User login
Mohs surgery improves survival in early-stage Merkel cell carcinoma
SEATTLE – The use of
Compared with conventional wide local excision, survival was significantly improved among patients treated with Mohs, and a subgroup analysis showed that the survival benefit remained for patients with risk factors.
“At 10 years, overall survival was about 21% higher for those treated with Mohs surgery versus those treated with conventional surgery,” said lead author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, a dermatology resident at the New York University School of Medicine. “On multivariable analysis, which controlled for tumor and patient factors, Mohs was associated with an over 40% reduction in the hazard for death.”
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
MCC is a rare, aggressive, neuroendocrine cutaneous malignancy that carries a high mortality rate. The estimated 5-year survival for patients with localized disease is about 50%, Dr. Cheraghlou noted. “That extrapolates to about 55% for T1 tumors and down to about 30% for T4 tumors.”
Although it’s considered to be a rare cancer, the incidence of MCC has been rapidly rising, and in fact it doubled during the period from the 1990s to the 2010s.
Most commonly treated with wide local excision with or without adjuvant radiation therapy, Mohs as monotherapy may offer an alternative treatment option for patients with MCC. It is generally accepted that the optimal treatment for tumors without regional lymph node involvement is surgical, but the data regarding the optimal surgical approach are mixed. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that either Mohs surgery or wide local excision can be used.
“However, these guidelines do not indicate a preference for one modality over the other,” said Dr. Cheraghlou, “and present them as interchangeable treatment options.”
A growing body of literature supports Mohs surgery for many types of rare tumors, including MCC. For example, as previously reported at the 2021 ACMS meeting, one study found that Mohs surgery compared favorably with the standard treatment approach when it came to recurrence rates for patients with MCC. The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for patients with stage I disease and 68.6% for patients with stage IIa. These rates were comparable with rates for historical control patients who were treated with wide local excision, with or without radiation (81%-87% for stage I disease, and 63%-67% for stage II).
Study details
In the current study, Dr. Cheraghlou and colleagues sought to evaluate the association of the type of surgical approach with patient survival after excision of early-stage MCC. They conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database to identify cases of MCC with T1/T2 tumors. A total of 2,313 patients who were diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 with pathologically confirmed negative lymph node involvement and who were treated with Mohs surgery or wide lesion excision were included in the analysis.
“About 90% were T1 tumors, about 40% were located on the head and neck, and the vast majority – about 60% – were treated with wide local excision,” he explained. “Only about 5% received Mohs surgery for treatment of the primary tumor.”
But when the researchers assessed survival outcomes, they found that treatment with Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved overall survival.
The unadjusted 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates for patients treated with Mohs was 87.4% (SE: 3.4%), 84.5% (SE: 3.9%), and 81.8% (SE: 4.6%), respectively, while for wide lesion excision, the rates were 86.1% (SE: 0.9%), 76.9% (SE: 1.2%), and 60.9% (SE: 2.0%), respectively.
For patients who underwent treatment with narrow margin excision, survival rates were similar as for those treated with wide lesion excision, with 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 84.8% (SE: 1.4%), 78.3% (SE: 1.7%), and 60.8% (SE: 3.6%), respectively.
On multivariable survival analysis, Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with wide lesion excision (hazard ratio, 0.594; P = .038). This was also true after multivariable analysis for patients who had one or more NCCN risk factors, for whom improved survival was also seen with Mohs (HR, 0.530; P = .026).
The results did not differ after a sensitivity analysis that included T3 and T4 tumors.
Given that the use of Mohs was so infrequent, compared with standard surgery, the researchers investigated the factors that were associated with the use of Mohs. High-volume MCC centers were significantly more likely to utilize Mohs than wide lesion excision (odds ratio, 1.993; P < .001), compared with other facilities.
“This study has important implications going forward,” Dr. Cheraghlou concluded. “We think it’s important how few patients were treated with Mohs for Merkel cell, and it was slightly more likely to happen in a high-volume center.”
The reasoning for that may be that high-volume centers are more likely to have a surgeon trained to perform Mohs surgery for MCC. “Or perhaps they are more attuned to the benefits of this procedure,” he said. “We can’t tell that from our data, but its notable that it’s such a small proportion of patients – especially when we consider that it is associated with improved survival for the patients who receive it.”
He added that efforts to increase the utilization of Mohs may yield improved local control and overall survival for these patients. “And perhaps with more data, future versions of guidelines may indicate a preference for Mohs over conventional incisions.”
No changes to current practice
Asked to comment on the study, Anthony J. Olszanski, RPh, MD, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that while the results are intriguing, they must be interpreted with caution.
“This study was retrospective in nature, and unrecognized biases can influence results,” he said. “Additionally, given the relative rarity of Merkel cell carcinoma, the sample size is expectantly small.”
But importantly, Dr. Olszanski emphasized, Mohs may more often have been recommended for patients with lesions that appear less aggressive. “Many patients undergoing wide lesion excision may have been referred by Mohs surgeons secondary to features or characteristics of lesions which were worrisome,” he explained. “The results of this study do not opine on why Mohs would impact overall survival over wide lesion excision, a point worthy of consideration. Presently, both modalities can be considered for patients with T1/T2 MCC. The results of this study should not change current practice and would lend themselves to a more robust study.”
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Cheraghlou has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Olszanski has received financial support from Merck and BMS for participated on advisory boards.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE – The use of
Compared with conventional wide local excision, survival was significantly improved among patients treated with Mohs, and a subgroup analysis showed that the survival benefit remained for patients with risk factors.
“At 10 years, overall survival was about 21% higher for those treated with Mohs surgery versus those treated with conventional surgery,” said lead author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, a dermatology resident at the New York University School of Medicine. “On multivariable analysis, which controlled for tumor and patient factors, Mohs was associated with an over 40% reduction in the hazard for death.”
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
MCC is a rare, aggressive, neuroendocrine cutaneous malignancy that carries a high mortality rate. The estimated 5-year survival for patients with localized disease is about 50%, Dr. Cheraghlou noted. “That extrapolates to about 55% for T1 tumors and down to about 30% for T4 tumors.”
Although it’s considered to be a rare cancer, the incidence of MCC has been rapidly rising, and in fact it doubled during the period from the 1990s to the 2010s.
Most commonly treated with wide local excision with or without adjuvant radiation therapy, Mohs as monotherapy may offer an alternative treatment option for patients with MCC. It is generally accepted that the optimal treatment for tumors without regional lymph node involvement is surgical, but the data regarding the optimal surgical approach are mixed. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that either Mohs surgery or wide local excision can be used.
“However, these guidelines do not indicate a preference for one modality over the other,” said Dr. Cheraghlou, “and present them as interchangeable treatment options.”
A growing body of literature supports Mohs surgery for many types of rare tumors, including MCC. For example, as previously reported at the 2021 ACMS meeting, one study found that Mohs surgery compared favorably with the standard treatment approach when it came to recurrence rates for patients with MCC. The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for patients with stage I disease and 68.6% for patients with stage IIa. These rates were comparable with rates for historical control patients who were treated with wide local excision, with or without radiation (81%-87% for stage I disease, and 63%-67% for stage II).
Study details
In the current study, Dr. Cheraghlou and colleagues sought to evaluate the association of the type of surgical approach with patient survival after excision of early-stage MCC. They conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database to identify cases of MCC with T1/T2 tumors. A total of 2,313 patients who were diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 with pathologically confirmed negative lymph node involvement and who were treated with Mohs surgery or wide lesion excision were included in the analysis.
“About 90% were T1 tumors, about 40% were located on the head and neck, and the vast majority – about 60% – were treated with wide local excision,” he explained. “Only about 5% received Mohs surgery for treatment of the primary tumor.”
But when the researchers assessed survival outcomes, they found that treatment with Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved overall survival.
The unadjusted 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates for patients treated with Mohs was 87.4% (SE: 3.4%), 84.5% (SE: 3.9%), and 81.8% (SE: 4.6%), respectively, while for wide lesion excision, the rates were 86.1% (SE: 0.9%), 76.9% (SE: 1.2%), and 60.9% (SE: 2.0%), respectively.
For patients who underwent treatment with narrow margin excision, survival rates were similar as for those treated with wide lesion excision, with 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 84.8% (SE: 1.4%), 78.3% (SE: 1.7%), and 60.8% (SE: 3.6%), respectively.
On multivariable survival analysis, Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with wide lesion excision (hazard ratio, 0.594; P = .038). This was also true after multivariable analysis for patients who had one or more NCCN risk factors, for whom improved survival was also seen with Mohs (HR, 0.530; P = .026).
The results did not differ after a sensitivity analysis that included T3 and T4 tumors.
Given that the use of Mohs was so infrequent, compared with standard surgery, the researchers investigated the factors that were associated with the use of Mohs. High-volume MCC centers were significantly more likely to utilize Mohs than wide lesion excision (odds ratio, 1.993; P < .001), compared with other facilities.
“This study has important implications going forward,” Dr. Cheraghlou concluded. “We think it’s important how few patients were treated with Mohs for Merkel cell, and it was slightly more likely to happen in a high-volume center.”
The reasoning for that may be that high-volume centers are more likely to have a surgeon trained to perform Mohs surgery for MCC. “Or perhaps they are more attuned to the benefits of this procedure,” he said. “We can’t tell that from our data, but its notable that it’s such a small proportion of patients – especially when we consider that it is associated with improved survival for the patients who receive it.”
He added that efforts to increase the utilization of Mohs may yield improved local control and overall survival for these patients. “And perhaps with more data, future versions of guidelines may indicate a preference for Mohs over conventional incisions.”
No changes to current practice
Asked to comment on the study, Anthony J. Olszanski, RPh, MD, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that while the results are intriguing, they must be interpreted with caution.
“This study was retrospective in nature, and unrecognized biases can influence results,” he said. “Additionally, given the relative rarity of Merkel cell carcinoma, the sample size is expectantly small.”
But importantly, Dr. Olszanski emphasized, Mohs may more often have been recommended for patients with lesions that appear less aggressive. “Many patients undergoing wide lesion excision may have been referred by Mohs surgeons secondary to features or characteristics of lesions which were worrisome,” he explained. “The results of this study do not opine on why Mohs would impact overall survival over wide lesion excision, a point worthy of consideration. Presently, both modalities can be considered for patients with T1/T2 MCC. The results of this study should not change current practice and would lend themselves to a more robust study.”
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Cheraghlou has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Olszanski has received financial support from Merck and BMS for participated on advisory boards.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SEATTLE – The use of
Compared with conventional wide local excision, survival was significantly improved among patients treated with Mohs, and a subgroup analysis showed that the survival benefit remained for patients with risk factors.
“At 10 years, overall survival was about 21% higher for those treated with Mohs surgery versus those treated with conventional surgery,” said lead author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, a dermatology resident at the New York University School of Medicine. “On multivariable analysis, which controlled for tumor and patient factors, Mohs was associated with an over 40% reduction in the hazard for death.”
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
MCC is a rare, aggressive, neuroendocrine cutaneous malignancy that carries a high mortality rate. The estimated 5-year survival for patients with localized disease is about 50%, Dr. Cheraghlou noted. “That extrapolates to about 55% for T1 tumors and down to about 30% for T4 tumors.”
Although it’s considered to be a rare cancer, the incidence of MCC has been rapidly rising, and in fact it doubled during the period from the 1990s to the 2010s.
Most commonly treated with wide local excision with or without adjuvant radiation therapy, Mohs as monotherapy may offer an alternative treatment option for patients with MCC. It is generally accepted that the optimal treatment for tumors without regional lymph node involvement is surgical, but the data regarding the optimal surgical approach are mixed. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that either Mohs surgery or wide local excision can be used.
“However, these guidelines do not indicate a preference for one modality over the other,” said Dr. Cheraghlou, “and present them as interchangeable treatment options.”
A growing body of literature supports Mohs surgery for many types of rare tumors, including MCC. For example, as previously reported at the 2021 ACMS meeting, one study found that Mohs surgery compared favorably with the standard treatment approach when it came to recurrence rates for patients with MCC. The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for patients with stage I disease and 68.6% for patients with stage IIa. These rates were comparable with rates for historical control patients who were treated with wide local excision, with or without radiation (81%-87% for stage I disease, and 63%-67% for stage II).
Study details
In the current study, Dr. Cheraghlou and colleagues sought to evaluate the association of the type of surgical approach with patient survival after excision of early-stage MCC. They conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database to identify cases of MCC with T1/T2 tumors. A total of 2,313 patients who were diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 with pathologically confirmed negative lymph node involvement and who were treated with Mohs surgery or wide lesion excision were included in the analysis.
“About 90% were T1 tumors, about 40% were located on the head and neck, and the vast majority – about 60% – were treated with wide local excision,” he explained. “Only about 5% received Mohs surgery for treatment of the primary tumor.”
But when the researchers assessed survival outcomes, they found that treatment with Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved overall survival.
The unadjusted 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates for patients treated with Mohs was 87.4% (SE: 3.4%), 84.5% (SE: 3.9%), and 81.8% (SE: 4.6%), respectively, while for wide lesion excision, the rates were 86.1% (SE: 0.9%), 76.9% (SE: 1.2%), and 60.9% (SE: 2.0%), respectively.
For patients who underwent treatment with narrow margin excision, survival rates were similar as for those treated with wide lesion excision, with 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 84.8% (SE: 1.4%), 78.3% (SE: 1.7%), and 60.8% (SE: 3.6%), respectively.
On multivariable survival analysis, Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with wide lesion excision (hazard ratio, 0.594; P = .038). This was also true after multivariable analysis for patients who had one or more NCCN risk factors, for whom improved survival was also seen with Mohs (HR, 0.530; P = .026).
The results did not differ after a sensitivity analysis that included T3 and T4 tumors.
Given that the use of Mohs was so infrequent, compared with standard surgery, the researchers investigated the factors that were associated with the use of Mohs. High-volume MCC centers were significantly more likely to utilize Mohs than wide lesion excision (odds ratio, 1.993; P < .001), compared with other facilities.
“This study has important implications going forward,” Dr. Cheraghlou concluded. “We think it’s important how few patients were treated with Mohs for Merkel cell, and it was slightly more likely to happen in a high-volume center.”
The reasoning for that may be that high-volume centers are more likely to have a surgeon trained to perform Mohs surgery for MCC. “Or perhaps they are more attuned to the benefits of this procedure,” he said. “We can’t tell that from our data, but its notable that it’s such a small proportion of patients – especially when we consider that it is associated with improved survival for the patients who receive it.”
He added that efforts to increase the utilization of Mohs may yield improved local control and overall survival for these patients. “And perhaps with more data, future versions of guidelines may indicate a preference for Mohs over conventional incisions.”
No changes to current practice
Asked to comment on the study, Anthony J. Olszanski, RPh, MD, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that while the results are intriguing, they must be interpreted with caution.
“This study was retrospective in nature, and unrecognized biases can influence results,” he said. “Additionally, given the relative rarity of Merkel cell carcinoma, the sample size is expectantly small.”
But importantly, Dr. Olszanski emphasized, Mohs may more often have been recommended for patients with lesions that appear less aggressive. “Many patients undergoing wide lesion excision may have been referred by Mohs surgeons secondary to features or characteristics of lesions which were worrisome,” he explained. “The results of this study do not opine on why Mohs would impact overall survival over wide lesion excision, a point worthy of consideration. Presently, both modalities can be considered for patients with T1/T2 MCC. The results of this study should not change current practice and would lend themselves to a more robust study.”
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Cheraghlou has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Olszanski has received financial support from Merck and BMS for participated on advisory boards.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ACMS 2023
Controlled hyperthermia: Novel treatment of BCCs without surgery continues to be refined
PHOENIX – .
“For 2,000 years, it’s been known that heat can kill cancers,” an apoptotic reaction “rather than a destructive reaction coming from excessive heat,” Christopher B. Zachary, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the study was presented during an abstract session.
Dr. Zachary, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues, evaluated a novel, noninvasive technique of controlled hyperthermia and mapping protocol (CHAMP) designed to help clinicians with margin assessment and treatment of superficial and nodular BCCs. For this prospective study, which was first described at the 2022 ASLMS annual conference and is being conducted at three centers, 73 patients with biopsy-proven superficial and nodular BCCs have been scanned with the VivoSight Dx optical coherence tomography (OCT) device to map BCC tumor margins.
The BCCs were treated with the Sciton 1,064-nm Er:YAG laser equipped with a 4-mm beam diameter scan pattern with no overlap and an 8-millisecond pulse duration, randomized to either standard 120-140 J/cm2 pulses until tissue graying and contraction was observed, or the CHAMP controlled hyperthermia technique using repeated 25 J/cm2 pulses under thermal camera imaging to maintain a consistent temperature of 55º C for 60 seconds. Patients were rescanned by OCT at 3 to 12 months for any signs of residual tumor and if positive, were retreated. Finally, lesions were excised for evidence of histological clearance.
To date, 48 patients have completed the study. Among the 26 patients treated with the CHAMP method, 22 (84.6%) were histologically clear, as were 19 of the 22 (86.4%) in the standard treatment group. Ulceration was uncommon with the CHAMP method, and patients healed with modest erythema, Dr. Zachary said.
Pretreatment OCT mapping of BCCs indicated that tumors extended beyond their 5-mm clinical margins in 11 cases (15%). “This will be of interest to those who treat BCCs by Mohs or standard excision,” he said. Increased vascularity measured by dynamic OCT was noted in most CHAMP patients immediately after irradiation, which suggests that apoptosis was the primary mechanism of tumor response instead of vascular destruction.
“The traditional technique for using the long pulsed 1,064-nm Er:YAG laser to cause damage and destruction of BCC is 120-140 J/cm2 at one or two passes until you get to an endpoint of graying and contraction of tissue,” Dr. Zachary said. “That’s opposed to the ‘Low and Slow’ approach [where you use] multiple pulses at 25 J/cm2 until you achieve an optimal time and temperature. If you treat above 60º C, you tend to get epidermal blistering, prolonged healing, and interestingly, absence of pain. I think that’s because you kill off the nerve fibers. With the low fluence multiple scan technique, you’re going for an even flat-top heating.”
Currently, he and his colleagues consider 55 degrees at 60 seconds as “the optimal parameters,” he said, but “it could be 45 degrees at 90 seconds or two minutes. We don’t know yet.”
In an interview at the meeting, one of the abstract session moderators, Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that he was encouraged by the study results as investigations into effective, noninvasive treatment of BCC continue to move forward. “Details matter such as the temperature [of energy delivery] and noninvasive imaging to delineate the appropriate margins,” said Dr. Avram, who has conducted research on the 1,064-nm long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser as an alternative treatment for nonfacial BCCs in patients who are poor surgical candidates.
“Hopefully, at some point,” he said, such approaches will “become the standard of care for many BCCs that we are now treating surgically. I don’t think this will happen in the next 3 years, but I think in the long term, it will emerge as the treatment of choice.”
The study is being funded by Michelson Diagnostics. Sciton provided the long-pulsed 1,064-nm lasers devices being used in the trial. Dr. Zachary reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Sciton.
PHOENIX – .
“For 2,000 years, it’s been known that heat can kill cancers,” an apoptotic reaction “rather than a destructive reaction coming from excessive heat,” Christopher B. Zachary, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the study was presented during an abstract session.
Dr. Zachary, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues, evaluated a novel, noninvasive technique of controlled hyperthermia and mapping protocol (CHAMP) designed to help clinicians with margin assessment and treatment of superficial and nodular BCCs. For this prospective study, which was first described at the 2022 ASLMS annual conference and is being conducted at three centers, 73 patients with biopsy-proven superficial and nodular BCCs have been scanned with the VivoSight Dx optical coherence tomography (OCT) device to map BCC tumor margins.
The BCCs were treated with the Sciton 1,064-nm Er:YAG laser equipped with a 4-mm beam diameter scan pattern with no overlap and an 8-millisecond pulse duration, randomized to either standard 120-140 J/cm2 pulses until tissue graying and contraction was observed, or the CHAMP controlled hyperthermia technique using repeated 25 J/cm2 pulses under thermal camera imaging to maintain a consistent temperature of 55º C for 60 seconds. Patients were rescanned by OCT at 3 to 12 months for any signs of residual tumor and if positive, were retreated. Finally, lesions were excised for evidence of histological clearance.
To date, 48 patients have completed the study. Among the 26 patients treated with the CHAMP method, 22 (84.6%) were histologically clear, as were 19 of the 22 (86.4%) in the standard treatment group. Ulceration was uncommon with the CHAMP method, and patients healed with modest erythema, Dr. Zachary said.
Pretreatment OCT mapping of BCCs indicated that tumors extended beyond their 5-mm clinical margins in 11 cases (15%). “This will be of interest to those who treat BCCs by Mohs or standard excision,” he said. Increased vascularity measured by dynamic OCT was noted in most CHAMP patients immediately after irradiation, which suggests that apoptosis was the primary mechanism of tumor response instead of vascular destruction.
“The traditional technique for using the long pulsed 1,064-nm Er:YAG laser to cause damage and destruction of BCC is 120-140 J/cm2 at one or two passes until you get to an endpoint of graying and contraction of tissue,” Dr. Zachary said. “That’s opposed to the ‘Low and Slow’ approach [where you use] multiple pulses at 25 J/cm2 until you achieve an optimal time and temperature. If you treat above 60º C, you tend to get epidermal blistering, prolonged healing, and interestingly, absence of pain. I think that’s because you kill off the nerve fibers. With the low fluence multiple scan technique, you’re going for an even flat-top heating.”
Currently, he and his colleagues consider 55 degrees at 60 seconds as “the optimal parameters,” he said, but “it could be 45 degrees at 90 seconds or two minutes. We don’t know yet.”
In an interview at the meeting, one of the abstract session moderators, Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that he was encouraged by the study results as investigations into effective, noninvasive treatment of BCC continue to move forward. “Details matter such as the temperature [of energy delivery] and noninvasive imaging to delineate the appropriate margins,” said Dr. Avram, who has conducted research on the 1,064-nm long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser as an alternative treatment for nonfacial BCCs in patients who are poor surgical candidates.
“Hopefully, at some point,” he said, such approaches will “become the standard of care for many BCCs that we are now treating surgically. I don’t think this will happen in the next 3 years, but I think in the long term, it will emerge as the treatment of choice.”
The study is being funded by Michelson Diagnostics. Sciton provided the long-pulsed 1,064-nm lasers devices being used in the trial. Dr. Zachary reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Sciton.
PHOENIX – .
“For 2,000 years, it’s been known that heat can kill cancers,” an apoptotic reaction “rather than a destructive reaction coming from excessive heat,” Christopher B. Zachary, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the study was presented during an abstract session.
Dr. Zachary, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues, evaluated a novel, noninvasive technique of controlled hyperthermia and mapping protocol (CHAMP) designed to help clinicians with margin assessment and treatment of superficial and nodular BCCs. For this prospective study, which was first described at the 2022 ASLMS annual conference and is being conducted at three centers, 73 patients with biopsy-proven superficial and nodular BCCs have been scanned with the VivoSight Dx optical coherence tomography (OCT) device to map BCC tumor margins.
The BCCs were treated with the Sciton 1,064-nm Er:YAG laser equipped with a 4-mm beam diameter scan pattern with no overlap and an 8-millisecond pulse duration, randomized to either standard 120-140 J/cm2 pulses until tissue graying and contraction was observed, or the CHAMP controlled hyperthermia technique using repeated 25 J/cm2 pulses under thermal camera imaging to maintain a consistent temperature of 55º C for 60 seconds. Patients were rescanned by OCT at 3 to 12 months for any signs of residual tumor and if positive, were retreated. Finally, lesions were excised for evidence of histological clearance.
To date, 48 patients have completed the study. Among the 26 patients treated with the CHAMP method, 22 (84.6%) were histologically clear, as were 19 of the 22 (86.4%) in the standard treatment group. Ulceration was uncommon with the CHAMP method, and patients healed with modest erythema, Dr. Zachary said.
Pretreatment OCT mapping of BCCs indicated that tumors extended beyond their 5-mm clinical margins in 11 cases (15%). “This will be of interest to those who treat BCCs by Mohs or standard excision,” he said. Increased vascularity measured by dynamic OCT was noted in most CHAMP patients immediately after irradiation, which suggests that apoptosis was the primary mechanism of tumor response instead of vascular destruction.
“The traditional technique for using the long pulsed 1,064-nm Er:YAG laser to cause damage and destruction of BCC is 120-140 J/cm2 at one or two passes until you get to an endpoint of graying and contraction of tissue,” Dr. Zachary said. “That’s opposed to the ‘Low and Slow’ approach [where you use] multiple pulses at 25 J/cm2 until you achieve an optimal time and temperature. If you treat above 60º C, you tend to get epidermal blistering, prolonged healing, and interestingly, absence of pain. I think that’s because you kill off the nerve fibers. With the low fluence multiple scan technique, you’re going for an even flat-top heating.”
Currently, he and his colleagues consider 55 degrees at 60 seconds as “the optimal parameters,” he said, but “it could be 45 degrees at 90 seconds or two minutes. We don’t know yet.”
In an interview at the meeting, one of the abstract session moderators, Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that he was encouraged by the study results as investigations into effective, noninvasive treatment of BCC continue to move forward. “Details matter such as the temperature [of energy delivery] and noninvasive imaging to delineate the appropriate margins,” said Dr. Avram, who has conducted research on the 1,064-nm long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser as an alternative treatment for nonfacial BCCs in patients who are poor surgical candidates.
“Hopefully, at some point,” he said, such approaches will “become the standard of care for many BCCs that we are now treating surgically. I don’t think this will happen in the next 3 years, but I think in the long term, it will emerge as the treatment of choice.”
The study is being funded by Michelson Diagnostics. Sciton provided the long-pulsed 1,064-nm lasers devices being used in the trial. Dr. Zachary reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Sciton.
AT ASLMS 2023
Best practices document outlines genitourinary applications of lasers and energy-based devices
PHOENIX –
“Even a cursory review of PubMed today yields over 100,000 results” on this topic, Macrene R. Alexiades, MD, PhD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Add to that radiofrequency and various diagnoses, the number of publications has skyrocketed, particularly over the last 10 years.”
What has been missing from this hot research topic all these years, she continued, is that no one has distilled this pile of data into a practical guide for office-based clinicians who use lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary conditions – until now. Working with experts in gynecology and urogynecology, Dr. Alexiades spearheaded a 2-year-long effort to assemble a document on optimal protocols and best practices for genitourinary application of lasers and energy-based devices. The document, published soon after the ASLMS meeting in Lasers in Medicine and Surgery, includes a table that lists the current Food and Drug Administration approval status of devices in genitourinary applications, as well as individual sections dedicated to fractional lasers, radiofrequency (RF) devices, and high-intensity focused electromagnetic technology. It concludes with a section on the current status of clearances and future pathways.
“The work we did was exhaustive,” said Dr. Alexiades, who is also founder and director of Dermatology & Laser Surgery Center of New York. “We went through all the clinical trial data and compiled the parameters that, as a consensus, we agree are best practices for each technology for which we had rigorous published data.”
The document contains a brief background on the history of the devices used for genitourinary issues and it addresses core topics for each technology, such as conditions treated, contraindications, preoperative physical assessment and preparation, perioperative protocols, and postoperative care.
Contraindications to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices are numerous and include use of an intrauterine device, active urinary tract or genital infection, vaginal bleeding, current pregnancy, active or recent malignancy, having an electrical implant anywhere in the body, significant concurrent illness, and an anticoagulative or thromboembolic condition or taking anticoagulant medications 1 week prior to the procedure. Another condition to screen for is advanced prolapse, which was considered a contraindication in all clinical trials, she added. “It’s important that you’re able to do the speculum exam and stage the prolapse” so that a patient with this contraindication is not treated.
Dr. Alexiades shared the following highlights from the document’s section related to the use of fractional CO2 lasers:
Preoperative management. Schedule the treatment one week after the patient’s menstrual period. Patients should avoid blood thinners for 7 days and avoid intercourse the night before the procedure. Reschedule in the case of fever, chills, or vaginal bleeding or discharge.
Preoperative physical exam and testing. A normal speculum exam and a recent negative PAP smear are required. For those of child-bearing potential, a pregnancy test is warranted. Obtain written and verbal consent, including discussion of all treatment options, risks, and benefits. No topical or local anesthesia is necessary internally. “Externally, we sometimes apply topical lidocaine gel, but I have found that’s not necessary in most cases,” Dr. Alexiades said. “The treatment is so quick.”
Peri-operative management. In general, device settings are provided by the manufacturer. “For most of the studies that had successful outcomes and no adverse events, researchers adhered to the mild or moderate settings on the technology,” she said. Energy settings were between 15 and 30 watts, delivered at a laser fluence of about 250-300 mJ/cm2 with a spacing of microbeams 1 mm apart. Typically, three treatments are done at 1-month intervals and maintenance treatments are recommended at 6 and 12 months based on duration of the outcomes.
Vulvovaginal postoperative management. A 3-day recovery time is recommended with avoidance of intercourse during this period, because “re-epithelialization is usually complete in 3 days, so we want to give the opportunity for the lining to heal prior to introducing any friction, Dr. Alexiades said.” Rarely, spotting or discharge may occur and there should be no discomfort. “Any severe discomfort or burning may potentially signify infection and should prompt evaluation and possibly vaginal cultures. The patient can shower, but we recommend avoiding seated baths to decrease any introduction of infectious agents.”
Patients should be followed up monthly until three treatments are completed, and a maintenance treatment is considered appropriate between 6 and 12 months. “I do recommend doing a 1-month follow-up following the final treatment, unless it’s a patient who has already had a series of three treatments and is coming in for maintenance,” she said.
In a study from her own practice, Dr. Alexiades evaluated a series of three fractional CO2 laser treatments to the vulva and vagina with a 1-year follow-up in postmenopausal patients. She used the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) to assess changes in vaginal elasticity, fluid volume, vaginal pH, epithelial integrity, and moisture. She and her colleagues discovered that there was improvement in every VHI category after treatment and during the follow-up interval up to 6 months.
“Between 6 and 12 months, we started to see a return a bit toward baseline on all of these parameters,” she said. “The serendipitous discovery that I made during the course of that study was that early intervention improves outcomes. I observed that the younger, most recently postmenopausal cohort seemed to attain normal or near normal VHI quicker than the more extended postmenopausal cohorts.”
In an editorial published in 2020, Dr. Alexiades reviewed the effects of fractional CO2 laser treatment of vulvar skin on vaginal pH and referred to a study she conducted that found that the mean baseline pH pretreatment was 6.32 in the cohort of postmenopausal patients, and was reduced after 3 treatments. “Postmenopausally, the normal acidic pH becomes alkaline,” she said. But she did not expect to see an additional reduction in pH following the treatment out to 6 months. “This indicates that, whatever the wound healing and other restorative effects of these devices are, they seem to continue out to 6 months, at which point it turns around and moves toward baseline [levels].”
Dr. Alexiades highlighted two published meta-analyses of studies related to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices. One included 59 studies of 3,609 women treated for vaginal rejuvenation using either radiofrequency or fractional ablative laser therapy. The studies reported improvements in symptoms of GSM/VVA and sexual function, high patient satisfaction, with minor adverse events, including treatment-associated vaginal swelling or vaginal discharge.
“Further research needs to be completed to determine which specific pathologies can be treated, if maintenance treatment is necessary, and long-term safety concerns,” the authors concluded.
In another review, researchers analyzed 64 studies related to vaginal laser therapy for GSM. Of these, 47 were before and after studies without a control group, 10 were controlled intervention studies, and 7 were observational cohort and cross-sectional studies.
Vaginal laser treatment “seems to improve scores on the visual analogue scale, Female Sexual Function Index, and the Vaginal Health Index over the short term,” the authors wrote. “Safety outcomes are underreported and short term. Further well-designed clinical trials with sham-laser control groups and evaluating objective variables are needed to provide the best evidence on efficacy.”
“Lasers and energy-based devices are now considered alternative therapeutic modalities for genitourinary conditions,” Dr. Alexiades concluded. “The shortcomings in the literature with respect to lasers and device treatments demonstrate the need for the consensus on best practices and protocols.”
During a separate presentation at the meeting, Michael Gold, MD, highlighted data from Grand View Research, a market research database, which estimated that the global women’s health and wellness market is valued at more than $31 billion globally and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 4.8% from 2022 to 2030.
“Sales of women’s health energy-based devices continue to grow as new technologies are developed,” said Dr. Gold, a Nashville, Tenn.–based dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. “Evolving societal norms have made discussions about feminine health issues acceptable. Suffering in silence is no longer necessary or advocated.”
Dr. Alexiades disclosed that she has conducted research for Candela Lasers, Lumenis, Allergan/AbbVie, InMode, and Endymed. She is also the founder and CEO of Macrene Actives. Dr. Gold disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator and a speaker for Joylux, InMode, and Alma Lasers.
PHOENIX –
“Even a cursory review of PubMed today yields over 100,000 results” on this topic, Macrene R. Alexiades, MD, PhD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Add to that radiofrequency and various diagnoses, the number of publications has skyrocketed, particularly over the last 10 years.”
What has been missing from this hot research topic all these years, she continued, is that no one has distilled this pile of data into a practical guide for office-based clinicians who use lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary conditions – until now. Working with experts in gynecology and urogynecology, Dr. Alexiades spearheaded a 2-year-long effort to assemble a document on optimal protocols and best practices for genitourinary application of lasers and energy-based devices. The document, published soon after the ASLMS meeting in Lasers in Medicine and Surgery, includes a table that lists the current Food and Drug Administration approval status of devices in genitourinary applications, as well as individual sections dedicated to fractional lasers, radiofrequency (RF) devices, and high-intensity focused electromagnetic technology. It concludes with a section on the current status of clearances and future pathways.
“The work we did was exhaustive,” said Dr. Alexiades, who is also founder and director of Dermatology & Laser Surgery Center of New York. “We went through all the clinical trial data and compiled the parameters that, as a consensus, we agree are best practices for each technology for which we had rigorous published data.”
The document contains a brief background on the history of the devices used for genitourinary issues and it addresses core topics for each technology, such as conditions treated, contraindications, preoperative physical assessment and preparation, perioperative protocols, and postoperative care.
Contraindications to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices are numerous and include use of an intrauterine device, active urinary tract or genital infection, vaginal bleeding, current pregnancy, active or recent malignancy, having an electrical implant anywhere in the body, significant concurrent illness, and an anticoagulative or thromboembolic condition or taking anticoagulant medications 1 week prior to the procedure. Another condition to screen for is advanced prolapse, which was considered a contraindication in all clinical trials, she added. “It’s important that you’re able to do the speculum exam and stage the prolapse” so that a patient with this contraindication is not treated.
Dr. Alexiades shared the following highlights from the document’s section related to the use of fractional CO2 lasers:
Preoperative management. Schedule the treatment one week after the patient’s menstrual period. Patients should avoid blood thinners for 7 days and avoid intercourse the night before the procedure. Reschedule in the case of fever, chills, or vaginal bleeding or discharge.
Preoperative physical exam and testing. A normal speculum exam and a recent negative PAP smear are required. For those of child-bearing potential, a pregnancy test is warranted. Obtain written and verbal consent, including discussion of all treatment options, risks, and benefits. No topical or local anesthesia is necessary internally. “Externally, we sometimes apply topical lidocaine gel, but I have found that’s not necessary in most cases,” Dr. Alexiades said. “The treatment is so quick.”
Peri-operative management. In general, device settings are provided by the manufacturer. “For most of the studies that had successful outcomes and no adverse events, researchers adhered to the mild or moderate settings on the technology,” she said. Energy settings were between 15 and 30 watts, delivered at a laser fluence of about 250-300 mJ/cm2 with a spacing of microbeams 1 mm apart. Typically, three treatments are done at 1-month intervals and maintenance treatments are recommended at 6 and 12 months based on duration of the outcomes.
Vulvovaginal postoperative management. A 3-day recovery time is recommended with avoidance of intercourse during this period, because “re-epithelialization is usually complete in 3 days, so we want to give the opportunity for the lining to heal prior to introducing any friction, Dr. Alexiades said.” Rarely, spotting or discharge may occur and there should be no discomfort. “Any severe discomfort or burning may potentially signify infection and should prompt evaluation and possibly vaginal cultures. The patient can shower, but we recommend avoiding seated baths to decrease any introduction of infectious agents.”
Patients should be followed up monthly until three treatments are completed, and a maintenance treatment is considered appropriate between 6 and 12 months. “I do recommend doing a 1-month follow-up following the final treatment, unless it’s a patient who has already had a series of three treatments and is coming in for maintenance,” she said.
In a study from her own practice, Dr. Alexiades evaluated a series of three fractional CO2 laser treatments to the vulva and vagina with a 1-year follow-up in postmenopausal patients. She used the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) to assess changes in vaginal elasticity, fluid volume, vaginal pH, epithelial integrity, and moisture. She and her colleagues discovered that there was improvement in every VHI category after treatment and during the follow-up interval up to 6 months.
“Between 6 and 12 months, we started to see a return a bit toward baseline on all of these parameters,” she said. “The serendipitous discovery that I made during the course of that study was that early intervention improves outcomes. I observed that the younger, most recently postmenopausal cohort seemed to attain normal or near normal VHI quicker than the more extended postmenopausal cohorts.”
In an editorial published in 2020, Dr. Alexiades reviewed the effects of fractional CO2 laser treatment of vulvar skin on vaginal pH and referred to a study she conducted that found that the mean baseline pH pretreatment was 6.32 in the cohort of postmenopausal patients, and was reduced after 3 treatments. “Postmenopausally, the normal acidic pH becomes alkaline,” she said. But she did not expect to see an additional reduction in pH following the treatment out to 6 months. “This indicates that, whatever the wound healing and other restorative effects of these devices are, they seem to continue out to 6 months, at which point it turns around and moves toward baseline [levels].”
Dr. Alexiades highlighted two published meta-analyses of studies related to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices. One included 59 studies of 3,609 women treated for vaginal rejuvenation using either radiofrequency or fractional ablative laser therapy. The studies reported improvements in symptoms of GSM/VVA and sexual function, high patient satisfaction, with minor adverse events, including treatment-associated vaginal swelling or vaginal discharge.
“Further research needs to be completed to determine which specific pathologies can be treated, if maintenance treatment is necessary, and long-term safety concerns,” the authors concluded.
In another review, researchers analyzed 64 studies related to vaginal laser therapy for GSM. Of these, 47 were before and after studies without a control group, 10 were controlled intervention studies, and 7 were observational cohort and cross-sectional studies.
Vaginal laser treatment “seems to improve scores on the visual analogue scale, Female Sexual Function Index, and the Vaginal Health Index over the short term,” the authors wrote. “Safety outcomes are underreported and short term. Further well-designed clinical trials with sham-laser control groups and evaluating objective variables are needed to provide the best evidence on efficacy.”
“Lasers and energy-based devices are now considered alternative therapeutic modalities for genitourinary conditions,” Dr. Alexiades concluded. “The shortcomings in the literature with respect to lasers and device treatments demonstrate the need for the consensus on best practices and protocols.”
During a separate presentation at the meeting, Michael Gold, MD, highlighted data from Grand View Research, a market research database, which estimated that the global women’s health and wellness market is valued at more than $31 billion globally and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 4.8% from 2022 to 2030.
“Sales of women’s health energy-based devices continue to grow as new technologies are developed,” said Dr. Gold, a Nashville, Tenn.–based dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. “Evolving societal norms have made discussions about feminine health issues acceptable. Suffering in silence is no longer necessary or advocated.”
Dr. Alexiades disclosed that she has conducted research for Candela Lasers, Lumenis, Allergan/AbbVie, InMode, and Endymed. She is also the founder and CEO of Macrene Actives. Dr. Gold disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator and a speaker for Joylux, InMode, and Alma Lasers.
PHOENIX –
“Even a cursory review of PubMed today yields over 100,000 results” on this topic, Macrene R. Alexiades, MD, PhD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Add to that radiofrequency and various diagnoses, the number of publications has skyrocketed, particularly over the last 10 years.”
What has been missing from this hot research topic all these years, she continued, is that no one has distilled this pile of data into a practical guide for office-based clinicians who use lasers and energy-based devices for genitourinary conditions – until now. Working with experts in gynecology and urogynecology, Dr. Alexiades spearheaded a 2-year-long effort to assemble a document on optimal protocols and best practices for genitourinary application of lasers and energy-based devices. The document, published soon after the ASLMS meeting in Lasers in Medicine and Surgery, includes a table that lists the current Food and Drug Administration approval status of devices in genitourinary applications, as well as individual sections dedicated to fractional lasers, radiofrequency (RF) devices, and high-intensity focused electromagnetic technology. It concludes with a section on the current status of clearances and future pathways.
“The work we did was exhaustive,” said Dr. Alexiades, who is also founder and director of Dermatology & Laser Surgery Center of New York. “We went through all the clinical trial data and compiled the parameters that, as a consensus, we agree are best practices for each technology for which we had rigorous published data.”
The document contains a brief background on the history of the devices used for genitourinary issues and it addresses core topics for each technology, such as conditions treated, contraindications, preoperative physical assessment and preparation, perioperative protocols, and postoperative care.
Contraindications to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices are numerous and include use of an intrauterine device, active urinary tract or genital infection, vaginal bleeding, current pregnancy, active or recent malignancy, having an electrical implant anywhere in the body, significant concurrent illness, and an anticoagulative or thromboembolic condition or taking anticoagulant medications 1 week prior to the procedure. Another condition to screen for is advanced prolapse, which was considered a contraindication in all clinical trials, she added. “It’s important that you’re able to do the speculum exam and stage the prolapse” so that a patient with this contraindication is not treated.
Dr. Alexiades shared the following highlights from the document’s section related to the use of fractional CO2 lasers:
Preoperative management. Schedule the treatment one week after the patient’s menstrual period. Patients should avoid blood thinners for 7 days and avoid intercourse the night before the procedure. Reschedule in the case of fever, chills, or vaginal bleeding or discharge.
Preoperative physical exam and testing. A normal speculum exam and a recent negative PAP smear are required. For those of child-bearing potential, a pregnancy test is warranted. Obtain written and verbal consent, including discussion of all treatment options, risks, and benefits. No topical or local anesthesia is necessary internally. “Externally, we sometimes apply topical lidocaine gel, but I have found that’s not necessary in most cases,” Dr. Alexiades said. “The treatment is so quick.”
Peri-operative management. In general, device settings are provided by the manufacturer. “For most of the studies that had successful outcomes and no adverse events, researchers adhered to the mild or moderate settings on the technology,” she said. Energy settings were between 15 and 30 watts, delivered at a laser fluence of about 250-300 mJ/cm2 with a spacing of microbeams 1 mm apart. Typically, three treatments are done at 1-month intervals and maintenance treatments are recommended at 6 and 12 months based on duration of the outcomes.
Vulvovaginal postoperative management. A 3-day recovery time is recommended with avoidance of intercourse during this period, because “re-epithelialization is usually complete in 3 days, so we want to give the opportunity for the lining to heal prior to introducing any friction, Dr. Alexiades said.” Rarely, spotting or discharge may occur and there should be no discomfort. “Any severe discomfort or burning may potentially signify infection and should prompt evaluation and possibly vaginal cultures. The patient can shower, but we recommend avoiding seated baths to decrease any introduction of infectious agents.”
Patients should be followed up monthly until three treatments are completed, and a maintenance treatment is considered appropriate between 6 and 12 months. “I do recommend doing a 1-month follow-up following the final treatment, unless it’s a patient who has already had a series of three treatments and is coming in for maintenance,” she said.
In a study from her own practice, Dr. Alexiades evaluated a series of three fractional CO2 laser treatments to the vulva and vagina with a 1-year follow-up in postmenopausal patients. She used the Vaginal Health Index (VHI) to assess changes in vaginal elasticity, fluid volume, vaginal pH, epithelial integrity, and moisture. She and her colleagues discovered that there was improvement in every VHI category after treatment and during the follow-up interval up to 6 months.
“Between 6 and 12 months, we started to see a return a bit toward baseline on all of these parameters,” she said. “The serendipitous discovery that I made during the course of that study was that early intervention improves outcomes. I observed that the younger, most recently postmenopausal cohort seemed to attain normal or near normal VHI quicker than the more extended postmenopausal cohorts.”
In an editorial published in 2020, Dr. Alexiades reviewed the effects of fractional CO2 laser treatment of vulvar skin on vaginal pH and referred to a study she conducted that found that the mean baseline pH pretreatment was 6.32 in the cohort of postmenopausal patients, and was reduced after 3 treatments. “Postmenopausally, the normal acidic pH becomes alkaline,” she said. But she did not expect to see an additional reduction in pH following the treatment out to 6 months. “This indicates that, whatever the wound healing and other restorative effects of these devices are, they seem to continue out to 6 months, at which point it turns around and moves toward baseline [levels].”
Dr. Alexiades highlighted two published meta-analyses of studies related to the genitourinary use of lasers and energy-based devices. One included 59 studies of 3,609 women treated for vaginal rejuvenation using either radiofrequency or fractional ablative laser therapy. The studies reported improvements in symptoms of GSM/VVA and sexual function, high patient satisfaction, with minor adverse events, including treatment-associated vaginal swelling or vaginal discharge.
“Further research needs to be completed to determine which specific pathologies can be treated, if maintenance treatment is necessary, and long-term safety concerns,” the authors concluded.
In another review, researchers analyzed 64 studies related to vaginal laser therapy for GSM. Of these, 47 were before and after studies without a control group, 10 were controlled intervention studies, and 7 were observational cohort and cross-sectional studies.
Vaginal laser treatment “seems to improve scores on the visual analogue scale, Female Sexual Function Index, and the Vaginal Health Index over the short term,” the authors wrote. “Safety outcomes are underreported and short term. Further well-designed clinical trials with sham-laser control groups and evaluating objective variables are needed to provide the best evidence on efficacy.”
“Lasers and energy-based devices are now considered alternative therapeutic modalities for genitourinary conditions,” Dr. Alexiades concluded. “The shortcomings in the literature with respect to lasers and device treatments demonstrate the need for the consensus on best practices and protocols.”
During a separate presentation at the meeting, Michael Gold, MD, highlighted data from Grand View Research, a market research database, which estimated that the global women’s health and wellness market is valued at more than $31 billion globally and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 4.8% from 2022 to 2030.
“Sales of women’s health energy-based devices continue to grow as new technologies are developed,” said Dr. Gold, a Nashville, Tenn.–based dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. “Evolving societal norms have made discussions about feminine health issues acceptable. Suffering in silence is no longer necessary or advocated.”
Dr. Alexiades disclosed that she has conducted research for Candela Lasers, Lumenis, Allergan/AbbVie, InMode, and Endymed. She is also the founder and CEO of Macrene Actives. Dr. Gold disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator and a speaker for Joylux, InMode, and Alma Lasers.
AT ASLMS 2023
What are the main reasons patients sue dermatologists?
PHOENIX – , and the defendants were more likely to be male.
Those are among key findings from a study that aimed to determine the reasons patients pursue litigation against dermatologists.
“The number of lawsuits against physicians continues to climb annually,” Young Lim, MD, PhD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the results were presented during an abstract session. “Depending on the study, anywhere between 75 to 99 percent of physicians will face a lawsuit by age 65. A clear understanding of prior litigations will help mitigate similar errors in future practice and promote safer, higher quality care.”
Dr. Lim, a dermatology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, along with Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, and H. Ray Jalian, MD, a cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Los Angeles, used two large national database repositories, WestlawNext and LexisNexis, to retrospectively analyze legal documents following a query using “dermatology” and “dermatologist” as search terms to capture all variety of litigations. They excluded cases in which litigation did not involve patient care as well as those in which the dermatologist was the plaintiff and those in which the dermatologist was involved as a third party.
The final analysis consisted of 54 claims, comprising 43 state and 11 federal cases. Of the 54 cases, 35 involved a male defendant, 12 involved a female defendant, and 7 cases either did not specify the gender of the defendant or involved multiple defendants. Of the 35 cases involving a male defendant, 23 (66%) were brought by female plaintiffs.
Most cases (49, or 91%) involved a defendant dermatologist in private practice while the remaining 5 involved a defendant dermatologist in an academic setting.
The most common reason for litigation was accidental injury (27 cases, or 50%), followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses (22 cases, or 41%). Five cases resulted from the dermatologist failing to communicate important information, such as postop care instructions or obtaining informed consent.
Of all 54 cases 30 (56%) were dismissed prior to trial, while 24 (44%) resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. According to Dr. Lim, payout information was available for only five cases, and ranged from $15,000 (injury from laser) to $1,950,000 (delayed diagnosis of malignant melanoma).
“While lawsuits from patients against dermatologists largely involve injury from elective procedures, clinicians should practice caution regarding missed or delayed diagnoses when practicing medical dermatology,” the authors concluded in their abstract. “Ensuring that critical information is shared with patients and obtaining proper written consent will also safeguard against easily-avoidable litigations.”
Christopher B. Zachary, MBBS, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings are a reminder that lack of attention to the most simply performed aspects of care can be the reasons patients will seek medical malpractice redress.
“Consent requires careful and thoughtful explanation of a planned procedure, which should then be recorded in the chart to avoid future confusion,” Dr. Zachary told this news organization. “A patient’s signature on a consent form obtained by a staff member is clearly inadequate if not accompanied by a clear and understandable preoperative discussion. Words, images, video are all elements that aid patients’ comprehension of a planned procedure. And postoperative instructions given to the patients while on the laser table are commonly forgotten by the patient and must be accompanied by written advice summary. Patients will frequently misremember instructions and can be overwhelmed by medical jargon.”
Neither the researchers nor Dr. Zachary reported having relevant financial disclosures.
PHOENIX – , and the defendants were more likely to be male.
Those are among key findings from a study that aimed to determine the reasons patients pursue litigation against dermatologists.
“The number of lawsuits against physicians continues to climb annually,” Young Lim, MD, PhD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the results were presented during an abstract session. “Depending on the study, anywhere between 75 to 99 percent of physicians will face a lawsuit by age 65. A clear understanding of prior litigations will help mitigate similar errors in future practice and promote safer, higher quality care.”
Dr. Lim, a dermatology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, along with Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, and H. Ray Jalian, MD, a cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Los Angeles, used two large national database repositories, WestlawNext and LexisNexis, to retrospectively analyze legal documents following a query using “dermatology” and “dermatologist” as search terms to capture all variety of litigations. They excluded cases in which litigation did not involve patient care as well as those in which the dermatologist was the plaintiff and those in which the dermatologist was involved as a third party.
The final analysis consisted of 54 claims, comprising 43 state and 11 federal cases. Of the 54 cases, 35 involved a male defendant, 12 involved a female defendant, and 7 cases either did not specify the gender of the defendant or involved multiple defendants. Of the 35 cases involving a male defendant, 23 (66%) were brought by female plaintiffs.
Most cases (49, or 91%) involved a defendant dermatologist in private practice while the remaining 5 involved a defendant dermatologist in an academic setting.
The most common reason for litigation was accidental injury (27 cases, or 50%), followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses (22 cases, or 41%). Five cases resulted from the dermatologist failing to communicate important information, such as postop care instructions or obtaining informed consent.
Of all 54 cases 30 (56%) were dismissed prior to trial, while 24 (44%) resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. According to Dr. Lim, payout information was available for only five cases, and ranged from $15,000 (injury from laser) to $1,950,000 (delayed diagnosis of malignant melanoma).
“While lawsuits from patients against dermatologists largely involve injury from elective procedures, clinicians should practice caution regarding missed or delayed diagnoses when practicing medical dermatology,” the authors concluded in their abstract. “Ensuring that critical information is shared with patients and obtaining proper written consent will also safeguard against easily-avoidable litigations.”
Christopher B. Zachary, MBBS, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings are a reminder that lack of attention to the most simply performed aspects of care can be the reasons patients will seek medical malpractice redress.
“Consent requires careful and thoughtful explanation of a planned procedure, which should then be recorded in the chart to avoid future confusion,” Dr. Zachary told this news organization. “A patient’s signature on a consent form obtained by a staff member is clearly inadequate if not accompanied by a clear and understandable preoperative discussion. Words, images, video are all elements that aid patients’ comprehension of a planned procedure. And postoperative instructions given to the patients while on the laser table are commonly forgotten by the patient and must be accompanied by written advice summary. Patients will frequently misremember instructions and can be overwhelmed by medical jargon.”
Neither the researchers nor Dr. Zachary reported having relevant financial disclosures.
PHOENIX – , and the defendants were more likely to be male.
Those are among key findings from a study that aimed to determine the reasons patients pursue litigation against dermatologists.
“The number of lawsuits against physicians continues to climb annually,” Young Lim, MD, PhD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the results were presented during an abstract session. “Depending on the study, anywhere between 75 to 99 percent of physicians will face a lawsuit by age 65. A clear understanding of prior litigations will help mitigate similar errors in future practice and promote safer, higher quality care.”
Dr. Lim, a dermatology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, along with Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, and H. Ray Jalian, MD, a cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Los Angeles, used two large national database repositories, WestlawNext and LexisNexis, to retrospectively analyze legal documents following a query using “dermatology” and “dermatologist” as search terms to capture all variety of litigations. They excluded cases in which litigation did not involve patient care as well as those in which the dermatologist was the plaintiff and those in which the dermatologist was involved as a third party.
The final analysis consisted of 54 claims, comprising 43 state and 11 federal cases. Of the 54 cases, 35 involved a male defendant, 12 involved a female defendant, and 7 cases either did not specify the gender of the defendant or involved multiple defendants. Of the 35 cases involving a male defendant, 23 (66%) were brought by female plaintiffs.
Most cases (49, or 91%) involved a defendant dermatologist in private practice while the remaining 5 involved a defendant dermatologist in an academic setting.
The most common reason for litigation was accidental injury (27 cases, or 50%), followed by incorrect or delayed diagnoses (22 cases, or 41%). Five cases resulted from the dermatologist failing to communicate important information, such as postop care instructions or obtaining informed consent.
Of all 54 cases 30 (56%) were dismissed prior to trial, while 24 (44%) resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff. According to Dr. Lim, payout information was available for only five cases, and ranged from $15,000 (injury from laser) to $1,950,000 (delayed diagnosis of malignant melanoma).
“While lawsuits from patients against dermatologists largely involve injury from elective procedures, clinicians should practice caution regarding missed or delayed diagnoses when practicing medical dermatology,” the authors concluded in their abstract. “Ensuring that critical information is shared with patients and obtaining proper written consent will also safeguard against easily-avoidable litigations.”
Christopher B. Zachary, MBBS, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings are a reminder that lack of attention to the most simply performed aspects of care can be the reasons patients will seek medical malpractice redress.
“Consent requires careful and thoughtful explanation of a planned procedure, which should then be recorded in the chart to avoid future confusion,” Dr. Zachary told this news organization. “A patient’s signature on a consent form obtained by a staff member is clearly inadequate if not accompanied by a clear and understandable preoperative discussion. Words, images, video are all elements that aid patients’ comprehension of a planned procedure. And postoperative instructions given to the patients while on the laser table are commonly forgotten by the patient and must be accompanied by written advice summary. Patients will frequently misremember instructions and can be overwhelmed by medical jargon.”
Neither the researchers nor Dr. Zachary reported having relevant financial disclosures.
AT ASLMS 2023
Ten-year analysis finds relatively low complication rate from fractional resurfacing lasers
PHOENIX – over a decade showed.
To investigate, Dr. Hashemi, a third-year dermatology resident at Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, drew from the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, which compiles medical device reports for suspected injuries from device use or malfunction and represents the largest repository of device adverse effects. Medical device reports are submitted by manufacturers, clinicians, patients, and others.
The researchers limited their query to MDRs related to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. The query was performed in January 2023 using a comprehensive list of product names and manufacturers.
The initial search yielded 240 MDRs, which were individually reviewed for duplicate records or insufficient data, and the final analysis included 165 MDRs. The 10 most reported adverse events were burns (30%), followed by dyspigmentation (14%), scarring (12%), other (11%), postoperative infection (8%), blisters (6%), pain (5%), hypertrophic scar (4%), post-treatment inflammation (4%), and textural changes (3%). Within the 10-year period analyzed, 56% of MDRs occurred between 2016 and 2019, with a disproportionately low percentage of MDRs occurring in 2022 (5%).
“Adverse events due to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are rare but potentially serious,” Dr. Hashemi concluded. “Care must be taken with counseling, patient selection, and treatment settings to optimize safety, informed consent, and patient satisfaction. Given the relatively low number of adverse events seen with fractional resurfacing lasers, factors driving their safety should be further explored.”
He added that he was surprised by the relatively low number of reported issues, referring to the total of 165 cases over 10 years. By comparison, he said, body contouring had 660 cases reported over a 7-year period in one recent study.
According to the MAUDE website, submitting MDRs to MAUDE is mandatory for manufacturers, importers, and device user facilities, and are voluntary for other groups, such as health care professionals, patients, and consumers.
Dr. Hashemi disclosed that he is a consultant for Castle Biosciences. He is also an entrepreneur in residence for Gore Range Capital.
PHOENIX – over a decade showed.
To investigate, Dr. Hashemi, a third-year dermatology resident at Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, drew from the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, which compiles medical device reports for suspected injuries from device use or malfunction and represents the largest repository of device adverse effects. Medical device reports are submitted by manufacturers, clinicians, patients, and others.
The researchers limited their query to MDRs related to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. The query was performed in January 2023 using a comprehensive list of product names and manufacturers.
The initial search yielded 240 MDRs, which were individually reviewed for duplicate records or insufficient data, and the final analysis included 165 MDRs. The 10 most reported adverse events were burns (30%), followed by dyspigmentation (14%), scarring (12%), other (11%), postoperative infection (8%), blisters (6%), pain (5%), hypertrophic scar (4%), post-treatment inflammation (4%), and textural changes (3%). Within the 10-year period analyzed, 56% of MDRs occurred between 2016 and 2019, with a disproportionately low percentage of MDRs occurring in 2022 (5%).
“Adverse events due to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are rare but potentially serious,” Dr. Hashemi concluded. “Care must be taken with counseling, patient selection, and treatment settings to optimize safety, informed consent, and patient satisfaction. Given the relatively low number of adverse events seen with fractional resurfacing lasers, factors driving their safety should be further explored.”
He added that he was surprised by the relatively low number of reported issues, referring to the total of 165 cases over 10 years. By comparison, he said, body contouring had 660 cases reported over a 7-year period in one recent study.
According to the MAUDE website, submitting MDRs to MAUDE is mandatory for manufacturers, importers, and device user facilities, and are voluntary for other groups, such as health care professionals, patients, and consumers.
Dr. Hashemi disclosed that he is a consultant for Castle Biosciences. He is also an entrepreneur in residence for Gore Range Capital.
PHOENIX – over a decade showed.
To investigate, Dr. Hashemi, a third-year dermatology resident at Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, drew from the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, which compiles medical device reports for suspected injuries from device use or malfunction and represents the largest repository of device adverse effects. Medical device reports are submitted by manufacturers, clinicians, patients, and others.
The researchers limited their query to MDRs related to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. The query was performed in January 2023 using a comprehensive list of product names and manufacturers.
The initial search yielded 240 MDRs, which were individually reviewed for duplicate records or insufficient data, and the final analysis included 165 MDRs. The 10 most reported adverse events were burns (30%), followed by dyspigmentation (14%), scarring (12%), other (11%), postoperative infection (8%), blisters (6%), pain (5%), hypertrophic scar (4%), post-treatment inflammation (4%), and textural changes (3%). Within the 10-year period analyzed, 56% of MDRs occurred between 2016 and 2019, with a disproportionately low percentage of MDRs occurring in 2022 (5%).
“Adverse events due to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are rare but potentially serious,” Dr. Hashemi concluded. “Care must be taken with counseling, patient selection, and treatment settings to optimize safety, informed consent, and patient satisfaction. Given the relatively low number of adverse events seen with fractional resurfacing lasers, factors driving their safety should be further explored.”
He added that he was surprised by the relatively low number of reported issues, referring to the total of 165 cases over 10 years. By comparison, he said, body contouring had 660 cases reported over a 7-year period in one recent study.
According to the MAUDE website, submitting MDRs to MAUDE is mandatory for manufacturers, importers, and device user facilities, and are voluntary for other groups, such as health care professionals, patients, and consumers.
Dr. Hashemi disclosed that he is a consultant for Castle Biosciences. He is also an entrepreneur in residence for Gore Range Capital.
AT ASLMS 2023
Study compares noninvasive treatments of cutaneous neurofibromas
PHOENIX – after only one treatment, according to preliminary results of an ongoing prospective trial that compared several treatment modalities.
“Neurofibromatosis type 1 is the most common single-gene disease of mankind, but there is so much we have yet to learn about it,” study author Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. Dr. Richey also conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is working with R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center, on this project. In his words, she said, “the lack of better treatments for cNF is a ‘problem worth solving.’ ”
“The accepted and widely available treatments for cNF result in scars and hypopigmentation. Our treatments do not,” she added. Since the epidermis overlying cNF is normal, “there is no reason to use nonselective or surgical methods and destroy a perfectly good epidermis when you don’t need to.”
Four treatments vs. controls
For the study, Dr. Richey and colleagues enrolled 19 adults with a total of 307 cNFs measuring 2-4 mm in size to receive one of four treatments: electrocautery with an insulated radiofrequency needle; 755-nm alexandrite laser with negative pressure (8-mm spot size, 100 J/cm2 fluence, 3-ms pulse duration); 980-nm diode laser (delivered via 8-mm sapphire skin-contact window), and intratumoral injection of 10 mg/mL deoxycholic acid at a volume approximately equal to that of the tumor. The average age of the participants was 49 years and 15 were female.
The investigators applied 5% lidocaine/prilocaine for 40 minutes to treatment sites before randomizing the tumors to treatment or to the control arm (no treatment). They compared safety, tolerability (including pain scores), and efficacy of each modality as measured by the change in cNF volume/height via three-dimensional imaging and clinical improvement via physician assessment at 6 months. All 19 participants have completed the 6-month assessment.
All modalities reduced or eliminated some of the cNFs by 6 months after treatment, with statistically significant reductions in height and volume across all four treatments. A wide variation of responses was observed. Specifically, the mean tumor volume changes for each modality, compared with controls, were –33.4% versus –5.1% among those treated with the 755-nm alexandrite laser; –24.9% versus –9.2% among those treated with the 980-nm diode laser, –23.3% versus –0.8% among those treated with insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation, and –29.4% versus –3.7% among those treated with deoxycholic acid.
The variation in responses “may be due to histologic diversity of cNF or may indicate a need for more fine-tuned dosimetry, or a combination,” Dr. Richey said. “Our future trials will address this. We will also be treating all skin types in our upcoming trials.”
No adverse events categorized as higher than grade 2 occurred in any of the treatment groups, and no signs of regrowth or growth stimulation have been observed to date.
Tolerability of treatments
As for general tolerability, the 980-nm laser treatment caused moderate to severe pain; the alexandrite laser caused mild pain; insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation caused mild pain, though more than deoxycholic acid injections or alexandrite laser, and pain associated with the deoxycholic acid injections was minimal.
When residual neurofibroma tumor was present histologically, its appearance was similar to that of untreated tumors in controls. There was no evidence of atypia, mitosis, or tumor inflammation, and mild fibrosis was present at the sites of prior tumor.
“It was surprising that all four modalities did work to some extent,” Dr. Richey said, noting that the lack of ulceration with deoxycholic acid injection “was pleasantly surprising.” Treatment with the 980-nm diode laser “was a bit more painful than we anticipated.”
The positive results of this trial has raised “more questions for us to answer. We have three additional trials in the works to fine tune these treatments and optimize dose/delivery, with the end goal of treating younger people.”
Dr. Richey said that she was “amazed” by how motivated the enrollees were to participate in the trial, noting that many patients with cNF undergo general anesthesia to have dozens of tumors surgically removed at once. “They pay $10,000-$20,000 on average out of pocket, as this surgery is considered cosmetic,” she said.
“This very important study could lead to effective, relatively noninvasive, therapy for small neurofibromas,” said Jeffrey S. Dover, MD, codirector of SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass., who was not involved with the study and was asked to comment on the results.
“Remarkably, all four treatments worked to varying degrees, but of all the treatments, the selective alexandrite laser appeared to achieve the best results. Further study will be needed to see just how effective these treatments are, and to determine the best and safest treatment parameters. Given how common this autosomal dominant disease is, and how disfiguring neurofibromas become as they enlarge, a well-tolerated noninvasive nonsurgical treatment with limited side effects is highly sought after.”
The study, which was named the best clinical abstract at the meeting, was supported by the Neurofibromatosis Therapeutic Acceleration Program. Dr. Anderson is supported in part as the Lancer Endowed Chair in Dermatology at MGH. Dr. Dover reported having no relevant disclosures.
PHOENIX – after only one treatment, according to preliminary results of an ongoing prospective trial that compared several treatment modalities.
“Neurofibromatosis type 1 is the most common single-gene disease of mankind, but there is so much we have yet to learn about it,” study author Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. Dr. Richey also conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is working with R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center, on this project. In his words, she said, “the lack of better treatments for cNF is a ‘problem worth solving.’ ”
“The accepted and widely available treatments for cNF result in scars and hypopigmentation. Our treatments do not,” she added. Since the epidermis overlying cNF is normal, “there is no reason to use nonselective or surgical methods and destroy a perfectly good epidermis when you don’t need to.”
Four treatments vs. controls
For the study, Dr. Richey and colleagues enrolled 19 adults with a total of 307 cNFs measuring 2-4 mm in size to receive one of four treatments: electrocautery with an insulated radiofrequency needle; 755-nm alexandrite laser with negative pressure (8-mm spot size, 100 J/cm2 fluence, 3-ms pulse duration); 980-nm diode laser (delivered via 8-mm sapphire skin-contact window), and intratumoral injection of 10 mg/mL deoxycholic acid at a volume approximately equal to that of the tumor. The average age of the participants was 49 years and 15 were female.
The investigators applied 5% lidocaine/prilocaine for 40 minutes to treatment sites before randomizing the tumors to treatment or to the control arm (no treatment). They compared safety, tolerability (including pain scores), and efficacy of each modality as measured by the change in cNF volume/height via three-dimensional imaging and clinical improvement via physician assessment at 6 months. All 19 participants have completed the 6-month assessment.
All modalities reduced or eliminated some of the cNFs by 6 months after treatment, with statistically significant reductions in height and volume across all four treatments. A wide variation of responses was observed. Specifically, the mean tumor volume changes for each modality, compared with controls, were –33.4% versus –5.1% among those treated with the 755-nm alexandrite laser; –24.9% versus –9.2% among those treated with the 980-nm diode laser, –23.3% versus –0.8% among those treated with insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation, and –29.4% versus –3.7% among those treated with deoxycholic acid.
The variation in responses “may be due to histologic diversity of cNF or may indicate a need for more fine-tuned dosimetry, or a combination,” Dr. Richey said. “Our future trials will address this. We will also be treating all skin types in our upcoming trials.”
No adverse events categorized as higher than grade 2 occurred in any of the treatment groups, and no signs of regrowth or growth stimulation have been observed to date.
Tolerability of treatments
As for general tolerability, the 980-nm laser treatment caused moderate to severe pain; the alexandrite laser caused mild pain; insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation caused mild pain, though more than deoxycholic acid injections or alexandrite laser, and pain associated with the deoxycholic acid injections was minimal.
When residual neurofibroma tumor was present histologically, its appearance was similar to that of untreated tumors in controls. There was no evidence of atypia, mitosis, or tumor inflammation, and mild fibrosis was present at the sites of prior tumor.
“It was surprising that all four modalities did work to some extent,” Dr. Richey said, noting that the lack of ulceration with deoxycholic acid injection “was pleasantly surprising.” Treatment with the 980-nm diode laser “was a bit more painful than we anticipated.”
The positive results of this trial has raised “more questions for us to answer. We have three additional trials in the works to fine tune these treatments and optimize dose/delivery, with the end goal of treating younger people.”
Dr. Richey said that she was “amazed” by how motivated the enrollees were to participate in the trial, noting that many patients with cNF undergo general anesthesia to have dozens of tumors surgically removed at once. “They pay $10,000-$20,000 on average out of pocket, as this surgery is considered cosmetic,” she said.
“This very important study could lead to effective, relatively noninvasive, therapy for small neurofibromas,” said Jeffrey S. Dover, MD, codirector of SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass., who was not involved with the study and was asked to comment on the results.
“Remarkably, all four treatments worked to varying degrees, but of all the treatments, the selective alexandrite laser appeared to achieve the best results. Further study will be needed to see just how effective these treatments are, and to determine the best and safest treatment parameters. Given how common this autosomal dominant disease is, and how disfiguring neurofibromas become as they enlarge, a well-tolerated noninvasive nonsurgical treatment with limited side effects is highly sought after.”
The study, which was named the best clinical abstract at the meeting, was supported by the Neurofibromatosis Therapeutic Acceleration Program. Dr. Anderson is supported in part as the Lancer Endowed Chair in Dermatology at MGH. Dr. Dover reported having no relevant disclosures.
PHOENIX – after only one treatment, according to preliminary results of an ongoing prospective trial that compared several treatment modalities.
“Neurofibromatosis type 1 is the most common single-gene disease of mankind, but there is so much we have yet to learn about it,” study author Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. Dr. Richey also conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is working with R. Rox Anderson, MD, director of the Wellman Center, on this project. In his words, she said, “the lack of better treatments for cNF is a ‘problem worth solving.’ ”
“The accepted and widely available treatments for cNF result in scars and hypopigmentation. Our treatments do not,” she added. Since the epidermis overlying cNF is normal, “there is no reason to use nonselective or surgical methods and destroy a perfectly good epidermis when you don’t need to.”
Four treatments vs. controls
For the study, Dr. Richey and colleagues enrolled 19 adults with a total of 307 cNFs measuring 2-4 mm in size to receive one of four treatments: electrocautery with an insulated radiofrequency needle; 755-nm alexandrite laser with negative pressure (8-mm spot size, 100 J/cm2 fluence, 3-ms pulse duration); 980-nm diode laser (delivered via 8-mm sapphire skin-contact window), and intratumoral injection of 10 mg/mL deoxycholic acid at a volume approximately equal to that of the tumor. The average age of the participants was 49 years and 15 were female.
The investigators applied 5% lidocaine/prilocaine for 40 minutes to treatment sites before randomizing the tumors to treatment or to the control arm (no treatment). They compared safety, tolerability (including pain scores), and efficacy of each modality as measured by the change in cNF volume/height via three-dimensional imaging and clinical improvement via physician assessment at 6 months. All 19 participants have completed the 6-month assessment.
All modalities reduced or eliminated some of the cNFs by 6 months after treatment, with statistically significant reductions in height and volume across all four treatments. A wide variation of responses was observed. Specifically, the mean tumor volume changes for each modality, compared with controls, were –33.4% versus –5.1% among those treated with the 755-nm alexandrite laser; –24.9% versus –9.2% among those treated with the 980-nm diode laser, –23.3% versus –0.8% among those treated with insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation, and –29.4% versus –3.7% among those treated with deoxycholic acid.
The variation in responses “may be due to histologic diversity of cNF or may indicate a need for more fine-tuned dosimetry, or a combination,” Dr. Richey said. “Our future trials will address this. We will also be treating all skin types in our upcoming trials.”
No adverse events categorized as higher than grade 2 occurred in any of the treatment groups, and no signs of regrowth or growth stimulation have been observed to date.
Tolerability of treatments
As for general tolerability, the 980-nm laser treatment caused moderate to severe pain; the alexandrite laser caused mild pain; insulated-needle radiofrequency coagulation caused mild pain, though more than deoxycholic acid injections or alexandrite laser, and pain associated with the deoxycholic acid injections was minimal.
When residual neurofibroma tumor was present histologically, its appearance was similar to that of untreated tumors in controls. There was no evidence of atypia, mitosis, or tumor inflammation, and mild fibrosis was present at the sites of prior tumor.
“It was surprising that all four modalities did work to some extent,” Dr. Richey said, noting that the lack of ulceration with deoxycholic acid injection “was pleasantly surprising.” Treatment with the 980-nm diode laser “was a bit more painful than we anticipated.”
The positive results of this trial has raised “more questions for us to answer. We have three additional trials in the works to fine tune these treatments and optimize dose/delivery, with the end goal of treating younger people.”
Dr. Richey said that she was “amazed” by how motivated the enrollees were to participate in the trial, noting that many patients with cNF undergo general anesthesia to have dozens of tumors surgically removed at once. “They pay $10,000-$20,000 on average out of pocket, as this surgery is considered cosmetic,” she said.
“This very important study could lead to effective, relatively noninvasive, therapy for small neurofibromas,” said Jeffrey S. Dover, MD, codirector of SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass., who was not involved with the study and was asked to comment on the results.
“Remarkably, all four treatments worked to varying degrees, but of all the treatments, the selective alexandrite laser appeared to achieve the best results. Further study will be needed to see just how effective these treatments are, and to determine the best and safest treatment parameters. Given how common this autosomal dominant disease is, and how disfiguring neurofibromas become as they enlarge, a well-tolerated noninvasive nonsurgical treatment with limited side effects is highly sought after.”
The study, which was named the best clinical abstract at the meeting, was supported by the Neurofibromatosis Therapeutic Acceleration Program. Dr. Anderson is supported in part as the Lancer Endowed Chair in Dermatology at MGH. Dr. Dover reported having no relevant disclosures.
AT ASLMS 2023
Study suggests narrow excision margins safe in early melanoma resection
Current U.S., European, and Australian or melanoma-specific mortality (MSM), results of a retrospective study suggest.
Among 1,179 patients with stage T1a melanomas near the face, scalp, external genitalia, or other critical areas, the weighted 10-year local recurrence rate for patients who underwent resection with 10-mm margins was 5.7%, compared with 6.7% for those who had resections with 5-mm margins, a nonsignificant difference.
Weighted 10-year melanoma-specific mortality was 1.8% for patients treated with wide margins, vs. 4.2% for those treated with narrow margins, also a nonsignificant difference. Patients treated with narrow margins did have significantly fewer reconstructive surgeries than patients treated with wide margins, reported Andrea Maurichi, MD, and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute of Italy in Milan.
“Because this association was found in melanomas of the head and neck, acral, and genital sites, there is no plausible reason why it could not be extrapolated to other locations. The findings also support the need for prospective randomized clinical trials to definitively answer the important question about appropriate excision margins for T1a melanoma,” they wrote in the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology.
The authors also found, however, that Breslow thickness greater than 0.4 mm and mitotic rate greater than 1/mm2 were associated with worse MSM, and that acral lentiginous melanoma, lentigo maligna melanoma, and increasing Breslow thickness were associated with a higher incidence of local recurrence.
A melanoma expert who was not involved in the study said that despite these findings, wider margins are always preferable.
“There is always a conversation around these general [critical] areas, but as a rule we try to get larger margins,” said Ryan J. Sullivan, MD, of Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.
In an interview, Dr. Sullivan said that the finding about lower frequency of reconstructive procedures in the narrow margins groups may be more of a concern for younger patients than for the elderly.
Study design
The investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients aged 18 or older at the National Cancer Institute of Milan who were diagnosed with T1a cutaneous melanoma close to critical areas from 2001 through 2020.
Patients with primary cutaneous melanoma of the head and face areas with functional or cosmetic considerations, acral areas (plantar, palmar, digital and interdigital areas), external genitalia, or periumbilical and perineal areas were eligible for inclusion.
The cohort comprised 1,179 patients with a median age of 50 and equal sex distribution. Of these patients, 626 (53%) had a wide excision, of whom 434 had a linear repair, and 192 had a flap of graft reconstruction. The remaining 553 patients had narrow excisions, 491 with linear repair, and 62 with flap or graft reconstruction.
Analyses were adjusted to account for imbalances between the surgical groups.
The study was supported by the nonprofit foundation Emme Rouge. The authors and Dr. Sullivan reported having no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
Current U.S., European, and Australian or melanoma-specific mortality (MSM), results of a retrospective study suggest.
Among 1,179 patients with stage T1a melanomas near the face, scalp, external genitalia, or other critical areas, the weighted 10-year local recurrence rate for patients who underwent resection with 10-mm margins was 5.7%, compared with 6.7% for those who had resections with 5-mm margins, a nonsignificant difference.
Weighted 10-year melanoma-specific mortality was 1.8% for patients treated with wide margins, vs. 4.2% for those treated with narrow margins, also a nonsignificant difference. Patients treated with narrow margins did have significantly fewer reconstructive surgeries than patients treated with wide margins, reported Andrea Maurichi, MD, and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute of Italy in Milan.
“Because this association was found in melanomas of the head and neck, acral, and genital sites, there is no plausible reason why it could not be extrapolated to other locations. The findings also support the need for prospective randomized clinical trials to definitively answer the important question about appropriate excision margins for T1a melanoma,” they wrote in the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology.
The authors also found, however, that Breslow thickness greater than 0.4 mm and mitotic rate greater than 1/mm2 were associated with worse MSM, and that acral lentiginous melanoma, lentigo maligna melanoma, and increasing Breslow thickness were associated with a higher incidence of local recurrence.
A melanoma expert who was not involved in the study said that despite these findings, wider margins are always preferable.
“There is always a conversation around these general [critical] areas, but as a rule we try to get larger margins,” said Ryan J. Sullivan, MD, of Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.
In an interview, Dr. Sullivan said that the finding about lower frequency of reconstructive procedures in the narrow margins groups may be more of a concern for younger patients than for the elderly.
Study design
The investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients aged 18 or older at the National Cancer Institute of Milan who were diagnosed with T1a cutaneous melanoma close to critical areas from 2001 through 2020.
Patients with primary cutaneous melanoma of the head and face areas with functional or cosmetic considerations, acral areas (plantar, palmar, digital and interdigital areas), external genitalia, or periumbilical and perineal areas were eligible for inclusion.
The cohort comprised 1,179 patients with a median age of 50 and equal sex distribution. Of these patients, 626 (53%) had a wide excision, of whom 434 had a linear repair, and 192 had a flap of graft reconstruction. The remaining 553 patients had narrow excisions, 491 with linear repair, and 62 with flap or graft reconstruction.
Analyses were adjusted to account for imbalances between the surgical groups.
The study was supported by the nonprofit foundation Emme Rouge. The authors and Dr. Sullivan reported having no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
Current U.S., European, and Australian or melanoma-specific mortality (MSM), results of a retrospective study suggest.
Among 1,179 patients with stage T1a melanomas near the face, scalp, external genitalia, or other critical areas, the weighted 10-year local recurrence rate for patients who underwent resection with 10-mm margins was 5.7%, compared with 6.7% for those who had resections with 5-mm margins, a nonsignificant difference.
Weighted 10-year melanoma-specific mortality was 1.8% for patients treated with wide margins, vs. 4.2% for those treated with narrow margins, also a nonsignificant difference. Patients treated with narrow margins did have significantly fewer reconstructive surgeries than patients treated with wide margins, reported Andrea Maurichi, MD, and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute of Italy in Milan.
“Because this association was found in melanomas of the head and neck, acral, and genital sites, there is no plausible reason why it could not be extrapolated to other locations. The findings also support the need for prospective randomized clinical trials to definitively answer the important question about appropriate excision margins for T1a melanoma,” they wrote in the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology.
The authors also found, however, that Breslow thickness greater than 0.4 mm and mitotic rate greater than 1/mm2 were associated with worse MSM, and that acral lentiginous melanoma, lentigo maligna melanoma, and increasing Breslow thickness were associated with a higher incidence of local recurrence.
A melanoma expert who was not involved in the study said that despite these findings, wider margins are always preferable.
“There is always a conversation around these general [critical] areas, but as a rule we try to get larger margins,” said Ryan J. Sullivan, MD, of Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.
In an interview, Dr. Sullivan said that the finding about lower frequency of reconstructive procedures in the narrow margins groups may be more of a concern for younger patients than for the elderly.
Study design
The investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients aged 18 or older at the National Cancer Institute of Milan who were diagnosed with T1a cutaneous melanoma close to critical areas from 2001 through 2020.
Patients with primary cutaneous melanoma of the head and face areas with functional or cosmetic considerations, acral areas (plantar, palmar, digital and interdigital areas), external genitalia, or periumbilical and perineal areas were eligible for inclusion.
The cohort comprised 1,179 patients with a median age of 50 and equal sex distribution. Of these patients, 626 (53%) had a wide excision, of whom 434 had a linear repair, and 192 had a flap of graft reconstruction. The remaining 553 patients had narrow excisions, 491 with linear repair, and 62 with flap or graft reconstruction.
Analyses were adjusted to account for imbalances between the surgical groups.
The study was supported by the nonprofit foundation Emme Rouge. The authors and Dr. Sullivan reported having no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Optimal management of dysplastic nevi continues to evolve
San Diego – The way Benjamin Kelley, MD, sees it,
“There’s a confusion in the terminology, a term the late A. Bernard Ackerman, MD, called ‘patho-babel,’ ” Dr. Kelley, a Mohs micrographic surgeon and dermatopathologist in La Jolla, Calif., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The idea of DN was originally used to describe a clinical melanoma syndrome. Now we use it for individual lesions, not just clinically but histologically. Some dermatologists refer to DN as ‘pre-melanoma,’ which is a negative framing,” he noted.
“We also refer to common nevi as ‘benign,’ which implies that DN are not benign,” he added. “The good news is that regardless of what they are called, the histologic criteria is generally agreed upon. The names can be used interchangeably.”
The bad news, he continued, is that there is less-than-perfect interobserver variability for grading DN lesions and significant variability in the treatment recommendations that pathologists give to clinicians. In one study, a group of pathology experts was asked to review 48 photomicrographs of melanocytic lesions and provide their diagnosis and treatment recommendations based on the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis scheme. For one, which showed a broad lesion with irregular epidermal thinning and thickening, the diagnoses ranged from solar lentigo to melanoma in situ. Treatment recommendations ranged from no treatment to re-excise with appropriate margins.
“This is an extreme example, but it shows you how difficult [establishing a diagnosis] can be,” Dr. Kelley said.
In a more recent study, researchers analyzed interobserver reproducibility in grading 179 DN cases among three observers who applied the 2018 World Health Organization grading criteria. The observers showed moderate to good agreement for most of the architectural features, except for criteria regarding focal continuous basal proliferation of melanocytes, density of non-nested junctional melanocytes, and presence of dyscohesive nests of intraepidermal melanocytes, whereas fair agreement was achieved for the cytological criteria. “So, it sounds to me like there was not a whole lot of agreement,” Dr. Kelley said.
An earlier single-center study titled “Clinicians Are From Mars and Pathologists Are From Venus” found that surgeons misunderstood the pathologist’s report 30% of the time.
In Dr. Kelly’s opinion, management of DNs will be successful if clinicians have a good working relationship with their dermatopathologists, if they biopsy to ensure an adequate, representative specimen, and if that they know what the terminology on the pathology report means and what actions to take. “The biopsy method matters,” he emphasized.
In a 14-year follow-up survey, investigators assessed DN management trends among 703 U.S. dermatologists. One key finding was that 69% of dermatologists in 2015 performed total removals when biopsying DN to achieve clear margins, compared with 86% in 2001.
A subsequent survey of 213 New England–based dermatologists found that the degree of clinical suspicion for melanoma was important in DN biopsy technique, with more respondents favoring shave biopsies for lesions with low suspicion and full-thickness biopsies for highly suspicious lesions.
“Misdiagnosis is more common for melanomas that have been assessed with punch and shave biopsies than with an excisional biopsy,” Dr. Kelley said. “I’m not too much of a stickler. I don’t require everyone to send me a giant excision, but I do want a representative sample.”
What about re-excision of DN considered to be mild or moderate? In 2015, members of the Pigmented Lesion Subcommittee of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group published a consensus statement on DN management recommendations for clinically atypical nevi/DN based on a review of published evidence. The subcommittee members concluded that mildly and moderately DN with clear margins do not need to be re-excised, and that mildly DN biopsied with positive histologic margins without clinical residual pigmentation may be safely observed rather than re-excised.
For moderately DN with positive histologic margins without clinically apparent residual pigmentation, the subcommittee members concluded that observation may be reasonable.
In his own informal analysis, Dr. Kelley compiled data from published studies he could find on DN management and divided them into two groups: the observation group, in which researchers from eight studies biopsied the DN lesion and watched the patients over time to see what happened, and the re-excision group, in which researchers from seven studies biopsied the DN lesion and subsequently re-excised it. There were about 1,500 patients in both groups. No deaths occurred in either group, he said, but 15 patients in the re-excision group developed a melanoma at the site of the original biopsy (1%), compared with 7 in the observation group (0.5%).
Six of seven melanomas in the observation group came from one article conducted at a VA clinic. In the study, 6 of 304 observed DN subsequently developed melanoma at the site of the lesion. “However, five of six that developed melanoma had an original biopsy that was a partial biopsy with grossly positive margins; I think that’s where the problem lies,” Dr. Kelley said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. “All five grew lentigo maligna type melanoma, which we know can extend multiple millimeters beyond the clinically apparent lesion.”
The findings support mounting evidence that re-excising mild and moderate DN, regardless of border involvement, may not be necessary. “Currently, most clinicians still re-excise moderate and severe DN involving margins, especially if there is residual pigment,” Dr. Kelley said. “Most re-excise severe DN regardless of margin involvement, but beware if your biopsy was a partial sample of a larger lesion.”
He acknowledged limitations to pathologic studies of DN, including the potential for diagnostic uncertainty. “That doesn’t necessarily mean that the pathologist got the diagnosis wrong. It could be, what is the risk that the portion of tissue not visualized contains melanoma? If you give me a 5 mm sample of a DN, and I cut it into 4-micrometer sections, I’m only looking at less than 1% of the actual nevus. That’s compounded if the pathologist only receives a partial sample.”
Dr. Kelley reported having no relevant disclosures.
San Diego – The way Benjamin Kelley, MD, sees it,
“There’s a confusion in the terminology, a term the late A. Bernard Ackerman, MD, called ‘patho-babel,’ ” Dr. Kelley, a Mohs micrographic surgeon and dermatopathologist in La Jolla, Calif., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The idea of DN was originally used to describe a clinical melanoma syndrome. Now we use it for individual lesions, not just clinically but histologically. Some dermatologists refer to DN as ‘pre-melanoma,’ which is a negative framing,” he noted.
“We also refer to common nevi as ‘benign,’ which implies that DN are not benign,” he added. “The good news is that regardless of what they are called, the histologic criteria is generally agreed upon. The names can be used interchangeably.”
The bad news, he continued, is that there is less-than-perfect interobserver variability for grading DN lesions and significant variability in the treatment recommendations that pathologists give to clinicians. In one study, a group of pathology experts was asked to review 48 photomicrographs of melanocytic lesions and provide their diagnosis and treatment recommendations based on the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis scheme. For one, which showed a broad lesion with irregular epidermal thinning and thickening, the diagnoses ranged from solar lentigo to melanoma in situ. Treatment recommendations ranged from no treatment to re-excise with appropriate margins.
“This is an extreme example, but it shows you how difficult [establishing a diagnosis] can be,” Dr. Kelley said.
In a more recent study, researchers analyzed interobserver reproducibility in grading 179 DN cases among three observers who applied the 2018 World Health Organization grading criteria. The observers showed moderate to good agreement for most of the architectural features, except for criteria regarding focal continuous basal proliferation of melanocytes, density of non-nested junctional melanocytes, and presence of dyscohesive nests of intraepidermal melanocytes, whereas fair agreement was achieved for the cytological criteria. “So, it sounds to me like there was not a whole lot of agreement,” Dr. Kelley said.
An earlier single-center study titled “Clinicians Are From Mars and Pathologists Are From Venus” found that surgeons misunderstood the pathologist’s report 30% of the time.
In Dr. Kelly’s opinion, management of DNs will be successful if clinicians have a good working relationship with their dermatopathologists, if they biopsy to ensure an adequate, representative specimen, and if that they know what the terminology on the pathology report means and what actions to take. “The biopsy method matters,” he emphasized.
In a 14-year follow-up survey, investigators assessed DN management trends among 703 U.S. dermatologists. One key finding was that 69% of dermatologists in 2015 performed total removals when biopsying DN to achieve clear margins, compared with 86% in 2001.
A subsequent survey of 213 New England–based dermatologists found that the degree of clinical suspicion for melanoma was important in DN biopsy technique, with more respondents favoring shave biopsies for lesions with low suspicion and full-thickness biopsies for highly suspicious lesions.
“Misdiagnosis is more common for melanomas that have been assessed with punch and shave biopsies than with an excisional biopsy,” Dr. Kelley said. “I’m not too much of a stickler. I don’t require everyone to send me a giant excision, but I do want a representative sample.”
What about re-excision of DN considered to be mild or moderate? In 2015, members of the Pigmented Lesion Subcommittee of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group published a consensus statement on DN management recommendations for clinically atypical nevi/DN based on a review of published evidence. The subcommittee members concluded that mildly and moderately DN with clear margins do not need to be re-excised, and that mildly DN biopsied with positive histologic margins without clinical residual pigmentation may be safely observed rather than re-excised.
For moderately DN with positive histologic margins without clinically apparent residual pigmentation, the subcommittee members concluded that observation may be reasonable.
In his own informal analysis, Dr. Kelley compiled data from published studies he could find on DN management and divided them into two groups: the observation group, in which researchers from eight studies biopsied the DN lesion and watched the patients over time to see what happened, and the re-excision group, in which researchers from seven studies biopsied the DN lesion and subsequently re-excised it. There were about 1,500 patients in both groups. No deaths occurred in either group, he said, but 15 patients in the re-excision group developed a melanoma at the site of the original biopsy (1%), compared with 7 in the observation group (0.5%).
Six of seven melanomas in the observation group came from one article conducted at a VA clinic. In the study, 6 of 304 observed DN subsequently developed melanoma at the site of the lesion. “However, five of six that developed melanoma had an original biopsy that was a partial biopsy with grossly positive margins; I think that’s where the problem lies,” Dr. Kelley said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. “All five grew lentigo maligna type melanoma, which we know can extend multiple millimeters beyond the clinically apparent lesion.”
The findings support mounting evidence that re-excising mild and moderate DN, regardless of border involvement, may not be necessary. “Currently, most clinicians still re-excise moderate and severe DN involving margins, especially if there is residual pigment,” Dr. Kelley said. “Most re-excise severe DN regardless of margin involvement, but beware if your biopsy was a partial sample of a larger lesion.”
He acknowledged limitations to pathologic studies of DN, including the potential for diagnostic uncertainty. “That doesn’t necessarily mean that the pathologist got the diagnosis wrong. It could be, what is the risk that the portion of tissue not visualized contains melanoma? If you give me a 5 mm sample of a DN, and I cut it into 4-micrometer sections, I’m only looking at less than 1% of the actual nevus. That’s compounded if the pathologist only receives a partial sample.”
Dr. Kelley reported having no relevant disclosures.
San Diego – The way Benjamin Kelley, MD, sees it,
“There’s a confusion in the terminology, a term the late A. Bernard Ackerman, MD, called ‘patho-babel,’ ” Dr. Kelley, a Mohs micrographic surgeon and dermatopathologist in La Jolla, Calif., said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The idea of DN was originally used to describe a clinical melanoma syndrome. Now we use it for individual lesions, not just clinically but histologically. Some dermatologists refer to DN as ‘pre-melanoma,’ which is a negative framing,” he noted.
“We also refer to common nevi as ‘benign,’ which implies that DN are not benign,” he added. “The good news is that regardless of what they are called, the histologic criteria is generally agreed upon. The names can be used interchangeably.”
The bad news, he continued, is that there is less-than-perfect interobserver variability for grading DN lesions and significant variability in the treatment recommendations that pathologists give to clinicians. In one study, a group of pathology experts was asked to review 48 photomicrographs of melanocytic lesions and provide their diagnosis and treatment recommendations based on the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis scheme. For one, which showed a broad lesion with irregular epidermal thinning and thickening, the diagnoses ranged from solar lentigo to melanoma in situ. Treatment recommendations ranged from no treatment to re-excise with appropriate margins.
“This is an extreme example, but it shows you how difficult [establishing a diagnosis] can be,” Dr. Kelley said.
In a more recent study, researchers analyzed interobserver reproducibility in grading 179 DN cases among three observers who applied the 2018 World Health Organization grading criteria. The observers showed moderate to good agreement for most of the architectural features, except for criteria regarding focal continuous basal proliferation of melanocytes, density of non-nested junctional melanocytes, and presence of dyscohesive nests of intraepidermal melanocytes, whereas fair agreement was achieved for the cytological criteria. “So, it sounds to me like there was not a whole lot of agreement,” Dr. Kelley said.
An earlier single-center study titled “Clinicians Are From Mars and Pathologists Are From Venus” found that surgeons misunderstood the pathologist’s report 30% of the time.
In Dr. Kelly’s opinion, management of DNs will be successful if clinicians have a good working relationship with their dermatopathologists, if they biopsy to ensure an adequate, representative specimen, and if that they know what the terminology on the pathology report means and what actions to take. “The biopsy method matters,” he emphasized.
In a 14-year follow-up survey, investigators assessed DN management trends among 703 U.S. dermatologists. One key finding was that 69% of dermatologists in 2015 performed total removals when biopsying DN to achieve clear margins, compared with 86% in 2001.
A subsequent survey of 213 New England–based dermatologists found that the degree of clinical suspicion for melanoma was important in DN biopsy technique, with more respondents favoring shave biopsies for lesions with low suspicion and full-thickness biopsies for highly suspicious lesions.
“Misdiagnosis is more common for melanomas that have been assessed with punch and shave biopsies than with an excisional biopsy,” Dr. Kelley said. “I’m not too much of a stickler. I don’t require everyone to send me a giant excision, but I do want a representative sample.”
What about re-excision of DN considered to be mild or moderate? In 2015, members of the Pigmented Lesion Subcommittee of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group published a consensus statement on DN management recommendations for clinically atypical nevi/DN based on a review of published evidence. The subcommittee members concluded that mildly and moderately DN with clear margins do not need to be re-excised, and that mildly DN biopsied with positive histologic margins without clinical residual pigmentation may be safely observed rather than re-excised.
For moderately DN with positive histologic margins without clinically apparent residual pigmentation, the subcommittee members concluded that observation may be reasonable.
In his own informal analysis, Dr. Kelley compiled data from published studies he could find on DN management and divided them into two groups: the observation group, in which researchers from eight studies biopsied the DN lesion and watched the patients over time to see what happened, and the re-excision group, in which researchers from seven studies biopsied the DN lesion and subsequently re-excised it. There were about 1,500 patients in both groups. No deaths occurred in either group, he said, but 15 patients in the re-excision group developed a melanoma at the site of the original biopsy (1%), compared with 7 in the observation group (0.5%).
Six of seven melanomas in the observation group came from one article conducted at a VA clinic. In the study, 6 of 304 observed DN subsequently developed melanoma at the site of the lesion. “However, five of six that developed melanoma had an original biopsy that was a partial biopsy with grossly positive margins; I think that’s where the problem lies,” Dr. Kelley said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. “All five grew lentigo maligna type melanoma, which we know can extend multiple millimeters beyond the clinically apparent lesion.”
The findings support mounting evidence that re-excising mild and moderate DN, regardless of border involvement, may not be necessary. “Currently, most clinicians still re-excise moderate and severe DN involving margins, especially if there is residual pigment,” Dr. Kelley said. “Most re-excise severe DN regardless of margin involvement, but beware if your biopsy was a partial sample of a larger lesion.”
He acknowledged limitations to pathologic studies of DN, including the potential for diagnostic uncertainty. “That doesn’t necessarily mean that the pathologist got the diagnosis wrong. It could be, what is the risk that the portion of tissue not visualized contains melanoma? If you give me a 5 mm sample of a DN, and I cut it into 4-micrometer sections, I’m only looking at less than 1% of the actual nevus. That’s compounded if the pathologist only receives a partial sample.”
Dr. Kelley reported having no relevant disclosures.
AT MELANOMA 2023
Dermoscopy, other modalities for improving melanoma diagnoses reviewed
San Diego – .
“I don’t think that’s going to change in the short term,” Travis W. Blalock, MD, director of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and cutaneous oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “But I do think we can supplement that with other modalities that will improve the clinical examination and help dermatopathologists as they assess and evaluate these lesions,” he said, adding: “The reality is, histopathology, while it may be the gold standard, is not necessarily a consistently reproducible evaluation. That raises the question: What can we do better?”
According to Dr. Blalock, the future may include more routine use of noninvasive genetic molecular assays to assist with the diagnostics challenges linked to the visual image and pattern recognition approach of detecting cutaneous melanoma. For example, a two-gene classification method based on LINC00518 and preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) gene expression was evaluated and validated in 555 pigmented lesions obtained noninvasively via adhesive patch biopsy.
“Today, you can pick up a kit from your local pharmacy that can tell you a bit about broad genetic susceptibilities,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. He predicted that using adhesive patch biopsies to assess suspicious melanocytic lesions “is likely the wave of the future.” This may increase patient understanding “as to the types of risks they have, the different lesions they have, and minimize invasive disease, but it also will pose different challenges for us when it comes to deploying patient-centered health care. For example, in a patient with multiple different lesions, how are you going to keep track of them all?”
Dermoscopy
In Dr. Blalock’s clinical opinion, dermoscopy improves the sensitivity of human visual detection of melanoma and may allow detection before a lesion displays classical features described with the “ABCDE rule.” However, the learning curve for dermoscopy is steep, he added, and whether the technique should be considered a first-line tool or as a supplement to other methods of examining cutaneous lesions remains a matter of debate.
“Dermoscopy is our version of the stethoscope,” he said. “We need to figure out when we’re going to use it. Should we be using it all of the time or only some of the time? Based on the clinical setting, maybe it’s a personal choice, but this can be a helpful skill and art in your practice if you’re willing to take the time to learn.”
In 2007, the International Dermoscopy Society (IDS) established a proposal for the standardization and recommended criteria necessary to effectively convey dermoscopic findings to consulting physicians and colleagues. The document includes 10 points categorized as either recommended or optional for a standardized dermoscopy report.
“The first step is to assess the lesion to determine whether or not it’s melanocytic in the first place,” said Dr. Blalock. “There are many different features – the mile-high [global features] evaluation of the lesions – then more specific local features that may clue you in to specific diagnoses,” he noted. “Once we get past that first step of determining that a lesion is melanocytic, it’s not enough to stop there, because we don’t want to biopsy every single lesion that’s melanocytic,” so there is a need to determine which ones require intervention, which is where dermoscopy “gets trickier and a little more challenging.”
According to the IDS, a standard dermoscopy report should include the patient’s age, relevant history pertaining to the lesion, pertinent personal and family history (recommended); clinical description of the lesion (recommended); the two-step method of dermoscopy differentiating melanocytic from nonmelanocytic tumors (recommended); and the use of standardized terms to describe structures as defined by the Dermoscopy Consensus Report published in 2003.
For new terms, the document states, “it would be helpful” for the physician to provide a working definition (recommended); the dermoscopic algorithm used should be mentioned (optional); information on the imaging equipment and magnification (recommended); clinical and dermoscopic images of the tumor (recommended); a diagnosis or differential diagnosis (recommended); decision concerning management (recommended), and specific comments for the pathologist when excision and histopathologic examination are recommended (optional).
The 2007 IDS document also includes a proposed seven-point checklist to differentiate between benign and melanocytic lesions on dermoscopy. Three major criteria are worth two points each: The presence of an atypical pigment network, gray-blue areas (commonly known as the veil), and an atypical vascular pattern. Four minor criteria are worth one point each: Irregular streaks, irregular dots/globules, irregular pigmentation, and regression structures. A minimum total score of 3 is required to establish a diagnosis of melanoma.
Another diagnostic technique, digital mole mapping, involves the use of photography to detect new or changing lesions. Dr. Blalock described this approach as rife with limitations, including variations in quality, challenges of storing and maintaining records, cost, time required to evaluate them, and determining which patients are appropriate candidates.
Other techniques being evaluated include computer algorithms to help dermatologists determine the diagnosis of melanoma from dermoscopic images, electrical impedance spectroscopy for noninvasive evaluation of atypical pigmented lesions, and ultrasound for staging of cutaneous malignant tumors.
Ultimately, “I think we’ll have multiple tools in our belt,” Dr. Blalock said, adding, “How do we pull them out at the right time to improve the lives of our patients? Are we going to use ultrasound? Dermoscopy? Integrate them with some of the genetic findings?”
Dr. Blalock disclosed that he has served as a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences.
San Diego – .
“I don’t think that’s going to change in the short term,” Travis W. Blalock, MD, director of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and cutaneous oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “But I do think we can supplement that with other modalities that will improve the clinical examination and help dermatopathologists as they assess and evaluate these lesions,” he said, adding: “The reality is, histopathology, while it may be the gold standard, is not necessarily a consistently reproducible evaluation. That raises the question: What can we do better?”
According to Dr. Blalock, the future may include more routine use of noninvasive genetic molecular assays to assist with the diagnostics challenges linked to the visual image and pattern recognition approach of detecting cutaneous melanoma. For example, a two-gene classification method based on LINC00518 and preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) gene expression was evaluated and validated in 555 pigmented lesions obtained noninvasively via adhesive patch biopsy.
“Today, you can pick up a kit from your local pharmacy that can tell you a bit about broad genetic susceptibilities,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. He predicted that using adhesive patch biopsies to assess suspicious melanocytic lesions “is likely the wave of the future.” This may increase patient understanding “as to the types of risks they have, the different lesions they have, and minimize invasive disease, but it also will pose different challenges for us when it comes to deploying patient-centered health care. For example, in a patient with multiple different lesions, how are you going to keep track of them all?”
Dermoscopy
In Dr. Blalock’s clinical opinion, dermoscopy improves the sensitivity of human visual detection of melanoma and may allow detection before a lesion displays classical features described with the “ABCDE rule.” However, the learning curve for dermoscopy is steep, he added, and whether the technique should be considered a first-line tool or as a supplement to other methods of examining cutaneous lesions remains a matter of debate.
“Dermoscopy is our version of the stethoscope,” he said. “We need to figure out when we’re going to use it. Should we be using it all of the time or only some of the time? Based on the clinical setting, maybe it’s a personal choice, but this can be a helpful skill and art in your practice if you’re willing to take the time to learn.”
In 2007, the International Dermoscopy Society (IDS) established a proposal for the standardization and recommended criteria necessary to effectively convey dermoscopic findings to consulting physicians and colleagues. The document includes 10 points categorized as either recommended or optional for a standardized dermoscopy report.
“The first step is to assess the lesion to determine whether or not it’s melanocytic in the first place,” said Dr. Blalock. “There are many different features – the mile-high [global features] evaluation of the lesions – then more specific local features that may clue you in to specific diagnoses,” he noted. “Once we get past that first step of determining that a lesion is melanocytic, it’s not enough to stop there, because we don’t want to biopsy every single lesion that’s melanocytic,” so there is a need to determine which ones require intervention, which is where dermoscopy “gets trickier and a little more challenging.”
According to the IDS, a standard dermoscopy report should include the patient’s age, relevant history pertaining to the lesion, pertinent personal and family history (recommended); clinical description of the lesion (recommended); the two-step method of dermoscopy differentiating melanocytic from nonmelanocytic tumors (recommended); and the use of standardized terms to describe structures as defined by the Dermoscopy Consensus Report published in 2003.
For new terms, the document states, “it would be helpful” for the physician to provide a working definition (recommended); the dermoscopic algorithm used should be mentioned (optional); information on the imaging equipment and magnification (recommended); clinical and dermoscopic images of the tumor (recommended); a diagnosis or differential diagnosis (recommended); decision concerning management (recommended), and specific comments for the pathologist when excision and histopathologic examination are recommended (optional).
The 2007 IDS document also includes a proposed seven-point checklist to differentiate between benign and melanocytic lesions on dermoscopy. Three major criteria are worth two points each: The presence of an atypical pigment network, gray-blue areas (commonly known as the veil), and an atypical vascular pattern. Four minor criteria are worth one point each: Irregular streaks, irregular dots/globules, irregular pigmentation, and regression structures. A minimum total score of 3 is required to establish a diagnosis of melanoma.
Another diagnostic technique, digital mole mapping, involves the use of photography to detect new or changing lesions. Dr. Blalock described this approach as rife with limitations, including variations in quality, challenges of storing and maintaining records, cost, time required to evaluate them, and determining which patients are appropriate candidates.
Other techniques being evaluated include computer algorithms to help dermatologists determine the diagnosis of melanoma from dermoscopic images, electrical impedance spectroscopy for noninvasive evaluation of atypical pigmented lesions, and ultrasound for staging of cutaneous malignant tumors.
Ultimately, “I think we’ll have multiple tools in our belt,” Dr. Blalock said, adding, “How do we pull them out at the right time to improve the lives of our patients? Are we going to use ultrasound? Dermoscopy? Integrate them with some of the genetic findings?”
Dr. Blalock disclosed that he has served as a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences.
San Diego – .
“I don’t think that’s going to change in the short term,” Travis W. Blalock, MD, director of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and cutaneous oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “But I do think we can supplement that with other modalities that will improve the clinical examination and help dermatopathologists as they assess and evaluate these lesions,” he said, adding: “The reality is, histopathology, while it may be the gold standard, is not necessarily a consistently reproducible evaluation. That raises the question: What can we do better?”
According to Dr. Blalock, the future may include more routine use of noninvasive genetic molecular assays to assist with the diagnostics challenges linked to the visual image and pattern recognition approach of detecting cutaneous melanoma. For example, a two-gene classification method based on LINC00518 and preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) gene expression was evaluated and validated in 555 pigmented lesions obtained noninvasively via adhesive patch biopsy.
“Today, you can pick up a kit from your local pharmacy that can tell you a bit about broad genetic susceptibilities,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center. He predicted that using adhesive patch biopsies to assess suspicious melanocytic lesions “is likely the wave of the future.” This may increase patient understanding “as to the types of risks they have, the different lesions they have, and minimize invasive disease, but it also will pose different challenges for us when it comes to deploying patient-centered health care. For example, in a patient with multiple different lesions, how are you going to keep track of them all?”
Dermoscopy
In Dr. Blalock’s clinical opinion, dermoscopy improves the sensitivity of human visual detection of melanoma and may allow detection before a lesion displays classical features described with the “ABCDE rule.” However, the learning curve for dermoscopy is steep, he added, and whether the technique should be considered a first-line tool or as a supplement to other methods of examining cutaneous lesions remains a matter of debate.
“Dermoscopy is our version of the stethoscope,” he said. “We need to figure out when we’re going to use it. Should we be using it all of the time or only some of the time? Based on the clinical setting, maybe it’s a personal choice, but this can be a helpful skill and art in your practice if you’re willing to take the time to learn.”
In 2007, the International Dermoscopy Society (IDS) established a proposal for the standardization and recommended criteria necessary to effectively convey dermoscopic findings to consulting physicians and colleagues. The document includes 10 points categorized as either recommended or optional for a standardized dermoscopy report.
“The first step is to assess the lesion to determine whether or not it’s melanocytic in the first place,” said Dr. Blalock. “There are many different features – the mile-high [global features] evaluation of the lesions – then more specific local features that may clue you in to specific diagnoses,” he noted. “Once we get past that first step of determining that a lesion is melanocytic, it’s not enough to stop there, because we don’t want to biopsy every single lesion that’s melanocytic,” so there is a need to determine which ones require intervention, which is where dermoscopy “gets trickier and a little more challenging.”
According to the IDS, a standard dermoscopy report should include the patient’s age, relevant history pertaining to the lesion, pertinent personal and family history (recommended); clinical description of the lesion (recommended); the two-step method of dermoscopy differentiating melanocytic from nonmelanocytic tumors (recommended); and the use of standardized terms to describe structures as defined by the Dermoscopy Consensus Report published in 2003.
For new terms, the document states, “it would be helpful” for the physician to provide a working definition (recommended); the dermoscopic algorithm used should be mentioned (optional); information on the imaging equipment and magnification (recommended); clinical and dermoscopic images of the tumor (recommended); a diagnosis or differential diagnosis (recommended); decision concerning management (recommended), and specific comments for the pathologist when excision and histopathologic examination are recommended (optional).
The 2007 IDS document also includes a proposed seven-point checklist to differentiate between benign and melanocytic lesions on dermoscopy. Three major criteria are worth two points each: The presence of an atypical pigment network, gray-blue areas (commonly known as the veil), and an atypical vascular pattern. Four minor criteria are worth one point each: Irregular streaks, irregular dots/globules, irregular pigmentation, and regression structures. A minimum total score of 3 is required to establish a diagnosis of melanoma.
Another diagnostic technique, digital mole mapping, involves the use of photography to detect new or changing lesions. Dr. Blalock described this approach as rife with limitations, including variations in quality, challenges of storing and maintaining records, cost, time required to evaluate them, and determining which patients are appropriate candidates.
Other techniques being evaluated include computer algorithms to help dermatologists determine the diagnosis of melanoma from dermoscopic images, electrical impedance spectroscopy for noninvasive evaluation of atypical pigmented lesions, and ultrasound for staging of cutaneous malignant tumors.
Ultimately, “I think we’ll have multiple tools in our belt,” Dr. Blalock said, adding, “How do we pull them out at the right time to improve the lives of our patients? Are we going to use ultrasound? Dermoscopy? Integrate them with some of the genetic findings?”
Dr. Blalock disclosed that he has served as a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences.
AT MELANOMA 2023
Screen all patients for cannabis use before surgery: Guideline
All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.
One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.
The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
Possible interactions
Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.
“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.
“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.
Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
Risks for vomiting, heart attack
The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.
Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.
The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.
Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.
Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.
The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.
Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.
“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.
For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.
Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.
Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.
“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.
Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.
One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.
The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
Possible interactions
Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.
“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.
“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.
Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
Risks for vomiting, heart attack
The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.
Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.
The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.
Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.
Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.
The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.
Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.
“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.
For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.
Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.
Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.
“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.
Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
All patients who undergo procedures that require regional or general anesthesia should be asked if, how often, and in what forms they use the drug, according to recommendations from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.
One reason: Patients who regularly use cannabis may experience worse pain and nausea after surgery and may require more opioid analgesia, the group said.
The society’s recommendations – published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine – are the first guidelines in the United States to cover cannabis use as it relates to surgery, the group said.
Possible interactions
Use of cannabis has increased in recent years, and researchers have been concerned that the drug may interact with anesthesia and complicate pain management. Few studies have evaluated interactions between cannabis and anesthetic agents, however, according to the authors of the new guidelines.
“With the rising prevalence of both medical and recreational cannabis use in the general population, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and perioperative physicians must have an understanding of the effects of cannabis on physiology in order to provide safe perioperative care,” the guideline said.
“Before surgery, anesthesiologists should ask patients if they use cannabis – whether medicinally or recreationally – and be prepared to possibly change the anesthesia plan or delay the procedure in certain situations,” Samer Narouze, MD, PhD, ASRA president and senior author of the guidelines, said in a news release about the recommendations.
Although some patients may use cannabis to relieve pain, research shows that “regular users may have more pain and nausea after surgery, not less, and may need more medications, including opioids, to manage the discomfort,” said Dr. Narouze, chairman of the Center for Pain Medicine at Western Reserve Hospital in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
Risks for vomiting, heart attack
The new recommendations were created by a committee of 13 experts, including anesthesiologists, chronic pain physicians, and a patient advocate. Shalini Shah, MD, vice chair of anesthesiology at the University of California, Irvine, was lead author of the document.
Four of 21 recommendations were classified as grade A, meaning that following them would be expected to provide substantial benefits. Those recommendations are to screen all patients before surgery; postpone elective surgery for patients who have altered mental status or impaired decision-making capacity at the time of surgery; counsel frequent, heavy users about the potential for cannabis use to impair postoperative pain control; and counsel pregnant patients about the risks of cannabis use to unborn children.
The authors cited studies to support their recommendations, including one showing that long-term cannabis use was associated with a 20% increase in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a leading complaint of surgery patients. Other research has shown that cannabis use is linked to more pain and use of opioids after surgery.
Other recommendations include delaying elective surgery for at least 2 hours after a patient has smoked cannabis, owing to an increased risk for heart attack, and considering adjustment of ventilation settings during surgery for regular smokers of cannabis. Research has shown that smoking cannabis may be a rare trigger for myocardial infarction and is associated with airway inflammation and self-reported respiratory symptoms.
Nevertheless, doctors should not conduct universal toxicology screening, given a lack of evidence supporting this practice, the guideline stated.
The authors did not have enough information to make recommendations about reducing cannabis use before surgery or adjusting opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients who use cannabis, they said.
Kenneth Finn, MD, president of the American Board of Pain Medicine, welcomed the publication of the new guidelines. Dr. Finn, who practices at Springs Rehabilitation in Colorado Springs, has edited a textbook about cannabis in medicine and founded the International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis.
“The vast majority of medical providers really have no idea about cannabis and what its impacts are on the human body,” Dr. Finn said.
For one, it can interact with numerous other drugs, including warfarin.
Guideline coauthor Eugene R. Viscusi, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, emphasized that, while cannabis may be perceived as “natural,” it should not be considered differently from manufactured drugs.
Cannabis and cannabinoids represent “a class of very potent and pharmacologically active compounds,” Dr. Viscusi said in an interview. While researchers continue to assess possible medically beneficial effects of cannabis compounds, clinicians also need to be aware of the risks.
“The literature continues to emerge, and while we are always hopeful for good news, as physicians, we need to be very well versed on potential risks, especially in a high-risk situation like surgery,” he said.
Dr. Shah has consulted for companies that develop medical devices and drugs. Dr. Finn is the editor of the textbook, “Cannabis in Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach” (Springer: New York, 2020), for which he receives royalties.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM REGIONAL ANETHESIA AND MEDICINE