin cancer smartphone apps, including two apps, SkinScan and SkinVision, that have been given Conformit Europenne (CE) marks, allowing them to be marketed across Europe. These apps are also available in Australia and New Zealand, but not in the United States.

The review found that SkinScan was not able to identify any melanomas in the one study that assessed this app, while SkinVision had a relatively low sensitivity and specificity, with 12% of cancerous or precancerous lesions missed and 21% of benign lesions wrongly identified as cancerous.

This means that among 1,000 people with a melanoma prevalence of 3%, 4 of 30 melanomas would be missed, and 200 people would be incorrectly told that a mole was of high concern, the authors estimated.

The research was published by The BMJ on Feb. 10.

“Although I was broad minded on the potential benefit of apps for diagnosing skin cancer, I am now worried given the results of our study and the overall poor quality of studies used to test these apps,” Dr. Williams commented in a statement.

Coauthor Jac Dinnes, PhD, from the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), added it is “really disappointing that there is not better quality evidence available to judge the efficacy of these apps.”

“It is vital that health care professionals are aware of the current limitations both in the technologies and in their evaluations,” she added.

The results also highlight the limitations of the regulatory system governing smartphone apps in that they are currently not subject to assessment by bodies such as the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the authors commented.

“Regulators need to become alert to the potential harm that poorly performing algorithm-based diagnostic or risk monitoring apps create,” said co-lead author Jonathan J. Deeks, PhD, also at the Institute of Applied Health Research.

“We rely on the CE mark as a sign of quality, but the current CE mark assessment processes are not fit for protecting the public against the risks that these apps present.”

Speaking in an interview, Williams lamented the poor quality of the research that had been conducted. “These studies were not good enough,” he said, adding that “there’s no excuse for really poor study design and poor reporting.”

He would like to see the regulations tightened around AI apps purporting to inform decision making for the general public and suggests that these devices should be assessed by the MHRA. “I really do think a CE mark is not enough,” he said.

The team noted that the skin cancer apps “all include disclaimers that the results should only be used as a guide and cannot replace health care advice,” through which the manufacturers “attempt to evade any responsibility for negative outcomes experienced by users.”

Nevertheless, the “poor and variable performance” of the apps revealed by their review indicates that they “have not yet shown sufficient promise to recommend their use,” they concluded.

The “official approval” implied by a CE mark “will give consumers the impression that the apps have been assessed as effective and safe,” wrote Ben Goldacre, DataLab director, Nuffield Department of Primary Care, University of Oxford (England), and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

“The implicit assumption is that apps are similarly low-risk technology” to devices such as sticking plasters and reading glasses, they comment.

“But shortcomings in diagnostic apps can have serious implications,” they warn. The “risks include psychological harm from health anxiety or ‘cyberchondria,’ and physical harm from misdiagnosis or overdiagnosis; for clinicians there is a risk of increased workload, and changes to ethical or legal responsibilities around triage, referral, diagnosis, and treatment.” There is also potential for “inappropriate resource use, and even loss of credibility for digital technology in general.”

Details of the review

For their review, the authors searched the Cochrane Central Register on Controlled Trials, the MEDLNE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Conference Proceedings Citation index, Zetoc, and Science Citation Index databases, and online trial registers for studies published between August 2016 and April 2019.

From 80 studies identified, 9 met the eligibility criteria.

Of those, six studies, evaluating a total of 725 skin lesions, determined the accuracy of smartphone apps in risk stratifying suspicious skin lesions by comparing them against a histopathological reference standard diagnosis or expert follow-up.

Five of these studies aimed to detect only melanoma, while one sought to differentiate between malignant or premalignant lesions (including melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma) and benign lesions.

The three remaining studies, which evaluated 407 lesions in all, compared smartphone app recommendations against a reference standard of expert recommendations for further investigation or intervention.

The researchers found the studies had a string of potential biases and limitations.

For example, only four studies recruited a consecutive sample of study participants and lesions, and only two included lesions selected by study participants, whereas five studies used lesions that had been selected by a clinician.

Three studies reported that it took 5-10 attempts to obtain an adequate image. In seven studies, it was the researchers and not the patients who used the app to photograph the lesions, and two studies used images obtained from dermatology databases.

This “raised concerns that the results of the studies were unlikely to be representative of real life use,” the authors comment.

In addition, the exclusion of unevaluable images “might have systematically inflated the diagnostic performance of the tested apps,” they add.

The independent research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham and is an update of one of a collection of reviews funded by the NIHR through its Cochrane Systematic Review Programme Grant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Smartphone applications (apps) using so-called artificial intelligence (AI) aimed at the general public for use on suspicious skin lesions are unreliable, said U.K. researchers reporting a systematic review.
 

These apps are providing information that could lead to “potentially life-or-death decisions,” commented co-lead author Hywel C. Williams, MD, from the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham (England).

“The one thing you mustn’t do in a situation where early diagnosis can make a difference between life and death is you mustn’t miss the melanoma,” he said in an interview.

“These apps were missing melanomas, and that’s very worrisome,” he commented.

The review included nine studies of skin cancer smartphone apps, including two apps, SkinScan and SkinVision, that have been given Conformit Europenne (CE) marks, allowing them to be marketed across Europe. These apps are also available in Australia and New Zealand, but not in the United States.

The review found that SkinScan was not able to identify any melanomas in the one study that assessed this app, while SkinVision had a relatively low sensitivity and specificity, with 12% of cancerous or precancerous lesions missed and 21% of benign lesions wrongly identified as cancerous.

This means that among 1,000 people with a melanoma prevalence of 3%, 4 of 30 melanomas would be missed, and 200 people would be incorrectly told that a mole was of high concern, the authors estimated.

The research was published by The BMJ on Feb. 10.

“Although I was broad minded on the potential benefit of apps for diagnosing skin cancer, I am now worried given the results of our study and the overall poor quality of studies used to test these apps,” Dr. Williams commented in a statement.

Coauthor Jac Dinnes, PhD, from the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), added it is “really disappointing that there is not better quality evidence available to judge the efficacy of these apps.”

“It is vital that health care professionals are aware of the current limitations both in the technologies and in their evaluations,” she added.

The results also highlight the limitations of the regulatory system governing smartphone apps in that they are currently not subject to assessment by bodies such as the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the authors commented.

“Regulators need to become alert to the potential harm that poorly performing algorithm-based diagnostic or risk monitoring apps create,” said co-lead author Jonathan J. Deeks, PhD, also at the Institute of Applied Health Research.

“We rely on the CE mark as a sign of quality, but the current CE mark assessment processes are not fit for protecting the public against the risks that these apps present.”

Speaking in an interview, Williams lamented the poor quality of the research that had been conducted. “These studies were not good enough,” he said, adding that “there’s no excuse for really poor study design and poor reporting.”

He would like to see the regulations tightened around AI apps purporting to inform decision making for the general public and suggests that these devices should be assessed by the MHRA. “I really do think a CE mark is not enough,” he said.

The team noted that the skin cancer apps “all include disclaimers that the results should only be used as a guide and cannot replace health care advice,” through which the manufacturers “attempt to evade any responsibility for negative outcomes experienced by users.”

Nevertheless, the “poor and variable performance” of the apps revealed by their review indicates that they “have not yet shown sufficient promise to recommend their use,” they concluded.

The “official approval” implied by a CE mark “will give consumers the impression that the apps have been assessed as effective and safe,” wrote Ben Goldacre, DataLab director, Nuffield Department of Primary Care, University of Oxford (England), and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

“The implicit assumption is that apps are similarly low-risk technology” to devices such as sticking plasters and reading glasses, they comment.

“But shortcomings in diagnostic apps can have serious implications,” they warn. The “risks include psychological harm from health anxiety or ‘cyberchondria,’ and physical harm from misdiagnosis or overdiagnosis; for clinicians there is a risk of increased workload, and changes to ethical or legal responsibilities around triage, referral, diagnosis, and treatment.” There is also potential for “inappropriate resource use, and even loss of credibility for digital technology in general.”

Details of the review

For their review, the authors searched the Cochrane Central Register on Controlled Trials, the MEDLNE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Conference Proceedings Citation index, Zetoc, and Science Citation Index databases, and online trial registers for studies published between August 2016 and April 2019.

From 80 studies identified, 9 met the eligibility criteria.

Of those, six studies, evaluating a total of 725 skin lesions, determined the accuracy of smartphone apps in risk stratifying suspicious skin lesions by comparing them against a histopathological reference standard diagnosis or expert follow-up.

Five of these studies aimed to detect only melanoma, while one sought to differentiate between malignant or premalignant lesions (including melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma) and benign lesions.

The three remaining studies, which evaluated 407 lesions in all, compared smartphone app recommendations against a reference standard of expert recommendations for further investigation or intervention.

The researchers found the studies had a string of potential biases and limitations.

For example, only four studies recruited a consecutive sample of study participants and lesions, and only two included lesions selected by study participants, whereas five studies used lesions that had been selected by a clinician.

Three studies reported that it took 5-10 attempts to obtain an adequate image. In seven studies, it was the researchers and not the patients who used the app to photograph the lesions, and two studies used images obtained from dermatology databases.

This “raised concerns that the results of the studies were unlikely to be representative of real life use,” the authors comment.

In addition, the exclusion of unevaluable images “might have systematically inflated the diagnostic performance of the tested apps,” they add.

The independent research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham and is an update of one of a collection of reviews funded by the NIHR through its Cochrane Systematic Review Programme Grant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Smartphone applications (apps) using so-called artificial intelligence (AI) aimed at the general public for use on suspicious skin lesions are unreliable, said U.K. researchers reporting a systematic review.
 

These apps are providing information that could lead to “potentially life-or-death decisions,” commented co-lead author Hywel C. Williams, MD, from the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham (England).

“The one thing you mustn’t do in a situation where early diagnosis can make a difference between life and death is you mustn’t miss the melanoma,” he said in an interview.

“These apps were missing melanomas, and that’s very worrisome,” he commented.

The review included nine studies of skin cancer smartphone apps, including two apps, SkinScan and SkinVision, that have been given Conformit Europenne (CE) marks, allowing them to be marketed across Europe. These apps are also available in Australia and New Zealand, but not in the United States.

The review found that SkinScan was not able to identify any melanomas in the one study that assessed this app, while SkinVision had a relatively low sensitivity and specificity, with 12% of cancerous or precancerous lesions missed and 21% of benign lesions wrongly identified as cancerous.

This means that among 1,000 people with a melanoma prevalence of 3%, 4 of 30 melanomas would be missed, and 200 people would be incorrectly told that a mole was of high concern, the authors estimated.

The research was published by The BMJ on Feb. 10.

“Although I was broad minded on the potential benefit of apps for diagnosing skin cancer, I am now worried given the results of our study and the overall poor quality of studies used to test these apps,” Dr. Williams commented in a statement.

Coauthor Jac Dinnes, PhD, from the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), added it is “really disappointing that there is not better quality evidence available to judge the efficacy of these apps.”

“It is vital that health care professionals are aware of the current limitations both in the technologies and in their evaluations,” she added.

The results also highlight the limitations of the regulatory system governing smartphone apps in that they are currently not subject to assessment by bodies such as the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the authors commented.

“Regulators need to become alert to the potential harm that poorly performing algorithm-based diagnostic or risk monitoring apps create,” said co-lead author Jonathan J. Deeks, PhD, also at the Institute of Applied Health Research.

“We rely on the CE mark as a sign of quality, but the current CE mark assessment processes are not fit for protecting the public against the risks that these apps present.”

Speaking in an interview, Williams lamented the poor quality of the research that had been conducted. “These studies were not good enough,” he said, adding that “there’s no excuse for really poor study design and poor reporting.”

He would like to see the regulations tightened around AI apps purporting to inform decision making for the general public and suggests that these devices should be assessed by the MHRA. “I really do think a CE mark is not enough,” he said.

The team noted that the skin cancer apps “all include disclaimers that the results should only be used as a guide and cannot replace health care advice,” through which the manufacturers “attempt to evade any responsibility for negative outcomes experienced by users.”

Nevertheless, the “poor and variable performance” of the apps revealed by their review indicates that they “have not yet shown sufficient promise to recommend their use,” they concluded.

The “official approval” implied by a CE mark “will give consumers the impression that the apps have been assessed as effective and safe,” wrote Ben Goldacre, DataLab director, Nuffield Department of Primary Care, University of Oxford (England), and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

“The implicit assumption is that apps are similarly low-risk technology” to devices such as sticking plasters and reading glasses, they comment.

“But shortcomings in diagnostic apps can have serious implications,” they warn. The “risks include psychological harm from health anxiety or ‘cyberchondria,’ and physical harm from misdiagnosis or overdiagnosis; for clinicians there is a risk of increased workload, and changes to ethical or legal responsibilities around triage, referral, diagnosis, and treatment.” There is also potential for “inappropriate resource use, and even loss of credibility for digital technology in general.”

Details of the review

For their review, the authors searched the Cochrane Central Register on Controlled Trials, the MEDLNE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Conference Proceedings Citation index, Zetoc, and Science Citation Index databases, and online trial registers for studies published between August 2016 and April 2019.

From 80 studies identified, 9 met the eligibility criteria.

Of those, six studies, evaluating a total of 725 skin lesions, determined the accuracy of smartphone apps in risk stratifying suspicious skin lesions by comparing them against a histopathological reference standard diagnosis or expert follow-up.

Five of these studies aimed to detect only melanoma, while one sought to differentiate between malignant or premalignant lesions (including melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma) and benign lesions.

The three remaining studies, which evaluated 407 lesions in all, compared smartphone app recommendations against a reference standard of expert recommendations for further investigation or intervention.

The researchers found the studies had a string of potential biases and limitations.

For example, only four studies recruited a consecutive sample of study participants and lesions, and only two included lesions selected by study participants, whereas five studies used lesions that had been selected by a clinician.

Three studies reported that it took 5-10 attempts to obtain an adequate image. In seven studies, it was the researchers and not the patients who used the app to photograph the lesions, and two studies used images obtained from dermatology databases.

This “raised concerns that the results of the studies were unlikely to be representative of real life use,” the authors comment.

In addition, the exclusion of unevaluable images “might have systematically inflated the diagnostic performance of the tested apps,” they add.

The independent research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham and is an update of one of a collection of reviews funded by the NIHR through its Cochrane Systematic Review Programme Grant.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There is not enough evidence to suggest that radiofrequency radiation (RFR) associated with cell phone use causes cancer, according to a review by the Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA reviewed the published literature from 2008 to 2018 and concluded that the data don’t support any quantifiable adverse health risks from RFR. However, the evidence is not without limitations.

The FDA’s evaluation included evidence from in vivo animal studies from Jan. 1, 2008, to Aug. 1, 2018, and epidemiologic studies in humans from Jan. 1, 2008, to May 8, 2018. Both kinds of evidence had limitations, but neither produced strong indications of any causal risks from cell phone use.

The FDA noted that in vivo animal studies are limited by variability of methods and RFR exposure, which make comparisons of results difficult. These studies are also impacted by the indirect effects of temperature increases (the only currently established biological effect of RFR) and stress experienced by the animals, which make teasing out the direct effects of RFR difficult.

The FDA noted that strong epidemiologic studies can provide more relevant and accurate information than in vivo studies, but epidemiologic studies are not without limitations. For example, most have participants track and self-report their cell phone use. There’s also no way to directly track certain factors of RFR exposure, such as frequency, duration, or intensity.

Even with those caveats in mind, the FDA wrote that, “based on the studies that are described in detail in this report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between RFR exposure and tumorigenesis. There is a lack of clear dose-response relationship, a lack of consistent findings or specificity, and a lack of biological mechanistic plausibility.”

The full review is available on the FDA website.

[email protected]

There is not enough evidence to suggest that radiofrequency radiation (RFR) associated with cell phone use causes cancer, according to a review by the Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA reviewed the published literature from 2008 to 2018 and concluded that the data don’t support any quantifiable adverse health risks from RFR. However, the evidence is not without limitations.

The FDA’s evaluation included evidence from in vivo animal studies from Jan. 1, 2008, to Aug. 1, 2018, and epidemiologic studies in humans from Jan. 1, 2008, to May 8, 2018. Both kinds of evidence had limitations, but neither produced strong indications of any causal risks from cell phone use.

The FDA noted that in vivo animal studies are limited by variability of methods and RFR exposure, which make comparisons of results difficult. These studies are also impacted by the indirect effects of temperature increases (the only currently established biological effect of RFR) and stress experienced by the animals, which make teasing out the direct effects of RFR difficult.

The FDA noted that strong epidemiologic studies can provide more relevant and accurate information than in vivo studies, but epidemiologic studies are not without limitations. For example, most have participants track and self-report their cell phone use. There’s also no way to directly track certain factors of RFR exposure, such as frequency, duration, or intensity.

Even with those caveats in mind, the FDA wrote that, “based on the studies that are described in detail in this report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between RFR exposure and tumorigenesis. There is a lack of clear dose-response relationship, a lack of consistent findings or specificity, and a lack of biological mechanistic plausibility.”

The full review is available on the FDA website.

[email protected]

There is not enough evidence to suggest that radiofrequency radiation (RFR) associated with cell phone use causes cancer, according to a review by the Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA reviewed the published literature from 2008 to 2018 and concluded that the data don’t support any quantifiable adverse health risks from RFR. However, the evidence is not without limitations.

The FDA’s evaluation included evidence from in vivo animal studies from Jan. 1, 2008, to Aug. 1, 2018, and epidemiologic studies in humans from Jan. 1, 2008, to May 8, 2018. Both kinds of evidence had limitations, but neither produced strong indications of any causal risks from cell phone use.

The FDA noted that in vivo animal studies are limited by variability of methods and RFR exposure, which make comparisons of results difficult. These studies are also impacted by the indirect effects of temperature increases (the only currently established biological effect of RFR) and stress experienced by the animals, which make teasing out the direct effects of RFR difficult.

The FDA noted that strong epidemiologic studies can provide more relevant and accurate information than in vivo studies, but epidemiologic studies are not without limitations. For example, most have participants track and self-report their cell phone use. There’s also no way to directly track certain factors of RFR exposure, such as frequency, duration, or intensity.

Even with those caveats in mind, the FDA wrote that, “based on the studies that are described in detail in this report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between RFR exposure and tumorigenesis. There is a lack of clear dose-response relationship, a lack of consistent findings or specificity, and a lack of biological mechanistic plausibility.”

The full review is available on the FDA website.

[email protected]

White Hispanic adults report a lower quality of life and less knowledge of skin cancer and sun protection behaviors than white non-Hispanic adults, survey results of 175 adults with nonmelanoma skin cancer show.

“The incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is lower in Hispanics when compared to Caucasians, but a high index of suspicion is needed given ethnic differences in presentation,” wrote Ali Rajabi-Estarabadi, MD, of the University of Miami, and colleagues.

Hispanic patients with NMSC tend to be younger than non-Hispanic white patients, and their basal cell carcinomas are more likely to be pigmented, the investigators noted. Although previous research suggests ethnic disparities in NMSC, factors including sun safety knowledge and quality of life after diagnosis have not been well studied, they said.

With this in mind, the investigators conducted a survey of white Hispanics and non-Hispanics treated for NMSC. The results were published as a research letter in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The investigators recruited 175 consecutive patients being treated for NMSC with Mohs surgery at a single center. The average age of the patients was 67 years; 58 identified as white Hispanic, 116 identified as white non-Hispanic.

Skin cancer quality of life scores were significantly higher (worse) among white Hispanic patients, compared with white non-Hispanic patients (9.7 vs. 6.0).

White Hispanic patients had significantly lower skin cancer knowledge scores, compared with white non-Hispanics (P = .003). White Hispanics were significantly more likely than white non-Hispanics to report never wearing hats (39% vs. 12%) and never wearing sunglasses (26% vs. 9%) for sun protection.

The findings were limited by the study population that included only residents of South Florida. However, the results highlight the need for “targeted patient education initiatives to bridge ethnic disparities regarding cancer knowledge and ultimately improve [quality of life] among Hispanic skin cancer suffers,” the investigators concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The investigators declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Rajabi-Estarabadi A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.01.063.

White Hispanic adults report a lower quality of life and less knowledge of skin cancer and sun protection behaviors than white non-Hispanic adults, survey results of 175 adults with nonmelanoma skin cancer show.

“The incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is lower in Hispanics when compared to Caucasians, but a high index of suspicion is needed given ethnic differences in presentation,” wrote Ali Rajabi-Estarabadi, MD, of the University of Miami, and colleagues.

Hispanic patients with NMSC tend to be younger than non-Hispanic white patients, and their basal cell carcinomas are more likely to be pigmented, the investigators noted. Although previous research suggests ethnic disparities in NMSC, factors including sun safety knowledge and quality of life after diagnosis have not been well studied, they said.

With this in mind, the investigators conducted a survey of white Hispanics and non-Hispanics treated for NMSC. The results were published as a research letter in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The investigators recruited 175 consecutive patients being treated for NMSC with Mohs surgery at a single center. The average age of the patients was 67 years; 58 identified as white Hispanic, 116 identified as white non-Hispanic.

Skin cancer quality of life scores were significantly higher (worse) among white Hispanic patients, compared with white non-Hispanic patients (9.7 vs. 6.0).

White Hispanic patients had significantly lower skin cancer knowledge scores, compared with white non-Hispanics (P = .003). White Hispanics were significantly more likely than white non-Hispanics to report never wearing hats (39% vs. 12%) and never wearing sunglasses (26% vs. 9%) for sun protection.

The findings were limited by the study population that included only residents of South Florida. However, the results highlight the need for “targeted patient education initiatives to bridge ethnic disparities regarding cancer knowledge and ultimately improve [quality of life] among Hispanic skin cancer suffers,” the investigators concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The investigators declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Rajabi-Estarabadi A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.01.063.

White Hispanic adults report a lower quality of life and less knowledge of skin cancer and sun protection behaviors than white non-Hispanic adults, survey results of 175 adults with nonmelanoma skin cancer show.

“The incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is lower in Hispanics when compared to Caucasians, but a high index of suspicion is needed given ethnic differences in presentation,” wrote Ali Rajabi-Estarabadi, MD, of the University of Miami, and colleagues.

Hispanic patients with NMSC tend to be younger than non-Hispanic white patients, and their basal cell carcinomas are more likely to be pigmented, the investigators noted. Although previous research suggests ethnic disparities in NMSC, factors including sun safety knowledge and quality of life after diagnosis have not been well studied, they said.

With this in mind, the investigators conducted a survey of white Hispanics and non-Hispanics treated for NMSC. The results were published as a research letter in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The investigators recruited 175 consecutive patients being treated for NMSC with Mohs surgery at a single center. The average age of the patients was 67 years; 58 identified as white Hispanic, 116 identified as white non-Hispanic.

Skin cancer quality of life scores were significantly higher (worse) among white Hispanic patients, compared with white non-Hispanic patients (9.7 vs. 6.0).

White Hispanic patients had significantly lower skin cancer knowledge scores, compared with white non-Hispanics (P = .003). White Hispanics were significantly more likely than white non-Hispanics to report never wearing hats (39% vs. 12%) and never wearing sunglasses (26% vs. 9%) for sun protection.

The findings were limited by the study population that included only residents of South Florida. However, the results highlight the need for “targeted patient education initiatives to bridge ethnic disparities regarding cancer knowledge and ultimately improve [quality of life] among Hispanic skin cancer suffers,” the investigators concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The investigators declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Rajabi-Estarabadi A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.01.063.

The Diagnosis: Adnexal Neoplasm Arising in a Nevus Sebaceus 

Biopsy of the lesion showed a proliferation of basaloid-appearing cells with focal ductal differentiation and ulceration consistent with poroma (Figure 1). Due to the superficial nature of the biopsy, the pathologist recommended excision to ensure complete removal and to rule out a well-differentiated porocarcinoma. Excision of the lesion showed large basaloid aggregates with a hypercellular stroma and a surrounding papillomatous epidermis with well-developed sebaceous lobules consistent with a trichoblastoma and a nevus sebaceus, respectively (Figure 2). There also was evidence of poroma; however, there were no findings concerning for porocarcinoma, which could lead to metastasis (Figure 3). 

Nevus sebaceus is a benign, hamartomatous, congenital growth that occurs in approximately 1% of patients presenting to dermatology offices. It usually presents as a single asymptomatic plaque on the scalp (62.5%) or face (24.5%) that changes in morphology over its lifetime.^1,2 In children, a nevus manifests as a yellowish, smooth, waxy skin lesion. As the sebaceous glands become more developed during adolescence, the lesion takes on more of a verrucous appearance and also can darken.  

Although nevus sebaceus is benign, it may give rise to both benign and malignant neoplasms. In a 2014 study of 707 cases of nevus sebaceus, 21.4% developed secondary neoplasms, 88% of which were benign.² The origins of these neoplasms can be epithelial, sebaceous, apocrine, and/or follicular. The 3 most common secondary neoplasms found in nevus sebaceus are trichoblastoma (34.7%), syringocystadenoma papilliferum (24.7%), and apocrine/eccrine adenoma (10%), all of which are benign.² Trichoblastomas represent a type of hair follicle tumor. Malignant lesions manifest in approximately 2.5% of cases, with basal cell carcinoma (BCC) being the most common (5.3% of all neoplasms), followed by squamous cell carcinoma (2.7% of all neoplasms).² Differentiating BCC from trichoblastoma can be difficult, but histologically BCCs usually have tumor stromal clefting while trichoblastomas do not.³ The incidence of secondary tumors in nevus sebaceus displays a strong correlation with age; thus, the highest proportion of neoplasms occur in adults.  

Treatment of nevus sebaceus depends on the patient's age. In children, because of the low probability of secondary neoplasms, observation in lieu of surgical excision is a common approach. In adults, the approach typically is surgical excision or close follow-up, as there is a concern for secondary neoplasm and the potential for malignant degeneration.  

A nevus sebaceus leading to 2 or more tumors within the same lesion is rare (seen in only 4.2% of lesions). The most common combination is trichoblastoma with syringocystadenoma papilliferum (0.6% of all cases).² Poromas represent sweat gland tumors that usually appear on the soles (65%) or palms (10%).⁴ It is uncommon for these neoplasms to manifest on the scalp or within a nevus sebaceus. Three independent studies (N=596; N=707; N=450) did not report any occurrences of eccrine poroma.^1,2,5 Eccrine poroma in conjunction with nodular trichoblastoma arising in a nevus sebaceus is unusual, and definitive excision should be strongly considered because of the possibility to develop a porocarcinoma.⁶ 

Atypical fibroxanthoma presents on sun-exposed areas as an exophytic nodule or plaque that frequently ulcerates. Pathology of this tumor shows a spindled cell proliferation that can stain positively for CD10 and procollagen 1. Basal cell carcinoma presents as a pearly papule or nodule displaying basaloid-appearing aggregates with tumor stromal clefting and can stain with Ber-EP4. Cylindromas typically present on the scalp as large rubbery-appearing plaques and nodules. Cylindromas usually present as a solitary tumor, but in the familial form there can be clusters of multiple nodules. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma frequently appears as a bleeding nodule on the scalp in patients with known renal cell cancer or as the initial presentation. 

The Diagnosis: Adnexal Neoplasm Arising in a Nevus Sebaceus 

Biopsy of the lesion showed a proliferation of basaloid-appearing cells with focal ductal differentiation and ulceration consistent with poroma (Figure 1). Due to the superficial nature of the biopsy, the pathologist recommended excision to ensure complete removal and to rule out a well-differentiated porocarcinoma. Excision of the lesion showed large basaloid aggregates with a hypercellular stroma and a surrounding papillomatous epidermis with well-developed sebaceous lobules consistent with a trichoblastoma and a nevus sebaceus, respectively (Figure 2). There also was evidence of poroma; however, there were no findings concerning for porocarcinoma, which could lead to metastasis (Figure 3). 

Nevus sebaceus is a benign, hamartomatous, congenital growth that occurs in approximately 1% of patients presenting to dermatology offices. It usually presents as a single asymptomatic plaque on the scalp (62.5%) or face (24.5%) that changes in morphology over its lifetime.^1,2 In children, a nevus manifests as a yellowish, smooth, waxy skin lesion. As the sebaceous glands become more developed during adolescence, the lesion takes on more of a verrucous appearance and also can darken.  

Although nevus sebaceus is benign, it may give rise to both benign and malignant neoplasms. In a 2014 study of 707 cases of nevus sebaceus, 21.4% developed secondary neoplasms, 88% of which were benign.² The origins of these neoplasms can be epithelial, sebaceous, apocrine, and/or follicular. The 3 most common secondary neoplasms found in nevus sebaceus are trichoblastoma (34.7%), syringocystadenoma papilliferum (24.7%), and apocrine/eccrine adenoma (10%), all of which are benign.² Trichoblastomas represent a type of hair follicle tumor. Malignant lesions manifest in approximately 2.5% of cases, with basal cell carcinoma (BCC) being the most common (5.3% of all neoplasms), followed by squamous cell carcinoma (2.7% of all neoplasms).² Differentiating BCC from trichoblastoma can be difficult, but histologically BCCs usually have tumor stromal clefting while trichoblastomas do not.³ The incidence of secondary tumors in nevus sebaceus displays a strong correlation with age; thus, the highest proportion of neoplasms occur in adults.  

Treatment of nevus sebaceus depends on the patient's age. In children, because of the low probability of secondary neoplasms, observation in lieu of surgical excision is a common approach. In adults, the approach typically is surgical excision or close follow-up, as there is a concern for secondary neoplasm and the potential for malignant degeneration.  

A nevus sebaceus leading to 2 or more tumors within the same lesion is rare (seen in only 4.2% of lesions). The most common combination is trichoblastoma with syringocystadenoma papilliferum (0.6% of all cases).² Poromas represent sweat gland tumors that usually appear on the soles (65%) or palms (10%).⁴ It is uncommon for these neoplasms to manifest on the scalp or within a nevus sebaceus. Three independent studies (N=596; N=707; N=450) did not report any occurrences of eccrine poroma.^1,2,5 Eccrine poroma in conjunction with nodular trichoblastoma arising in a nevus sebaceus is unusual, and definitive excision should be strongly considered because of the possibility to develop a porocarcinoma.⁶ 

Atypical fibroxanthoma presents on sun-exposed areas as an exophytic nodule or plaque that frequently ulcerates. Pathology of this tumor shows a spindled cell proliferation that can stain positively for CD10 and procollagen 1. Basal cell carcinoma presents as a pearly papule or nodule displaying basaloid-appearing aggregates with tumor stromal clefting and can stain with Ber-EP4. Cylindromas typically present on the scalp as large rubbery-appearing plaques and nodules. Cylindromas usually present as a solitary tumor, but in the familial form there can be clusters of multiple nodules. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma frequently appears as a bleeding nodule on the scalp in patients with known renal cell cancer or as the initial presentation. 

The Diagnosis: Adnexal Neoplasm Arising in a Nevus Sebaceus 

Biopsy of the lesion showed a proliferation of basaloid-appearing cells with focal ductal differentiation and ulceration consistent with poroma (Figure 1). Due to the superficial nature of the biopsy, the pathologist recommended excision to ensure complete removal and to rule out a well-differentiated porocarcinoma. Excision of the lesion showed large basaloid aggregates with a hypercellular stroma and a surrounding papillomatous epidermis with well-developed sebaceous lobules consistent with a trichoblastoma and a nevus sebaceus, respectively (Figure 2). There also was evidence of poroma; however, there were no findings concerning for porocarcinoma, which could lead to metastasis (Figure 3). 

Nevus sebaceus is a benign, hamartomatous, congenital growth that occurs in approximately 1% of patients presenting to dermatology offices. It usually presents as a single asymptomatic plaque on the scalp (62.5%) or face (24.5%) that changes in morphology over its lifetime.^1,2 In children, a nevus manifests as a yellowish, smooth, waxy skin lesion. As the sebaceous glands become more developed during adolescence, the lesion takes on more of a verrucous appearance and also can darken.  

Although nevus sebaceus is benign, it may give rise to both benign and malignant neoplasms. In a 2014 study of 707 cases of nevus sebaceus, 21.4% developed secondary neoplasms, 88% of which were benign.² The origins of these neoplasms can be epithelial, sebaceous, apocrine, and/or follicular. The 3 most common secondary neoplasms found in nevus sebaceus are trichoblastoma (34.7%), syringocystadenoma papilliferum (24.7%), and apocrine/eccrine adenoma (10%), all of which are benign.² Trichoblastomas represent a type of hair follicle tumor. Malignant lesions manifest in approximately 2.5% of cases, with basal cell carcinoma (BCC) being the most common (5.3% of all neoplasms), followed by squamous cell carcinoma (2.7% of all neoplasms).² Differentiating BCC from trichoblastoma can be difficult, but histologically BCCs usually have tumor stromal clefting while trichoblastomas do not.³ The incidence of secondary tumors in nevus sebaceus displays a strong correlation with age; thus, the highest proportion of neoplasms occur in adults.  

Treatment of nevus sebaceus depends on the patient's age. In children, because of the low probability of secondary neoplasms, observation in lieu of surgical excision is a common approach. In adults, the approach typically is surgical excision or close follow-up, as there is a concern for secondary neoplasm and the potential for malignant degeneration.  

A nevus sebaceus leading to 2 or more tumors within the same lesion is rare (seen in only 4.2% of lesions). The most common combination is trichoblastoma with syringocystadenoma papilliferum (0.6% of all cases).² Poromas represent sweat gland tumors that usually appear on the soles (65%) or palms (10%).⁴ It is uncommon for these neoplasms to manifest on the scalp or within a nevus sebaceus. Three independent studies (N=596; N=707; N=450) did not report any occurrences of eccrine poroma.^1,2,5 Eccrine poroma in conjunction with nodular trichoblastoma arising in a nevus sebaceus is unusual, and definitive excision should be strongly considered because of the possibility to develop a porocarcinoma.⁶ 

Atypical fibroxanthoma presents on sun-exposed areas as an exophytic nodule or plaque that frequently ulcerates. Pathology of this tumor shows a spindled cell proliferation that can stain positively for CD10 and procollagen 1. Basal cell carcinoma presents as a pearly papule or nodule displaying basaloid-appearing aggregates with tumor stromal clefting and can stain with Ber-EP4. Cylindromas typically present on the scalp as large rubbery-appearing plaques and nodules. Cylindromas usually present as a solitary tumor, but in the familial form there can be clusters of multiple nodules. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma frequently appears as a bleeding nodule on the scalp in patients with known renal cell cancer or as the initial presentation. 

As a precaution, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended that patients stop using ingenol mebutate (Picato) while the agency continues to review the safety of the topical treatment, which is indicated for the treatment of actinic keratosis in Europe and the United States.

No such action has been taken in the United States.

The EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) is reviewing data on skin cancer in patients treated with ingenol mebutate. In a trial comparing Picato and imiquimod, skin cancer was more common in the areas treated with Picato than in areas treated with imiquimod, the statement said.

“While uncertainties remain, there is concern about a possible link between the use of Picato and the development of skin cancer,” the EMA said in a Jan. 17 news release. “The PRAC has therefore recommended suspending the medicine’s marketing authorization as a precaution and noted that alternative treatments are available.”

FDA is looking at the situation

LEO Pharma, the company that markets Picato, announced on Jan. 9 that it was initiating voluntary withdrawal of marketing authorization and possible voluntary withdrawal of Picato in the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA). The statement says, however, that “LEO Pharma has carefully reviewed the information received from PRAC, and the company disagrees with the ongoing assessment of PRAC.” There are “no additional safety data and it is LEO Pharma’s position that there is no evidence of a causal relationship or plausible mechanism hypothesis between the use of Picato and the development of skin malignancies.” An update added to the press release on Jan. 17 restates that the company disagrees with the assessment of PRAC.

“This matter does not affect Picato in the U.S., and there are no new developments in the [United States]. Picato continues to be available to patients in the U.S. We remain in dialogue with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about Picato in the EU/EEA,” Rhonda Sciarra, associate director of global external communications for LEO Pharma, said in an email. “We remain committed to ensuring patient safety, rigorous pharmacovigilance monitoring, and transparency,” she added.

The FDA “is gathering data and information to investigate the safety concern related to Picato,” a spokesperson for the FDA told Dermatology News. “We are committed to sharing relevant findings when we have sufficient understanding of the situation and of what actions should be taken,” he added.

Examining the data

The EMA announcement described data about the risk of skin cancer in studies of Picato. A 3-year study in 484 patients found a higher incidence of skin malignancy with ingenol mebutate than with the comparator, imiquimod. In all, 3.3% of patients developed cancer in the ingenol mebutate group, compared with 0.4% in the comparator group.

In an 8-week vehicle-controlled trial in 1,262 patients, there were more skin tumors in patients who received ingenol mebutate than in those in the vehicle arm (1.0% vs. 0.1%).

In addition, according to the EMA statement, in four trials of a related ester that included 1,234 patients, a higher incidence of skin tumors occurred with the related drug, ingenol disoxate, than with a vehicle control (7.7% vs. 2.9%). PRAC considered these data because ingenol disoxate and ingenol mebutate are closely related, the EMA said.

“Health care professionals should stop prescribing Picato and consider different treatment options while authorities review the data,” according to the European agency. “Health care professionals should advise patients to be vigilant for any skin lesions developing and to seek medical advice promptly should any occur,” the statement adds.

Picato has been authorized in the EU since 2012, and the FDA approved Picato the same year. Patients have received about 2.8 million treatment courses in that time, according to the LEO Pharma press release.

[email protected]

As a precaution, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended that patients stop using ingenol mebutate (Picato) while the agency continues to review the safety of the topical treatment, which is indicated for the treatment of actinic keratosis in Europe and the United States.

No such action has been taken in the United States.

The EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) is reviewing data on skin cancer in patients treated with ingenol mebutate. In a trial comparing Picato and imiquimod, skin cancer was more common in the areas treated with Picato than in areas treated with imiquimod, the statement said.

“While uncertainties remain, there is concern about a possible link between the use of Picato and the development of skin cancer,” the EMA said in a Jan. 17 news release. “The PRAC has therefore recommended suspending the medicine’s marketing authorization as a precaution and noted that alternative treatments are available.”

FDA is looking at the situation

LEO Pharma, the company that markets Picato, announced on Jan. 9 that it was initiating voluntary withdrawal of marketing authorization and possible voluntary withdrawal of Picato in the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA). The statement says, however, that “LEO Pharma has carefully reviewed the information received from PRAC, and the company disagrees with the ongoing assessment of PRAC.” There are “no additional safety data and it is LEO Pharma’s position that there is no evidence of a causal relationship or plausible mechanism hypothesis between the use of Picato and the development of skin malignancies.” An update added to the press release on Jan. 17 restates that the company disagrees with the assessment of PRAC.

“This matter does not affect Picato in the U.S., and there are no new developments in the [United States]. Picato continues to be available to patients in the U.S. We remain in dialogue with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about Picato in the EU/EEA,” Rhonda Sciarra, associate director of global external communications for LEO Pharma, said in an email. “We remain committed to ensuring patient safety, rigorous pharmacovigilance monitoring, and transparency,” she added.

The FDA “is gathering data and information to investigate the safety concern related to Picato,” a spokesperson for the FDA told Dermatology News. “We are committed to sharing relevant findings when we have sufficient understanding of the situation and of what actions should be taken,” he added.

Examining the data

The EMA announcement described data about the risk of skin cancer in studies of Picato. A 3-year study in 484 patients found a higher incidence of skin malignancy with ingenol mebutate than with the comparator, imiquimod. In all, 3.3% of patients developed cancer in the ingenol mebutate group, compared with 0.4% in the comparator group.

In an 8-week vehicle-controlled trial in 1,262 patients, there were more skin tumors in patients who received ingenol mebutate than in those in the vehicle arm (1.0% vs. 0.1%).

In addition, according to the EMA statement, in four trials of a related ester that included 1,234 patients, a higher incidence of skin tumors occurred with the related drug, ingenol disoxate, than with a vehicle control (7.7% vs. 2.9%). PRAC considered these data because ingenol disoxate and ingenol mebutate are closely related, the EMA said.

“Health care professionals should stop prescribing Picato and consider different treatment options while authorities review the data,” according to the European agency. “Health care professionals should advise patients to be vigilant for any skin lesions developing and to seek medical advice promptly should any occur,” the statement adds.

Picato has been authorized in the EU since 2012, and the FDA approved Picato the same year. Patients have received about 2.8 million treatment courses in that time, according to the LEO Pharma press release.

[email protected]

As a precaution, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended that patients stop using ingenol mebutate (Picato) while the agency continues to review the safety of the topical treatment, which is indicated for the treatment of actinic keratosis in Europe and the United States.

No such action has been taken in the United States.

The EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) is reviewing data on skin cancer in patients treated with ingenol mebutate. In a trial comparing Picato and imiquimod, skin cancer was more common in the areas treated with Picato than in areas treated with imiquimod, the statement said.

“While uncertainties remain, there is concern about a possible link between the use of Picato and the development of skin cancer,” the EMA said in a Jan. 17 news release. “The PRAC has therefore recommended suspending the medicine’s marketing authorization as a precaution and noted that alternative treatments are available.”

FDA is looking at the situation

LEO Pharma, the company that markets Picato, announced on Jan. 9 that it was initiating voluntary withdrawal of marketing authorization and possible voluntary withdrawal of Picato in the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA). The statement says, however, that “LEO Pharma has carefully reviewed the information received from PRAC, and the company disagrees with the ongoing assessment of PRAC.” There are “no additional safety data and it is LEO Pharma’s position that there is no evidence of a causal relationship or plausible mechanism hypothesis between the use of Picato and the development of skin malignancies.” An update added to the press release on Jan. 17 restates that the company disagrees with the assessment of PRAC.

“This matter does not affect Picato in the U.S., and there are no new developments in the [United States]. Picato continues to be available to patients in the U.S. We remain in dialogue with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about Picato in the EU/EEA,” Rhonda Sciarra, associate director of global external communications for LEO Pharma, said in an email. “We remain committed to ensuring patient safety, rigorous pharmacovigilance monitoring, and transparency,” she added.

The FDA “is gathering data and information to investigate the safety concern related to Picato,” a spokesperson for the FDA told Dermatology News. “We are committed to sharing relevant findings when we have sufficient understanding of the situation and of what actions should be taken,” he added.

Examining the data

The EMA announcement described data about the risk of skin cancer in studies of Picato. A 3-year study in 484 patients found a higher incidence of skin malignancy with ingenol mebutate than with the comparator, imiquimod. In all, 3.3% of patients developed cancer in the ingenol mebutate group, compared with 0.4% in the comparator group.

In an 8-week vehicle-controlled trial in 1,262 patients, there were more skin tumors in patients who received ingenol mebutate than in those in the vehicle arm (1.0% vs. 0.1%).

In addition, according to the EMA statement, in four trials of a related ester that included 1,234 patients, a higher incidence of skin tumors occurred with the related drug, ingenol disoxate, than with a vehicle control (7.7% vs. 2.9%). PRAC considered these data because ingenol disoxate and ingenol mebutate are closely related, the EMA said.

“Health care professionals should stop prescribing Picato and consider different treatment options while authorities review the data,” according to the European agency. “Health care professionals should advise patients to be vigilant for any skin lesions developing and to seek medical advice promptly should any occur,” the statement adds.

Picato has been authorized in the EU since 2012, and the FDA approved Picato the same year. Patients have received about 2.8 million treatment courses in that time, according to the LEO Pharma press release.

[email protected]

The ketogenic diet has been therapeutically employed by physicians since the times of Hippocrates, primarily for its effect on the nervous system.¹ The neurologic literature is inundated with the uses of this medicinal diet for applications in the treatment of epilepsy, neurodegenerative disease, malignancy, and enzyme deficiencies, among others.² In recent years, physicians and scientists have moved to study the application of a ketogenic diet in the realms of cardiovascular disease,³ autoimmune disease,⁴ management of diabetes mellitus (DM) and obesity,^3,5 and enhancement of sports and combat performance,⁶ all with promising results. Increased interest in alternative therapies among the lay population and the efficacy purported by many adherents has spurred intrigue by health care professionals. Over the last decade, there has seen a boom in so-called holistic approaches to health; included are the Paleo Diet, Primal Blueprint Diet, Bulletproof Diet, and the ketogenic/low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. The benefits of ketones in these diets—through intermittent fasting or cyclical ketosis—–for cognitive enhancement, overall well-being, amelioration of chronic disease states, and increased health span have been promulgated to the lay population. But to date, there is a large gap in the literature on the applications of ketones as well as the ketogenic diet in dermatology and skin health and disease.

The aim of this article is not to summarize the uses of ketones and the ketogenic diet in dermatologic applications (because, unfortunately, those studies have not been undertaken) but to provide evidence from all available literature to support the need for targeted research and to encourage dermatologists to investigate ketones and their role in treating skin disease, primarily in an adjunctive manner. In doing so, a clearly medicinal diet may gain a foothold in the disease-treatment repertoire and among health-promoting agents of the dermatologist. Given the amount of capital being spent on health care, there is an ever-increasing need for low-cost, safe, and tolerable treatments that can be used for multiple disease processes and to promote health. We believe the ketogenic diet is such an adjunctive therapeutic option, as it has clearly been proven to be tolerable, safe, and efficacious for many people over the last millennia.

We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using varying combinations of the terms ketones, ketogenic, skin, inflammation, metabolic, oxidation, dermatology, and dermatologic and found 12 articles. Herein, we summarize the relevant articles and the works cited by those articles.

Adverse Effects of the Ketogenic Diet

As with all medical therapies, the ketogenic diet is not without risk of adverse effects, which should be communicated at the outset of this article and with patients in the clinic. The only known absolute contraindications to a ketogenic diet are porphyria and pyruvate carboxylase deficiency secondary to underlying metabolic derangements.⁷ Certain metabolic cytopathies and carnitine deficiency are relative contraindications, and patients with these conditions should be cautiously placed on this diet and closely monitored. Dehydration, acidosis, lethargy, hypoglycemia, dyslipidemia, electrolyte imbalances, prurigo pigmentosa, and gastrointestinal distress may be an acute issue, but these effects are transient and can be managed. Chronic adverse effects are nephrolithiasis (there are recommended screening procedures for those at risk and prophylactic therapies, which is beyond the scope of this article) and weight loss.⁷

NLRP3 Inflammasome Suppression

Youm et al⁸ reported their findings in Nature Medicine that β-hydroxybutyrate, a ketone body that naturally circulates in the human body, specifically suppresses activity of the NLRP3 inflammasome. The NLRP3 inflammasome serves as the activating platform for IL-1β.⁸ Aberrant and elevated IL-1β levels cause or are associated with a number of dermatologic diseases—namely, the autoinflammatory syndromes (familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome, Muckle-Wells syndrome, neonatal-onset multisystemic disease/chronic infantile neurological cutaneous articular syndrome), hyperimmunoglobulinemia D with periodic fever syndrome, tumor necrosis factor–receptor associated periodic syndrome, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, relapsing polychondritis, Schnitzler syndrome, Sweet syndrome, Behçet disease, gout, sunburn and contact hypersensitivity, hidradenitis suppurativa, and metastatic melanoma.⁷ Clearly, the ketogenic diet may be employed in a therapeutic manner (though to what degree, we need further study) for these dermatologic conditions based on the interaction with the NRLP3 inflammasome and IL-1β.

Acne

A link between acne and diet has long been suspected, but a lack of well-controlled studies has caused only speculation to remain. Recent literature suggests that the effects of insulin may be a notable driver of acne through effects on sex hormones and subsequent effects on sebum production and inflammation. Cordain et al⁹ discuss the mechanism by which insulin can worsen acne in a valuable article, which Paoli et al¹⁰ later corroborated. Essentially, insulin propagates acne by 2 known mechanisms. First, an increase in serum insulin causes a rise in insulinlike growth factor 1 levels and a decrease in insulinlike growth factor binding protein 3 levels, which directly influences keratinocyte proliferation and reduces retinoic acid receptor/retinoid X receptor activity in the skin, causing hyperkeratinization and concomitant abnormal desquamation of the follicular epithelium.^9,10 Second, this increase in insulinlike growth factor 1 and insulin causes a decrease in sex hormone–binding globulin and leads to increased androgen production and circulation in the skin, which causes an increase in sebum production. These factors combined with skin that is colonized with Cutibacterium acnes lead to an inflammatory response and the disease known as acne vulgaris.^9,10 A ketogenic diet could help ameliorate acne because it results in very little insulin secretion, unlike the typical Western diet, which causes frequent large spikes in insulin levels. Furthermore, the anti-inflammatory effects of ketones would benefit the inflammatory nature of this disease.

DM and Diabetic Skin Disease

Diabetes mellitus carries with it the risk for skin diseases specific to the diabetic disease process, such as increased risk for bacterial and fungal infections, venous stasis, pruritus (secondary to poor circulation), acanthosis nigricans, diabetic dermopathy, necrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum, digital sclerosis, and bullosis diabeticorum.¹¹ It is well established that better control of DM results in better disease state outcomes.¹² The ketogenic diet has shown itself to be a formidable and successful treatment in the diseases of carbohydrate intolerance (eg, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, type 2 DM) because of several known mechanisms, including less glucose entering the body and thus less fat deposition, end-product glycation, and free-radical production (discussed below); enhanced fat loss and metabolic efficiency; increased insulin sensitivity; and decreased inflammation.¹³ Lowering a patient’s insulin resistance through a ketogenic diet may help prevent or treat diabetic skin disease.

Dermatologic Malignancy

A ketogenic diet has been of interest in oncology research as an adjunctive therapy for several reasons: anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidation effects, possible effects on mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) regulation,⁷ and exploitation of the Warburg effect.¹⁴ One article discusses how mTOR, a cell-cycle regulator of particular importance in cancer biology, can be influenced by ketones both directly and indirectly through modulating the inflammatory response.⁷ It has been shown that suppressing mTOR activity limits and slows tumor growth and spread. Ketones also may prove to be a unique method of metabolically exploiting cancer physiology. The Warburg effect, which earned Otto Warburg the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1931, is the observation that cancerous cells produce adenosine triphosphate solely through aerobic glycolysis followed by lactic acid fermentation.¹⁴ This phenomenon is the basis of the positron emission tomography scan. There are several small studies of the effects of ketogenic diets on malignancy, and although none of these studies are of substantial size or control, they show that a ketogenic diet can halt or even reverse tumor growth.¹⁵ The hypothesis is that because cancer cells cannot metabolize ketones (but normal cells can), the Warburg effect can be taken advantage of through a ketogenic diet to aid in the treatment of malignant disease.¹⁴ If further studies find it a formidable treatment, it most certainly would be helpful for the dermatologist involved in the treatment of cutaneous cancers.

Oxidative Stress

Oxidative stress, a state brought about when reactive oxygen species (ROS) production exceeds the antioxidant capacity of the cell and causes damage, is known to be a central part of certain skin diseases (eg, acne, psoriasis, cutaneous malignancy, varicose ulcers, cutaneous allergic reactions, and drug-induced skin photosensitivity).⁷ There are 2 proven mechanisms by which a ketogenic diet can augment the body’s innate antioxidation capacity. First, ketones activate a potent antioxidant upregulating protein known as NRF2, which is bound in cytosol and remains inactive until activated by certain stimuli (ie, ketones).¹⁶ Migration to the nucleus causes transcriptional changes in DNA to upregulate, via a myriad of pathways, antioxidant production in the cell; most notably, it results in increased glutathione levels.¹⁷ NRF2 also targets several genes involved in chronic inflammatory skin diseases that cause an increase in the antioxidant capacity.¹⁸ As an aside, several foods encouraged on a ketogenic diet also activate NRF2 independently of ketones (eg, coffee, broccoli).¹⁹ Second, a ketogenic diet results in fewer produced ROS and an increase in the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide ratio produced by the mitochondria; in short, it is a more efficient way of producing cellular energy while enhancing mitochondrial function. When fewer ROS are produced, there is less oxidative stress that needs to be attended to by the cell and less cellular damage. Feichtinger et al¹⁹ point out that mitochondrial inefficiency and dysfunction often are overlooked components in several skin diseases, and based on the studies discussed above, these diseases may be aided with a ketogenic diet.

Patient Applications

Clearly, a ketogenic diet is therapeutic, and there are many promising potential roles it may play in the treatment of a wide variety of health and disease states through hormonal normalization, antioxidant effects, anti-inflammatory effects, and improvement of metabolic risk factors. However, there are vast limitations to what is known about the ketogenic diet and how it might be employed, particularly by the dermatologist. First, the ketogenic diet lacks a firm definition. Although processed inflammatory vegetable oils and meats are low in carbohydrates and high in fat by definition, it is impossible to argue that they are healthy options for consumption and disease prevention and treatment. Second, nutrigenomics dictates that there must be an individual role in how the diet is employed (eg, patients who are lactose intolerant will need to stay away from dairy). Third, there are no clear proven clinical results from the ketogenic diet in the realm of dermatology. Fourth, as with everything, there are potential detrimental side effects of the ketogenic diet that must be considered for patients (though there are established screening procedures and prophylactic therapies that are beyond the scope of this article). Further, other diets have shown benefit for many other disease states and health promotion purposes (eg, the Mediterranean diet).²⁰ We do not know yet if the avoidance of certain dietary factors such as processed carbohydrates and fats are more beneficial than adopting a state of ketosis at this time, and therefore we are not claiming superiority of one dietary approach over others that are proven to promote health.

Because there are no large-scale studies of the ketogenic diet, there is no verified standardization of initiating and monitoring it, though certain academic centers do have published methods of doing so.²¹ There are ample anecdotal methods of initiating, maintaining, and monitoring the ketogenic diet.²² In short, drastic restriction of carbohydrate intake and increased fat consumption are the staples of initiating the diet. Medium-chain triglyceride oil supplementation, coffee consumption, intermittent fasting, and low-level aerobic activity also are thought to aid in transition to a ketogenic state. As a result, a dermatologist may recommend that patients interested in this option begin by focusing on fat, fiber, and protein consumption while greatly reducing the amount of carbohydrates in the diet. Morning walks or more intense workouts for fitter patients should be encouraged. Consumption of serum ketone–enhancing foods (eg, coffee, medium-chain triglyceride oil, coconut products) also should be encouraged. A popular beverage known as Bulletproof coffee also may be of interest.²³ A blood ketone meter can be used for biofeedback to reinforce these behaviors by aiming for proper β-hydroxybutyrate levels. Numerous companies and websites exist for supporting those patients wishing to pursue a ketogenic state, some hosted by physicians/researchers with others hosted by laypeople with an interest in the topic; discretion should be used as to the clinical and scientific accuracy of these sites. The dermatologist in particular can follow these patients and assess for changes in severity of skin disease, subjective well-being, need for medications and adjunctive therapies, and status of comorbid conditions.

For more information on the ketogenic diet, consider reading the works of the following physicians and researchers who all have been involved with or are currently conducting research in the medical use of ketones and ketogenic diets: David Perlmutter, MD; Thomas Seyfried, PhD; Dominic D’Agostino, PhD; Terry Wahls, MD; Jeff Volek, PhD; and Peter Attia, MD.

Conclusion

Based on the available data, there is potential for use of the ketogenic diet in an adjunctive manner for dermatologic applications, and studies should be undertaken to establish the efficacy or inefficacy of this diet as a preventive measure or treatment of skin disease. With the large push for complementary and alternative therapies over the last decade, particularly for skin disease, the time for research on the ketogenic diet is ripe. Over the coming years, it is our hope that larger clinical, randomized, controlled trials will be conducted for the benefit of dermatology patients worldwide.

The ketogenic diet has been therapeutically employed by physicians since the times of Hippocrates, primarily for its effect on the nervous system.¹ The neurologic literature is inundated with the uses of this medicinal diet for applications in the treatment of epilepsy, neurodegenerative disease, malignancy, and enzyme deficiencies, among others.² In recent years, physicians and scientists have moved to study the application of a ketogenic diet in the realms of cardiovascular disease,³ autoimmune disease,⁴ management of diabetes mellitus (DM) and obesity,^3,5 and enhancement of sports and combat performance,⁶ all with promising results. Increased interest in alternative therapies among the lay population and the efficacy purported by many adherents has spurred intrigue by health care professionals. Over the last decade, there has seen a boom in so-called holistic approaches to health; included are the Paleo Diet, Primal Blueprint Diet, Bulletproof Diet, and the ketogenic/low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. The benefits of ketones in these diets—through intermittent fasting or cyclical ketosis—–for cognitive enhancement, overall well-being, amelioration of chronic disease states, and increased health span have been promulgated to the lay population. But to date, there is a large gap in the literature on the applications of ketones as well as the ketogenic diet in dermatology and skin health and disease.

The aim of this article is not to summarize the uses of ketones and the ketogenic diet in dermatologic applications (because, unfortunately, those studies have not been undertaken) but to provide evidence from all available literature to support the need for targeted research and to encourage dermatologists to investigate ketones and their role in treating skin disease, primarily in an adjunctive manner. In doing so, a clearly medicinal diet may gain a foothold in the disease-treatment repertoire and among health-promoting agents of the dermatologist. Given the amount of capital being spent on health care, there is an ever-increasing need for low-cost, safe, and tolerable treatments that can be used for multiple disease processes and to promote health. We believe the ketogenic diet is such an adjunctive therapeutic option, as it has clearly been proven to be tolerable, safe, and efficacious for many people over the last millennia.

We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using varying combinations of the terms ketones, ketogenic, skin, inflammation, metabolic, oxidation, dermatology, and dermatologic and found 12 articles. Herein, we summarize the relevant articles and the works cited by those articles.

Adverse Effects of the Ketogenic Diet

As with all medical therapies, the ketogenic diet is not without risk of adverse effects, which should be communicated at the outset of this article and with patients in the clinic. The only known absolute contraindications to a ketogenic diet are porphyria and pyruvate carboxylase deficiency secondary to underlying metabolic derangements.⁷ Certain metabolic cytopathies and carnitine deficiency are relative contraindications, and patients with these conditions should be cautiously placed on this diet and closely monitored. Dehydration, acidosis, lethargy, hypoglycemia, dyslipidemia, electrolyte imbalances, prurigo pigmentosa, and gastrointestinal distress may be an acute issue, but these effects are transient and can be managed. Chronic adverse effects are nephrolithiasis (there are recommended screening procedures for those at risk and prophylactic therapies, which is beyond the scope of this article) and weight loss.⁷

NLRP3 Inflammasome Suppression

Youm et al⁸ reported their findings in Nature Medicine that β-hydroxybutyrate, a ketone body that naturally circulates in the human body, specifically suppresses activity of the NLRP3 inflammasome. The NLRP3 inflammasome serves as the activating platform for IL-1β.⁸ Aberrant and elevated IL-1β levels cause or are associated with a number of dermatologic diseases—namely, the autoinflammatory syndromes (familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome, Muckle-Wells syndrome, neonatal-onset multisystemic disease/chronic infantile neurological cutaneous articular syndrome), hyperimmunoglobulinemia D with periodic fever syndrome, tumor necrosis factor–receptor associated periodic syndrome, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, relapsing polychondritis, Schnitzler syndrome, Sweet syndrome, Behçet disease, gout, sunburn and contact hypersensitivity, hidradenitis suppurativa, and metastatic melanoma.⁷ Clearly, the ketogenic diet may be employed in a therapeutic manner (though to what degree, we need further study) for these dermatologic conditions based on the interaction with the NRLP3 inflammasome and IL-1β.

Acne

A link between acne and diet has long been suspected, but a lack of well-controlled studies has caused only speculation to remain. Recent literature suggests that the effects of insulin may be a notable driver of acne through effects on sex hormones and subsequent effects on sebum production and inflammation. Cordain et al⁹ discuss the mechanism by which insulin can worsen acne in a valuable article, which Paoli et al¹⁰ later corroborated. Essentially, insulin propagates acne by 2 known mechanisms. First, an increase in serum insulin causes a rise in insulinlike growth factor 1 levels and a decrease in insulinlike growth factor binding protein 3 levels, which directly influences keratinocyte proliferation and reduces retinoic acid receptor/retinoid X receptor activity in the skin, causing hyperkeratinization and concomitant abnormal desquamation of the follicular epithelium.^9,10 Second, this increase in insulinlike growth factor 1 and insulin causes a decrease in sex hormone–binding globulin and leads to increased androgen production and circulation in the skin, which causes an increase in sebum production. These factors combined with skin that is colonized with Cutibacterium acnes lead to an inflammatory response and the disease known as acne vulgaris.^9,10 A ketogenic diet could help ameliorate acne because it results in very little insulin secretion, unlike the typical Western diet, which causes frequent large spikes in insulin levels. Furthermore, the anti-inflammatory effects of ketones would benefit the inflammatory nature of this disease.

DM and Diabetic Skin Disease

Diabetes mellitus carries with it the risk for skin diseases specific to the diabetic disease process, such as increased risk for bacterial and fungal infections, venous stasis, pruritus (secondary to poor circulation), acanthosis nigricans, diabetic dermopathy, necrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum, digital sclerosis, and bullosis diabeticorum.¹¹ It is well established that better control of DM results in better disease state outcomes.¹² The ketogenic diet has shown itself to be a formidable and successful treatment in the diseases of carbohydrate intolerance (eg, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, type 2 DM) because of several known mechanisms, including less glucose entering the body and thus less fat deposition, end-product glycation, and free-radical production (discussed below); enhanced fat loss and metabolic efficiency; increased insulin sensitivity; and decreased inflammation.¹³ Lowering a patient’s insulin resistance through a ketogenic diet may help prevent or treat diabetic skin disease.

Dermatologic Malignancy

A ketogenic diet has been of interest in oncology research as an adjunctive therapy for several reasons: anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidation effects, possible effects on mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) regulation,⁷ and exploitation of the Warburg effect.¹⁴ One article discusses how mTOR, a cell-cycle regulator of particular importance in cancer biology, can be influenced by ketones both directly and indirectly through modulating the inflammatory response.⁷ It has been shown that suppressing mTOR activity limits and slows tumor growth and spread. Ketones also may prove to be a unique method of metabolically exploiting cancer physiology. The Warburg effect, which earned Otto Warburg the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1931, is the observation that cancerous cells produce adenosine triphosphate solely through aerobic glycolysis followed by lactic acid fermentation.¹⁴ This phenomenon is the basis of the positron emission tomography scan. There are several small studies of the effects of ketogenic diets on malignancy, and although none of these studies are of substantial size or control, they show that a ketogenic diet can halt or even reverse tumor growth.¹⁵ The hypothesis is that because cancer cells cannot metabolize ketones (but normal cells can), the Warburg effect can be taken advantage of through a ketogenic diet to aid in the treatment of malignant disease.¹⁴ If further studies find it a formidable treatment, it most certainly would be helpful for the dermatologist involved in the treatment of cutaneous cancers.

Oxidative Stress

Oxidative stress, a state brought about when reactive oxygen species (ROS) production exceeds the antioxidant capacity of the cell and causes damage, is known to be a central part of certain skin diseases (eg, acne, psoriasis, cutaneous malignancy, varicose ulcers, cutaneous allergic reactions, and drug-induced skin photosensitivity).⁷ There are 2 proven mechanisms by which a ketogenic diet can augment the body’s innate antioxidation capacity. First, ketones activate a potent antioxidant upregulating protein known as NRF2, which is bound in cytosol and remains inactive until activated by certain stimuli (ie, ketones).¹⁶ Migration to the nucleus causes transcriptional changes in DNA to upregulate, via a myriad of pathways, antioxidant production in the cell; most notably, it results in increased glutathione levels.¹⁷ NRF2 also targets several genes involved in chronic inflammatory skin diseases that cause an increase in the antioxidant capacity.¹⁸ As an aside, several foods encouraged on a ketogenic diet also activate NRF2 independently of ketones (eg, coffee, broccoli).¹⁹ Second, a ketogenic diet results in fewer produced ROS and an increase in the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide ratio produced by the mitochondria; in short, it is a more efficient way of producing cellular energy while enhancing mitochondrial function. When fewer ROS are produced, there is less oxidative stress that needs to be attended to by the cell and less cellular damage. Feichtinger et al¹⁹ point out that mitochondrial inefficiency and dysfunction often are overlooked components in several skin diseases, and based on the studies discussed above, these diseases may be aided with a ketogenic diet.

Patient Applications

Clearly, a ketogenic diet is therapeutic, and there are many promising potential roles it may play in the treatment of a wide variety of health and disease states through hormonal normalization, antioxidant effects, anti-inflammatory effects, and improvement of metabolic risk factors. However, there are vast limitations to what is known about the ketogenic diet and how it might be employed, particularly by the dermatologist. First, the ketogenic diet lacks a firm definition. Although processed inflammatory vegetable oils and meats are low in carbohydrates and high in fat by definition, it is impossible to argue that they are healthy options for consumption and disease prevention and treatment. Second, nutrigenomics dictates that there must be an individual role in how the diet is employed (eg, patients who are lactose intolerant will need to stay away from dairy). Third, there are no clear proven clinical results from the ketogenic diet in the realm of dermatology. Fourth, as with everything, there are potential detrimental side effects of the ketogenic diet that must be considered for patients (though there are established screening procedures and prophylactic therapies that are beyond the scope of this article). Further, other diets have shown benefit for many other disease states and health promotion purposes (eg, the Mediterranean diet).²⁰ We do not know yet if the avoidance of certain dietary factors such as processed carbohydrates and fats are more beneficial than adopting a state of ketosis at this time, and therefore we are not claiming superiority of one dietary approach over others that are proven to promote health.

Because there are no large-scale studies of the ketogenic diet, there is no verified standardization of initiating and monitoring it, though certain academic centers do have published methods of doing so.²¹ There are ample anecdotal methods of initiating, maintaining, and monitoring the ketogenic diet.²² In short, drastic restriction of carbohydrate intake and increased fat consumption are the staples of initiating the diet. Medium-chain triglyceride oil supplementation, coffee consumption, intermittent fasting, and low-level aerobic activity also are thought to aid in transition to a ketogenic state. As a result, a dermatologist may recommend that patients interested in this option begin by focusing on fat, fiber, and protein consumption while greatly reducing the amount of carbohydrates in the diet. Morning walks or more intense workouts for fitter patients should be encouraged. Consumption of serum ketone–enhancing foods (eg, coffee, medium-chain triglyceride oil, coconut products) also should be encouraged. A popular beverage known as Bulletproof coffee also may be of interest.²³ A blood ketone meter can be used for biofeedback to reinforce these behaviors by aiming for proper β-hydroxybutyrate levels. Numerous companies and websites exist for supporting those patients wishing to pursue a ketogenic state, some hosted by physicians/researchers with others hosted by laypeople with an interest in the topic; discretion should be used as to the clinical and scientific accuracy of these sites. The dermatologist in particular can follow these patients and assess for changes in severity of skin disease, subjective well-being, need for medications and adjunctive therapies, and status of comorbid conditions.

For more information on the ketogenic diet, consider reading the works of the following physicians and researchers who all have been involved with or are currently conducting research in the medical use of ketones and ketogenic diets: David Perlmutter, MD; Thomas Seyfried, PhD; Dominic D’Agostino, PhD; Terry Wahls, MD; Jeff Volek, PhD; and Peter Attia, MD.

Conclusion

Based on the available data, there is potential for use of the ketogenic diet in an adjunctive manner for dermatologic applications, and studies should be undertaken to establish the efficacy or inefficacy of this diet as a preventive measure or treatment of skin disease. With the large push for complementary and alternative therapies over the last decade, particularly for skin disease, the time for research on the ketogenic diet is ripe. Over the coming years, it is our hope that larger clinical, randomized, controlled trials will be conducted for the benefit of dermatology patients worldwide.

The ketogenic diet has been therapeutically employed by physicians since the times of Hippocrates, primarily for its effect on the nervous system.¹ The neurologic literature is inundated with the uses of this medicinal diet for applications in the treatment of epilepsy, neurodegenerative disease, malignancy, and enzyme deficiencies, among others.² In recent years, physicians and scientists have moved to study the application of a ketogenic diet in the realms of cardiovascular disease,³ autoimmune disease,⁴ management of diabetes mellitus (DM) and obesity,^3,5 and enhancement of sports and combat performance,⁶ all with promising results. Increased interest in alternative therapies among the lay population and the efficacy purported by many adherents has spurred intrigue by health care professionals. Over the last decade, there has seen a boom in so-called holistic approaches to health; included are the Paleo Diet, Primal Blueprint Diet, Bulletproof Diet, and the ketogenic/low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. The benefits of ketones in these diets—through intermittent fasting or cyclical ketosis—–for cognitive enhancement, overall well-being, amelioration of chronic disease states, and increased health span have been promulgated to the lay population. But to date, there is a large gap in the literature on the applications of ketones as well as the ketogenic diet in dermatology and skin health and disease.

The aim of this article is not to summarize the uses of ketones and the ketogenic diet in dermatologic applications (because, unfortunately, those studies have not been undertaken) but to provide evidence from all available literature to support the need for targeted research and to encourage dermatologists to investigate ketones and their role in treating skin disease, primarily in an adjunctive manner. In doing so, a clearly medicinal diet may gain a foothold in the disease-treatment repertoire and among health-promoting agents of the dermatologist. Given the amount of capital being spent on health care, there is an ever-increasing need for low-cost, safe, and tolerable treatments that can be used for multiple disease processes and to promote health. We believe the ketogenic diet is such an adjunctive therapeutic option, as it has clearly been proven to be tolerable, safe, and efficacious for many people over the last millennia.

We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using varying combinations of the terms ketones, ketogenic, skin, inflammation, metabolic, oxidation, dermatology, and dermatologic and found 12 articles. Herein, we summarize the relevant articles and the works cited by those articles.

Adverse Effects of the Ketogenic Diet

As with all medical therapies, the ketogenic diet is not without risk of adverse effects, which should be communicated at the outset of this article and with patients in the clinic. The only known absolute contraindications to a ketogenic diet are porphyria and pyruvate carboxylase deficiency secondary to underlying metabolic derangements.⁷ Certain metabolic cytopathies and carnitine deficiency are relative contraindications, and patients with these conditions should be cautiously placed on this diet and closely monitored. Dehydration, acidosis, lethargy, hypoglycemia, dyslipidemia, electrolyte imbalances, prurigo pigmentosa, and gastrointestinal distress may be an acute issue, but these effects are transient and can be managed. Chronic adverse effects are nephrolithiasis (there are recommended screening procedures for those at risk and prophylactic therapies, which is beyond the scope of this article) and weight loss.⁷

NLRP3 Inflammasome Suppression

Youm et al⁸ reported their findings in Nature Medicine that β-hydroxybutyrate, a ketone body that naturally circulates in the human body, specifically suppresses activity of the NLRP3 inflammasome. The NLRP3 inflammasome serves as the activating platform for IL-1β.⁸ Aberrant and elevated IL-1β levels cause or are associated with a number of dermatologic diseases—namely, the autoinflammatory syndromes (familial cold autoinflammatory syndrome, Muckle-Wells syndrome, neonatal-onset multisystemic disease/chronic infantile neurological cutaneous articular syndrome), hyperimmunoglobulinemia D with periodic fever syndrome, tumor necrosis factor–receptor associated periodic syndrome, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, relapsing polychondritis, Schnitzler syndrome, Sweet syndrome, Behçet disease, gout, sunburn and contact hypersensitivity, hidradenitis suppurativa, and metastatic melanoma.⁷ Clearly, the ketogenic diet may be employed in a therapeutic manner (though to what degree, we need further study) for these dermatologic conditions based on the interaction with the NRLP3 inflammasome and IL-1β.

Acne

A link between acne and diet has long been suspected, but a lack of well-controlled studies has caused only speculation to remain. Recent literature suggests that the effects of insulin may be a notable driver of acne through effects on sex hormones and subsequent effects on sebum production and inflammation. Cordain et al⁹ discuss the mechanism by which insulin can worsen acne in a valuable article, which Paoli et al¹⁰ later corroborated. Essentially, insulin propagates acne by 2 known mechanisms. First, an increase in serum insulin causes a rise in insulinlike growth factor 1 levels and a decrease in insulinlike growth factor binding protein 3 levels, which directly influences keratinocyte proliferation and reduces retinoic acid receptor/retinoid X receptor activity in the skin, causing hyperkeratinization and concomitant abnormal desquamation of the follicular epithelium.^9,10 Second, this increase in insulinlike growth factor 1 and insulin causes a decrease in sex hormone–binding globulin and leads to increased androgen production and circulation in the skin, which causes an increase in sebum production. These factors combined with skin that is colonized with Cutibacterium acnes lead to an inflammatory response and the disease known as acne vulgaris.^9,10 A ketogenic diet could help ameliorate acne because it results in very little insulin secretion, unlike the typical Western diet, which causes frequent large spikes in insulin levels. Furthermore, the anti-inflammatory effects of ketones would benefit the inflammatory nature of this disease.

DM and Diabetic Skin Disease

Diabetes mellitus carries with it the risk for skin diseases specific to the diabetic disease process, such as increased risk for bacterial and fungal infections, venous stasis, pruritus (secondary to poor circulation), acanthosis nigricans, diabetic dermopathy, necrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum, digital sclerosis, and bullosis diabeticorum.¹¹ It is well established that better control of DM results in better disease state outcomes.¹² The ketogenic diet has shown itself to be a formidable and successful treatment in the diseases of carbohydrate intolerance (eg, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, type 2 DM) because of several known mechanisms, including less glucose entering the body and thus less fat deposition, end-product glycation, and free-radical production (discussed below); enhanced fat loss and metabolic efficiency; increased insulin sensitivity; and decreased inflammation.¹³ Lowering a patient’s insulin resistance through a ketogenic diet may help prevent or treat diabetic skin disease.

Dermatologic Malignancy

A ketogenic diet has been of interest in oncology research as an adjunctive therapy for several reasons: anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidation effects, possible effects on mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) regulation,⁷ and exploitation of the Warburg effect.¹⁴ One article discusses how mTOR, a cell-cycle regulator of particular importance in cancer biology, can be influenced by ketones both directly and indirectly through modulating the inflammatory response.⁷ It has been shown that suppressing mTOR activity limits and slows tumor growth and spread. Ketones also may prove to be a unique method of metabolically exploiting cancer physiology. The Warburg effect, which earned Otto Warburg the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1931, is the observation that cancerous cells produce adenosine triphosphate solely through aerobic glycolysis followed by lactic acid fermentation.¹⁴ This phenomenon is the basis of the positron emission tomography scan. There are several small studies of the effects of ketogenic diets on malignancy, and although none of these studies are of substantial size or control, they show that a ketogenic diet can halt or even reverse tumor growth.¹⁵ The hypothesis is that because cancer cells cannot metabolize ketones (but normal cells can), the Warburg effect can be taken advantage of through a ketogenic diet to aid in the treatment of malignant disease.¹⁴ If further studies find it a formidable treatment, it most certainly would be helpful for the dermatologist involved in the treatment of cutaneous cancers.

Oxidative Stress

Oxidative stress, a state brought about when reactive oxygen species (ROS) production exceeds the antioxidant capacity of the cell and causes damage, is known to be a central part of certain skin diseases (eg, acne, psoriasis, cutaneous malignancy, varicose ulcers, cutaneous allergic reactions, and drug-induced skin photosensitivity).⁷ There are 2 proven mechanisms by which a ketogenic diet can augment the body’s innate antioxidation capacity. First, ketones activate a potent antioxidant upregulating protein known as NRF2, which is bound in cytosol and remains inactive until activated by certain stimuli (ie, ketones).¹⁶ Migration to the nucleus causes transcriptional changes in DNA to upregulate, via a myriad of pathways, antioxidant production in the cell; most notably, it results in increased glutathione levels.¹⁷ NRF2 also targets several genes involved in chronic inflammatory skin diseases that cause an increase in the antioxidant capacity.¹⁸ As an aside, several foods encouraged on a ketogenic diet also activate NRF2 independently of ketones (eg, coffee, broccoli).¹⁹ Second, a ketogenic diet results in fewer produced ROS and an increase in the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide ratio produced by the mitochondria; in short, it is a more efficient way of producing cellular energy while enhancing mitochondrial function. When fewer ROS are produced, there is less oxidative stress that needs to be attended to by the cell and less cellular damage. Feichtinger et al¹⁹ point out that mitochondrial inefficiency and dysfunction often are overlooked components in several skin diseases, and based on the studies discussed above, these diseases may be aided with a ketogenic diet.

Patient Applications

Clearly, a ketogenic diet is therapeutic, and there are many promising potential roles it may play in the treatment of a wide variety of health and disease states through hormonal normalization, antioxidant effects, anti-inflammatory effects, and improvement of metabolic risk factors. However, there are vast limitations to what is known about the ketogenic diet and how it might be employed, particularly by the dermatologist. First, the ketogenic diet lacks a firm definition. Although processed inflammatory vegetable oils and meats are low in carbohydrates and high in fat by definition, it is impossible to argue that they are healthy options for consumption and disease prevention and treatment. Second, nutrigenomics dictates that there must be an individual role in how the diet is employed (eg, patients who are lactose intolerant will need to stay away from dairy). Third, there are no clear proven clinical results from the ketogenic diet in the realm of dermatology. Fourth, as with everything, there are potential detrimental side effects of the ketogenic diet that must be considered for patients (though there are established screening procedures and prophylactic therapies that are beyond the scope of this article). Further, other diets have shown benefit for many other disease states and health promotion purposes (eg, the Mediterranean diet).²⁰ We do not know yet if the avoidance of certain dietary factors such as processed carbohydrates and fats are more beneficial than adopting a state of ketosis at this time, and therefore we are not claiming superiority of one dietary approach over others that are proven to promote health.

Because there are no large-scale studies of the ketogenic diet, there is no verified standardization of initiating and monitoring it, though certain academic centers do have published methods of doing so.²¹ There are ample anecdotal methods of initiating, maintaining, and monitoring the ketogenic diet.²² In short, drastic restriction of carbohydrate intake and increased fat consumption are the staples of initiating the diet. Medium-chain triglyceride oil supplementation, coffee consumption, intermittent fasting, and low-level aerobic activity also are thought to aid in transition to a ketogenic state. As a result, a dermatologist may recommend that patients interested in this option begin by focusing on fat, fiber, and protein consumption while greatly reducing the amount of carbohydrates in the diet. Morning walks or more intense workouts for fitter patients should be encouraged. Consumption of serum ketone–enhancing foods (eg, coffee, medium-chain triglyceride oil, coconut products) also should be encouraged. A popular beverage known as Bulletproof coffee also may be of interest.²³ A blood ketone meter can be used for biofeedback to reinforce these behaviors by aiming for proper β-hydroxybutyrate levels. Numerous companies and websites exist for supporting those patients wishing to pursue a ketogenic state, some hosted by physicians/researchers with others hosted by laypeople with an interest in the topic; discretion should be used as to the clinical and scientific accuracy of these sites. The dermatologist in particular can follow these patients and assess for changes in severity of skin disease, subjective well-being, need for medications and adjunctive therapies, and status of comorbid conditions.

For more information on the ketogenic diet, consider reading the works of the following physicians and researchers who all have been involved with or are currently conducting research in the medical use of ketones and ketogenic diets: David Perlmutter, MD; Thomas Seyfried, PhD; Dominic D’Agostino, PhD; Terry Wahls, MD; Jeff Volek, PhD; and Peter Attia, MD.

Conclusion

Based on the available data, there is potential for use of the ketogenic diet in an adjunctive manner for dermatologic applications, and studies should be undertaken to establish the efficacy or inefficacy of this diet as a preventive measure or treatment of skin disease. With the large push for complementary and alternative therapies over the last decade, particularly for skin disease, the time for research on the ketogenic diet is ripe. Over the coming years, it is our hope that larger clinical, randomized, controlled trials will be conducted for the benefit of dermatology patients worldwide.

Radiation therapy should be the primary treatment for patients with basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma who are not candidates for surgery, according to a new guideline from an American Society for Radiation Oncology task force.

“We hope that the dermatology community will find this guideline helpful, especially when it comes to defining clinical and pathological characteristics that may necessitate a discussion about the merits of postoperative radiation therapy,” said lead author Anna Likhacheva, MD, of the Sutter Medical Center in Sacramento, Calif., in an email. The guideline was published in Practical Radiation Oncology.

To address five key questions in regard to radiation therapy (RT) for the two most common skin cancers, the American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a task force of radiation, medical, and surgical oncologists; dermatopathologists; a radiation oncology resident; a medical physicist; and a dermatologist. They reviewed studies of adults with nonmetastatic, invasive basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) that were published between May 1998 and June 2018, with the caveat that “there are limited, well-conducted modern randomized trials” in this area. As such, the majority of the recommendations have low to moderate quality of evidence designations.

“The conspicuous lack of prospective and randomized data should serve as a reminder to open clinical trials and collect outcomes data in a prospective fashion,” added Dr. Likhacheva, noting that “improving the quality of data on this topic will ultimately serve our common goal of improving patient outcomes.”

Their first recommendation was to strongly consider definitive RT as an alternative to surgery for BCC and cSCC, especially in areas where a surgical procedure would potentially compromise function or cosmesis. However, they did discourage its use in patients with genetic conditions associated with increased radiosensitivity.

Their second recommendation was to strongly consider postoperative radiation therapy for clinically or radiologically apparent gross perineural spread. They also strongly recommended PORT for cSCC patients with close or positive margins, with T3 or T4 tumors, or with desmoplastic or infiltrative tumors.

Their third recommendation was to strongly consider therapeutic lymphadenectomy followed by adjuvant RT in patients with cSCC or BCC that has metastasized to the regional lymph nodes. They also recommended definitive RT in medically inoperable patients with the same metastasized cSCC or BCC. In addition, patients with BCC or cSCC undergoing adjuvant RT after therapeutic lymphadenectomy were recommended a dose of 6,000-6,600 cGy, while patients with cSCC undergoing elective RT without a lymphadenectomy were recommended a dose of 5,000-5,400 cGy.

Their fourth recommendation focused on techniques and dose-fractionation schedules for RT in the definitive or postoperative setting. For patients with BCC and cSCC receiving definitive RT, the biologically effective dose (BED₁₀) range for conventional fractionation – defined as 180-200 cGy/fraction – should be 70-93.5 and the BED₁₀ range for hypofractionation – defined as 210-500 cGy/fraction – should be 56-88. For patients with BCC and cSCC receiving postoperative RT, the BED₁₀ range for conventional fractionation should be 59.5-79.2 and the BED₁₀ range for hypofractionation should be 56-70.2.

Finally, their fifth recommendation was to not add concurrent carboplatin to adjuvant RT in patients with resected, locally advanced cSCC. They also conditionally recommended adding concurrent drug therapies to definitive RT in patients with unresected, locally advanced cSCC.

Several of the authors reported receiving honoraria and travel expenses from medical and pharmaceutical companies, along with serving on their advisory boards. The others reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Likhacheva A et al. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019 Dec 9. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.10.014.

Radiation therapy should be the primary treatment for patients with basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma who are not candidates for surgery, according to a new guideline from an American Society for Radiation Oncology task force.

“We hope that the dermatology community will find this guideline helpful, especially when it comes to defining clinical and pathological characteristics that may necessitate a discussion about the merits of postoperative radiation therapy,” said lead author Anna Likhacheva, MD, of the Sutter Medical Center in Sacramento, Calif., in an email. The guideline was published in Practical Radiation Oncology.

To address five key questions in regard to radiation therapy (RT) for the two most common skin cancers, the American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a task force of radiation, medical, and surgical oncologists; dermatopathologists; a radiation oncology resident; a medical physicist; and a dermatologist. They reviewed studies of adults with nonmetastatic, invasive basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) that were published between May 1998 and June 2018, with the caveat that “there are limited, well-conducted modern randomized trials” in this area. As such, the majority of the recommendations have low to moderate quality of evidence designations.

“The conspicuous lack of prospective and randomized data should serve as a reminder to open clinical trials and collect outcomes data in a prospective fashion,” added Dr. Likhacheva, noting that “improving the quality of data on this topic will ultimately serve our common goal of improving patient outcomes.”

Their first recommendation was to strongly consider definitive RT as an alternative to surgery for BCC and cSCC, especially in areas where a surgical procedure would potentially compromise function or cosmesis. However, they did discourage its use in patients with genetic conditions associated with increased radiosensitivity.

Their second recommendation was to strongly consider postoperative radiation therapy for clinically or radiologically apparent gross perineural spread. They also strongly recommended PORT for cSCC patients with close or positive margins, with T3 or T4 tumors, or with desmoplastic or infiltrative tumors.

Their third recommendation was to strongly consider therapeutic lymphadenectomy followed by adjuvant RT in patients with cSCC or BCC that has metastasized to the regional lymph nodes. They also recommended definitive RT in medically inoperable patients with the same metastasized cSCC or BCC. In addition, patients with BCC or cSCC undergoing adjuvant RT after therapeutic lymphadenectomy were recommended a dose of 6,000-6,600 cGy, while patients with cSCC undergoing elective RT without a lymphadenectomy were recommended a dose of 5,000-5,400 cGy.

Their fourth recommendation focused on techniques and dose-fractionation schedules for RT in the definitive or postoperative setting. For patients with BCC and cSCC receiving definitive RT, the biologically effective dose (BED₁₀) range for conventional fractionation – defined as 180-200 cGy/fraction – should be 70-93.5 and the BED₁₀ range for hypofractionation – defined as 210-500 cGy/fraction – should be 56-88. For patients with BCC and cSCC receiving postoperative RT, the BED₁₀ range for conventional fractionation should be 59.5-79.2 and the BED₁₀ range for hypofractionation should be 56-70.2.

Finally, their fifth recommendation was to not add concurrent carboplatin to adjuvant RT in patients with resected, locally advanced cSCC. They also conditionally recommended adding concurrent drug therapies to definitive RT in patients with unresected, locally advanced cSCC.

Several of the authors reported receiving honoraria and travel expenses from medical and pharmaceutical companies, along with serving on their advisory boards. The others reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Likhacheva A et al. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019 Dec 9. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.10.014.

Radiation therapy should be the primary treatment for patients with basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma who are not candidates for surgery, according to a new guideline from an American Society for Radiation Oncology task force.

“We hope that the dermatology community will find this guideline helpful, especially when it comes to defining clinical and pathological characteristics that may necessitate a discussion about the merits of postoperative radiation therapy,” said lead author Anna Likhacheva, MD, of the Sutter Medical Center in Sacramento, Calif., in an email. The guideline was published in Practical Radiation Oncology.

To address five key questions in regard to radiation therapy (RT) for the two most common skin cancers, the American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a task force of radiation, medical, and surgical oncologists; dermatopathologists; a radiation oncology resident; a medical physicist; and a dermatologist. They reviewed studies of adults with nonmetastatic, invasive basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) that were published between May 1998 and June 2018, with the caveat that “there are limited, well-conducted modern randomized trials” in this area. As such, the majority of the recommendations have low to moderate quality of evidence designations.

“The conspicuous lack of prospective and randomized data should serve as a reminder to open clinical trials and collect outcomes data in a prospective fashion,” added Dr. Likhacheva, noting that “improving the quality of data on this topic will ultimately serve our common goal of improving patient outcomes.”

Their first recommendation was to strongly consider definitive RT as an alternative to surgery for BCC and cSCC, especially in areas where a surgical procedure would potentially compromise function or cosmesis. However, they did discourage its use in patients with genetic conditions associated with increased radiosensitivity.

Their second recommendation was to strongly consider postoperative radiation therapy for clinically or radiologically apparent gross perineural spread. They also strongly recommended PORT for cSCC patients with close or positive margins, with T3 or T4 tumors, or with desmoplastic or infiltrative tumors.

Their third recommendation was to strongly consider therapeutic lymphadenectomy followed by adjuvant RT in patients with cSCC or BCC that has metastasized to the regional lymph nodes. They also recommended definitive RT in medically inoperable patients with the same metastasized cSCC or BCC. In addition, patients with BCC or cSCC undergoing adjuvant RT after therapeutic lymphadenectomy were recommended a dose of 6,000-6,600 cGy, while patients with cSCC undergoing elective RT without a lymphadenectomy were recommended a dose of 5,000-5,400 cGy.

Their fourth recommendation focused on techniques and dose-fractionation schedules for RT in the definitive or postoperative setting. For patients with BCC and cSCC receiving definitive RT, the biologically effective dose (BED₁₀) range for conventional fractionation – defined as 180-200 cGy/fraction – should be 70-93.5 and the BED₁₀ range for hypofractionation – defined as 210-500 cGy/fraction – should be 56-88. For patients with BCC and cSCC receiving postoperative RT, the BED₁₀ range for conventional fractionation should be 59.5-79.2 and the BED₁₀ range for hypofractionation should be 56-70.2.

Finally, their fifth recommendation was to not add concurrent carboplatin to adjuvant RT in patients with resected, locally advanced cSCC. They also conditionally recommended adding concurrent drug therapies to definitive RT in patients with unresected, locally advanced cSCC.

Several of the authors reported receiving honoraria and travel expenses from medical and pharmaceutical companies, along with serving on their advisory boards. The others reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Likhacheva A et al. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019 Dec 9. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.10.014.

Leukemia is a malignant, life-threatening neoplasm affecting the hematopoietic system. Extramedullary manifestations can occur in various organs, including skin.¹ Skin findings in leukemia patients are common and varied, including pallor secondary to anemia, petechiae or ecchymoses due to thrombocytopenia, and skin manifestations of neutropenia and chemotherapy.² When patients with leukemia develop skin lesions without leukemic infiltration, the resulting nonspecific cutaneous manifestations are known as leukemids.³ Specific cutaneous manifestations of leukemia resulting from direct invasion of leukemic cells into the epidermis, dermis, or subcutis are referred to as leukemia cutis (LC).^2,3

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common type of leukemia associated with LC, but LC also is seen in other leukemias with various frequencies.¹ The lesions of LC can present anywhere on skin, though it has been reported that LC has a tendency to occur at sites of prior ongoing inflammation,^2,4 most commonly the extremities, trunk, and face.^2,5,6 LC lesions have a range of morphological findings and most commonly present as nodules, papules, and plaques.^1,7

Most reports of LC in the literature are case reports or case series with small numbers of subjects.^3,6,8 A study of LC patients (N=75) in Korea by Kang et al⁷ has been the only one to analyze clinical characteristics of LC since 2000.

The aim of this study was to further contribute to the knowledge of clinical characteristics of LC. Clinical patterns of 46 patients were analyzed to further characterize the presentation of LC and to compare our results with those in the literature.

Methods

We conducted a single-institution retrospective review of medical records of patients with LC diagnosed in the Department of Dermatology at Wake Forest School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina) over a 17-year period (2001-2017). The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Wake Forest University School of Medicine (IRB No. 00054474). Patients had a leukemia diagnosis established by bone marrow biopsy. Patients were included in this analysis if they had ongoing active leukemia and a skin biopsy consistent with LC. Patients of all sexes and ages were included in the cohort. Patients were excluded if they presented only with nonspecific cutaneous lesions associated with leukemia (leukemids). After removing duplicate records from a total of 60 patients initially identified, 46 unique patients were included in this study.

Results

Demographics
Fifty-six percent (26/46) of patients were male. The average age at diagnosis of leukemia was 58 years (range, 8.5 months–84 years). Eighty-five percent of patients were white (39/46), 11% were black (5/46), 2% were Hispanic (1/46), and 2% were of unknown ethnicity (1/46).

Eighty percent (37/46) of patients with LC had AML; 3 of these patients had a prior diagnosis of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and 2 had myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) that did not develop LC until after they had transitioned to AML. Other subtypes of leukemia in this patient population included acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)(n=2), plasma cell leukemia (PCL)(n=2), undifferentiated leukemia (n=2), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)(n=1), myelodysplastic syndrome (n=1), and Burkitt-type leukemia (n=1).

Distribution and Morphology of LC Lesions
The clinical appearance of LC was widely variable in morphology and anatomic location (Table 1 and Figure). Eighty-four percent of LC occurrences involved more than one lesion (n=32); 14% were a solitary lesion (n=6). For the 2 patients who had 2 separate episodes of LC, the initial presentation of LC was multiple lesions; recurrent LC at relapse presented as a solitary lesion in both cases. Most LC lesions (77% [67/87]) occurred on the trunk or extremities; 23% (20/87) of LC lesions occurred on less common sites, such as the groin, face, hands, feet, and mucosa. Papules (38% [22/58]) and nodules (31% [18/58]) were the most common morphology; macules, plaques, and ulcers were observed less frequently. Clinical descriptions of LC lesions varied widely, with the most common descriptive characteristics being erythematous (57% [20/35]), violaceous (31% [11/35]), and asymptomatic (84% [32/38]). Rare descriptors included flesh colored, hyperpigmented, tender, pruritic, edema, crusting, and confluent erythematous.

Discussion

Cutaneous manifestations are not uncommon in leukemia patients and can have a number of causes, including paraneoplastic cutaneous manifestations, such as pyoderma gangrenosum and Sweet syndrome; infection; cutaneous toxicities from antineoplastic agents; and LC.² Leukemia cutis can be confused with other skin lesions in leukemia patients; diagnosis requires biopsy.^2,9

We analyzed clinical characteristics and prognosis of 46 patients with LC over a 17-year period. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study of LC patients published in the United States. A similar study by Kang et al⁷ analyzed 75 patients in Korea; however, the incidence of LC among different types of leukemia in the Korean population cannot be applied to Western countries. We did compare the clinical characteristics of our cohort of patients to those reported by Kang et al⁷ and other studies including a smaller number of patients.

In this study, the male to female ratio was 1.3 to 1 compared to the 2:1 ratio reported by Kang et al.⁷ The mean age of leukemia diagnosis among our patients was 58 years, which is notably older than the mean age previously reported.⁷ In this cohort, 4 patients (8.7%) were 34 years or younger, including 1 infant aged 8.5 months; 24 (52.2%) were aged 35 to 64 years; and 18 (39.1%) were 65 years and older.

Consistent with other studies,^2,5,7 the most common type of leukemia in patients who developed LC was AML (80%). Among AML patients, the mean age at AML diagnosis (59.8 years) was notably younger than the reported US average age of patients who had a diagnosis of AML (68 years).¹⁰ Gender breakdown was slightly different than US statistics: 63% of AML patients in our group were male, whereas AML is only slightly more common among men in the United States.¹⁰

Clinically, skin lesions observed most commonly were (in decreasing order) papules, nodules, macules, plaques, and ulcers. Papules (38%) were the most common lesion overall in our study, which differed from the Kang et al⁷ report in which nodules were the most common. Nodules (31%) were the second most common LC morphology among our patients. Among AML patients, papules were seen in 56% of patients (18/32); nodules were seen in 44% (14/32). The extremities (when combined together) were the most common location of LC lesions (46% [arms, 24%; legs, 22%]); the trunk was the second most common body region (31%). Our study did not find a difference among most common LC anatomic sites compared to other studies.^5,7 Less common sites in our cohort included the head, scalp/ears, neck, hands, mucosa, and feet. All body sites were represented, including ocular and oral mucosa and groin, a finding that underscores the importance of complete and comprehensive skin examinations in this patient population. The terms erythematous and violaceous were used to describe the color of most lesions (88%), which commonly presented as multiple lesions (84%) and often were asymptomatic (84%).

It has been reported that, first, in most cases of LC, the condition develops in patients who have already been given a diagnosis of leukemia and, second, simultaneous manifestation of systemic leukemia and LC is less common.^11,12 Leukemia cutis also can precede peripheral or bone marrow leukemia (known as aleukemic LC).^1,13 Two AML patients (4.3% [2/46]) in this study met criteria for aleukemic LC because they had LC at the same time as negative bone marrow biopsy, which is consistent with a prior report that aleukemic LC can affect as many as 7% of patients.¹ Our results differed slightly from prior studies in that most of our patients had LC as one of the presenting manifestations of their leukemia.^3,7

Regardless of leukemia type, patients were likely to die within 1 year of LC diagnosis, on average, which is consistent with prior reports.^7,11,12 However, the time between diagnosis of LC and death varied greatly among our patients (range, 12 days to 4.1 years). From 2007 to 2013, the 5-year relative survival rate overall for leukemia patients in the US population (by type) was 86.2% (CLL), 71.0% (ALL), 68.0% (CML), and 27.4% (AML).¹⁴ Compared to these national statistics, the relative survival rate in LC is poor, with patients who have AML surviving, on average, less than 8 months from time of leukemia diagnosis, whereas ALL and CLL patients survive less than 6 months.

When LC is a late presentation of B-cell CLL or when it presents as myeloid leukemia, blastic transformation (Richter syndrome), or T-cell CLL, it is occasionally associated with poor prognosis, though LC does not affect survival.^15-17 In a study of the association of LC with survival in AML, 5-year survival among 62 AML patients with LC was 8.6%, shorter than 28.3% among the 186 matched patients with AML without LC.¹⁸ Similarly, the estimated 5-year survival for all patients with AML, according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data (2007-2013), was 27.4%.¹⁴ Based on those results, LC might be a good prognostic indicator in patients with AML.

Conclusion

This study characterized the clinical presentation of LC, which is highly variable in appearance, symptoms, distribution, and stage of leukemia at presentation. In our study cohort, LC most commonly presented as asymptomatic erythematous or violaceous papules or nodules in older male AML patients at leukemia diagnosis. Given such wide variability, dermatologists and oncologists need to keep LC in the differential diagnosis for any new skin lesion and to have a low threshold for performing skin biopsy. Complete and thorough skin examinations should be performed on leukemia patients throughout the course of their disease to identify LC early so that treatment can be implemented in a timely fashion at initial diagnosis, first sign of relapse, or change in disease state.

Leukemia is a malignant, life-threatening neoplasm affecting the hematopoietic system. Extramedullary manifestations can occur in various organs, including skin.¹ Skin findings in leukemia patients are common and varied, including pallor secondary to anemia, petechiae or ecchymoses due to thrombocytopenia, and skin manifestations of neutropenia and chemotherapy.² When patients with leukemia develop skin lesions without leukemic infiltration, the resulting nonspecific cutaneous manifestations are known as leukemids.³ Specific cutaneous manifestations of leukemia resulting from direct invasion of leukemic cells into the epidermis, dermis, or subcutis are referred to as leukemia cutis (LC).^2,3

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common type of leukemia associated with LC, but LC also is seen in other leukemias with various frequencies.¹ The lesions of LC can present anywhere on skin, though it has been reported that LC has a tendency to occur at sites of prior ongoing inflammation,^2,4 most commonly the extremities, trunk, and face.^2,5,6 LC lesions have a range of morphological findings and most commonly present as nodules, papules, and plaques.^1,7

Most reports of LC in the literature are case reports or case series with small numbers of subjects.^3,6,8 A study of LC patients (N=75) in Korea by Kang et al⁷ has been the only one to analyze clinical characteristics of LC since 2000.

The aim of this study was to further contribute to the knowledge of clinical characteristics of LC. Clinical patterns of 46 patients were analyzed to further characterize the presentation of LC and to compare our results with those in the literature.

Methods

We conducted a single-institution retrospective review of medical records of patients with LC diagnosed in the Department of Dermatology at Wake Forest School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina) over a 17-year period (2001-2017). The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Wake Forest University School of Medicine (IRB No. 00054474). Patients had a leukemia diagnosis established by bone marrow biopsy. Patients were included in this analysis if they had ongoing active leukemia and a skin biopsy consistent with LC. Patients of all sexes and ages were included in the cohort. Patients were excluded if they presented only with nonspecific cutaneous lesions associated with leukemia (leukemids). After removing duplicate records from a total of 60 patients initially identified, 46 unique patients were included in this study.

Results

Demographics
Fifty-six percent (26/46) of patients were male. The average age at diagnosis of leukemia was 58 years (range, 8.5 months–84 years). Eighty-five percent of patients were white (39/46), 11% were black (5/46), 2% were Hispanic (1/46), and 2% were of unknown ethnicity (1/46).

Eighty percent (37/46) of patients with LC had AML; 3 of these patients had a prior diagnosis of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and 2 had myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) that did not develop LC until after they had transitioned to AML. Other subtypes of leukemia in this patient population included acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)(n=2), plasma cell leukemia (PCL)(n=2), undifferentiated leukemia (n=2), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)(n=1), myelodysplastic syndrome (n=1), and Burkitt-type leukemia (n=1).

Distribution and Morphology of LC Lesions
The clinical appearance of LC was widely variable in morphology and anatomic location (Table 1 and Figure). Eighty-four percent of LC occurrences involved more than one lesion (n=32); 14% were a solitary lesion (n=6). For the 2 patients who had 2 separate episodes of LC, the initial presentation of LC was multiple lesions; recurrent LC at relapse presented as a solitary lesion in both cases. Most LC lesions (77% [67/87]) occurred on the trunk or extremities; 23% (20/87) of LC lesions occurred on less common sites, such as the groin, face, hands, feet, and mucosa. Papules (38% [22/58]) and nodules (31% [18/58]) were the most common morphology; macules, plaques, and ulcers were observed less frequently. Clinical descriptions of LC lesions varied widely, with the most common descriptive characteristics being erythematous (57% [20/35]), violaceous (31% [11/35]), and asymptomatic (84% [32/38]). Rare descriptors included flesh colored, hyperpigmented, tender, pruritic, edema, crusting, and confluent erythematous.

Discussion

Cutaneous manifestations are not uncommon in leukemia patients and can have a number of causes, including paraneoplastic cutaneous manifestations, such as pyoderma gangrenosum and Sweet syndrome; infection; cutaneous toxicities from antineoplastic agents; and LC.² Leukemia cutis can be confused with other skin lesions in leukemia patients; diagnosis requires biopsy.^2,9

We analyzed clinical characteristics and prognosis of 46 patients with LC over a 17-year period. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study of LC patients published in the United States. A similar study by Kang et al⁷ analyzed 75 patients in Korea; however, the incidence of LC among different types of leukemia in the Korean population cannot be applied to Western countries. We did compare the clinical characteristics of our cohort of patients to those reported by Kang et al⁷ and other studies including a smaller number of patients.

In this study, the male to female ratio was 1.3 to 1 compared to the 2:1 ratio reported by Kang et al.⁷ The mean age of leukemia diagnosis among our patients was 58 years, which is notably older than the mean age previously reported.⁷ In this cohort, 4 patients (8.7%) were 34 years or younger, including 1 infant aged 8.5 months; 24 (52.2%) were aged 35 to 64 years; and 18 (39.1%) were 65 years and older.

Consistent with other studies,^2,5,7 the most common type of leukemia in patients who developed LC was AML (80%). Among AML patients, the mean age at AML diagnosis (59.8 years) was notably younger than the reported US average age of patients who had a diagnosis of AML (68 years).¹⁰ Gender breakdown was slightly different than US statistics: 63% of AML patients in our group were male, whereas AML is only slightly more common among men in the United States.¹⁰

Clinically, skin lesions observed most commonly were (in decreasing order) papules, nodules, macules, plaques, and ulcers. Papules (38%) were the most common lesion overall in our study, which differed from the Kang et al⁷ report in which nodules were the most common. Nodules (31%) were the second most common LC morphology among our patients. Among AML patients, papules were seen in 56% of patients (18/32); nodules were seen in 44% (14/32). The extremities (when combined together) were the most common location of LC lesions (46% [arms, 24%; legs, 22%]); the trunk was the second most common body region (31%). Our study did not find a difference among most common LC anatomic sites compared to other studies.^5,7 Less common sites in our cohort included the head, scalp/ears, neck, hands, mucosa, and feet. All body sites were represented, including ocular and oral mucosa and groin, a finding that underscores the importance of complete and comprehensive skin examinations in this patient population. The terms erythematous and violaceous were used to describe the color of most lesions (88%), which commonly presented as multiple lesions (84%) and often were asymptomatic (84%).

It has been reported that, first, in most cases of LC, the condition develops in patients who have already been given a diagnosis of leukemia and, second, simultaneous manifestation of systemic leukemia and LC is less common.^11,12 Leukemia cutis also can precede peripheral or bone marrow leukemia (known as aleukemic LC).^1,13 Two AML patients (4.3% [2/46]) in this study met criteria for aleukemic LC because they had LC at the same time as negative bone marrow biopsy, which is consistent with a prior report that aleukemic LC can affect as many as 7% of patients.¹ Our results differed slightly from prior studies in that most of our patients had LC as one of the presenting manifestations of their leukemia.^3,7

Regardless of leukemia type, patients were likely to die within 1 year of LC diagnosis, on average, which is consistent with prior reports.^7,11,12 However, the time between diagnosis of LC and death varied greatly among our patients (range, 12 days to 4.1 years). From 2007 to 2013, the 5-year relative survival rate overall for leukemia patients in the US population (by type) was 86.2% (CLL), 71.0% (ALL), 68.0% (CML), and 27.4% (AML).¹⁴ Compared to these national statistics, the relative survival rate in LC is poor, with patients who have AML surviving, on average, less than 8 months from time of leukemia diagnosis, whereas ALL and CLL patients survive less than 6 months.

When LC is a late presentation of B-cell CLL or when it presents as myeloid leukemia, blastic transformation (Richter syndrome), or T-cell CLL, it is occasionally associated with poor prognosis, though LC does not affect survival.^15-17 In a study of the association of LC with survival in AML, 5-year survival among 62 AML patients with LC was 8.6%, shorter than 28.3% among the 186 matched patients with AML without LC.¹⁸ Similarly, the estimated 5-year survival for all patients with AML, according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data (2007-2013), was 27.4%.¹⁴ Based on those results, LC might be a good prognostic indicator in patients with AML.

Conclusion

This study characterized the clinical presentation of LC, which is highly variable in appearance, symptoms, distribution, and stage of leukemia at presentation. In our study cohort, LC most commonly presented as asymptomatic erythematous or violaceous papules or nodules in older male AML patients at leukemia diagnosis. Given such wide variability, dermatologists and oncologists need to keep LC in the differential diagnosis for any new skin lesion and to have a low threshold for performing skin biopsy. Complete and thorough skin examinations should be performed on leukemia patients throughout the course of their disease to identify LC early so that treatment can be implemented in a timely fashion at initial diagnosis, first sign of relapse, or change in disease state.

Leukemia is a malignant, life-threatening neoplasm affecting the hematopoietic system. Extramedullary manifestations can occur in various organs, including skin.¹ Skin findings in leukemia patients are common and varied, including pallor secondary to anemia, petechiae or ecchymoses due to thrombocytopenia, and skin manifestations of neutropenia and chemotherapy.² When patients with leukemia develop skin lesions without leukemic infiltration, the resulting nonspecific cutaneous manifestations are known as leukemids.³ Specific cutaneous manifestations of leukemia resulting from direct invasion of leukemic cells into the epidermis, dermis, or subcutis are referred to as leukemia cutis (LC).^2,3

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common type of leukemia associated with LC, but LC also is seen in other leukemias with various frequencies.¹ The lesions of LC can present anywhere on skin, though it has been reported that LC has a tendency to occur at sites of prior ongoing inflammation,^2,4 most commonly the extremities, trunk, and face.^2,5,6 LC lesions have a range of morphological findings and most commonly present as nodules, papules, and plaques.^1,7

Most reports of LC in the literature are case reports or case series with small numbers of subjects.^3,6,8 A study of LC patients (N=75) in Korea by Kang et al⁷ has been the only one to analyze clinical characteristics of LC since 2000.

The aim of this study was to further contribute to the knowledge of clinical characteristics of LC. Clinical patterns of 46 patients were analyzed to further characterize the presentation of LC and to compare our results with those in the literature.

Methods

We conducted a single-institution retrospective review of medical records of patients with LC diagnosed in the Department of Dermatology at Wake Forest School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina) over a 17-year period (2001-2017). The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Wake Forest University School of Medicine (IRB No. 00054474). Patients had a leukemia diagnosis established by bone marrow biopsy. Patients were included in this analysis if they had ongoing active leukemia and a skin biopsy consistent with LC. Patients of all sexes and ages were included in the cohort. Patients were excluded if they presented only with nonspecific cutaneous lesions associated with leukemia (leukemids). After removing duplicate records from a total of 60 patients initially identified, 46 unique patients were included in this study.

Results

Demographics
Fifty-six percent (26/46) of patients were male. The average age at diagnosis of leukemia was 58 years (range, 8.5 months–84 years). Eighty-five percent of patients were white (39/46), 11% were black (5/46), 2% were Hispanic (1/46), and 2% were of unknown ethnicity (1/46).

Eighty percent (37/46) of patients with LC had AML; 3 of these patients had a prior diagnosis of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and 2 had myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) that did not develop LC until after they had transitioned to AML. Other subtypes of leukemia in this patient population included acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)(n=2), plasma cell leukemia (PCL)(n=2), undifferentiated leukemia (n=2), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)(n=1), myelodysplastic syndrome (n=1), and Burkitt-type leukemia (n=1).

Distribution and Morphology of LC Lesions
The clinical appearance of LC was widely variable in morphology and anatomic location (Table 1 and Figure). Eighty-four percent of LC occurrences involved more than one lesion (n=32); 14% were a solitary lesion (n=6). For the 2 patients who had 2 separate episodes of LC, the initial presentation of LC was multiple lesions; recurrent LC at relapse presented as a solitary lesion in both cases. Most LC lesions (77% [67/87]) occurred on the trunk or extremities; 23% (20/87) of LC lesions occurred on less common sites, such as the groin, face, hands, feet, and mucosa. Papules (38% [22/58]) and nodules (31% [18/58]) were the most common morphology; macules, plaques, and ulcers were observed less frequently. Clinical descriptions of LC lesions varied widely, with the most common descriptive characteristics being erythematous (57% [20/35]), violaceous (31% [11/35]), and asymptomatic (84% [32/38]). Rare descriptors included flesh colored, hyperpigmented, tender, pruritic, edema, crusting, and confluent erythematous.

Discussion

Cutaneous manifestations are not uncommon in leukemia patients and can have a number of causes, including paraneoplastic cutaneous manifestations, such as pyoderma gangrenosum and Sweet syndrome; infection; cutaneous toxicities from antineoplastic agents; and LC.² Leukemia cutis can be confused with other skin lesions in leukemia patients; diagnosis requires biopsy.^2,9

We analyzed clinical characteristics and prognosis of 46 patients with LC over a 17-year period. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study of LC patients published in the United States. A similar study by Kang et al⁷ analyzed 75 patients in Korea; however, the incidence of LC among different types of leukemia in the Korean population cannot be applied to Western countries. We did compare the clinical characteristics of our cohort of patients to those reported by Kang et al⁷ and other studies including a smaller number of patients.

In this study, the male to female ratio was 1.3 to 1 compared to the 2:1 ratio reported by Kang et al.⁷ The mean age of leukemia diagnosis among our patients was 58 years, which is notably older than the mean age previously reported.⁷ In this cohort, 4 patients (8.7%) were 34 years or younger, including 1 infant aged 8.5 months; 24 (52.2%) were aged 35 to 64 years; and 18 (39.1%) were 65 years and older.

Consistent with other studies,^2,5,7 the most common type of leukemia in patients who developed LC was AML (80%). Among AML patients, the mean age at AML diagnosis (59.8 years) was notably younger than the reported US average age of patients who had a diagnosis of AML (68 years).¹⁰ Gender breakdown was slightly different than US statistics: 63% of AML patients in our group were male, whereas AML is only slightly more common among men in the United States.¹⁰

Clinically, skin lesions observed most commonly were (in decreasing order) papules, nodules, macules, plaques, and ulcers. Papules (38%) were the most common lesion overall in our study, which differed from the Kang et al⁷ report in which nodules were the most common. Nodules (31%) were the second most common LC morphology among our patients. Among AML patients, papules were seen in 56% of patients (18/32); nodules were seen in 44% (14/32). The extremities (when combined together) were the most common location of LC lesions (46% [arms, 24%; legs, 22%]); the trunk was the second most common body region (31%). Our study did not find a difference among most common LC anatomic sites compared to other studies.^5,7 Less common sites in our cohort included the head, scalp/ears, neck, hands, mucosa, and feet. All body sites were represented, including ocular and oral mucosa and groin, a finding that underscores the importance of complete and comprehensive skin examinations in this patient population. The terms erythematous and violaceous were used to describe the color of most lesions (88%), which commonly presented as multiple lesions (84%) and often were asymptomatic (84%).

It has been reported that, first, in most cases of LC, the condition develops in patients who have already been given a diagnosis of leukemia and, second, simultaneous manifestation of systemic leukemia and LC is less common.^11,12 Leukemia cutis also can precede peripheral or bone marrow leukemia (known as aleukemic LC).^1,13 Two AML patients (4.3% [2/46]) in this study met criteria for aleukemic LC because they had LC at the same time as negative bone marrow biopsy, which is consistent with a prior report that aleukemic LC can affect as many as 7% of patients.¹ Our results differed slightly from prior studies in that most of our patients had LC as one of the presenting manifestations of their leukemia.^3,7

Regardless of leukemia type, patients were likely to die within 1 year of LC diagnosis, on average, which is consistent with prior reports.^7,11,12 However, the time between diagnosis of LC and death varied greatly among our patients (range, 12 days to 4.1 years). From 2007 to 2013, the 5-year relative survival rate overall for leukemia patients in the US population (by type) was 86.2% (CLL), 71.0% (ALL), 68.0% (CML), and 27.4% (AML).¹⁴ Compared to these national statistics, the relative survival rate in LC is poor, with patients who have AML surviving, on average, less than 8 months from time of leukemia diagnosis, whereas ALL and CLL patients survive less than 6 months.

When LC is a late presentation of B-cell CLL or when it presents as myeloid leukemia, blastic transformation (Richter syndrome), or T-cell CLL, it is occasionally associated with poor prognosis, though LC does not affect survival.^15-17 In a study of the association of LC with survival in AML, 5-year survival among 62 AML patients with LC was 8.6%, shorter than 28.3% among the 186 matched patients with AML without LC.¹⁸ Similarly, the estimated 5-year survival for all patients with AML, according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data (2007-2013), was 27.4%.¹⁴ Based on those results, LC might be a good prognostic indicator in patients with AML.

Conclusion

This study characterized the clinical presentation of LC, which is highly variable in appearance, symptoms, distribution, and stage of leukemia at presentation. In our study cohort, LC most commonly presented as asymptomatic erythematous or violaceous papules or nodules in older male AML patients at leukemia diagnosis. Given such wide variability, dermatologists and oncologists need to keep LC in the differential diagnosis for any new skin lesion and to have a low threshold for performing skin biopsy. Complete and thorough skin examinations should be performed on leukemia patients throughout the course of their disease to identify LC early so that treatment can be implemented in a timely fashion at initial diagnosis, first sign of relapse, or change in disease state.

The increasing incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is a serious public health concern.¹ Lesions often are identified on routine total-body examination, and there is a considerate burden on dermatologists to diagnose these lesions, which is both costly and results in a long wait time to see a specialist. Furthermore, standard care requires patients to attend multiple visits for the diagnosis and treatment of NMSC.

In recent decades, diagnosing basal cell carcinoma (BCC) has been facilitated by the handheld dermatoscope. The advent of dermoscopy has led to increased sensitivity and specificity of the NMSC diagnosis (estimated at 95%–99%) and has helped facilitate earlier diagnosis of BCC and reduce unnecessary biopsy of benign lesions.^2-5 Dermoscopy also can be useful in monitoring response to treatment.⁵ Lesions that are detected early tend to be easier and less expensive to treat, a strong argument for the use of early detection techniques.^6-8

More recently, in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM)(Vivascope 1500 [Caliber I.D.]) has become an acceptable means for confirming a BCC diagnosis, offering an alternative to tissue biopsy. Reflectance confocal microscopy can be reimbursed under Category I Current Procedural Terminology codes 96931 to 96936.⁹ Reflectance confocal microscopy is a noninvasive diagnostic technique that uses an 830-nm diode laser to enable visualization of a 0.5×0.5-mm patch of skin to a depth of 200 to 300 μm, which corresponds roughly to the papillary dermis. Reflectance confocal microscopy has the advantage of providing real-time diagnosis, enabling same-day treatment of BCC, and providing an efficient alternative to biopsy. Ultimately, these advantages are beneficial and time-saving for patients because biopsies can be painful; create a delay in diagnosis; and require further follow-up visits for treatment, which may be of importance to patients who have trouble attending multiple appointments.

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is another noninvasive imaging device that is useful in BCC management. It uses an infrared broadband light source to visualize skin architecture to 2-mm deep with a 6×6-mm field of view.¹⁰ Although OCT does not offer the same cellular clarity as RCM, it allows visualization of a greater depth of skin and a wider field of view, making it a useful tool both in marginating NMSCs prior to treatment and monitoring response to treatment over time.^11-16 Optical coherence tomography has demonstrated a high negative predictive value (92.1%) for BCC, which makes it useful for ruling out residual tumor in lesions undergoing management.^17-19

With all available options, BCC management benefits from care that is tailored to the individual and the lesion, taking into account size and subtype because not every available treatment is appropriate. Lasers, including solid state, diode, dye, and gas types, are emerging as promising minimally invasive treatment modalities.^20,21

Nonablative laser therapy with a pulsed dye laser (PDL) and fractional laser is an example; the principal investigator (PI) of this study (O.M.) recently reported a 95.70% clearance rate utilizing a PDL and fractional laser protocol.²² The 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser also has been used with PDL and as a stand-alone treatment. Jalian et al²³ used PDL and the Nd:YAG laser on 13 BCC lesions, with a 58% (7/12) clearance rate after 4 treatments; all nonresponders were taking an anticoagulant, which inhibited the laser’s mechanism of action, according to the researchers.

Moskalik et al²⁴ published a report of 3346 facial BCC lesions treated with pulsed Nd and pulsed Nd:YAG lasers, and included follow-up for as long as 5 years, with a 3.7% recurrence rate. Another report by Moskalik et al²⁵ recorded a recurrence rate of 2.2% to 3.1% for BCCs that were followed for at least 5 years.

Ortiz et al²⁶ reported use of the long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser to treat 13 lesions with biopsy-confirmed BCC on the trunk and extremities, with a 92% (12/13) clearance rate based on histologic analysis 1 month after laser treatment. In an expanded study of 31 patients by Ortiz et al,²⁷ the histologic clearance rate was 90.3% (28/31)—also obtained after 1 month—after 1 Nd:YAG laser treatment, also treating lesions on the trunk and extremities. A further retrospective review of Nd:YAG laser treatment of BCC revealed a 100% clearance rate for 16 lesions (including lesions on the face) that were monitored for at least 6 months (mean duration, 9 months; range, 6–15 months).²⁸ Optical coherence tomography imaging was used for one of the review’s lesions before and after treatment and suggested that the Nd:YAG laser works by selectively destroying the vasculature supplying BCC tumors while preserving surrounding healthy tissue.²⁸

Apart from Moskalik et al,^24,25 these studies are limited by a relatively short follow-up time to confirm tumor clearance. Prior studies utilizing the Nd:YAG laser to treat BCC are summarized in the eTable.

Our study attempts to further evaluate the efficacy of the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser in treating BCC while leveraging noninvasive imaging technology. The objective was to perform a retrospective review of medical records of a subgroup of patients with BCC diagnosed by RCM who were treated with the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser and monitored for clearance using OCT imaging, in addition to clinical and dermoscopic examination. Similar to prior long-term Nd:YAG laser follow-up studies, we aimed to demonstrate the possibility of a minimally invasive BCC management approach—in our protocol, utilizing imaging instead of biopsy to facilitate long-term follow-up and by offering a model for patient-driven care.

Methods

Study Design
Institutional review board approval was received from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Program for the Protection of Human Subjects (New York, New York). We performed a retrospective review of medical records of patients diagnosed by RCM and treated with a 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser, as an alternative to surgery, at the Mount Sinai Faculty Practice Associates between March 2018 and August 2018. Included in this pilot study are 17 lesions in 16 patients.

Inclusion Criteria
Patients were enrolled based on the following criteria: BCCs diagnosed by clinical and dermoscopic examination followed by RCM imaging; treatment with the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser, because of patients’ preference for this modality over surgery, superficial radiation therapy, topical regimens, and other laser therapies that require more visits; eligibility by PI included limited clinical ulceration or bleeding (or both) and a safe distance from the eye when wearing an external eye shield (ie, outside the orbital rim). The PI performed a detailed and thorough clinical and dermoscopic skin examination, enabling early detection of the BCCs. Basal cell carcinomas were not included if they exhibited rolled borders, visible ulceration, or oozing growths that allowed for treatment of less-advanced tumors. The PI utilized a clinical and dermoscopic color wheel algorithm to identify suspicious lesions combined with RCM for diagnostic confirmation.²⁹

Two of 17 lesions that did not present as early lesions were included in the study due to patient refusal of surgery or radiation. We consider more advanced tumors to be exophytic, bleeding, crusting, nonhealing ulcerative growths. Patients who had received prior laser treatment with the PI’s PDL with fractional laser protocol with subsequent recurrence at the treatment site were included in the study. Lesions receiving concurrent or prior nonsurgical therapy, such as a topical immunomodulator or oral hedgehog inhibitor, were excluded.

Treatment Protocol
All patients attended the private clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital of a pigmented lesion expert (O.M.) for routine skin cancer screening. Patients with lesions suspicious for BCC—based on clinical and dermoscopic features—were offered tissue biopsy or RCM. Following diagnosis with RCM, treatment options were discussed, and patients were offered laser treatment when surgical options were declined. Topical treatment options were not emphasized because they require weeks of application to be effective and have been studied mainly in superficial BCC management.^30,31

Patients with early lesions were offered either the PDL with fractional laser or Nd:YAG protocol, with their understanding that the Nd:YAG laser protocol would likely involve fewer treatments but a higher likelihood of residual hyperpigmentation or potential scarring (or both) than the more gentle PDL with fractional laser treatment.

All lesions on the face were premarginated using OCT by obtaining central scans and 4 additional scans—above, below, to the left, and to the right of the lesion—to ensure targeted laser treatment with desirable cosmetic results. Facial premargination scans were mandatory; however, patients with lesions on the trunk or extremities were offered the option to have pretreatment margination as an out-of-pocket expense. We did not require premargination of lesions on the body because of their location on less cosmetically critical areas. Most patients declined the optional scans.

This can be considered analogous to the situation in which more insurers reimburse Mohs surgery for cosmetically challenging areas such as the head and neck, while limiting reimbursement for treatment of lesions on the trunk and upper extremities to simple excision. Given cosmetic concerns on the head and neck compared to the body, some patients found it acceptable to have slightly increased dyschromia over a broader treatment area of non–cosmetically critical locations on the body.

Optical coherence tomography imaging was required for all anatomic locations at follow-up visits to detect residual disease or confirm clearance. All patients were given thorough information about the treatment, additional costs, treatment alternatives, potential adverse effects, and complications.

Clinical and dermoscopic images were obtained at every visit using a commercially available point-and-shoot digital single-lens reflex camera for clinical photographs, with an attached DermLite DL3N (3Gen) dermatoscope for all contact polarized dermoscopic photography.

Laser treatment was carried out with the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser. Setting ranges were similar to previously published studies that used the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser to treat BCCs (spot sizes, 5–6 mm; fluences, 125–140 J/cm²; pulse durations, 7–10 milliseconds).^26-28 The exact settings and number of passes were tailored to the individual lesion based on skin type, anatomic location, extent of tumor involvement by depth (and margin on facial lesions), and posttreatment dermoscopic confirmation of clearance; additionally, for facial lesions, OCT confirmation of clearance.

Laser treatment was provided by the PI. Patients were instructed to apply a thick emollient (ie, formulation of petrolatum or 100% petrolatum) after treatment and until the area healed.

All tumors received 1 to 3 treatments at an interval of 1 to 2 months. The treatment end point was complete clearance, judged by absence of skin cancer clinically, dermoscopically, and on OCT scan. More specifically, the PI looked for vascular changes and echogenic changes on OCT consistent with tumor clearance as well as dermoscopic disappearance of recognized BCC features.

Patients were asked to return for follow-up visits 2 months after the final treatment to evaluate tumor clearance. They were asked to return subsequently every 6 to 12 months for routine care and long-term follow-up.

Results

Patient Characteristics
A total of 16 patients (6 female, 10 male) with 17 BCCs were included in this study. Mean age was 68 years (median, 71.5 years; range; 48–89 years). Mean lesion size was 7.1 mm (median, 6 mm; range, 3–15 mm). Eight lesions were on the face; 9 were on extrafacial sites. Two lesions had a history of laser treatment with the PI’s PDL with fractional laser treatment protocol and had locally recurred. Subtypes of lesions were not elicited by RCM.

Outcomes
Fourteen lesions (14/17 [82.4%]) required 1 treatment to achieve clearance, as confirmed clinically, dermoscopically, and by OCT scanning. One lesion on the back (1/17 [5.8%]) required 2 treatments (70 days between treatments). Two lesions (2/17 [11.8%]) required 3 treatments (time between treatments: 49 and 61 days [lesion 1]; 62 and 64 days [lesion 2]). Lesion 1 was on the face; lesion 2 was on the back. Mean time between last treatment and OCT clearance scan was 103 days (median, 64 days; range, 48–371 days).

Comment

Our study supports the notion that the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser is a viable option for treating BCC. All (100%) lesions cleared, most (82.4%) with a single treatment. Of course, for patients who required more than 1 treatment (17.6%), we cannot make an argument for fewer patient visits because those patients had to return for multiple laser treatments, but they were able to avoid surgery, as they had wanted. Overall, our diagnostic approach utilizing RCM as opposed to traditional tissue biopsy meant that patients’ skin cancers were diagnosed and treated the same day.

A one-stop shop for diagnosis and treatment model has been reported by Kadouch et al³² as part of a randomized controlled trial in which patients were randomly assigned to receive standard care for BCC—biopsy followed by surgical excision—or RCM diagnosis followed by surgical excision. Their outcome was tumor-free margins after surgical treatment; the RCM approach was found to be noninferior to standard care.³² Our retrospective study differs, of course, in its laser treatment approach; however, both studies investigated a potentially more efficient pathway to BCC management, which becomes increasingly relevant given the rising incidence of NMSC.

A real-time, image-based diagnostic approach combined with laser treatment delivers patient-driven care, offering choice and convenience. It might be optimal for patients who have an extensive history of BCC, are poor surgical candidates, have difficulty with the logistics of the multiple visits required for surgical management, cannot (for practical reasons) spend multiple hours in office between Mohs stages, and do not want potentially disfiguring scars, making a minimally invasive treatment preferable.

As we found in our sample, not all patients are amenable to undergoing what is regarded now as the most definitive treatment—namely, surgical options. This subset of patients, whose lesions require more definitive treatment but who do not desire invasive management, need alternative approaches to BCC treatment. The present study proposes a model of patient-driven care that requires collaboration between physician and patient, offering more customized care that takes into account patient choice.

In our study, most patients had lesions that were detected early in their evolution; these lesions might be particularly amenable to laser management. The 2 resistant lesions in our set—requiring 3 treatments—appeared more aggressive clinically at initial evaluation but still had posttreatment outcomes with mild dyschromia similar to the lesions only treated once (Figure, A–D). Of those 2 lesions, the 9-mm lesion on the back (Figure, C and D) might have been larger than clinically apparent; in hindsight, it might have responded to a single treatment had it been premarginated. (An additional factor to have considered is the patient’s immunosuppressed status, which might have led to a more resistant lesion. Larger trials would help elucidate whether an immunosuppressed patient requires a different treatment approach, broader treatment area, OCT premargination regardless of anatomic location, or a greater number of treatments.) Nevertheless, the 2 aforementioned patients were offered treatment with the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser because they refused surgery, radiation, and other more aggressive modalities. The patients were given advanced warning of an increased possibility of recurrence or nonclearance.

Most lesions in our study have not been followed long-term; median noninvasive OCT follow-up was 64 days; however, the longest follow-up from our data set is longer than 1 year posttreatment (371 days). We have used OCT to establish clearance, which also will allow us to continue using imaging to monitor for changes that might indicate recurrence. Although OCT is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as a validated means of diagnosing and detecting BCC, numerous studies have suggested that this modality has high sensitivity (95.7%) and specificity (75.3%) for features of BCC as well as the more critical high negative predictive value (92.1%) for noninvasive management.^22-24

Furthermore, setting up the lesions to be monitored long-term using OCT is likely to be more sensitive than monitoring lesions by clinical examination alone, as they have been followed in studies to date. In fact, an earlier study of 115 lesions by the PI found that utilizing OCT significantly improved sensitivity and specificity for detecting BCC (P<.01); improved diagnostic certainty by a factor of 4 compared to clinical examination alone; and improved overall diagnostic accuracy by 50% compared to clinical and dermoscopic examinations.¹⁹

Conclusion

Traditional approaches to BCC management usually involve multiple visits: the initial encounter, which might or might not include biopsy, and a return visit for more definitive management. Reflectance confocal microscopy enables live diagnosis and facilitates targeted same-day treatment of BCC. Our pilot study has contributed data to support the further investigation and use of the Nd:YAG laser to treat BCC in combination with early detection with noninvasive diagnosis for a more patient-driven approach. For some patients as well as for dermatologists, the potential for increased efficiency of same-day diagnosis and treatment might provide a clear advantage.

The increasing incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is a serious public health concern.¹ Lesions often are identified on routine total-body examination, and there is a considerate burden on dermatologists to diagnose these lesions, which is both costly and results in a long wait time to see a specialist. Furthermore, standard care requires patients to attend multiple visits for the diagnosis and treatment of NMSC.

In recent decades, diagnosing basal cell carcinoma (BCC) has been facilitated by the handheld dermatoscope. The advent of dermoscopy has led to increased sensitivity and specificity of the NMSC diagnosis (estimated at 95%–99%) and has helped facilitate earlier diagnosis of BCC and reduce unnecessary biopsy of benign lesions.^2-5 Dermoscopy also can be useful in monitoring response to treatment.⁵ Lesions that are detected early tend to be easier and less expensive to treat, a strong argument for the use of early detection techniques.^6-8

More recently, in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM)(Vivascope 1500 [Caliber I.D.]) has become an acceptable means for confirming a BCC diagnosis, offering an alternative to tissue biopsy. Reflectance confocal microscopy can be reimbursed under Category I Current Procedural Terminology codes 96931 to 96936.⁹ Reflectance confocal microscopy is a noninvasive diagnostic technique that uses an 830-nm diode laser to enable visualization of a 0.5×0.5-mm patch of skin to a depth of 200 to 300 μm, which corresponds roughly to the papillary dermis. Reflectance confocal microscopy has the advantage of providing real-time diagnosis, enabling same-day treatment of BCC, and providing an efficient alternative to biopsy. Ultimately, these advantages are beneficial and time-saving for patients because biopsies can be painful; create a delay in diagnosis; and require further follow-up visits for treatment, which may be of importance to patients who have trouble attending multiple appointments.

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is another noninvasive imaging device that is useful in BCC management. It uses an infrared broadband light source to visualize skin architecture to 2-mm deep with a 6×6-mm field of view.¹⁰ Although OCT does not offer the same cellular clarity as RCM, it allows visualization of a greater depth of skin and a wider field of view, making it a useful tool both in marginating NMSCs prior to treatment and monitoring response to treatment over time.^11-16 Optical coherence tomography has demonstrated a high negative predictive value (92.1%) for BCC, which makes it useful for ruling out residual tumor in lesions undergoing management.^17-19

With all available options, BCC management benefits from care that is tailored to the individual and the lesion, taking into account size and subtype because not every available treatment is appropriate. Lasers, including solid state, diode, dye, and gas types, are emerging as promising minimally invasive treatment modalities.^20,21

Nonablative laser therapy with a pulsed dye laser (PDL) and fractional laser is an example; the principal investigator (PI) of this study (O.M.) recently reported a 95.70% clearance rate utilizing a PDL and fractional laser protocol.²² The 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser also has been used with PDL and as a stand-alone treatment. Jalian et al²³ used PDL and the Nd:YAG laser on 13 BCC lesions, with a 58% (7/12) clearance rate after 4 treatments; all nonresponders were taking an anticoagulant, which inhibited the laser’s mechanism of action, according to the researchers.

Moskalik et al²⁴ published a report of 3346 facial BCC lesions treated with pulsed Nd and pulsed Nd:YAG lasers, and included follow-up for as long as 5 years, with a 3.7% recurrence rate. Another report by Moskalik et al²⁵ recorded a recurrence rate of 2.2% to 3.1% for BCCs that were followed for at least 5 years.

Ortiz et al²⁶ reported use of the long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser to treat 13 lesions with biopsy-confirmed BCC on the trunk and extremities, with a 92% (12/13) clearance rate based on histologic analysis 1 month after laser treatment. In an expanded study of 31 patients by Ortiz et al,²⁷ the histologic clearance rate was 90.3% (28/31)—also obtained after 1 month—after 1 Nd:YAG laser treatment, also treating lesions on the trunk and extremities. A further retrospective review of Nd:YAG laser treatment of BCC revealed a 100% clearance rate for 16 lesions (including lesions on the face) that were monitored for at least 6 months (mean duration, 9 months; range, 6–15 months).²⁸ Optical coherence tomography imaging was used for one of the review’s lesions before and after treatment and suggested that the Nd:YAG laser works by selectively destroying the vasculature supplying BCC tumors while preserving surrounding healthy tissue.²⁸

Apart from Moskalik et al,^24,25 these studies are limited by a relatively short follow-up time to confirm tumor clearance. Prior studies utilizing the Nd:YAG laser to treat BCC are summarized in the eTable.

Our study attempts to further evaluate the efficacy of the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser in treating BCC while leveraging noninvasive imaging technology. The objective was to perform a retrospective review of medical records of a subgroup of patients with BCC diagnosed by RCM who were treated with the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser and monitored for clearance using OCT imaging, in addition to clinical and dermoscopic examination. Similar to prior long-term Nd:YAG laser follow-up studies, we aimed to demonstrate the possibility of a minimally invasive BCC management approach—in our protocol, utilizing imaging instead of biopsy to facilitate long-term follow-up and by offering a model for patient-driven care.

Methods

Study Design
Institutional review board approval was received from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Program for the Protection of Human Subjects (New York, New York). We performed a retrospective review of medical records of patients diagnosed by RCM and treated with a 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser, as an alternative to surgery, at the Mount Sinai Faculty Practice Associates between March 2018 and August 2018. Included in this pilot study are 17 lesions in 16 patients.

Inclusion Criteria
Patients were enrolled based on the following criteria: BCCs diagnosed by clinical and dermoscopic examination followed by RCM imaging; treatment with the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser, because of patients’ preference for this modality over surgery, superficial radiation therapy, topical regimens, and other laser therapies that require more visits; eligibility by PI included limited clinical ulceration or bleeding (or both) and a safe distance from the eye when wearing an external eye shield (ie, outside the orbital rim). The PI performed a detailed and thorough clinical and dermoscopic skin examination, enabling early detection of the BCCs. Basal cell carcinomas were not included if they exhibited rolled borders, visible ulceration, or oozing growths that allowed for treatment of less-advanced tumors. The PI utilized a clinical and dermoscopic color wheel algorithm to identify suspicious lesions combined with RCM for diagnostic confirmation.²⁹

Two of 17 lesions that did not present as early lesions were included in the study due to patient refusal of surgery or radiation. We consider more advanced tumors to be exophytic, bleeding, crusting, nonhealing ulcerative growths. Patients who had received prior laser treatment with the PI’s PDL with fractional laser protocol with subsequent recurrence at the treatment site were included in the study. Lesions receiving concurrent or prior nonsurgical therapy, such as a topical immunomodulator or oral hedgehog inhibitor, were excluded.

Treatment Protocol
All patients attended the private clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital of a pigmented lesion expert (O.M.) for routine skin cancer screening. Patients with lesions suspicious for BCC—based on clinical and dermoscopic features—were offered tissue biopsy or RCM. Following diagnosis with RCM, treatment options were discussed, and patients were offered laser treatment when surgical options were declined. Topical treatment options were not emphasized because they require weeks of application to be effective and have been studied mainly in superficial BCC management.^30,31

Patients with early lesions were offered either the PDL with fractional laser or Nd:YAG protocol, with their understanding that the Nd:YAG laser protocol would likely involve fewer treatments but a higher likelihood of residual hyperpigmentation or potential scarring (or both) than the more gentle PDL with fractional laser treatment.

All lesions on the face were premarginated using OCT by obtaining central scans and 4 additional scans—above, below, to the left, and to the right of the lesion—to ensure targeted laser treatment with desirable cosmetic results. Facial premargination scans were mandatory; however, patients with lesions on the trunk or extremities were offered the option to have pretreatment margination as an out-of-pocket expense. We did not require premargination of lesions on the body because of their location on less cosmetically critical areas. Most patients declined the optional scans.

This can be considered analogous to the situation in which more insurers reimburse Mohs surgery for cosmetically challenging areas such as the head and neck, while limiting reimbursement for treatment of lesions on the trunk and upper extremities to simple excision. Given cosmetic concerns on the head and neck compared to the body, some patients found it acceptable to have slightly increased dyschromia over a broader treatment area of non–cosmetically critical locations on the body.

Optical coherence tomography imaging was required for all anatomic locations at follow-up visits to detect residual disease or confirm clearance. All patients were given thorough information about the treatment, additional costs, treatment alternatives, potential adverse effects, and complications.

Clinical and dermoscopic images were obtained at every visit using a commercially available point-and-shoot digital single-lens reflex camera for clinical photographs, with an attached DermLite DL3N (3Gen) dermatoscope for all contact polarized dermoscopic photography.

Laser treatment was carried out with the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser. Setting ranges were similar to previously published studies that used the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser to treat BCCs (spot sizes, 5–6 mm; fluences, 125–140 J/cm²; pulse durations, 7–10 milliseconds).^26-28 The exact settings and number of passes were tailored to the individual lesion based on skin type, anatomic location, extent of tumor involvement by depth (and margin on facial lesions), and posttreatment dermoscopic confirmation of clearance; additionally, for facial lesions, OCT confirmation of clearance.

Laser treatment was provided by the PI. Patients were instructed to apply a thick emollient (ie, formulation of petrolatum or 100% petrolatum) after treatment and until the area healed.

All tumors received 1 to 3 treatments at an interval of 1 to 2 months. The treatment end point was complete clearance, judged by absence of skin cancer clinically, dermoscopically, and on OCT scan. More specifically, the PI looked for vascular changes and echogenic changes on OCT consistent with tumor clearance as well as dermoscopic disappearance of recognized BCC features.

Patients were asked to return for follow-up visits 2 months after the final treatment to evaluate tumor clearance. They were asked to return subsequently every 6 to 12 months for routine care and long-term follow-up.

Results

Patient Characteristics
A total of 16 patients (6 female, 10 male) with 17 BCCs were included in this study. Mean age was 68 years (median, 71.5 years; range; 48–89 years). Mean lesion size was 7.1 mm (median, 6 mm; range, 3–15 mm). Eight lesions were on the face; 9 were on extrafacial sites. Two lesions had a history of laser treatment with the PI’s PDL with fractional laser treatment protocol and had locally recurred. Subtypes of lesions were not elicited by RCM.

Outcomes
Fourteen lesions (14/17 [82.4%]) required 1 treatment to achieve clearance, as confirmed clinically, dermoscopically, and by OCT scanning. One lesion on the back (1/17 [5.8%]) required 2 treatments (70 days between treatments). Two lesions (2/17 [11.8%]) required 3 treatments (time between treatments: 49 and 61 days [lesion 1]; 62 and 64 days [lesion 2]). Lesion 1 was on the face; lesion 2 was on the back. Mean time between last treatment and OCT clearance scan was 103 days (median, 64 days; range, 48–371 days).

Comment

Our study supports the notion that the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser is a viable option for treating BCC. All (100%) lesions cleared, most (82.4%) with a single treatment. Of course, for patients who required more than 1 treatment (17.6%), we cannot make an argument for fewer patient visits because those patients had to return for multiple laser treatments, but they were able to avoid surgery, as they had wanted. Overall, our diagnostic approach utilizing RCM as opposed to traditional tissue biopsy meant that patients’ skin cancers were diagnosed and treated the same day.

A one-stop shop for diagnosis and treatment model has been reported by Kadouch et al³² as part of a randomized controlled trial in which patients were randomly assigned to receive standard care for BCC—biopsy followed by surgical excision—or RCM diagnosis followed by surgical excision. Their outcome was tumor-free margins after surgical treatment; the RCM approach was found to be noninferior to standard care.³² Our retrospective study differs, of course, in its laser treatment approach; however, both studies investigated a potentially more efficient pathway to BCC management, which becomes increasingly relevant given the rising incidence of NMSC.

A real-time, image-based diagnostic approach combined with laser treatment delivers patient-driven care, offering choice and convenience. It might be optimal for patients who have an extensive history of BCC, are poor surgical candidates, have difficulty with the logistics of the multiple visits required for surgical management, cannot (for practical reasons) spend multiple hours in office between Mohs stages, and do not want potentially disfiguring scars, making a minimally invasive treatment preferable.

As we found in our sample, not all patients are amenable to undergoing what is regarded now as the most definitive treatment—namely, surgical options. This subset of patients, whose lesions require more definitive treatment but who do not desire invasive management, need alternative approaches to BCC treatment. The present study proposes a model of patient-driven care that requires collaboration between physician and patient, offering more customized care that takes into account patient choice.

In our study, most patients had lesions that were detected early in their evolution; these lesions might be particularly amenable to laser management. The 2 resistant lesions in our set—requiring 3 treatments—appeared more aggressive clinically at initial evaluation but still had posttreatment outcomes with mild dyschromia similar to the lesions only treated once (Figure, A–D). Of those 2 lesions, the 9-mm lesion on the back (Figure, C and D) might have been larger than clinically apparent; in hindsight, it might have responded to a single treatment had it been premarginated. (An additional factor to have considered is the patient’s immunosuppressed status, which might have led to a more resistant lesion. Larger trials would help elucidate whether an immunosuppressed patient requires a different treatment approach, broader treatment area, OCT premargination regardless of anatomic location, or a greater number of treatments.) Nevertheless, the 2 aforementioned patients were offered treatment with the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser because they refused surgery, radiation, and other more aggressive modalities. The patients were given advanced warning of an increased possibility of recurrence or nonclearance.

Most lesions in our study have not been followed long-term; median noninvasive OCT follow-up was 64 days; however, the longest follow-up from our data set is longer than 1 year posttreatment (371 days). We have used OCT to establish clearance, which also will allow us to continue using imaging to monitor for changes that might indicate recurrence. Although OCT is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as a validated means of diagnosing and detecting BCC, numerous studies have suggested that this modality has high sensitivity (95.7%) and specificity (75.3%) for features of BCC as well as the more critical high negative predictive value (92.1%) for noninvasive management.^22-24

Furthermore, setting up the lesions to be monitored long-term using OCT is likely to be more sensitive than monitoring lesions by clinical examination alone, as they have been followed in studies to date. In fact, an earlier study of 115 lesions by the PI found that utilizing OCT significantly improved sensitivity and specificity for detecting BCC (P<.01); improved diagnostic certainty by a factor of 4 compared to clinical examination alone; and improved overall diagnostic accuracy by 50% compared to clinical and dermoscopic examinations.¹⁹

Conclusion

Traditional approaches to BCC management usually involve multiple visits: the initial encounter, which might or might not include biopsy, and a return visit for more definitive management. Reflectance confocal microscopy enables live diagnosis and facilitates targeted same-day treatment of BCC. Our pilot study has contributed data to support the further investigation and use of the Nd:YAG laser to treat BCC in combination with early detection with noninvasive diagnosis for a more patient-driven approach. For some patients as well as for dermatologists, the potential for increased efficiency of same-day diagnosis and treatment might provide a clear advantage.

The increasing incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is a serious public health concern.¹ Lesions often are identified on routine total-body examination, and there is a considerate burden on dermatologists to diagnose these lesions, which is both costly and results in a long wait time to see a specialist. Furthermore, standard care requires patients to attend multiple visits for the diagnosis and treatment of NMSC.

In recent decades, diagnosing basal cell carcinoma (BCC) has been facilitated by the handheld dermatoscope. The advent of dermoscopy has led to increased sensitivity and specificity of the NMSC diagnosis (estimated at 95%–99%) and has helped facilitate earlier diagnosis of BCC and reduce unnecessary biopsy of benign lesions.^2-5 Dermoscopy also can be useful in monitoring response to treatment.⁵ Lesions that are detected early tend to be easier and less expensive to treat, a strong argument for the use of early detection techniques.^6-8

More recently, in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM)(Vivascope 1500 [Caliber I.D.]) has become an acceptable means for confirming a BCC diagnosis, offering an alternative to tissue biopsy. Reflectance confocal microscopy can be reimbursed under Category I Current Procedural Terminology codes 96931 to 96936.⁹ Reflectance confocal microscopy is a noninvasive diagnostic technique that uses an 830-nm diode laser to enable visualization of a 0.5×0.5-mm patch of skin to a depth of 200 to 300 μm, which corresponds roughly to the papillary dermis. Reflectance confocal microscopy has the advantage of providing real-time diagnosis, enabling same-day treatment of BCC, and providing an efficient alternative to biopsy. Ultimately, these advantages are beneficial and time-saving for patients because biopsies can be painful; create a delay in diagnosis; and require further follow-up visits for treatment, which may be of importance to patients who have trouble attending multiple appointments.

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is another noninvasive imaging device that is useful in BCC management. It uses an infrared broadband light source to visualize skin architecture to 2-mm deep with a 6×6-mm field of view.¹⁰ Although OCT does not offer the same cellular clarity as RCM, it allows visualization of a greater depth of skin and a wider field of view, making it a useful tool both in marginating NMSCs prior to treatment and monitoring response to treatment over time.^11-16 Optical coherence tomography has demonstrated a high negative predictive value (92.1%) for BCC, which makes it useful for ruling out residual tumor in lesions undergoing management.^17-19

With all available options, BCC management benefits from care that is tailored to the individual and the lesion, taking into account size and subtype because not every available treatment is appropriate. Lasers, including solid state, diode, dye, and gas types, are emerging as promising minimally invasive treatment modalities.^20,21

Nonablative laser therapy with a pulsed dye laser (PDL) and fractional laser is an example; the principal investigator (PI) of this study (O.M.) recently reported a 95.70% clearance rate utilizing a PDL and fractional laser protocol.²² The 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser also has been used with PDL and as a stand-alone treatment. Jalian et al²³ used PDL and the Nd:YAG laser on 13 BCC lesions, with a 58% (7/12) clearance rate after 4 treatments; all nonresponders were taking an anticoagulant, which inhibited the laser’s mechanism of action, according to the researchers.

Moskalik et al²⁴ published a report of 3346 facial BCC lesions treated with pulsed Nd and pulsed Nd:YAG lasers, and included follow-up for as long as 5 years, with a 3.7% recurrence rate. Another report by Moskalik et al²⁵ recorded a recurrence rate of 2.2% to 3.1% for BCCs that were followed for at least 5 years.

Ortiz et al²⁶ reported use of the long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser to treat 13 lesions with biopsy-confirmed BCC on the trunk and extremities, with a 92% (12/13) clearance rate based on histologic analysis 1 month after laser treatment. In an expanded study of 31 patients by Ortiz et al,²⁷ the histologic clearance rate was 90.3% (28/31)—also obtained after 1 month—after 1 Nd:YAG laser treatment, also treating lesions on the trunk and extremities. A further retrospective review of Nd:YAG laser treatment of BCC revealed a 100% clearance rate for 16 lesions (including lesions on the face) that were monitored for at least 6 months (mean duration, 9 months; range, 6–15 months).²⁸ Optical coherence tomography imaging was used for one of the review’s lesions before and after treatment and suggested that the Nd:YAG laser works by selectively destroying the vasculature supplying BCC tumors while preserving surrounding healthy tissue.²⁸

Apart from Moskalik et al,^24,25 these studies are limited by a relatively short follow-up time to confirm tumor clearance. Prior studies utilizing the Nd:YAG laser to treat BCC are summarized in the eTable.

Our study attempts to further evaluate the efficacy of the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser in treating BCC while leveraging noninvasive imaging technology. The objective was to perform a retrospective review of medical records of a subgroup of patients with BCC diagnosed by RCM who were treated with the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser and monitored for clearance using OCT imaging, in addition to clinical and dermoscopic examination. Similar to prior long-term Nd:YAG laser follow-up studies, we aimed to demonstrate the possibility of a minimally invasive BCC management approach—in our protocol, utilizing imaging instead of biopsy to facilitate long-term follow-up and by offering a model for patient-driven care.

Methods

Study Design
Institutional review board approval was received from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Program for the Protection of Human Subjects (New York, New York). We performed a retrospective review of medical records of patients diagnosed by RCM and treated with a 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser, as an alternative to surgery, at the Mount Sinai Faculty Practice Associates between March 2018 and August 2018. Included in this pilot study are 17 lesions in 16 patients.

Inclusion Criteria
Patients were enrolled based on the following criteria: BCCs diagnosed by clinical and dermoscopic examination followed by RCM imaging; treatment with the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser, because of patients’ preference for this modality over surgery, superficial radiation therapy, topical regimens, and other laser therapies that require more visits; eligibility by PI included limited clinical ulceration or bleeding (or both) and a safe distance from the eye when wearing an external eye shield (ie, outside the orbital rim). The PI performed a detailed and thorough clinical and dermoscopic skin examination, enabling early detection of the BCCs. Basal cell carcinomas were not included if they exhibited rolled borders, visible ulceration, or oozing growths that allowed for treatment of less-advanced tumors. The PI utilized a clinical and dermoscopic color wheel algorithm to identify suspicious lesions combined with RCM for diagnostic confirmation.²⁹

Two of 17 lesions that did not present as early lesions were included in the study due to patient refusal of surgery or radiation. We consider more advanced tumors to be exophytic, bleeding, crusting, nonhealing ulcerative growths. Patients who had received prior laser treatment with the PI’s PDL with fractional laser protocol with subsequent recurrence at the treatment site were included in the study. Lesions receiving concurrent or prior nonsurgical therapy, such as a topical immunomodulator or oral hedgehog inhibitor, were excluded.

Treatment Protocol
All patients attended the private clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital of a pigmented lesion expert (O.M.) for routine skin cancer screening. Patients with lesions suspicious for BCC—based on clinical and dermoscopic features—were offered tissue biopsy or RCM. Following diagnosis with RCM, treatment options were discussed, and patients were offered laser treatment when surgical options were declined. Topical treatment options were not emphasized because they require weeks of application to be effective and have been studied mainly in superficial BCC management.^30,31

Patients with early lesions were offered either the PDL with fractional laser or Nd:YAG protocol, with their understanding that the Nd:YAG laser protocol would likely involve fewer treatments but a higher likelihood of residual hyperpigmentation or potential scarring (or both) than the more gentle PDL with fractional laser treatment.

All lesions on the face were premarginated using OCT by obtaining central scans and 4 additional scans—above, below, to the left, and to the right of the lesion—to ensure targeted laser treatment with desirable cosmetic results. Facial premargination scans were mandatory; however, patients with lesions on the trunk or extremities were offered the option to have pretreatment margination as an out-of-pocket expense. We did not require premargination of lesions on the body because of their location on less cosmetically critical areas. Most patients declined the optional scans.

This can be considered analogous to the situation in which more insurers reimburse Mohs surgery for cosmetically challenging areas such as the head and neck, while limiting reimbursement for treatment of lesions on the trunk and upper extremities to simple excision. Given cosmetic concerns on the head and neck compared to the body, some patients found it acceptable to have slightly increased dyschromia over a broader treatment area of non–cosmetically critical locations on the body.

Optical coherence tomography imaging was required for all anatomic locations at follow-up visits to detect residual disease or confirm clearance. All patients were given thorough information about the treatment, additional costs, treatment alternatives, potential adverse effects, and complications.

Clinical and dermoscopic images were obtained at every visit using a commercially available point-and-shoot digital single-lens reflex camera for clinical photographs, with an attached DermLite DL3N (3Gen) dermatoscope for all contact polarized dermoscopic photography.

Laser treatment was carried out with the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser. Setting ranges were similar to previously published studies that used the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser to treat BCCs (spot sizes, 5–6 mm; fluences, 125–140 J/cm²; pulse durations, 7–10 milliseconds).^26-28 The exact settings and number of passes were tailored to the individual lesion based on skin type, anatomic location, extent of tumor involvement by depth (and margin on facial lesions), and posttreatment dermoscopic confirmation of clearance; additionally, for facial lesions, OCT confirmation of clearance.

Laser treatment was provided by the PI. Patients were instructed to apply a thick emollient (ie, formulation of petrolatum or 100% petrolatum) after treatment and until the area healed.

All tumors received 1 to 3 treatments at an interval of 1 to 2 months. The treatment end point was complete clearance, judged by absence of skin cancer clinically, dermoscopically, and on OCT scan. More specifically, the PI looked for vascular changes and echogenic changes on OCT consistent with tumor clearance as well as dermoscopic disappearance of recognized BCC features.

Patients were asked to return for follow-up visits 2 months after the final treatment to evaluate tumor clearance. They were asked to return subsequently every 6 to 12 months for routine care and long-term follow-up.

Results

Patient Characteristics
A total of 16 patients (6 female, 10 male) with 17 BCCs were included in this study. Mean age was 68 years (median, 71.5 years; range; 48–89 years). Mean lesion size was 7.1 mm (median, 6 mm; range, 3–15 mm). Eight lesions were on the face; 9 were on extrafacial sites. Two lesions had a history of laser treatment with the PI’s PDL with fractional laser treatment protocol and had locally recurred. Subtypes of lesions were not elicited by RCM.

Outcomes
Fourteen lesions (14/17 [82.4%]) required 1 treatment to achieve clearance, as confirmed clinically, dermoscopically, and by OCT scanning. One lesion on the back (1/17 [5.8%]) required 2 treatments (70 days between treatments). Two lesions (2/17 [11.8%]) required 3 treatments (time between treatments: 49 and 61 days [lesion 1]; 62 and 64 days [lesion 2]). Lesion 1 was on the face; lesion 2 was on the back. Mean time between last treatment and OCT clearance scan was 103 days (median, 64 days; range, 48–371 days).

Comment

Our study supports the notion that the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser is a viable option for treating BCC. All (100%) lesions cleared, most (82.4%) with a single treatment. Of course, for patients who required more than 1 treatment (17.6%), we cannot make an argument for fewer patient visits because those patients had to return for multiple laser treatments, but they were able to avoid surgery, as they had wanted. Overall, our diagnostic approach utilizing RCM as opposed to traditional tissue biopsy meant that patients’ skin cancers were diagnosed and treated the same day.

A one-stop shop for diagnosis and treatment model has been reported by Kadouch et al³² as part of a randomized controlled trial in which patients were randomly assigned to receive standard care for BCC—biopsy followed by surgical excision—or RCM diagnosis followed by surgical excision. Their outcome was tumor-free margins after surgical treatment; the RCM approach was found to be noninferior to standard care.³² Our retrospective study differs, of course, in its laser treatment approach; however, both studies investigated a potentially more efficient pathway to BCC management, which becomes increasingly relevant given the rising incidence of NMSC.

A real-time, image-based diagnostic approach combined with laser treatment delivers patient-driven care, offering choice and convenience. It might be optimal for patients who have an extensive history of BCC, are poor surgical candidates, have difficulty with the logistics of the multiple visits required for surgical management, cannot (for practical reasons) spend multiple hours in office between Mohs stages, and do not want potentially disfiguring scars, making a minimally invasive treatment preferable.

As we found in our sample, not all patients are amenable to undergoing what is regarded now as the most definitive treatment—namely, surgical options. This subset of patients, whose lesions require more definitive treatment but who do not desire invasive management, need alternative approaches to BCC treatment. The present study proposes a model of patient-driven care that requires collaboration between physician and patient, offering more customized care that takes into account patient choice.

In our study, most patients had lesions that were detected early in their evolution; these lesions might be particularly amenable to laser management. The 2 resistant lesions in our set—requiring 3 treatments—appeared more aggressive clinically at initial evaluation but still had posttreatment outcomes with mild dyschromia similar to the lesions only treated once (Figure, A–D). Of those 2 lesions, the 9-mm lesion on the back (Figure, C and D) might have been larger than clinically apparent; in hindsight, it might have responded to a single treatment had it been premarginated. (An additional factor to have considered is the patient’s immunosuppressed status, which might have led to a more resistant lesion. Larger trials would help elucidate whether an immunosuppressed patient requires a different treatment approach, broader treatment area, OCT premargination regardless of anatomic location, or a greater number of treatments.) Nevertheless, the 2 aforementioned patients were offered treatment with the 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser because they refused surgery, radiation, and other more aggressive modalities. The patients were given advanced warning of an increased possibility of recurrence or nonclearance.

Most lesions in our study have not been followed long-term; median noninvasive OCT follow-up was 64 days; however, the longest follow-up from our data set is longer than 1 year posttreatment (371 days). We have used OCT to establish clearance, which also will allow us to continue using imaging to monitor for changes that might indicate recurrence. Although OCT is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as a validated means of diagnosing and detecting BCC, numerous studies have suggested that this modality has high sensitivity (95.7%) and specificity (75.3%) for features of BCC as well as the more critical high negative predictive value (92.1%) for noninvasive management.^22-24

Furthermore, setting up the lesions to be monitored long-term using OCT is likely to be more sensitive than monitoring lesions by clinical examination alone, as they have been followed in studies to date. In fact, an earlier study of 115 lesions by the PI found that utilizing OCT significantly improved sensitivity and specificity for detecting BCC (P<.01); improved diagnostic certainty by a factor of 4 compared to clinical examination alone; and improved overall diagnostic accuracy by 50% compared to clinical and dermoscopic examinations.¹⁹

Conclusion

Traditional approaches to BCC management usually involve multiple visits: the initial encounter, which might or might not include biopsy, and a return visit for more definitive management. Reflectance confocal microscopy enables live diagnosis and facilitates targeted same-day treatment of BCC. Our pilot study has contributed data to support the further investigation and use of the Nd:YAG laser to treat BCC in combination with early detection with noninvasive diagnosis for a more patient-driven approach. For some patients as well as for dermatologists, the potential for increased efficiency of same-day diagnosis and treatment might provide a clear advantage.