User login
Incipient ulceration may affect prognosis in primary melanoma
TOPLINE:
Incipient ulceration in primary cutaneous melanoma may represent a more biologically aggressive disease population than truly nonulcerated tumors.
METHODOLOGY:
- The final cohort included 40 cases of incipient ulceration that were matched 1:2 with 80 nonulcerated controls and 80 ulcerated controls.
- The prognostic significance of incipient ulceration in cutaneous melanoma is unclear.
- Current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines classify incipient ulceration as nonulcerated.
- In a retrospective case-control study, researchers drew from the Melanoma Institute Australia database to identify resected primary cutaneous melanomas diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 that had slides available at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and a Breslow thickness greater than 0 mm.
- Clinical outcomes compared between cases and controls were recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS).
TAKEAWAY:
- The median Breslow depth was 2.8 mm for incipient cases, compared with 1.0 mm for nonulcerated melanomas and 5.3 mm for ulcerated melanomas, while the median tumor mitotic rate was 5.0 per mm2 for incipient cases, compared with 1 per mm2 in nonulcerated controls and 9 per mm2 in ulcerated controls.
- On univariable analyses, compared with patients with incipiently ulcerated cases, patients with nonulcerated tumors had significantly better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49) and RFS (HR, 0.37), while patients with ulcerated tumors showed worse RFS (HR, 1.67).
- On multivariable analyses, no differences in survival outcomes were observed, perhaps due to the moderate number of incipient ulceration cases included in the study, the authors wrote.
IN PRACTICE:
“Future editions of the AJCC staging system should consider acknowledging this interpretive challenge and provide guidance on how primary melanomas with incipient ulceration should be classified,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
Richard A. Scolyer, MD, a pathologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia, is the senior author on the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and the relatively small number of cases that met criteria for inclusion.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Scolyer disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and personal fees from MetaOptima, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus, QBiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside the submitted work. Four coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Incipient ulceration in primary cutaneous melanoma may represent a more biologically aggressive disease population than truly nonulcerated tumors.
METHODOLOGY:
- The final cohort included 40 cases of incipient ulceration that were matched 1:2 with 80 nonulcerated controls and 80 ulcerated controls.
- The prognostic significance of incipient ulceration in cutaneous melanoma is unclear.
- Current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines classify incipient ulceration as nonulcerated.
- In a retrospective case-control study, researchers drew from the Melanoma Institute Australia database to identify resected primary cutaneous melanomas diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 that had slides available at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and a Breslow thickness greater than 0 mm.
- Clinical outcomes compared between cases and controls were recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS).
TAKEAWAY:
- The median Breslow depth was 2.8 mm for incipient cases, compared with 1.0 mm for nonulcerated melanomas and 5.3 mm for ulcerated melanomas, while the median tumor mitotic rate was 5.0 per mm2 for incipient cases, compared with 1 per mm2 in nonulcerated controls and 9 per mm2 in ulcerated controls.
- On univariable analyses, compared with patients with incipiently ulcerated cases, patients with nonulcerated tumors had significantly better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49) and RFS (HR, 0.37), while patients with ulcerated tumors showed worse RFS (HR, 1.67).
- On multivariable analyses, no differences in survival outcomes were observed, perhaps due to the moderate number of incipient ulceration cases included in the study, the authors wrote.
IN PRACTICE:
“Future editions of the AJCC staging system should consider acknowledging this interpretive challenge and provide guidance on how primary melanomas with incipient ulceration should be classified,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
Richard A. Scolyer, MD, a pathologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia, is the senior author on the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and the relatively small number of cases that met criteria for inclusion.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Scolyer disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and personal fees from MetaOptima, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus, QBiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside the submitted work. Four coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Incipient ulceration in primary cutaneous melanoma may represent a more biologically aggressive disease population than truly nonulcerated tumors.
METHODOLOGY:
- The final cohort included 40 cases of incipient ulceration that were matched 1:2 with 80 nonulcerated controls and 80 ulcerated controls.
- The prognostic significance of incipient ulceration in cutaneous melanoma is unclear.
- Current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines classify incipient ulceration as nonulcerated.
- In a retrospective case-control study, researchers drew from the Melanoma Institute Australia database to identify resected primary cutaneous melanomas diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 that had slides available at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and a Breslow thickness greater than 0 mm.
- Clinical outcomes compared between cases and controls were recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS).
TAKEAWAY:
- The median Breslow depth was 2.8 mm for incipient cases, compared with 1.0 mm for nonulcerated melanomas and 5.3 mm for ulcerated melanomas, while the median tumor mitotic rate was 5.0 per mm2 for incipient cases, compared with 1 per mm2 in nonulcerated controls and 9 per mm2 in ulcerated controls.
- On univariable analyses, compared with patients with incipiently ulcerated cases, patients with nonulcerated tumors had significantly better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49) and RFS (HR, 0.37), while patients with ulcerated tumors showed worse RFS (HR, 1.67).
- On multivariable analyses, no differences in survival outcomes were observed, perhaps due to the moderate number of incipient ulceration cases included in the study, the authors wrote.
IN PRACTICE:
“Future editions of the AJCC staging system should consider acknowledging this interpretive challenge and provide guidance on how primary melanomas with incipient ulceration should be classified,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
Richard A. Scolyer, MD, a pathologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia, is the senior author on the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and the relatively small number of cases that met criteria for inclusion.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Scolyer disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and personal fees from MetaOptima, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus, QBiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside the submitted work. Four coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Novel hydrogel holds promise for skin regeneration
CARLSBAD, CALIF. – For the estimated 10 million wounds that clinicians treat in the United States each year resulting from surgical procedures, trauma, burns, and other causes, the best outcome is a scar, a fibrotic dermis with a flattened epidermis that contains no sweat glands, no pilosebaceous units, and impaired nerve function.
But what if the outcome was skin regeneration instead of scar formation? At the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery, Philip O. Scumpia, MD, PhD, described the .
“We’re preprogrammed to undergo scarring,” said Dr. Scumpia, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Tissue fibrosis is an evolutionary process” where a fibrotic matrix is deposited “as quickly as possible to close the gap caused by an injury,” he noted. “All of the cues in the normal wound healing process result in fibrosis, but we want to move from scarring to tissue regeneration. The goal is to make something that can shift from this evolutionary process, and it’s proven to be inherently difficult.”
Common approaches to wound treatment include simple and advanced dressings, negative pressure, and hyperbaric oxygen. For wounds that persist beyond 30 days, advanced treatment options include decellularized grafts such as placental membranes, amniotic membranes, and acellular dermal matrices. “There are also cellularized grafts such as dressings that contain neonatal dermal fibroblasts,” which are expensive, said Dr. Scumpia, director of dermatopathology at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center. “There are also semi-synthetic grafts such as single or double layer dermal replacement templates and synthetic dermal substitutes in the form of sheets or foam. All of these can help with wound coverage and help chronic wounds close on their own.”
Meanwhile, tissue regeneration – or efforts to restore tissue to its original functionality – include growth factors, stem cells, or replacement extracellular matrix (skin substitutes), or a combination. “Bioengineered dressings and bioengineered skin substitutes have shown modest improvement in wound healing but not tissue regeneration,” Dr. Scumpia said. “At best, we can accelerate scar formation and close the wound quicker, but nothing has been shown to regenerate tissue.”
Approaches to skin regeneration
Studies from the embryology literature have helped researchers develop better approaches to skin regeneration. For example, fetal skin heals without scarring when injured. “Hairs form from placodes, then sebaceous glands form, and fibroblasts that are part of the papillary mesenchymal body expressing special factors such as engrailed or CRABP1 drive hair follicle formation,” he said. “Many studies have shown that sonic hedgehog signaling, and Wnt/beta-catenin signaling can play a role in the development of new hair follicles. Also, fibroblasts in the dermis can drive hair follicle formation.”
Researchers are also learning about tissue regeneration from mouse models. For example, African spiny mice have been shown to heal regeneratively. “If you make wounds large enough on lab mice, the center heals regeneratively,” Dr. Scumpia said. “What’s interesting is that these same signals are present in embryonic hair follicle development. Why is this important? Who wants a hairy scar? It’s an organized structure that develops in the wound. That can help us understand what we need to put in so that our body regenerates on its own. In mouse models, the immune system has been shown to play a role in regeneration.”
Expanding on initial work conducted at UCLA, Dr. Scumpia and his colleagues founded San Diego-based Tempo Therapeutics, which is commercializing the MAP hydrogel to mimic the natural porosity and stiffness of skin. They sought to develop a new biomaterial, he said, noting that “the skin is porous on a microscale level, allowing cells to infiltrate different areas.” And the problem with existing biomaterials “is that they don’t incorporate into the skin very well,” he explained. “They’re usually stiff and rubbery and can cause a foreign body reaction, which can result in fibrous encapsulation and inflammation.”
The MAP hydrogel is composed of randomly packed “microsphere building blocks,” including an amino acid that promotes an immune response. When injected into a wound, the hydrogel forms a porous matrix in the tissue. Surface annealing locks in porosity and tissue grows into porous spaces, which avoids scar formation pathways and enables critical organs to regain function.
During in vivo tests, researchers observed decreases in inflammation compared with traditional hydrogels in the first 48 hours. “In mouse models, we found that if you inject in a hydrogel that has no porosity, the body tries to spit it out, and you have an immune reaction,” Dr. Scumpia said. “But when we used the MAP hydrogel, we found that cells can migrate through it, which allows wounds to heal quicker. When we added an antigen in the hydrogel trying to allow the hydrogel to degrade slower, it actually degraded more rapidly, but we found that new hair follicles formed in the center of these wounds, a hallmark of skin regeneration. My lab has been studying why this occurs and trying to use this to our advantage in other models.”
In an unpublished mouse burn wound model study, he and his colleagues excised a wound, but it never healed with regeneration in the center. “We don’t understand why,” he said. But when the researchers used the MAP gel in wounds of hairless mice, they observed the formation of sebaceous glands and hair follicles over the wound beds. “It’s an exciting finding to see hair follicles develop in the center of a wound,” Dr. Scumpia said. He noted that to date, use of the MAP hydrogel has demonstrated tissue regeneration in some of the 27 veterinary cases that have been performed, including for wounds following traumatic injuries or following tumor resections on paws that allowed the pets to avoid amputation.
Clinical trials planned
The first clinical trials of the MAP hydrogel are planned for treating complex diabetic wounds in early 2024 but will likely expand to other difficult-to-treat wounds, including venous stasis ulcers, decubitus ulcers, and use following large surgical resections. Dr. Scumpia and colleagues will also examine the regenerative biomaterial for tissue aesthetics, including dermal and deep tissue filler applications. The next steps in his laboratory, he said, are to combine biomaterials with stem cells, immune factors, or small molecular activators/inhibitors to improve sweat gland, nerve, or hair follicle regeneration.
Dr. Scumpia disclosed that he is a cofounder and shareholder in Tempo Therapeutics. He has also received grant support from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Veteran Affairs, and the LEO Foundation.
CARLSBAD, CALIF. – For the estimated 10 million wounds that clinicians treat in the United States each year resulting from surgical procedures, trauma, burns, and other causes, the best outcome is a scar, a fibrotic dermis with a flattened epidermis that contains no sweat glands, no pilosebaceous units, and impaired nerve function.
But what if the outcome was skin regeneration instead of scar formation? At the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery, Philip O. Scumpia, MD, PhD, described the .
“We’re preprogrammed to undergo scarring,” said Dr. Scumpia, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Tissue fibrosis is an evolutionary process” where a fibrotic matrix is deposited “as quickly as possible to close the gap caused by an injury,” he noted. “All of the cues in the normal wound healing process result in fibrosis, but we want to move from scarring to tissue regeneration. The goal is to make something that can shift from this evolutionary process, and it’s proven to be inherently difficult.”
Common approaches to wound treatment include simple and advanced dressings, negative pressure, and hyperbaric oxygen. For wounds that persist beyond 30 days, advanced treatment options include decellularized grafts such as placental membranes, amniotic membranes, and acellular dermal matrices. “There are also cellularized grafts such as dressings that contain neonatal dermal fibroblasts,” which are expensive, said Dr. Scumpia, director of dermatopathology at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center. “There are also semi-synthetic grafts such as single or double layer dermal replacement templates and synthetic dermal substitutes in the form of sheets or foam. All of these can help with wound coverage and help chronic wounds close on their own.”
Meanwhile, tissue regeneration – or efforts to restore tissue to its original functionality – include growth factors, stem cells, or replacement extracellular matrix (skin substitutes), or a combination. “Bioengineered dressings and bioengineered skin substitutes have shown modest improvement in wound healing but not tissue regeneration,” Dr. Scumpia said. “At best, we can accelerate scar formation and close the wound quicker, but nothing has been shown to regenerate tissue.”
Approaches to skin regeneration
Studies from the embryology literature have helped researchers develop better approaches to skin regeneration. For example, fetal skin heals without scarring when injured. “Hairs form from placodes, then sebaceous glands form, and fibroblasts that are part of the papillary mesenchymal body expressing special factors such as engrailed or CRABP1 drive hair follicle formation,” he said. “Many studies have shown that sonic hedgehog signaling, and Wnt/beta-catenin signaling can play a role in the development of new hair follicles. Also, fibroblasts in the dermis can drive hair follicle formation.”
Researchers are also learning about tissue regeneration from mouse models. For example, African spiny mice have been shown to heal regeneratively. “If you make wounds large enough on lab mice, the center heals regeneratively,” Dr. Scumpia said. “What’s interesting is that these same signals are present in embryonic hair follicle development. Why is this important? Who wants a hairy scar? It’s an organized structure that develops in the wound. That can help us understand what we need to put in so that our body regenerates on its own. In mouse models, the immune system has been shown to play a role in regeneration.”
Expanding on initial work conducted at UCLA, Dr. Scumpia and his colleagues founded San Diego-based Tempo Therapeutics, which is commercializing the MAP hydrogel to mimic the natural porosity and stiffness of skin. They sought to develop a new biomaterial, he said, noting that “the skin is porous on a microscale level, allowing cells to infiltrate different areas.” And the problem with existing biomaterials “is that they don’t incorporate into the skin very well,” he explained. “They’re usually stiff and rubbery and can cause a foreign body reaction, which can result in fibrous encapsulation and inflammation.”
The MAP hydrogel is composed of randomly packed “microsphere building blocks,” including an amino acid that promotes an immune response. When injected into a wound, the hydrogel forms a porous matrix in the tissue. Surface annealing locks in porosity and tissue grows into porous spaces, which avoids scar formation pathways and enables critical organs to regain function.
During in vivo tests, researchers observed decreases in inflammation compared with traditional hydrogels in the first 48 hours. “In mouse models, we found that if you inject in a hydrogel that has no porosity, the body tries to spit it out, and you have an immune reaction,” Dr. Scumpia said. “But when we used the MAP hydrogel, we found that cells can migrate through it, which allows wounds to heal quicker. When we added an antigen in the hydrogel trying to allow the hydrogel to degrade slower, it actually degraded more rapidly, but we found that new hair follicles formed in the center of these wounds, a hallmark of skin regeneration. My lab has been studying why this occurs and trying to use this to our advantage in other models.”
In an unpublished mouse burn wound model study, he and his colleagues excised a wound, but it never healed with regeneration in the center. “We don’t understand why,” he said. But when the researchers used the MAP gel in wounds of hairless mice, they observed the formation of sebaceous glands and hair follicles over the wound beds. “It’s an exciting finding to see hair follicles develop in the center of a wound,” Dr. Scumpia said. He noted that to date, use of the MAP hydrogel has demonstrated tissue regeneration in some of the 27 veterinary cases that have been performed, including for wounds following traumatic injuries or following tumor resections on paws that allowed the pets to avoid amputation.
Clinical trials planned
The first clinical trials of the MAP hydrogel are planned for treating complex diabetic wounds in early 2024 but will likely expand to other difficult-to-treat wounds, including venous stasis ulcers, decubitus ulcers, and use following large surgical resections. Dr. Scumpia and colleagues will also examine the regenerative biomaterial for tissue aesthetics, including dermal and deep tissue filler applications. The next steps in his laboratory, he said, are to combine biomaterials with stem cells, immune factors, or small molecular activators/inhibitors to improve sweat gland, nerve, or hair follicle regeneration.
Dr. Scumpia disclosed that he is a cofounder and shareholder in Tempo Therapeutics. He has also received grant support from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Veteran Affairs, and the LEO Foundation.
CARLSBAD, CALIF. – For the estimated 10 million wounds that clinicians treat in the United States each year resulting from surgical procedures, trauma, burns, and other causes, the best outcome is a scar, a fibrotic dermis with a flattened epidermis that contains no sweat glands, no pilosebaceous units, and impaired nerve function.
But what if the outcome was skin regeneration instead of scar formation? At the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery, Philip O. Scumpia, MD, PhD, described the .
“We’re preprogrammed to undergo scarring,” said Dr. Scumpia, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Tissue fibrosis is an evolutionary process” where a fibrotic matrix is deposited “as quickly as possible to close the gap caused by an injury,” he noted. “All of the cues in the normal wound healing process result in fibrosis, but we want to move from scarring to tissue regeneration. The goal is to make something that can shift from this evolutionary process, and it’s proven to be inherently difficult.”
Common approaches to wound treatment include simple and advanced dressings, negative pressure, and hyperbaric oxygen. For wounds that persist beyond 30 days, advanced treatment options include decellularized grafts such as placental membranes, amniotic membranes, and acellular dermal matrices. “There are also cellularized grafts such as dressings that contain neonatal dermal fibroblasts,” which are expensive, said Dr. Scumpia, director of dermatopathology at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center. “There are also semi-synthetic grafts such as single or double layer dermal replacement templates and synthetic dermal substitutes in the form of sheets or foam. All of these can help with wound coverage and help chronic wounds close on their own.”
Meanwhile, tissue regeneration – or efforts to restore tissue to its original functionality – include growth factors, stem cells, or replacement extracellular matrix (skin substitutes), or a combination. “Bioengineered dressings and bioengineered skin substitutes have shown modest improvement in wound healing but not tissue regeneration,” Dr. Scumpia said. “At best, we can accelerate scar formation and close the wound quicker, but nothing has been shown to regenerate tissue.”
Approaches to skin regeneration
Studies from the embryology literature have helped researchers develop better approaches to skin regeneration. For example, fetal skin heals without scarring when injured. “Hairs form from placodes, then sebaceous glands form, and fibroblasts that are part of the papillary mesenchymal body expressing special factors such as engrailed or CRABP1 drive hair follicle formation,” he said. “Many studies have shown that sonic hedgehog signaling, and Wnt/beta-catenin signaling can play a role in the development of new hair follicles. Also, fibroblasts in the dermis can drive hair follicle formation.”
Researchers are also learning about tissue regeneration from mouse models. For example, African spiny mice have been shown to heal regeneratively. “If you make wounds large enough on lab mice, the center heals regeneratively,” Dr. Scumpia said. “What’s interesting is that these same signals are present in embryonic hair follicle development. Why is this important? Who wants a hairy scar? It’s an organized structure that develops in the wound. That can help us understand what we need to put in so that our body regenerates on its own. In mouse models, the immune system has been shown to play a role in regeneration.”
Expanding on initial work conducted at UCLA, Dr. Scumpia and his colleagues founded San Diego-based Tempo Therapeutics, which is commercializing the MAP hydrogel to mimic the natural porosity and stiffness of skin. They sought to develop a new biomaterial, he said, noting that “the skin is porous on a microscale level, allowing cells to infiltrate different areas.” And the problem with existing biomaterials “is that they don’t incorporate into the skin very well,” he explained. “They’re usually stiff and rubbery and can cause a foreign body reaction, which can result in fibrous encapsulation and inflammation.”
The MAP hydrogel is composed of randomly packed “microsphere building blocks,” including an amino acid that promotes an immune response. When injected into a wound, the hydrogel forms a porous matrix in the tissue. Surface annealing locks in porosity and tissue grows into porous spaces, which avoids scar formation pathways and enables critical organs to regain function.
During in vivo tests, researchers observed decreases in inflammation compared with traditional hydrogels in the first 48 hours. “In mouse models, we found that if you inject in a hydrogel that has no porosity, the body tries to spit it out, and you have an immune reaction,” Dr. Scumpia said. “But when we used the MAP hydrogel, we found that cells can migrate through it, which allows wounds to heal quicker. When we added an antigen in the hydrogel trying to allow the hydrogel to degrade slower, it actually degraded more rapidly, but we found that new hair follicles formed in the center of these wounds, a hallmark of skin regeneration. My lab has been studying why this occurs and trying to use this to our advantage in other models.”
In an unpublished mouse burn wound model study, he and his colleagues excised a wound, but it never healed with regeneration in the center. “We don’t understand why,” he said. But when the researchers used the MAP gel in wounds of hairless mice, they observed the formation of sebaceous glands and hair follicles over the wound beds. “It’s an exciting finding to see hair follicles develop in the center of a wound,” Dr. Scumpia said. He noted that to date, use of the MAP hydrogel has demonstrated tissue regeneration in some of the 27 veterinary cases that have been performed, including for wounds following traumatic injuries or following tumor resections on paws that allowed the pets to avoid amputation.
Clinical trials planned
The first clinical trials of the MAP hydrogel are planned for treating complex diabetic wounds in early 2024 but will likely expand to other difficult-to-treat wounds, including venous stasis ulcers, decubitus ulcers, and use following large surgical resections. Dr. Scumpia and colleagues will also examine the regenerative biomaterial for tissue aesthetics, including dermal and deep tissue filler applications. The next steps in his laboratory, he said, are to combine biomaterials with stem cells, immune factors, or small molecular activators/inhibitors to improve sweat gland, nerve, or hair follicle regeneration.
Dr. Scumpia disclosed that he is a cofounder and shareholder in Tempo Therapeutics. He has also received grant support from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Veteran Affairs, and the LEO Foundation.
AT CALDERM 2023
When treating scars, ‘rehabilitation’ is the goal, not perfection
SAN DIEGO – , according to Victor Ross, MD.
“A lot of lip service is paid to how to inject the steroid,” Dr. Ross, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the Scripps Clinic in San Diego, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “The most important part is the amount and the fastidiousness that you have injecting. You should see the tip of the needle and be very slow. Use a 1 cc syringe.” He used to inject scars with triamcinolone acetate 40 mg/mL, but now he almost always injects 10-20 mg/mL to avoid inducing white streak-like atrophy or hypopigmentation around the treated area.
“When you treat a scar, you treat the features of the scar that make it stand out,” Dr. Ross continued. “If it’s red, you address the hyperemia. If it’s brown, you address the pigment. You want to have a reasonable pathophysiological basis for what you’re doing. Understand how the scar got there and have a reasonable algorithm.” When he counsels patients about clinical outcomes to expect, he emphasizes rehabilitation instead of blemish-free perfection. “It’s not making the scar go away,” he said. “It’s not restoring completely normal skin form and function; it’s a restorative effort to get toward normality. That’s what it’s all about.”
Besides injecting scars with triamcinolone acetate, other scar treatment options include intralesional 5-fluorouracil, oral antihistamines, COX-2 inhibitors, hydrogel sheeting, compression, acoustic wave therapy, photodynamic therapy, radiofrequency, and lasers. “I’m not a big fan of low-level light; it probably does something [to scars], but I’m skeptical,” Dr. Ross said.
In his clinical opinion, most scars respond best to treatments with ablative and nonablative fractional lasers tuned to gentle settings such as an energy level of 20 millijoules at a density of 5%-10%. “Every scar deserves a chance for laser remediation and rehabilitation,” he said. “With radiation scars you want to be particularly gentle. If you have a Mohs scar that has been subsequently treated with radiation, I would lower my settings by half, because I’ve had some scars worsen with settings for red scars after radiation therapy.”
He often uses fractional lasers for stubborn acne scarring. “The hyperemic component you can treat with a vascular laser, then come back [and treat the scarring] with a nonablative fractional laser, or you could use radiofrequency microneedling as well,” Dr. Ross said.
New or innovative scar treatments coming down the pike, he said, include the following: mitomycin C (applied topically, he said that this has worked well for postoperative keloids), tamoxifen, oral methotrexate, imiquimod (which has mixed results to date), platelet-rich plasma, and retinoids.
Dr. Ross disclosed having research and financial ties to numerous pharmaceutical and device companies.
SAN DIEGO – , according to Victor Ross, MD.
“A lot of lip service is paid to how to inject the steroid,” Dr. Ross, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the Scripps Clinic in San Diego, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “The most important part is the amount and the fastidiousness that you have injecting. You should see the tip of the needle and be very slow. Use a 1 cc syringe.” He used to inject scars with triamcinolone acetate 40 mg/mL, but now he almost always injects 10-20 mg/mL to avoid inducing white streak-like atrophy or hypopigmentation around the treated area.
“When you treat a scar, you treat the features of the scar that make it stand out,” Dr. Ross continued. “If it’s red, you address the hyperemia. If it’s brown, you address the pigment. You want to have a reasonable pathophysiological basis for what you’re doing. Understand how the scar got there and have a reasonable algorithm.” When he counsels patients about clinical outcomes to expect, he emphasizes rehabilitation instead of blemish-free perfection. “It’s not making the scar go away,” he said. “It’s not restoring completely normal skin form and function; it’s a restorative effort to get toward normality. That’s what it’s all about.”
Besides injecting scars with triamcinolone acetate, other scar treatment options include intralesional 5-fluorouracil, oral antihistamines, COX-2 inhibitors, hydrogel sheeting, compression, acoustic wave therapy, photodynamic therapy, radiofrequency, and lasers. “I’m not a big fan of low-level light; it probably does something [to scars], but I’m skeptical,” Dr. Ross said.
In his clinical opinion, most scars respond best to treatments with ablative and nonablative fractional lasers tuned to gentle settings such as an energy level of 20 millijoules at a density of 5%-10%. “Every scar deserves a chance for laser remediation and rehabilitation,” he said. “With radiation scars you want to be particularly gentle. If you have a Mohs scar that has been subsequently treated with radiation, I would lower my settings by half, because I’ve had some scars worsen with settings for red scars after radiation therapy.”
He often uses fractional lasers for stubborn acne scarring. “The hyperemic component you can treat with a vascular laser, then come back [and treat the scarring] with a nonablative fractional laser, or you could use radiofrequency microneedling as well,” Dr. Ross said.
New or innovative scar treatments coming down the pike, he said, include the following: mitomycin C (applied topically, he said that this has worked well for postoperative keloids), tamoxifen, oral methotrexate, imiquimod (which has mixed results to date), platelet-rich plasma, and retinoids.
Dr. Ross disclosed having research and financial ties to numerous pharmaceutical and device companies.
SAN DIEGO – , according to Victor Ross, MD.
“A lot of lip service is paid to how to inject the steroid,” Dr. Ross, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the Scripps Clinic in San Diego, said at the annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. “The most important part is the amount and the fastidiousness that you have injecting. You should see the tip of the needle and be very slow. Use a 1 cc syringe.” He used to inject scars with triamcinolone acetate 40 mg/mL, but now he almost always injects 10-20 mg/mL to avoid inducing white streak-like atrophy or hypopigmentation around the treated area.
“When you treat a scar, you treat the features of the scar that make it stand out,” Dr. Ross continued. “If it’s red, you address the hyperemia. If it’s brown, you address the pigment. You want to have a reasonable pathophysiological basis for what you’re doing. Understand how the scar got there and have a reasonable algorithm.” When he counsels patients about clinical outcomes to expect, he emphasizes rehabilitation instead of blemish-free perfection. “It’s not making the scar go away,” he said. “It’s not restoring completely normal skin form and function; it’s a restorative effort to get toward normality. That’s what it’s all about.”
Besides injecting scars with triamcinolone acetate, other scar treatment options include intralesional 5-fluorouracil, oral antihistamines, COX-2 inhibitors, hydrogel sheeting, compression, acoustic wave therapy, photodynamic therapy, radiofrequency, and lasers. “I’m not a big fan of low-level light; it probably does something [to scars], but I’m skeptical,” Dr. Ross said.
In his clinical opinion, most scars respond best to treatments with ablative and nonablative fractional lasers tuned to gentle settings such as an energy level of 20 millijoules at a density of 5%-10%. “Every scar deserves a chance for laser remediation and rehabilitation,” he said. “With radiation scars you want to be particularly gentle. If you have a Mohs scar that has been subsequently treated with radiation, I would lower my settings by half, because I’ve had some scars worsen with settings for red scars after radiation therapy.”
He often uses fractional lasers for stubborn acne scarring. “The hyperemic component you can treat with a vascular laser, then come back [and treat the scarring] with a nonablative fractional laser, or you could use radiofrequency microneedling as well,” Dr. Ross said.
New or innovative scar treatments coming down the pike, he said, include the following: mitomycin C (applied topically, he said that this has worked well for postoperative keloids), tamoxifen, oral methotrexate, imiquimod (which has mixed results to date), platelet-rich plasma, and retinoids.
Dr. Ross disclosed having research and financial ties to numerous pharmaceutical and device companies.
FROM MOAS 2023
When is antibiotic prophylaxis required for dermatologic surgery?
SAN DIEGO – The need for antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery depends on the type of procedure, the patient, what infection you’re trying to keep at bay, and the type of wound, according to Tissa Hata, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.
Among the many studies in the medical literature that have examined the use of antibiotics to prevent surgical site infections, one study published in 2006 has the largest number of patients to date, Dr. Hata said at a conference on superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery sponsored by UCSD and Scripps Clinic. In the prospective study of wound infections in patients undergoing dermatologic surgery without prophylactic antibiotics, researchers in Australia prospectively examined 5,091 lesions, mostly nonmelanoma skin cancers, in 2,424 patients over the course of 3 years.
By procedure, the infection rate was highest for skin grafts (8.70%) and wedge excision of the lip or ear (8.57%), followed by skin flap repairs (2.94%), curettage (0.73%), and simple excision and closure (0.54%). By anatomic site, groin excisional surgery had the highest infection rate (10%), followed by surgical procedures below the knee (6.92%), while those performed on the face had a low rate (0.81%). “Based on their analysis, they suggest antibiotic prophylaxis for all procedures below the knee and groin, wedge excisions of the lip and ear, and all skin grafts,” Dr. Hata said.
In 2008, an advisory statement published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology expanded the procedure location and techniques requiring antibiotic prophylaxis to include procedures on the nose and the lower extremity (especially the leg), and for patients with extensive inflammatory disease. According to the statement, in patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin.
In the statement, for patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis regimen for lesions in the groin or on the lower extremities include 2 g oral cephalexin, 1 tablet of oral trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) DS, or 500 mg of levofloxacin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for lesions on the groin and lower extremities is 1 tablet of TMP-SMX DS or 500 mg of levofloxacin.
In 2020, a meta-analysis of surgical site infections in patients undergoing Mohs surgery of the ear and nose found that there was no difference in infections in those locations whether patients received oral antibiotic prophylaxis or not. “But the researchers did not specify the type of closure, whether it was a graft or a flap closure,” Dr. Hata commented.
Endocarditis prophylaxis
Dr. Hata also discussed antibiotic recommendations for endocarditis prophylaxis, noting that the mortality rate from endocarditis is as high as 76%, and an estimated 40% of affected patients require heart valve replacement within 5-8 years. “But the good news is that fewer than 10 cases have been possibly linked to dermatologic procedures,” she said.
During outpatient dermatologic surgery, the incidence of bacteremia is in the range of 1.9%-3%, similar to the incidence of 2% that occurs spontaneously in healthy adults, according to Dr. Hata. She said that the following activities or procedures pose a much higher risk of bacteremia: mastication (17%-24%), tooth brushing (24%-40%), tooth extraction (60%-90%), and incision and drainage of an abscess (38%).
American Heart Association guidelines from 2007 recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in only the highest-risk categories of patients. These guidelines were updated in 2017 to include patients with transcatheter prosthetic valves and those with prosthetic material in valve repair. “The primary reason for revision of guidelines is that endocarditis is much more likely to result from frequent exposure to random bacteremia associated with daily activity such as brushing our teeth or having a tooth extracted,” Dr. Hata explained. “Prophylaxis may prevent an exceedingly small number of cases. Authors of the guidelines concluded that the risk of antibiotic-associated adverse event exceeds the benefit of prophylactic therapy, and that maintenance of optimal oral health is more important than prophylactic antibiotics.”
The 2017 AHA guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with the following cardiac conditions: those with a prosthetic cardiac valve including transcatheter-implanted prostheses and homografts; those with previous endocarditis; those with prosthetic material used for heart valve repair, such as annuloplasty rings, chords or clips; cardiac transplantation recipients who develop cardiac valvulopathy; and those with certain types of congenital heart disease, including unrepaired cyanotic CHD, a completely repaired congenital heart defect with a prosthetic material or device during the first 6 months after the procedure, and repaired CHD with residual defects at the site or adjacent to the site of a prosthetic patch or prosthetic device.
Procedures that may require prophylaxis for endocarditis include all dental procedures that involve manipulation of the gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa, and respiratory tract procedures that involve incision or biopsy of the respiratory mucosa such as tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract or the genitourinary tract unless an active infection is present. As for skin procedures, the guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for patients in the high-risk category who undergo a surgical procedure that involves infected skin, skin structure, or musculoskeletal tissue.
In the 2017 AHA guidelines, patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin, while in patients with penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin. In patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 2 g oral amoxicillin, while in those with penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 500 mg azithromycin/clarithromycin or doxycycline 100 mg.
“Antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis should be given 30-60 minutes prior to surgery, and a follow-up dose of antibiotics is no longer recommended,” Dr. Hata said. “If you forget [to administer the antibiotics] or the patient forgets, antibiotics may be given up to 2 hours after the procedure.”
Dr. Hata reported having no relevant disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – The need for antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery depends on the type of procedure, the patient, what infection you’re trying to keep at bay, and the type of wound, according to Tissa Hata, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.
Among the many studies in the medical literature that have examined the use of antibiotics to prevent surgical site infections, one study published in 2006 has the largest number of patients to date, Dr. Hata said at a conference on superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery sponsored by UCSD and Scripps Clinic. In the prospective study of wound infections in patients undergoing dermatologic surgery without prophylactic antibiotics, researchers in Australia prospectively examined 5,091 lesions, mostly nonmelanoma skin cancers, in 2,424 patients over the course of 3 years.
By procedure, the infection rate was highest for skin grafts (8.70%) and wedge excision of the lip or ear (8.57%), followed by skin flap repairs (2.94%), curettage (0.73%), and simple excision and closure (0.54%). By anatomic site, groin excisional surgery had the highest infection rate (10%), followed by surgical procedures below the knee (6.92%), while those performed on the face had a low rate (0.81%). “Based on their analysis, they suggest antibiotic prophylaxis for all procedures below the knee and groin, wedge excisions of the lip and ear, and all skin grafts,” Dr. Hata said.
In 2008, an advisory statement published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology expanded the procedure location and techniques requiring antibiotic prophylaxis to include procedures on the nose and the lower extremity (especially the leg), and for patients with extensive inflammatory disease. According to the statement, in patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin.
In the statement, for patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis regimen for lesions in the groin or on the lower extremities include 2 g oral cephalexin, 1 tablet of oral trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) DS, or 500 mg of levofloxacin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for lesions on the groin and lower extremities is 1 tablet of TMP-SMX DS or 500 mg of levofloxacin.
In 2020, a meta-analysis of surgical site infections in patients undergoing Mohs surgery of the ear and nose found that there was no difference in infections in those locations whether patients received oral antibiotic prophylaxis or not. “But the researchers did not specify the type of closure, whether it was a graft or a flap closure,” Dr. Hata commented.
Endocarditis prophylaxis
Dr. Hata also discussed antibiotic recommendations for endocarditis prophylaxis, noting that the mortality rate from endocarditis is as high as 76%, and an estimated 40% of affected patients require heart valve replacement within 5-8 years. “But the good news is that fewer than 10 cases have been possibly linked to dermatologic procedures,” she said.
During outpatient dermatologic surgery, the incidence of bacteremia is in the range of 1.9%-3%, similar to the incidence of 2% that occurs spontaneously in healthy adults, according to Dr. Hata. She said that the following activities or procedures pose a much higher risk of bacteremia: mastication (17%-24%), tooth brushing (24%-40%), tooth extraction (60%-90%), and incision and drainage of an abscess (38%).
American Heart Association guidelines from 2007 recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in only the highest-risk categories of patients. These guidelines were updated in 2017 to include patients with transcatheter prosthetic valves and those with prosthetic material in valve repair. “The primary reason for revision of guidelines is that endocarditis is much more likely to result from frequent exposure to random bacteremia associated with daily activity such as brushing our teeth or having a tooth extracted,” Dr. Hata explained. “Prophylaxis may prevent an exceedingly small number of cases. Authors of the guidelines concluded that the risk of antibiotic-associated adverse event exceeds the benefit of prophylactic therapy, and that maintenance of optimal oral health is more important than prophylactic antibiotics.”
The 2017 AHA guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with the following cardiac conditions: those with a prosthetic cardiac valve including transcatheter-implanted prostheses and homografts; those with previous endocarditis; those with prosthetic material used for heart valve repair, such as annuloplasty rings, chords or clips; cardiac transplantation recipients who develop cardiac valvulopathy; and those with certain types of congenital heart disease, including unrepaired cyanotic CHD, a completely repaired congenital heart defect with a prosthetic material or device during the first 6 months after the procedure, and repaired CHD with residual defects at the site or adjacent to the site of a prosthetic patch or prosthetic device.
Procedures that may require prophylaxis for endocarditis include all dental procedures that involve manipulation of the gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa, and respiratory tract procedures that involve incision or biopsy of the respiratory mucosa such as tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract or the genitourinary tract unless an active infection is present. As for skin procedures, the guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for patients in the high-risk category who undergo a surgical procedure that involves infected skin, skin structure, or musculoskeletal tissue.
In the 2017 AHA guidelines, patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin, while in patients with penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin. In patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 2 g oral amoxicillin, while in those with penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 500 mg azithromycin/clarithromycin or doxycycline 100 mg.
“Antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis should be given 30-60 minutes prior to surgery, and a follow-up dose of antibiotics is no longer recommended,” Dr. Hata said. “If you forget [to administer the antibiotics] or the patient forgets, antibiotics may be given up to 2 hours after the procedure.”
Dr. Hata reported having no relevant disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – The need for antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery depends on the type of procedure, the patient, what infection you’re trying to keep at bay, and the type of wound, according to Tissa Hata, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.
Among the many studies in the medical literature that have examined the use of antibiotics to prevent surgical site infections, one study published in 2006 has the largest number of patients to date, Dr. Hata said at a conference on superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery sponsored by UCSD and Scripps Clinic. In the prospective study of wound infections in patients undergoing dermatologic surgery without prophylactic antibiotics, researchers in Australia prospectively examined 5,091 lesions, mostly nonmelanoma skin cancers, in 2,424 patients over the course of 3 years.
By procedure, the infection rate was highest for skin grafts (8.70%) and wedge excision of the lip or ear (8.57%), followed by skin flap repairs (2.94%), curettage (0.73%), and simple excision and closure (0.54%). By anatomic site, groin excisional surgery had the highest infection rate (10%), followed by surgical procedures below the knee (6.92%), while those performed on the face had a low rate (0.81%). “Based on their analysis, they suggest antibiotic prophylaxis for all procedures below the knee and groin, wedge excisions of the lip and ear, and all skin grafts,” Dr. Hata said.
In 2008, an advisory statement published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology expanded the procedure location and techniques requiring antibiotic prophylaxis to include procedures on the nose and the lower extremity (especially the leg), and for patients with extensive inflammatory disease. According to the statement, in patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for wedge excision of the lip/ear, flaps on the nose, or all skin grafts include 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin.
In the statement, for patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis regimen for lesions in the groin or on the lower extremities include 2 g oral cephalexin, 1 tablet of oral trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) DS, or 500 mg of levofloxacin. In patients with penicillin allergy, the recommended prophylaxis regimen for lesions on the groin and lower extremities is 1 tablet of TMP-SMX DS or 500 mg of levofloxacin.
In 2020, a meta-analysis of surgical site infections in patients undergoing Mohs surgery of the ear and nose found that there was no difference in infections in those locations whether patients received oral antibiotic prophylaxis or not. “But the researchers did not specify the type of closure, whether it was a graft or a flap closure,” Dr. Hata commented.
Endocarditis prophylaxis
Dr. Hata also discussed antibiotic recommendations for endocarditis prophylaxis, noting that the mortality rate from endocarditis is as high as 76%, and an estimated 40% of affected patients require heart valve replacement within 5-8 years. “But the good news is that fewer than 10 cases have been possibly linked to dermatologic procedures,” she said.
During outpatient dermatologic surgery, the incidence of bacteremia is in the range of 1.9%-3%, similar to the incidence of 2% that occurs spontaneously in healthy adults, according to Dr. Hata. She said that the following activities or procedures pose a much higher risk of bacteremia: mastication (17%-24%), tooth brushing (24%-40%), tooth extraction (60%-90%), and incision and drainage of an abscess (38%).
American Heart Association guidelines from 2007 recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in only the highest-risk categories of patients. These guidelines were updated in 2017 to include patients with transcatheter prosthetic valves and those with prosthetic material in valve repair. “The primary reason for revision of guidelines is that endocarditis is much more likely to result from frequent exposure to random bacteremia associated with daily activity such as brushing our teeth or having a tooth extracted,” Dr. Hata explained. “Prophylaxis may prevent an exceedingly small number of cases. Authors of the guidelines concluded that the risk of antibiotic-associated adverse event exceeds the benefit of prophylactic therapy, and that maintenance of optimal oral health is more important than prophylactic antibiotics.”
The 2017 AHA guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with the following cardiac conditions: those with a prosthetic cardiac valve including transcatheter-implanted prostheses and homografts; those with previous endocarditis; those with prosthetic material used for heart valve repair, such as annuloplasty rings, chords or clips; cardiac transplantation recipients who develop cardiac valvulopathy; and those with certain types of congenital heart disease, including unrepaired cyanotic CHD, a completely repaired congenital heart defect with a prosthetic material or device during the first 6 months after the procedure, and repaired CHD with residual defects at the site or adjacent to the site of a prosthetic patch or prosthetic device.
Procedures that may require prophylaxis for endocarditis include all dental procedures that involve manipulation of the gingival tissue or the periapical region of teeth or perforation of the oral mucosa, and respiratory tract procedures that involve incision or biopsy of the respiratory mucosa such as tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract or the genitourinary tract unless an active infection is present. As for skin procedures, the guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for patients in the high-risk category who undergo a surgical procedure that involves infected skin, skin structure, or musculoskeletal tissue.
In the 2017 AHA guidelines, patients with no penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis regimen for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 2 g oral cephalexin or dicloxacillin, while in patients with penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in non-oral sites includes 600 mg oral clindamycin or 500 mg oral azithromycin/clarithromycin. In patients without a penicillin allergy, the suggested prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 2 g oral amoxicillin, while in those with penicillin allergy, the suggested antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis in oral sites is 500 mg azithromycin/clarithromycin or doxycycline 100 mg.
“Antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis should be given 30-60 minutes prior to surgery, and a follow-up dose of antibiotics is no longer recommended,” Dr. Hata said. “If you forget [to administer the antibiotics] or the patient forgets, antibiotics may be given up to 2 hours after the procedure.”
Dr. Hata reported having no relevant disclosures.
AT A CONFERENCE ON SUPERFICIAL ANATOMY AND CUTANEOUS SURGERY
Mohs found to confer survival benefit in localized Merkel cell carcinoma
results from a national retrospective cohort study suggest.
The study found that, in patients with pathologically confirmed, localized T1/T2 MCC, “treatment with MMS was associated with an approximately 40% reduction in hazard of death compared with WLE,” reported John A. Carucci, MD, PhD, and colleagues in the department of dermatology at NYU Langone Health, New York. The results provide “preliminary data suggesting that treatment of localized, early-stage MCC with MMS may result in the most optimal patient survival outcomes for this aggressive form of skin cancer,” they added. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
“Although data for keratinocytic nonmelanoma skin cancers have been definitive in demonstrating the advantage of peripheral and deep en face margin assessment over conventional WLE or NME [narrow-margin excision], the data for MCC, likely because of the disease’s rarity and limitations of available data sets, have been mixed,” they wrote.
Results from national studies published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found no difference in survival among patients with localized MCC treated with WLE versus MMS. “However, these studies did not have confirmed pathologic node status, a substantial limitation considering that clinically node-negative cases of localized MCC have sentinel lymph node positivity rates ranging from 25% to 40%,” the authors noted.
To evaluate the association of the surgical excision modality and patient survival for pathologically confirmed localized T1/T2 MCC, Dr. Carucci and coauthors examined a cohort of 2,313 patients from the National Cancer Database with T1/T2 MCC diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2004, and Dec. 31, 2018, with pathologically confirmed, negative regional lymph nodes and treated with surgery. Their mean age was 71 years and 57.9% were male. Of the 2,313 patients, 1,452 underwent WLE, 104 underwent MMS, and 757 underwent NME.
The unadjusted analysis revealed that, compared with WLE, excision with MMS had the best unadjusted mean survival rates: 87.4% versus 86.1%, respectively, at 3 years, 84.5% versus 76.9% at 5 years, and 81.8% versus 60.9% at 10 years. Patients treated with NME had similar mean survival rates as those treated with WLE: 84.8% at 3 years, 78.3% at 5 years, and 60.8% at 10 years.
Multivariable survival analysis demonstrated that treatment with MMS was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with WLE (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04).
“These data suggest that MMS may provide a survival benefit in the treatment of localized MCC, although further prospective work studying this issue is required,” the authors concluded. “Future directions may also focus on elucidating the benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy in localized cases treated with MMS.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fewer numbers of patients receiving MMS surgery, lack of randomization, and potential for selection bias.
In an interview, Travis W. Blalock, MD, director of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and cutaneous oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the field of MCC “has undergone rapid and robust transformation over the past 20 years. These changes encompass advancements in diagnosing the condition, identifying linked viruses, and developing systemic treatments.”
The study findings “imply that comprehensive assessment of histologic margins might offer advantages beyond minimizing scars, minimizing functional impact, and reducing the likelihood of local recurrence,” he said.
“It’s beyond doubt,” he added, that the study “furnishes us with yet another set of real-world insights that will undoubtedly influence patient outcomes. These insights serve to bring clarity to the ways in which we can deliver precisely targeted surgical treatment with durable outcomes for localized MCC.”
Patricia M. Richey, MD, director of Mohs surgery at Boston University, who was also asked to comment on the study, added that, because of the nature of the National Cancer Database, “the authors of this study were unfortunately unable to report disease-specific survival or immunosuppression status. That being said, the preliminary data presented are convincing and should result in us further exploring this topic, as well as readdressing and questioning related issues such as whether or not adjuvant radiotherapy is truly beneficial in cases with histologic clearance via Mohs.”
Dr. Carucci reported receiving grant funding from Regeneron for investigator-initiated basic research. No other author disclosures were reported. Neither Dr. Blalock nor Dr. Richey had relevant disclosures.
results from a national retrospective cohort study suggest.
The study found that, in patients with pathologically confirmed, localized T1/T2 MCC, “treatment with MMS was associated with an approximately 40% reduction in hazard of death compared with WLE,” reported John A. Carucci, MD, PhD, and colleagues in the department of dermatology at NYU Langone Health, New York. The results provide “preliminary data suggesting that treatment of localized, early-stage MCC with MMS may result in the most optimal patient survival outcomes for this aggressive form of skin cancer,” they added. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
“Although data for keratinocytic nonmelanoma skin cancers have been definitive in demonstrating the advantage of peripheral and deep en face margin assessment over conventional WLE or NME [narrow-margin excision], the data for MCC, likely because of the disease’s rarity and limitations of available data sets, have been mixed,” they wrote.
Results from national studies published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found no difference in survival among patients with localized MCC treated with WLE versus MMS. “However, these studies did not have confirmed pathologic node status, a substantial limitation considering that clinically node-negative cases of localized MCC have sentinel lymph node positivity rates ranging from 25% to 40%,” the authors noted.
To evaluate the association of the surgical excision modality and patient survival for pathologically confirmed localized T1/T2 MCC, Dr. Carucci and coauthors examined a cohort of 2,313 patients from the National Cancer Database with T1/T2 MCC diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2004, and Dec. 31, 2018, with pathologically confirmed, negative regional lymph nodes and treated with surgery. Their mean age was 71 years and 57.9% were male. Of the 2,313 patients, 1,452 underwent WLE, 104 underwent MMS, and 757 underwent NME.
The unadjusted analysis revealed that, compared with WLE, excision with MMS had the best unadjusted mean survival rates: 87.4% versus 86.1%, respectively, at 3 years, 84.5% versus 76.9% at 5 years, and 81.8% versus 60.9% at 10 years. Patients treated with NME had similar mean survival rates as those treated with WLE: 84.8% at 3 years, 78.3% at 5 years, and 60.8% at 10 years.
Multivariable survival analysis demonstrated that treatment with MMS was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with WLE (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04).
“These data suggest that MMS may provide a survival benefit in the treatment of localized MCC, although further prospective work studying this issue is required,” the authors concluded. “Future directions may also focus on elucidating the benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy in localized cases treated with MMS.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fewer numbers of patients receiving MMS surgery, lack of randomization, and potential for selection bias.
In an interview, Travis W. Blalock, MD, director of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and cutaneous oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the field of MCC “has undergone rapid and robust transformation over the past 20 years. These changes encompass advancements in diagnosing the condition, identifying linked viruses, and developing systemic treatments.”
The study findings “imply that comprehensive assessment of histologic margins might offer advantages beyond minimizing scars, minimizing functional impact, and reducing the likelihood of local recurrence,” he said.
“It’s beyond doubt,” he added, that the study “furnishes us with yet another set of real-world insights that will undoubtedly influence patient outcomes. These insights serve to bring clarity to the ways in which we can deliver precisely targeted surgical treatment with durable outcomes for localized MCC.”
Patricia M. Richey, MD, director of Mohs surgery at Boston University, who was also asked to comment on the study, added that, because of the nature of the National Cancer Database, “the authors of this study were unfortunately unable to report disease-specific survival or immunosuppression status. That being said, the preliminary data presented are convincing and should result in us further exploring this topic, as well as readdressing and questioning related issues such as whether or not adjuvant radiotherapy is truly beneficial in cases with histologic clearance via Mohs.”
Dr. Carucci reported receiving grant funding from Regeneron for investigator-initiated basic research. No other author disclosures were reported. Neither Dr. Blalock nor Dr. Richey had relevant disclosures.
results from a national retrospective cohort study suggest.
The study found that, in patients with pathologically confirmed, localized T1/T2 MCC, “treatment with MMS was associated with an approximately 40% reduction in hazard of death compared with WLE,” reported John A. Carucci, MD, PhD, and colleagues in the department of dermatology at NYU Langone Health, New York. The results provide “preliminary data suggesting that treatment of localized, early-stage MCC with MMS may result in the most optimal patient survival outcomes for this aggressive form of skin cancer,” they added. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
“Although data for keratinocytic nonmelanoma skin cancers have been definitive in demonstrating the advantage of peripheral and deep en face margin assessment over conventional WLE or NME [narrow-margin excision], the data for MCC, likely because of the disease’s rarity and limitations of available data sets, have been mixed,” they wrote.
Results from national studies published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found no difference in survival among patients with localized MCC treated with WLE versus MMS. “However, these studies did not have confirmed pathologic node status, a substantial limitation considering that clinically node-negative cases of localized MCC have sentinel lymph node positivity rates ranging from 25% to 40%,” the authors noted.
To evaluate the association of the surgical excision modality and patient survival for pathologically confirmed localized T1/T2 MCC, Dr. Carucci and coauthors examined a cohort of 2,313 patients from the National Cancer Database with T1/T2 MCC diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2004, and Dec. 31, 2018, with pathologically confirmed, negative regional lymph nodes and treated with surgery. Their mean age was 71 years and 57.9% were male. Of the 2,313 patients, 1,452 underwent WLE, 104 underwent MMS, and 757 underwent NME.
The unadjusted analysis revealed that, compared with WLE, excision with MMS had the best unadjusted mean survival rates: 87.4% versus 86.1%, respectively, at 3 years, 84.5% versus 76.9% at 5 years, and 81.8% versus 60.9% at 10 years. Patients treated with NME had similar mean survival rates as those treated with WLE: 84.8% at 3 years, 78.3% at 5 years, and 60.8% at 10 years.
Multivariable survival analysis demonstrated that treatment with MMS was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with WLE (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04).
“These data suggest that MMS may provide a survival benefit in the treatment of localized MCC, although further prospective work studying this issue is required,” the authors concluded. “Future directions may also focus on elucidating the benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy in localized cases treated with MMS.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fewer numbers of patients receiving MMS surgery, lack of randomization, and potential for selection bias.
In an interview, Travis W. Blalock, MD, director of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and cutaneous oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the field of MCC “has undergone rapid and robust transformation over the past 20 years. These changes encompass advancements in diagnosing the condition, identifying linked viruses, and developing systemic treatments.”
The study findings “imply that comprehensive assessment of histologic margins might offer advantages beyond minimizing scars, minimizing functional impact, and reducing the likelihood of local recurrence,” he said.
“It’s beyond doubt,” he added, that the study “furnishes us with yet another set of real-world insights that will undoubtedly influence patient outcomes. These insights serve to bring clarity to the ways in which we can deliver precisely targeted surgical treatment with durable outcomes for localized MCC.”
Patricia M. Richey, MD, director of Mohs surgery at Boston University, who was also asked to comment on the study, added that, because of the nature of the National Cancer Database, “the authors of this study were unfortunately unable to report disease-specific survival or immunosuppression status. That being said, the preliminary data presented are convincing and should result in us further exploring this topic, as well as readdressing and questioning related issues such as whether or not adjuvant radiotherapy is truly beneficial in cases with histologic clearance via Mohs.”
Dr. Carucci reported receiving grant funding from Regeneron for investigator-initiated basic research. No other author disclosures were reported. Neither Dr. Blalock nor Dr. Richey had relevant disclosures.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
New guidelines for laser treatment of cutaneous vascular anomalies
A new practice guideline is setting a standard for doctors who use lasers to treat cutaneous vascular anomalies.
Poor treatment has been an issue in this field because no uniform guidelines existed to inform practice, according to a press release from the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.
The laser treatment settings can vary based on the type and location of the birthmark and also the patient’s skin type, which has resulted in an inconsistent approach from clinicians, according to the release.
“For decades, I have observed adverse outcomes from the improper laser treatment of vascular birthmarks,” Linda Rozell-Shannon, PhD, president and founder of the Vascular Birthmarks Foundation said in a statement from ASLMS. “As a result of these guidelines, patient outcomes will be improved.”
The guideline, published on the ASLMS website along with supporting videos, was jointly developed by ASLMS, VBF, and an international group of clinicians, marking the first consensus guideline on laser treatments for cutaneous vascular anomalies. It details 32 best practice directives for various scenarios, including advice on safety considerations, additional testing, and when to refer.
“It is important to realize that just because someone is board certified does not mean they are skilled in treating all conditions or using all lasers,” Paul Friedman, MD, a dermatologist in Houston, and former president of ASLMS, said in the ASLMS statement.
Vascular birthmarks are a common condition affecting up to 14% of children, according to VBF. Most are hemangiomas, a buildup of blood vessels that usually appears at birth or within a month after birth. Laser therapy reduces the size and color of the anomalies.
Support for this initiative was provided by Candela Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new practice guideline is setting a standard for doctors who use lasers to treat cutaneous vascular anomalies.
Poor treatment has been an issue in this field because no uniform guidelines existed to inform practice, according to a press release from the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.
The laser treatment settings can vary based on the type and location of the birthmark and also the patient’s skin type, which has resulted in an inconsistent approach from clinicians, according to the release.
“For decades, I have observed adverse outcomes from the improper laser treatment of vascular birthmarks,” Linda Rozell-Shannon, PhD, president and founder of the Vascular Birthmarks Foundation said in a statement from ASLMS. “As a result of these guidelines, patient outcomes will be improved.”
The guideline, published on the ASLMS website along with supporting videos, was jointly developed by ASLMS, VBF, and an international group of clinicians, marking the first consensus guideline on laser treatments for cutaneous vascular anomalies. It details 32 best practice directives for various scenarios, including advice on safety considerations, additional testing, and when to refer.
“It is important to realize that just because someone is board certified does not mean they are skilled in treating all conditions or using all lasers,” Paul Friedman, MD, a dermatologist in Houston, and former president of ASLMS, said in the ASLMS statement.
Vascular birthmarks are a common condition affecting up to 14% of children, according to VBF. Most are hemangiomas, a buildup of blood vessels that usually appears at birth or within a month after birth. Laser therapy reduces the size and color of the anomalies.
Support for this initiative was provided by Candela Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new practice guideline is setting a standard for doctors who use lasers to treat cutaneous vascular anomalies.
Poor treatment has been an issue in this field because no uniform guidelines existed to inform practice, according to a press release from the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.
The laser treatment settings can vary based on the type and location of the birthmark and also the patient’s skin type, which has resulted in an inconsistent approach from clinicians, according to the release.
“For decades, I have observed adverse outcomes from the improper laser treatment of vascular birthmarks,” Linda Rozell-Shannon, PhD, president and founder of the Vascular Birthmarks Foundation said in a statement from ASLMS. “As a result of these guidelines, patient outcomes will be improved.”
The guideline, published on the ASLMS website along with supporting videos, was jointly developed by ASLMS, VBF, and an international group of clinicians, marking the first consensus guideline on laser treatments for cutaneous vascular anomalies. It details 32 best practice directives for various scenarios, including advice on safety considerations, additional testing, and when to refer.
“It is important to realize that just because someone is board certified does not mean they are skilled in treating all conditions or using all lasers,” Paul Friedman, MD, a dermatologist in Houston, and former president of ASLMS, said in the ASLMS statement.
Vascular birthmarks are a common condition affecting up to 14% of children, according to VBF. Most are hemangiomas, a buildup of blood vessels that usually appears at birth or within a month after birth. Laser therapy reduces the size and color of the anomalies.
Support for this initiative was provided by Candela Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study supports new NCCN classification for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma
, according to new findings.
In addition, regardless of the NCCN risk group, the study found that Mohs surgery or peripheral and deep en face margin assessment (PDEMA) conferred a lower risk of developing LR, DM, and disease-related death.
“Although the NCCN included this new high-risk group in the last iteration of the guidelines, there were no studies that identified whether the high-risk group achieved the goal of identifying riskier tumors,” said senior author Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, associate physician at the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital, Boston. “Based on the data in our study, the risk groups did risk stratify tumors and so clinicians can utilize the high-risk group risk factors to identify which tumors may require additional surveillance or treatment.”
The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
Most patients with CSCC are successfully treated with Mohs micrographic surgery or wide local excision (WLE) alone, but a subset will experience more severe and aggressive disease. While useful for prognostication, current staging systems do not incorporate patient factors or other high-risk tumor features that influence outcomes, which led to the NCCN reclassifying CSCC into low-, high-, and very high-risk groups. The NCCN guidelines also made a new recommendation that Mohs or PDEMA be the preferred method for tissue processing for high- and very-high-risk tumors, based on this new stratification.
However, these changes to the NCCN guidelines have not been validated. The goal of this study was to compare outcomes in very-high-, high-, and low-risk NCCN groups as well as comparing outcomes of CSCCs stratified by Mohs and WLE.
Dr. Ruiz and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study using patient data from two tertiary care academic medical centers. Their analysis included 10,196 tumors from 8,727 patients that were then stratified into low-risk (3,054 tumors [30.0%]), high-risk (6,269 tumors [61.5%]), and very-high-risk (873 tumors [8.6%]) groups.
Tumors in the very-high-risk group were more likely to have high-risk tumor and histologic features, such as large-caliber perineural invasion, large diameter, invasion beyond the subcutaneous fat or bone, poor differentiation, and lymphovascular invasion.
The authors found that, compared with the low-risk group, the high- and very-high-risk groups demonstrated a greater risk of LR (high-risk subhazard ratio, 1.99; P = .007; very-high-risk SHR, 12.66; P < .001); NM (high-risk SHR, 4.26; P = .02; very-high-risk SHR, 62.98; P < .001); DM (high-risk SHR, 2.2 × 107;P < .001; very-high-risk SHR, 6.3 × 108;P < .001); and DSD (high-risk SHR, 4.02; P = .03; very-high-risk SHR, 93.87; P < .001).
Adjusted 5-year cumulative incidence was also significantly higher in very-high- vs. high- and low-risk groups for all endpoints.
They next compared the procedures used to treat the tumors. Compared with WLE, patients treated with Mohs or PDEMA had a lower risk of LR (SHR, 0.65; P = .009), DM (SHR, 0.38; P = .02), and DSD (SHR, 0.55; P = .006).
Mohs and PDEMA have already became preferred surgical modalities for high- and very-high-risk tumors, and Dr. Ruiz pointed out that their analysis was for the entire cohort.
“We did not stratify this by risk group,” she said. “So our results do not change anything clinically at this time, but support prior studies that have found Mohs/PDEMA to have improved outcomes, compared to WLE. Further studies are needed evaluating surgical approach by risk-group.”
However, she emphasized, “our studies further validate prior evidence showing Mohs/PDEMA to have the lowest rates of recurrence and in this study, even disease-related death.”
Approached for an independent comment, Jeffrey M. Farma, MD, codirector of the melanoma and skin cancer program, and interim chair, department of surgical oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that this study supports the new reclassification of CSCC tumors by the NCCN, and confirms that the high-risk and very-high-risk tumors surely have a higher propensity for worse outcomes overall.
“That being said, the notion for type of resection and margin assessment is still an area of controversy in the dermatology, surgical oncology, and pathology community,” said Dr. Farma, who is also on the NCCN panel. “I believe we need further studies to truly understand the role of the type of resection and the pathologic evaluation play in this disease process.”
He also pointed out that it is unclear in this dataset if patients initially had any imaging to evaluate for local or regional metastatic disease. “It would be helpful to have a further understanding of which type of provider was performing the excisions, the type of excision decided upon, and if there was a standardized approach to [decide] which patients had MOHS or PDEMA and what was the surveillance for these patients both with imaging and physical examinations,” said Dr. Farma. “This data also evaluated patients over a long time period where practice patterns have evolved.”
Finally, he noted that the number of local and metastatic events subjectively seems low in this cohort. “We also do not know any information about the initial workup of the patients, patterns of recurrence, and adjuvant or palliative treatment after recurrence,” he added. “It is unclear from this manuscript how the type of resection or pathologic evaluation of margins leads to improved outcomes and further prospective studies are warranted.”
Dr. Ruiz reports reported serving as a coinvestigator and principal investigator for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and as a coinvestigator for Merck and consulting for Checkpoint Therapeutics, BDO, and Genentech outside the submitted work. Dr. Farma has no disclosures other than the NCCN panel. The study was supported by Harvard Catalyst and the Harvard University Clinical and Translational Science Center and by Harvard University and its affiliated academic health care centers and partially supported by the Melvin Markey Discovery Fund at Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
, according to new findings.
In addition, regardless of the NCCN risk group, the study found that Mohs surgery or peripheral and deep en face margin assessment (PDEMA) conferred a lower risk of developing LR, DM, and disease-related death.
“Although the NCCN included this new high-risk group in the last iteration of the guidelines, there were no studies that identified whether the high-risk group achieved the goal of identifying riskier tumors,” said senior author Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, associate physician at the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital, Boston. “Based on the data in our study, the risk groups did risk stratify tumors and so clinicians can utilize the high-risk group risk factors to identify which tumors may require additional surveillance or treatment.”
The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
Most patients with CSCC are successfully treated with Mohs micrographic surgery or wide local excision (WLE) alone, but a subset will experience more severe and aggressive disease. While useful for prognostication, current staging systems do not incorporate patient factors or other high-risk tumor features that influence outcomes, which led to the NCCN reclassifying CSCC into low-, high-, and very high-risk groups. The NCCN guidelines also made a new recommendation that Mohs or PDEMA be the preferred method for tissue processing for high- and very-high-risk tumors, based on this new stratification.
However, these changes to the NCCN guidelines have not been validated. The goal of this study was to compare outcomes in very-high-, high-, and low-risk NCCN groups as well as comparing outcomes of CSCCs stratified by Mohs and WLE.
Dr. Ruiz and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study using patient data from two tertiary care academic medical centers. Their analysis included 10,196 tumors from 8,727 patients that were then stratified into low-risk (3,054 tumors [30.0%]), high-risk (6,269 tumors [61.5%]), and very-high-risk (873 tumors [8.6%]) groups.
Tumors in the very-high-risk group were more likely to have high-risk tumor and histologic features, such as large-caliber perineural invasion, large diameter, invasion beyond the subcutaneous fat or bone, poor differentiation, and lymphovascular invasion.
The authors found that, compared with the low-risk group, the high- and very-high-risk groups demonstrated a greater risk of LR (high-risk subhazard ratio, 1.99; P = .007; very-high-risk SHR, 12.66; P < .001); NM (high-risk SHR, 4.26; P = .02; very-high-risk SHR, 62.98; P < .001); DM (high-risk SHR, 2.2 × 107;P < .001; very-high-risk SHR, 6.3 × 108;P < .001); and DSD (high-risk SHR, 4.02; P = .03; very-high-risk SHR, 93.87; P < .001).
Adjusted 5-year cumulative incidence was also significantly higher in very-high- vs. high- and low-risk groups for all endpoints.
They next compared the procedures used to treat the tumors. Compared with WLE, patients treated with Mohs or PDEMA had a lower risk of LR (SHR, 0.65; P = .009), DM (SHR, 0.38; P = .02), and DSD (SHR, 0.55; P = .006).
Mohs and PDEMA have already became preferred surgical modalities for high- and very-high-risk tumors, and Dr. Ruiz pointed out that their analysis was for the entire cohort.
“We did not stratify this by risk group,” she said. “So our results do not change anything clinically at this time, but support prior studies that have found Mohs/PDEMA to have improved outcomes, compared to WLE. Further studies are needed evaluating surgical approach by risk-group.”
However, she emphasized, “our studies further validate prior evidence showing Mohs/PDEMA to have the lowest rates of recurrence and in this study, even disease-related death.”
Approached for an independent comment, Jeffrey M. Farma, MD, codirector of the melanoma and skin cancer program, and interim chair, department of surgical oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that this study supports the new reclassification of CSCC tumors by the NCCN, and confirms that the high-risk and very-high-risk tumors surely have a higher propensity for worse outcomes overall.
“That being said, the notion for type of resection and margin assessment is still an area of controversy in the dermatology, surgical oncology, and pathology community,” said Dr. Farma, who is also on the NCCN panel. “I believe we need further studies to truly understand the role of the type of resection and the pathologic evaluation play in this disease process.”
He also pointed out that it is unclear in this dataset if patients initially had any imaging to evaluate for local or regional metastatic disease. “It would be helpful to have a further understanding of which type of provider was performing the excisions, the type of excision decided upon, and if there was a standardized approach to [decide] which patients had MOHS or PDEMA and what was the surveillance for these patients both with imaging and physical examinations,” said Dr. Farma. “This data also evaluated patients over a long time period where practice patterns have evolved.”
Finally, he noted that the number of local and metastatic events subjectively seems low in this cohort. “We also do not know any information about the initial workup of the patients, patterns of recurrence, and adjuvant or palliative treatment after recurrence,” he added. “It is unclear from this manuscript how the type of resection or pathologic evaluation of margins leads to improved outcomes and further prospective studies are warranted.”
Dr. Ruiz reports reported serving as a coinvestigator and principal investigator for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and as a coinvestigator for Merck and consulting for Checkpoint Therapeutics, BDO, and Genentech outside the submitted work. Dr. Farma has no disclosures other than the NCCN panel. The study was supported by Harvard Catalyst and the Harvard University Clinical and Translational Science Center and by Harvard University and its affiliated academic health care centers and partially supported by the Melvin Markey Discovery Fund at Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
, according to new findings.
In addition, regardless of the NCCN risk group, the study found that Mohs surgery or peripheral and deep en face margin assessment (PDEMA) conferred a lower risk of developing LR, DM, and disease-related death.
“Although the NCCN included this new high-risk group in the last iteration of the guidelines, there were no studies that identified whether the high-risk group achieved the goal of identifying riskier tumors,” said senior author Emily Ruiz, MD, MPH, associate physician at the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital, Boston. “Based on the data in our study, the risk groups did risk stratify tumors and so clinicians can utilize the high-risk group risk factors to identify which tumors may require additional surveillance or treatment.”
The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
Most patients with CSCC are successfully treated with Mohs micrographic surgery or wide local excision (WLE) alone, but a subset will experience more severe and aggressive disease. While useful for prognostication, current staging systems do not incorporate patient factors or other high-risk tumor features that influence outcomes, which led to the NCCN reclassifying CSCC into low-, high-, and very high-risk groups. The NCCN guidelines also made a new recommendation that Mohs or PDEMA be the preferred method for tissue processing for high- and very-high-risk tumors, based on this new stratification.
However, these changes to the NCCN guidelines have not been validated. The goal of this study was to compare outcomes in very-high-, high-, and low-risk NCCN groups as well as comparing outcomes of CSCCs stratified by Mohs and WLE.
Dr. Ruiz and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study using patient data from two tertiary care academic medical centers. Their analysis included 10,196 tumors from 8,727 patients that were then stratified into low-risk (3,054 tumors [30.0%]), high-risk (6,269 tumors [61.5%]), and very-high-risk (873 tumors [8.6%]) groups.
Tumors in the very-high-risk group were more likely to have high-risk tumor and histologic features, such as large-caliber perineural invasion, large diameter, invasion beyond the subcutaneous fat or bone, poor differentiation, and lymphovascular invasion.
The authors found that, compared with the low-risk group, the high- and very-high-risk groups demonstrated a greater risk of LR (high-risk subhazard ratio, 1.99; P = .007; very-high-risk SHR, 12.66; P < .001); NM (high-risk SHR, 4.26; P = .02; very-high-risk SHR, 62.98; P < .001); DM (high-risk SHR, 2.2 × 107;P < .001; very-high-risk SHR, 6.3 × 108;P < .001); and DSD (high-risk SHR, 4.02; P = .03; very-high-risk SHR, 93.87; P < .001).
Adjusted 5-year cumulative incidence was also significantly higher in very-high- vs. high- and low-risk groups for all endpoints.
They next compared the procedures used to treat the tumors. Compared with WLE, patients treated with Mohs or PDEMA had a lower risk of LR (SHR, 0.65; P = .009), DM (SHR, 0.38; P = .02), and DSD (SHR, 0.55; P = .006).
Mohs and PDEMA have already became preferred surgical modalities for high- and very-high-risk tumors, and Dr. Ruiz pointed out that their analysis was for the entire cohort.
“We did not stratify this by risk group,” she said. “So our results do not change anything clinically at this time, but support prior studies that have found Mohs/PDEMA to have improved outcomes, compared to WLE. Further studies are needed evaluating surgical approach by risk-group.”
However, she emphasized, “our studies further validate prior evidence showing Mohs/PDEMA to have the lowest rates of recurrence and in this study, even disease-related death.”
Approached for an independent comment, Jeffrey M. Farma, MD, codirector of the melanoma and skin cancer program, and interim chair, department of surgical oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that this study supports the new reclassification of CSCC tumors by the NCCN, and confirms that the high-risk and very-high-risk tumors surely have a higher propensity for worse outcomes overall.
“That being said, the notion for type of resection and margin assessment is still an area of controversy in the dermatology, surgical oncology, and pathology community,” said Dr. Farma, who is also on the NCCN panel. “I believe we need further studies to truly understand the role of the type of resection and the pathologic evaluation play in this disease process.”
He also pointed out that it is unclear in this dataset if patients initially had any imaging to evaluate for local or regional metastatic disease. “It would be helpful to have a further understanding of which type of provider was performing the excisions, the type of excision decided upon, and if there was a standardized approach to [decide] which patients had MOHS or PDEMA and what was the surveillance for these patients both with imaging and physical examinations,” said Dr. Farma. “This data also evaluated patients over a long time period where practice patterns have evolved.”
Finally, he noted that the number of local and metastatic events subjectively seems low in this cohort. “We also do not know any information about the initial workup of the patients, patterns of recurrence, and adjuvant or palliative treatment after recurrence,” he added. “It is unclear from this manuscript how the type of resection or pathologic evaluation of margins leads to improved outcomes and further prospective studies are warranted.”
Dr. Ruiz reports reported serving as a coinvestigator and principal investigator for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and as a coinvestigator for Merck and consulting for Checkpoint Therapeutics, BDO, and Genentech outside the submitted work. Dr. Farma has no disclosures other than the NCCN panel. The study was supported by Harvard Catalyst and the Harvard University Clinical and Translational Science Center and by Harvard University and its affiliated academic health care centers and partially supported by the Melvin Markey Discovery Fund at Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Antibiotic prophylaxis may lower SSIs in skin cancer surgery
Delivering s, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.
The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.
“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”
The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.
To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.
The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.
Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).
However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.
The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.
The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).
Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.
The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.
Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.
“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.
The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.
“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.
“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.
The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Delivering s, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.
The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.
“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”
The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.
To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.
The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.
Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).
However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.
The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.
The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).
Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.
The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.
Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.
“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.
The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.
“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.
“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.
The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Delivering s, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.
The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.
“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”
The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.
Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.
To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.
The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.
Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).
However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.
The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.
The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).
Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.
The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.
Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.
“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.
The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.
“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.
“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.
The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA SURGERY
Teledermatology follow-up after Mohs surgery gets a thumbs up from patients
SEATTLE – The , according to new findings.
In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.
“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”
The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.
Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.
“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.
The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.
There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).
“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”
In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.
Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”
The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.
On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.
Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”
There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”
“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”
Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.
“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE – The , according to new findings.
In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.
“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”
The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.
Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.
“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.
The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.
There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).
“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”
In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.
Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”
The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.
On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.
Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”
There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”
“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”
Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.
“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE – The , according to new findings.
In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.
“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”
The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.
Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.
“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.
The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.
There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).
“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”
In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.
Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”
The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.
On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.
Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”
There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”
“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”
Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.
“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ACMS 2023
Mohs surgery workforce continues to increase
SEATTLE – At least for now, and that has been the case for the past 5 years.
Using CMS billing codes as a surrogate, the researchers found that there was a steady increase in the number of physicians who billed from 2015 to 2020. With the exception of 2020, which was the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of times that a specific code was billed for increased on average by 4.7% annually.
“Thus, if the attrition rate remains stable, even with changes in board certification and potential payer eligibility restrictions, the number of physicians will continue to increase,” study author Ji Won Ahn, MD, who specializes in dermatology and Mohs surgery at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery, where she presented the results.
The growth in the number of Mohs surgeons has been fueled by several factors, including a rising incidence of skin cancer as well as the superior cure rates and cosmetic outcomes with the procedure. Reimbursement has been favorable and training pathways have expanded. A 2019 retrospective study reported that there were 2,240 dermatologists who performed Mohs surgery in the United States, with nearly all of them (94.6%) residing in metropolitan areas.
Dr. Ahn explained that it was important to define the workforce because of several new factors that will be affecting it in the future. “With the establishment of Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology [MSDO] board certification that went into effect 2 years ago, potential future payer eligibility restrictions may be coming,” she said. “The adequacy of the Mohs surgery workforce is an important consideration.”
Another issue is that new board certification will be limited to fellowship-trained physicians after the first 5 years. “We wanted to compare these numbers with the fellowship numbers,” she said. “Although fellowship numbers are something that the college potentially has the power to change.”
Dr. Ahn and colleagues used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database to evaluate the use of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 17311, which is one of the most common billing codes for Mohs micrographic technique. Looking at data from 2015-2020, they found that there was an annual increase in the number of unique national provider identifiers (NPIs) billing for 17311, at an average rate of 75.6 per year.
The total number of times that 17311 was billed also increased from 2015 to 2019 at an average rate of 4.7% per year but declined in 2020 by 8.4%. “Overall, there was an average of 135 new NPIs that appeared and an average of 59.4 NPIs that stopped billing for 17311,” thus, an attrition rate of 59 surgeons, Dr. Ahn explained.
She emphasized that notably, the number of approved MSDO fellowship spots has remained stable since 2016 and is about 92 to 93 per year. “There are about 135 new surgeons and about two-thirds are new fellowship graduates,” she said.
The researchers were also interested in seeing how saturated each surgeon was and looked at the approximate number of cases that they were handling.
Of the physicians who billed 17311 through CMS, over 26% billed less than 100 times and more than 45% billed less than 200 times, and over 80% billed less than 500 times.
“One might be able to conclude that there might be some potential flexibility depending on the future need for surgeons,” she said.
The study was limited by several factors, one being that the researchers looked only at CPT code 17311 and not other designated codes for Mohs surgery. Other factors such as staff and space limitations were not accounted for since only billing data were used.
Dr. Ahn and her team are going to continue their work, and the next steps are to look at geographic trends and monitor for insurance network eligibility changes. “We are currently doing a workforce survey so we can better understand our current workforce rather than just historical data,” she concluded.
Asked to comment on the results, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, noted that the increase in the “billing rates of the first stage of Mohs micrographic surgery highlights not only the growing skin cancer epidemic, but also the number of providers who are providing these services. This underscores the importance of standardized training guidelines and board certifications of Mohs micrographic surgeons to assure high levels of patient care and the appropriate use of Mohs micrographic surgery,” he said.
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Ahn reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE – At least for now, and that has been the case for the past 5 years.
Using CMS billing codes as a surrogate, the researchers found that there was a steady increase in the number of physicians who billed from 2015 to 2020. With the exception of 2020, which was the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of times that a specific code was billed for increased on average by 4.7% annually.
“Thus, if the attrition rate remains stable, even with changes in board certification and potential payer eligibility restrictions, the number of physicians will continue to increase,” study author Ji Won Ahn, MD, who specializes in dermatology and Mohs surgery at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery, where she presented the results.
The growth in the number of Mohs surgeons has been fueled by several factors, including a rising incidence of skin cancer as well as the superior cure rates and cosmetic outcomes with the procedure. Reimbursement has been favorable and training pathways have expanded. A 2019 retrospective study reported that there were 2,240 dermatologists who performed Mohs surgery in the United States, with nearly all of them (94.6%) residing in metropolitan areas.
Dr. Ahn explained that it was important to define the workforce because of several new factors that will be affecting it in the future. “With the establishment of Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology [MSDO] board certification that went into effect 2 years ago, potential future payer eligibility restrictions may be coming,” she said. “The adequacy of the Mohs surgery workforce is an important consideration.”
Another issue is that new board certification will be limited to fellowship-trained physicians after the first 5 years. “We wanted to compare these numbers with the fellowship numbers,” she said. “Although fellowship numbers are something that the college potentially has the power to change.”
Dr. Ahn and colleagues used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database to evaluate the use of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 17311, which is one of the most common billing codes for Mohs micrographic technique. Looking at data from 2015-2020, they found that there was an annual increase in the number of unique national provider identifiers (NPIs) billing for 17311, at an average rate of 75.6 per year.
The total number of times that 17311 was billed also increased from 2015 to 2019 at an average rate of 4.7% per year but declined in 2020 by 8.4%. “Overall, there was an average of 135 new NPIs that appeared and an average of 59.4 NPIs that stopped billing for 17311,” thus, an attrition rate of 59 surgeons, Dr. Ahn explained.
She emphasized that notably, the number of approved MSDO fellowship spots has remained stable since 2016 and is about 92 to 93 per year. “There are about 135 new surgeons and about two-thirds are new fellowship graduates,” she said.
The researchers were also interested in seeing how saturated each surgeon was and looked at the approximate number of cases that they were handling.
Of the physicians who billed 17311 through CMS, over 26% billed less than 100 times and more than 45% billed less than 200 times, and over 80% billed less than 500 times.
“One might be able to conclude that there might be some potential flexibility depending on the future need for surgeons,” she said.
The study was limited by several factors, one being that the researchers looked only at CPT code 17311 and not other designated codes for Mohs surgery. Other factors such as staff and space limitations were not accounted for since only billing data were used.
Dr. Ahn and her team are going to continue their work, and the next steps are to look at geographic trends and monitor for insurance network eligibility changes. “We are currently doing a workforce survey so we can better understand our current workforce rather than just historical data,” she concluded.
Asked to comment on the results, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, noted that the increase in the “billing rates of the first stage of Mohs micrographic surgery highlights not only the growing skin cancer epidemic, but also the number of providers who are providing these services. This underscores the importance of standardized training guidelines and board certifications of Mohs micrographic surgeons to assure high levels of patient care and the appropriate use of Mohs micrographic surgery,” he said.
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Ahn reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE – At least for now, and that has been the case for the past 5 years.
Using CMS billing codes as a surrogate, the researchers found that there was a steady increase in the number of physicians who billed from 2015 to 2020. With the exception of 2020, which was the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of times that a specific code was billed for increased on average by 4.7% annually.
“Thus, if the attrition rate remains stable, even with changes in board certification and potential payer eligibility restrictions, the number of physicians will continue to increase,” study author Ji Won Ahn, MD, who specializes in dermatology and Mohs surgery at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery, where she presented the results.
The growth in the number of Mohs surgeons has been fueled by several factors, including a rising incidence of skin cancer as well as the superior cure rates and cosmetic outcomes with the procedure. Reimbursement has been favorable and training pathways have expanded. A 2019 retrospective study reported that there were 2,240 dermatologists who performed Mohs surgery in the United States, with nearly all of them (94.6%) residing in metropolitan areas.
Dr. Ahn explained that it was important to define the workforce because of several new factors that will be affecting it in the future. “With the establishment of Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology [MSDO] board certification that went into effect 2 years ago, potential future payer eligibility restrictions may be coming,” she said. “The adequacy of the Mohs surgery workforce is an important consideration.”
Another issue is that new board certification will be limited to fellowship-trained physicians after the first 5 years. “We wanted to compare these numbers with the fellowship numbers,” she said. “Although fellowship numbers are something that the college potentially has the power to change.”
Dr. Ahn and colleagues used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database to evaluate the use of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 17311, which is one of the most common billing codes for Mohs micrographic technique. Looking at data from 2015-2020, they found that there was an annual increase in the number of unique national provider identifiers (NPIs) billing for 17311, at an average rate of 75.6 per year.
The total number of times that 17311 was billed also increased from 2015 to 2019 at an average rate of 4.7% per year but declined in 2020 by 8.4%. “Overall, there was an average of 135 new NPIs that appeared and an average of 59.4 NPIs that stopped billing for 17311,” thus, an attrition rate of 59 surgeons, Dr. Ahn explained.
She emphasized that notably, the number of approved MSDO fellowship spots has remained stable since 2016 and is about 92 to 93 per year. “There are about 135 new surgeons and about two-thirds are new fellowship graduates,” she said.
The researchers were also interested in seeing how saturated each surgeon was and looked at the approximate number of cases that they were handling.
Of the physicians who billed 17311 through CMS, over 26% billed less than 100 times and more than 45% billed less than 200 times, and over 80% billed less than 500 times.
“One might be able to conclude that there might be some potential flexibility depending on the future need for surgeons,” she said.
The study was limited by several factors, one being that the researchers looked only at CPT code 17311 and not other designated codes for Mohs surgery. Other factors such as staff and space limitations were not accounted for since only billing data were used.
Dr. Ahn and her team are going to continue their work, and the next steps are to look at geographic trends and monitor for insurance network eligibility changes. “We are currently doing a workforce survey so we can better understand our current workforce rather than just historical data,” she concluded.
Asked to comment on the results, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, noted that the increase in the “billing rates of the first stage of Mohs micrographic surgery highlights not only the growing skin cancer epidemic, but also the number of providers who are providing these services. This underscores the importance of standardized training guidelines and board certifications of Mohs micrographic surgeons to assure high levels of patient care and the appropriate use of Mohs micrographic surgery,” he said.
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Ahn reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ACMS 2023