Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

THE DIAGNOSIS: Atypical Fibroxanthoma

Given the appearance of the nodule and the absence of features of a keloid scar, a soft-tissue or adnexal tumor was suspected. Histology revealed a thin epidermis with loss of rete ridges and a Grenz zone. There was a nodular uncircumscribed dermal proliferation of spindle cells forming interweaving fascicles with elongated ovoid nuclei and prominent nucleoli (Figure). There was moderate cellular and nuclear atypia, and no necrosis was observed. The spindle cells stained positive for CD10 and negative for AE1/AE3, cytokeratin 5/6, S100, melanoma triple marker, Factor XIII 1, ERG, CD31, CD34, desmin, and smooth muscle actin; ERG, CD31, CD34, and SMA highlighted small vessels within the tumor. The histologic diagnosis was an atypical spindle cell tumor favoring atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX). The excisional biopsy margins were clear.

The patient was referred to surgical oncology to consider re-excision of margins after the diagnosis was made. A chest radiograph was clear, and magnetic resonance imaging showed mild skin thickening and image enhancement at the left shoulder—possibly a postsurgical change—with no nodularity suggesting a residual or recurrent tumor. Surgical oncology determined that the patient did not require further excision and placed him on regular follow-up every 2 to 3 months for the next 2 years.

uncertain origin that is considered to be on a spectrum with the more aggressive pleomorphic dermal sarcoma (PDS); it can be distinguished from PDS by histologic features such as nerve or vessel invasion.¹ Both entities share oncogenes (eg, tumor protein 53 gene mutations) and are histologically and immunohistochemically similar. Atypical fibroxanthoma largely is viewed as an intermediate-risk tumor that is locally aggressive but rarely metastasizes, with a reported local recurrence rate of 5% to 11% and metastasis risk of 1% to 2%. Conversely, PDS is a more aggressive diagnosis with a high risk for local recurrence and metastasis (7%-69% and 4%-20%, respectively).¹

Atypical fibroxanthomas may mimic other entities, both clinically and histologically. It commonly manifests as a flesh-colored to erythematous, sometimes ulcerated nodule on sun-exposed skin in elderly patients, leading to a broad range of clinical differential diagnoses, including other primary cutaneous malignancies (eg, squamous cell carcinoma, amelanotic melanoma), cutaneous sarcomas (eg, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans), adnexal and other tumors (eg, pleomorphic fibroma, pilomatricoma), cutaneous metastases, and even keloid scars. As the differentials can look clinically similar, a skin biopsy may be necessary to confirm the diagnosis.

Histologically, AFX tends to show an undifferentiated pleomorphic spindle cell morphology. Notably, histology can be highly variable, with other reported histologic patterns including keloidlike, pleomorphic, epithelioid, rhabdoid, clear-cell, foamy cell, granular cell, bizarre cell, pseudoangiomatous, inflammatory, and osteoclast-rich patterns.² Thus, the histologic differential diagnosis also is broad, and AFX primarily is a diagnosis of exclusion without specific immunohistochemical markers that serve to exclude other diagnoses. For example, AFX tends to stain positive for CD10 and CD68, though these are not specific markers for AFX. Furthermore, although certain histologic markers may commonly be more positive in AFX than PDS (eg, CD74 stains positive in 20% of AFXs and only 1% of PDSs), this is not reliable enough to be diagnostic.³ As such, AFX is distinguished from PDS primarily by histologic features such as subcutaneous tissue invasion, vascular or perineural invasion, necrosis, or local invasion/ metastases.¹ Given the rarity of both tumors, no established management guidelines exist, although excision (wide local excision or Mohs micrographic surgery) usually is recommended, with some authors suggesting margins of 1 cm for AFX and 2 cm to 3 cm for PDS.¹

This atypical case of AFX arising in non–sun-exposed skin in a young man raises questions about whether unknown genetic factors or possibly prior immunosuppression could have contributed to the development of the tumor. A thorough history and physical examination can provide valuable clues for biopsy, including ongoing growth, absence of known prior trauma or acne at the site, and clinical appearance, such as the reddish, solitary, dome-shaped lesion in our patient.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Atypical Fibroxanthoma

Given the appearance of the nodule and the absence of features of a keloid scar, a soft-tissue or adnexal tumor was suspected. Histology revealed a thin epidermis with loss of rete ridges and a Grenz zone. There was a nodular uncircumscribed dermal proliferation of spindle cells forming interweaving fascicles with elongated ovoid nuclei and prominent nucleoli (Figure). There was moderate cellular and nuclear atypia, and no necrosis was observed. The spindle cells stained positive for CD10 and negative for AE1/AE3, cytokeratin 5/6, S100, melanoma triple marker, Factor XIII 1, ERG, CD31, CD34, desmin, and smooth muscle actin; ERG, CD31, CD34, and SMA highlighted small vessels within the tumor. The histologic diagnosis was an atypical spindle cell tumor favoring atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX). The excisional biopsy margins were clear.

The patient was referred to surgical oncology to consider re-excision of margins after the diagnosis was made. A chest radiograph was clear, and magnetic resonance imaging showed mild skin thickening and image enhancement at the left shoulder—possibly a postsurgical change—with no nodularity suggesting a residual or recurrent tumor. Surgical oncology determined that the patient did not require further excision and placed him on regular follow-up every 2 to 3 months for the next 2 years.

uncertain origin that is considered to be on a spectrum with the more aggressive pleomorphic dermal sarcoma (PDS); it can be distinguished from PDS by histologic features such as nerve or vessel invasion.¹ Both entities share oncogenes (eg, tumor protein 53 gene mutations) and are histologically and immunohistochemically similar. Atypical fibroxanthoma largely is viewed as an intermediate-risk tumor that is locally aggressive but rarely metastasizes, with a reported local recurrence rate of 5% to 11% and metastasis risk of 1% to 2%. Conversely, PDS is a more aggressive diagnosis with a high risk for local recurrence and metastasis (7%-69% and 4%-20%, respectively).¹

Atypical fibroxanthomas may mimic other entities, both clinically and histologically. It commonly manifests as a flesh-colored to erythematous, sometimes ulcerated nodule on sun-exposed skin in elderly patients, leading to a broad range of clinical differential diagnoses, including other primary cutaneous malignancies (eg, squamous cell carcinoma, amelanotic melanoma), cutaneous sarcomas (eg, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans), adnexal and other tumors (eg, pleomorphic fibroma, pilomatricoma), cutaneous metastases, and even keloid scars. As the differentials can look clinically similar, a skin biopsy may be necessary to confirm the diagnosis.

Histologically, AFX tends to show an undifferentiated pleomorphic spindle cell morphology. Notably, histology can be highly variable, with other reported histologic patterns including keloidlike, pleomorphic, epithelioid, rhabdoid, clear-cell, foamy cell, granular cell, bizarre cell, pseudoangiomatous, inflammatory, and osteoclast-rich patterns.² Thus, the histologic differential diagnosis also is broad, and AFX primarily is a diagnosis of exclusion without specific immunohistochemical markers that serve to exclude other diagnoses. For example, AFX tends to stain positive for CD10 and CD68, though these are not specific markers for AFX. Furthermore, although certain histologic markers may commonly be more positive in AFX than PDS (eg, CD74 stains positive in 20% of AFXs and only 1% of PDSs), this is not reliable enough to be diagnostic.³ As such, AFX is distinguished from PDS primarily by histologic features such as subcutaneous tissue invasion, vascular or perineural invasion, necrosis, or local invasion/ metastases.¹ Given the rarity of both tumors, no established management guidelines exist, although excision (wide local excision or Mohs micrographic surgery) usually is recommended, with some authors suggesting margins of 1 cm for AFX and 2 cm to 3 cm for PDS.¹

This atypical case of AFX arising in non–sun-exposed skin in a young man raises questions about whether unknown genetic factors or possibly prior immunosuppression could have contributed to the development of the tumor. A thorough history and physical examination can provide valuable clues for biopsy, including ongoing growth, absence of known prior trauma or acne at the site, and clinical appearance, such as the reddish, solitary, dome-shaped lesion in our patient.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Atypical Fibroxanthoma

Given the appearance of the nodule and the absence of features of a keloid scar, a soft-tissue or adnexal tumor was suspected. Histology revealed a thin epidermis with loss of rete ridges and a Grenz zone. There was a nodular uncircumscribed dermal proliferation of spindle cells forming interweaving fascicles with elongated ovoid nuclei and prominent nucleoli (Figure). There was moderate cellular and nuclear atypia, and no necrosis was observed. The spindle cells stained positive for CD10 and negative for AE1/AE3, cytokeratin 5/6, S100, melanoma triple marker, Factor XIII 1, ERG, CD31, CD34, desmin, and smooth muscle actin; ERG, CD31, CD34, and SMA highlighted small vessels within the tumor. The histologic diagnosis was an atypical spindle cell tumor favoring atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX). The excisional biopsy margins were clear.

The patient was referred to surgical oncology to consider re-excision of margins after the diagnosis was made. A chest radiograph was clear, and magnetic resonance imaging showed mild skin thickening and image enhancement at the left shoulder—possibly a postsurgical change—with no nodularity suggesting a residual or recurrent tumor. Surgical oncology determined that the patient did not require further excision and placed him on regular follow-up every 2 to 3 months for the next 2 years.

uncertain origin that is considered to be on a spectrum with the more aggressive pleomorphic dermal sarcoma (PDS); it can be distinguished from PDS by histologic features such as nerve or vessel invasion.¹ Both entities share oncogenes (eg, tumor protein 53 gene mutations) and are histologically and immunohistochemically similar. Atypical fibroxanthoma largely is viewed as an intermediate-risk tumor that is locally aggressive but rarely metastasizes, with a reported local recurrence rate of 5% to 11% and metastasis risk of 1% to 2%. Conversely, PDS is a more aggressive diagnosis with a high risk for local recurrence and metastasis (7%-69% and 4%-20%, respectively).¹

Atypical fibroxanthomas may mimic other entities, both clinically and histologically. It commonly manifests as a flesh-colored to erythematous, sometimes ulcerated nodule on sun-exposed skin in elderly patients, leading to a broad range of clinical differential diagnoses, including other primary cutaneous malignancies (eg, squamous cell carcinoma, amelanotic melanoma), cutaneous sarcomas (eg, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans), adnexal and other tumors (eg, pleomorphic fibroma, pilomatricoma), cutaneous metastases, and even keloid scars. As the differentials can look clinically similar, a skin biopsy may be necessary to confirm the diagnosis.

Histologically, AFX tends to show an undifferentiated pleomorphic spindle cell morphology. Notably, histology can be highly variable, with other reported histologic patterns including keloidlike, pleomorphic, epithelioid, rhabdoid, clear-cell, foamy cell, granular cell, bizarre cell, pseudoangiomatous, inflammatory, and osteoclast-rich patterns.² Thus, the histologic differential diagnosis also is broad, and AFX primarily is a diagnosis of exclusion without specific immunohistochemical markers that serve to exclude other diagnoses. For example, AFX tends to stain positive for CD10 and CD68, though these are not specific markers for AFX. Furthermore, although certain histologic markers may commonly be more positive in AFX than PDS (eg, CD74 stains positive in 20% of AFXs and only 1% of PDSs), this is not reliable enough to be diagnostic.³ As such, AFX is distinguished from PDS primarily by histologic features such as subcutaneous tissue invasion, vascular or perineural invasion, necrosis, or local invasion/ metastases.¹ Given the rarity of both tumors, no established management guidelines exist, although excision (wide local excision or Mohs micrographic surgery) usually is recommended, with some authors suggesting margins of 1 cm for AFX and 2 cm to 3 cm for PDS.¹

This atypical case of AFX arising in non–sun-exposed skin in a young man raises questions about whether unknown genetic factors or possibly prior immunosuppression could have contributed to the development of the tumor. A thorough history and physical examination can provide valuable clues for biopsy, including ongoing growth, absence of known prior trauma or acne at the site, and clinical appearance, such as the reddish, solitary, dome-shaped lesion in our patient.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS)—developed by Dr. Frederic Mohs in the 1930s—is the gold standard for treating various cutaneous malignancies. It provides maximal conservation of uninvolved tissues while producing higher cure rates compared to wide local excision.^1,2

We sought to assess the various characteristics that impact patient satisfaction to help Mohs surgeons incorporate relatively simple yet clinically significant practices into their patient encounters. We conducted a systematic literature search of peer-reviewed PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE from database inception through November 2023 using the terms Mohs micrographic surgery and patient satisfaction. Among the inclusion criteria were studies involving participants having undergone MMS, with objective assessments on patient-reported satisfaction or preferences related to patient education, communication, anxiety-alleviating measures, or QOL in MMS. Studies were excluded if they failed to meet these criteria, were outdated and no longer clinically relevant, or measured unalterable factors with no significant impact on how Mohs surgeons could change clinical practice. Of the 157 nonreplicated studies identified, 34 met inclusion criteria.

Perioperative Patient Communication and Education Techniques

Perioperative Patient Communication—Many studies have evaluated the impact of perioperative patient-provider communication and education on patient satisfaction in those undergoing MMS. Studies focusing on preoperative and postoperative telephone calls, patient consultation formats, and patient-perceived impact of such communication modalities have been well documented (Table 1).^3-8 The importance of the patient follow-up after MMS was further supported by a retrospective study concluding that 88.7% (86/97) of patients regarded follow-up visits as important, and 80% (77/97) desired additional follow-up 3 months after MMS.⁹ Additional studies have highlighted the importance of thorough and open perioperative patient-provider communication during MMS (Table 2).^10-12

Patient-Education Techniques—Many studies have assessed the use of visual models to aid in patient education on MMS, specifically the preprocedural consent process (Table 3).^13-16 Additionally, 2 randomized controlled trials assessing the use of at-home and same-day in-office preoperative educational videos concluded that these interventions increased patient knowledge and confidence regarding procedural risks and benefits, with no statistically significant differences in patient anxiety or satisfaction.^17,18

Despite the availability of these educational videos, many patients often turn to online resources for self-education, which is problematic if reader literacy is incongruent with online readability. One study assessing readability of online MMS resources concluded that the most accessed articles exceeded the recommended reading level for adequate patient comprehension.¹⁹ A survey studying a wide range of variables related to patient satisfaction (eg, demographics, socioeconomics, health status) in 339 MMS patients found that those who considered themselves more involved in the decision-making process were more satisfied in the short-term, and married patients had even higher long-term satisfaction. Interestingly, this study also concluded that undergoing 3 or more MMS stages was associated with higher short- and long-term satisfaction, likely secondary to perceived effects of increased overall care, medical attention, and time spent with the provider.²⁰

Synthesis of this information with emphasis on the higher evidence-based studies—including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials—yields the following beneficial interventions regarding patient education and communication^13-20:

• Preoperative and same-day postoperative telephone follow-up (TFU) do not show statistically significant impacts on patient satisfaction; however, TFU allows for identification of postoperative concerns and inadequate pain management, which may have downstream effects on long-term perception of the overall patient experience.
• The use of video-assisted consent yields improved patient satisfaction and knowledge, while video content—traditional or didactic—has no impact on satisfaction in new MMS patients.
• The use of at-home or same-day in-office preoperative educational videos can improve procedural knowledge and risk-benefit understanding of MMS while having no impact on satisfaction.
• Bedside manner and effective in-person communication by the provider often takes precedence in the patient experience; however, implementation of additional educational modalities should be considered.

Patient Anxiety and QOL

Reducing Patient Anxiety—The use of perioperative distractors to reduce patient anxiety may play an integral role when patients undergo MMS, as there often are prolonged waiting periods between stages when patients may feel increasingly vulnerable or anxious. Table 4 reviews studies on perioperative distractors that showed a statistically significant reduction in MMS patient anxiety.^21-24

Although not statistically significant, additional studies evaluating the use of intraoperative anxiety-reduction methods in MMS have demonstrated a downtrend in patient anxiety with the following interventions: engaging in small talk with clinic staff, bringing a guest, eating, watching television, communicating surgical expectations with the provider, handholding, use of a stress ball, and use of 3-dimensional educational MMS models.^25-27 Similarly, a survey of 73 patients undergoing MMS found that patients tended to enjoy complimentary beverages preprocedurally in the waiting room, reading, speaking with their guest, watching television, or using their telephone during wait times.²⁸ Table 5 lists additional perioperative factors encompassing specific patient and surgical characteristics that help reduce patient anxiety.^29-32

Patient QOL—Many methods aimed at decreasing MMS-related patient anxiety often show no direct impact on patient satisfaction, likely due to the multifactorial nature of the patient-perceived experience. A prospective observational study of MMS patients noted a statistically significant improvement in patient QOL scores 3 months postsurgery (P=.0007), demonstrating that MMS generally results in positive patient outcomes despite preprocedural anxiety.³³ An additional prospective study in MMS patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer concluded that sex, age, and closure type—factors often shown to affect anxiety levels—did not significantly impact patient satisfaction.³⁴ Similarly, high satisfaction levels can be expected among MMS patients undergoing treatment of melanoma in situ, with more than 90% of patients rating their treatment experience a 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree) out of 5 in short- and long-term satisfaction assessments (38/41 and 40/42, respectively).³⁵ This assessment, conducted 3 months postoperatively, asked patients to score the statement, “I am completely satisfied with the treatment of my skin problem,” on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Lastly, patient perception of their surgeon’s skill may contribute to levels of patient satisfaction. Although suture spacing has not been shown to affect surgical outcomes, it has been demonstrated to impact the patient’s perception of surgical skill and is further supported by a study concluding that closures with 2-mm spacing were ranked significantly lower by patients compared with closures with either 4- or 6-mm spacing (P=.005 and P=.012, respectively).³⁶

Synthesis of this information with emphasis on the higher evidence-based studies—including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials—yields the following beneficial interventions regarding anxiety-reducing measures and patient-perceived QOL^21-36:

• Factors shown to decrease patient anxiety include patient personalized music, virtual-reality experience, perioperative informational videos, and 3-dimensional–printed MMS models.
• Many methods aimed at decreasing MMS-related patient anxiety show no direct impact on patient satisfaction, likely due to the multifactorial nature of the patient-perceived experience.
• Higher anxiety can be associated with worse QOL scores in MMS patients, and additional factors that may have a negative impact on anxiety include female sex, younger age, and tumor location on the face.

Conclusion

Many factors affect patient satisfaction in MMS. Increased awareness and acknowledgement of these factors can foster improved clinical practice and patient experience, which can have downstream effects on patient compliance and overall psychosocial and medical well-being. With the movement toward value-based health care, patient satisfaction ratings are likely to play an increasingly important role in physician reimbursement. Adapting one’s practice to include high-quality, time-efficient, patient-centered care goes hand in hand with increasing MMS patient satisfaction. Careful evaluation and scrutiny of one’s current practices while remaining cognizant of patient population, resource availability, and clinical limitations often reveal opportunities for small adjustments that can have a great impact on patient satisfaction. This thorough assessment and review of the published literature aims to assist MMS surgeons in understanding the role that certain factors—(1) perioperative patient communication and education techniques and (2) patient anxiety, QOL, and additional considerations—have on overall satisfaction with MMS. Specific consideration should be placed on the fact that patient satisfaction is multifactorial, and many different interventions can have a positive impact on the overall patient experience.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS)—developed by Dr. Frederic Mohs in the 1930s—is the gold standard for treating various cutaneous malignancies. It provides maximal conservation of uninvolved tissues while producing higher cure rates compared to wide local excision.^1,2

We sought to assess the various characteristics that impact patient satisfaction to help Mohs surgeons incorporate relatively simple yet clinically significant practices into their patient encounters. We conducted a systematic literature search of peer-reviewed PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE from database inception through November 2023 using the terms Mohs micrographic surgery and patient satisfaction. Among the inclusion criteria were studies involving participants having undergone MMS, with objective assessments on patient-reported satisfaction or preferences related to patient education, communication, anxiety-alleviating measures, or QOL in MMS. Studies were excluded if they failed to meet these criteria, were outdated and no longer clinically relevant, or measured unalterable factors with no significant impact on how Mohs surgeons could change clinical practice. Of the 157 nonreplicated studies identified, 34 met inclusion criteria.

Perioperative Patient Communication and Education Techniques

Perioperative Patient Communication—Many studies have evaluated the impact of perioperative patient-provider communication and education on patient satisfaction in those undergoing MMS. Studies focusing on preoperative and postoperative telephone calls, patient consultation formats, and patient-perceived impact of such communication modalities have been well documented (Table 1).^3-8 The importance of the patient follow-up after MMS was further supported by a retrospective study concluding that 88.7% (86/97) of patients regarded follow-up visits as important, and 80% (77/97) desired additional follow-up 3 months after MMS.⁹ Additional studies have highlighted the importance of thorough and open perioperative patient-provider communication during MMS (Table 2).^10-12

Patient-Education Techniques—Many studies have assessed the use of visual models to aid in patient education on MMS, specifically the preprocedural consent process (Table 3).^13-16 Additionally, 2 randomized controlled trials assessing the use of at-home and same-day in-office preoperative educational videos concluded that these interventions increased patient knowledge and confidence regarding procedural risks and benefits, with no statistically significant differences in patient anxiety or satisfaction.^17,18

Despite the availability of these educational videos, many patients often turn to online resources for self-education, which is problematic if reader literacy is incongruent with online readability. One study assessing readability of online MMS resources concluded that the most accessed articles exceeded the recommended reading level for adequate patient comprehension.¹⁹ A survey studying a wide range of variables related to patient satisfaction (eg, demographics, socioeconomics, health status) in 339 MMS patients found that those who considered themselves more involved in the decision-making process were more satisfied in the short-term, and married patients had even higher long-term satisfaction. Interestingly, this study also concluded that undergoing 3 or more MMS stages was associated with higher short- and long-term satisfaction, likely secondary to perceived effects of increased overall care, medical attention, and time spent with the provider.²⁰

Synthesis of this information with emphasis on the higher evidence-based studies—including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials—yields the following beneficial interventions regarding patient education and communication^13-20:

• Preoperative and same-day postoperative telephone follow-up (TFU) do not show statistically significant impacts on patient satisfaction; however, TFU allows for identification of postoperative concerns and inadequate pain management, which may have downstream effects on long-term perception of the overall patient experience.
• The use of video-assisted consent yields improved patient satisfaction and knowledge, while video content—traditional or didactic—has no impact on satisfaction in new MMS patients.
• The use of at-home or same-day in-office preoperative educational videos can improve procedural knowledge and risk-benefit understanding of MMS while having no impact on satisfaction.
• Bedside manner and effective in-person communication by the provider often takes precedence in the patient experience; however, implementation of additional educational modalities should be considered.

Patient Anxiety and QOL

Reducing Patient Anxiety—The use of perioperative distractors to reduce patient anxiety may play an integral role when patients undergo MMS, as there often are prolonged waiting periods between stages when patients may feel increasingly vulnerable or anxious. Table 4 reviews studies on perioperative distractors that showed a statistically significant reduction in MMS patient anxiety.^21-24

Although not statistically significant, additional studies evaluating the use of intraoperative anxiety-reduction methods in MMS have demonstrated a downtrend in patient anxiety with the following interventions: engaging in small talk with clinic staff, bringing a guest, eating, watching television, communicating surgical expectations with the provider, handholding, use of a stress ball, and use of 3-dimensional educational MMS models.^25-27 Similarly, a survey of 73 patients undergoing MMS found that patients tended to enjoy complimentary beverages preprocedurally in the waiting room, reading, speaking with their guest, watching television, or using their telephone during wait times.²⁸ Table 5 lists additional perioperative factors encompassing specific patient and surgical characteristics that help reduce patient anxiety.^29-32

Patient QOL—Many methods aimed at decreasing MMS-related patient anxiety often show no direct impact on patient satisfaction, likely due to the multifactorial nature of the patient-perceived experience. A prospective observational study of MMS patients noted a statistically significant improvement in patient QOL scores 3 months postsurgery (P=.0007), demonstrating that MMS generally results in positive patient outcomes despite preprocedural anxiety.³³ An additional prospective study in MMS patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer concluded that sex, age, and closure type—factors often shown to affect anxiety levels—did not significantly impact patient satisfaction.³⁴ Similarly, high satisfaction levels can be expected among MMS patients undergoing treatment of melanoma in situ, with more than 90% of patients rating their treatment experience a 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree) out of 5 in short- and long-term satisfaction assessments (38/41 and 40/42, respectively).³⁵ This assessment, conducted 3 months postoperatively, asked patients to score the statement, “I am completely satisfied with the treatment of my skin problem,” on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Lastly, patient perception of their surgeon’s skill may contribute to levels of patient satisfaction. Although suture spacing has not been shown to affect surgical outcomes, it has been demonstrated to impact the patient’s perception of surgical skill and is further supported by a study concluding that closures with 2-mm spacing were ranked significantly lower by patients compared with closures with either 4- or 6-mm spacing (P=.005 and P=.012, respectively).³⁶

Synthesis of this information with emphasis on the higher evidence-based studies—including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials—yields the following beneficial interventions regarding anxiety-reducing measures and patient-perceived QOL^21-36:

• Factors shown to decrease patient anxiety include patient personalized music, virtual-reality experience, perioperative informational videos, and 3-dimensional–printed MMS models.
• Many methods aimed at decreasing MMS-related patient anxiety show no direct impact on patient satisfaction, likely due to the multifactorial nature of the patient-perceived experience.
• Higher anxiety can be associated with worse QOL scores in MMS patients, and additional factors that may have a negative impact on anxiety include female sex, younger age, and tumor location on the face.

Conclusion

Many factors affect patient satisfaction in MMS. Increased awareness and acknowledgement of these factors can foster improved clinical practice and patient experience, which can have downstream effects on patient compliance and overall psychosocial and medical well-being. With the movement toward value-based health care, patient satisfaction ratings are likely to play an increasingly important role in physician reimbursement. Adapting one’s practice to include high-quality, time-efficient, patient-centered care goes hand in hand with increasing MMS patient satisfaction. Careful evaluation and scrutiny of one’s current practices while remaining cognizant of patient population, resource availability, and clinical limitations often reveal opportunities for small adjustments that can have a great impact on patient satisfaction. This thorough assessment and review of the published literature aims to assist MMS surgeons in understanding the role that certain factors—(1) perioperative patient communication and education techniques and (2) patient anxiety, QOL, and additional considerations—have on overall satisfaction with MMS. Specific consideration should be placed on the fact that patient satisfaction is multifactorial, and many different interventions can have a positive impact on the overall patient experience.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS)—developed by Dr. Frederic Mohs in the 1930s—is the gold standard for treating various cutaneous malignancies. It provides maximal conservation of uninvolved tissues while producing higher cure rates compared to wide local excision.^1,2

We sought to assess the various characteristics that impact patient satisfaction to help Mohs surgeons incorporate relatively simple yet clinically significant practices into their patient encounters. We conducted a systematic literature search of peer-reviewed PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE from database inception through November 2023 using the terms Mohs micrographic surgery and patient satisfaction. Among the inclusion criteria were studies involving participants having undergone MMS, with objective assessments on patient-reported satisfaction or preferences related to patient education, communication, anxiety-alleviating measures, or QOL in MMS. Studies were excluded if they failed to meet these criteria, were outdated and no longer clinically relevant, or measured unalterable factors with no significant impact on how Mohs surgeons could change clinical practice. Of the 157 nonreplicated studies identified, 34 met inclusion criteria.

Perioperative Patient Communication and Education Techniques

Perioperative Patient Communication—Many studies have evaluated the impact of perioperative patient-provider communication and education on patient satisfaction in those undergoing MMS. Studies focusing on preoperative and postoperative telephone calls, patient consultation formats, and patient-perceived impact of such communication modalities have been well documented (Table 1).^3-8 The importance of the patient follow-up after MMS was further supported by a retrospective study concluding that 88.7% (86/97) of patients regarded follow-up visits as important, and 80% (77/97) desired additional follow-up 3 months after MMS.⁹ Additional studies have highlighted the importance of thorough and open perioperative patient-provider communication during MMS (Table 2).^10-12

Patient-Education Techniques—Many studies have assessed the use of visual models to aid in patient education on MMS, specifically the preprocedural consent process (Table 3).^13-16 Additionally, 2 randomized controlled trials assessing the use of at-home and same-day in-office preoperative educational videos concluded that these interventions increased patient knowledge and confidence regarding procedural risks and benefits, with no statistically significant differences in patient anxiety or satisfaction.^17,18

Despite the availability of these educational videos, many patients often turn to online resources for self-education, which is problematic if reader literacy is incongruent with online readability. One study assessing readability of online MMS resources concluded that the most accessed articles exceeded the recommended reading level for adequate patient comprehension.¹⁹ A survey studying a wide range of variables related to patient satisfaction (eg, demographics, socioeconomics, health status) in 339 MMS patients found that those who considered themselves more involved in the decision-making process were more satisfied in the short-term, and married patients had even higher long-term satisfaction. Interestingly, this study also concluded that undergoing 3 or more MMS stages was associated with higher short- and long-term satisfaction, likely secondary to perceived effects of increased overall care, medical attention, and time spent with the provider.²⁰

Synthesis of this information with emphasis on the higher evidence-based studies—including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials—yields the following beneficial interventions regarding patient education and communication^13-20:

• Preoperative and same-day postoperative telephone follow-up (TFU) do not show statistically significant impacts on patient satisfaction; however, TFU allows for identification of postoperative concerns and inadequate pain management, which may have downstream effects on long-term perception of the overall patient experience.
• The use of video-assisted consent yields improved patient satisfaction and knowledge, while video content—traditional or didactic—has no impact on satisfaction in new MMS patients.
• The use of at-home or same-day in-office preoperative educational videos can improve procedural knowledge and risk-benefit understanding of MMS while having no impact on satisfaction.
• Bedside manner and effective in-person communication by the provider often takes precedence in the patient experience; however, implementation of additional educational modalities should be considered.

Patient Anxiety and QOL

Reducing Patient Anxiety—The use of perioperative distractors to reduce patient anxiety may play an integral role when patients undergo MMS, as there often are prolonged waiting periods between stages when patients may feel increasingly vulnerable or anxious. Table 4 reviews studies on perioperative distractors that showed a statistically significant reduction in MMS patient anxiety.^21-24

Although not statistically significant, additional studies evaluating the use of intraoperative anxiety-reduction methods in MMS have demonstrated a downtrend in patient anxiety with the following interventions: engaging in small talk with clinic staff, bringing a guest, eating, watching television, communicating surgical expectations with the provider, handholding, use of a stress ball, and use of 3-dimensional educational MMS models.^25-27 Similarly, a survey of 73 patients undergoing MMS found that patients tended to enjoy complimentary beverages preprocedurally in the waiting room, reading, speaking with their guest, watching television, or using their telephone during wait times.²⁸ Table 5 lists additional perioperative factors encompassing specific patient and surgical characteristics that help reduce patient anxiety.^29-32

Patient QOL—Many methods aimed at decreasing MMS-related patient anxiety often show no direct impact on patient satisfaction, likely due to the multifactorial nature of the patient-perceived experience. A prospective observational study of MMS patients noted a statistically significant improvement in patient QOL scores 3 months postsurgery (P=.0007), demonstrating that MMS generally results in positive patient outcomes despite preprocedural anxiety.³³ An additional prospective study in MMS patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer concluded that sex, age, and closure type—factors often shown to affect anxiety levels—did not significantly impact patient satisfaction.³⁴ Similarly, high satisfaction levels can be expected among MMS patients undergoing treatment of melanoma in situ, with more than 90% of patients rating their treatment experience a 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree) out of 5 in short- and long-term satisfaction assessments (38/41 and 40/42, respectively).³⁵ This assessment, conducted 3 months postoperatively, asked patients to score the statement, “I am completely satisfied with the treatment of my skin problem,” on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Lastly, patient perception of their surgeon’s skill may contribute to levels of patient satisfaction. Although suture spacing has not been shown to affect surgical outcomes, it has been demonstrated to impact the patient’s perception of surgical skill and is further supported by a study concluding that closures with 2-mm spacing were ranked significantly lower by patients compared with closures with either 4- or 6-mm spacing (P=.005 and P=.012, respectively).³⁶

Synthesis of this information with emphasis on the higher evidence-based studies—including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials—yields the following beneficial interventions regarding anxiety-reducing measures and patient-perceived QOL^21-36:

• Factors shown to decrease patient anxiety include patient personalized music, virtual-reality experience, perioperative informational videos, and 3-dimensional–printed MMS models.
• Many methods aimed at decreasing MMS-related patient anxiety show no direct impact on patient satisfaction, likely due to the multifactorial nature of the patient-perceived experience.
• Higher anxiety can be associated with worse QOL scores in MMS patients, and additional factors that may have a negative impact on anxiety include female sex, younger age, and tumor location on the face.

Conclusion

Many factors affect patient satisfaction in MMS. Increased awareness and acknowledgement of these factors can foster improved clinical practice and patient experience, which can have downstream effects on patient compliance and overall psychosocial and medical well-being. With the movement toward value-based health care, patient satisfaction ratings are likely to play an increasingly important role in physician reimbursement. Adapting one’s practice to include high-quality, time-efficient, patient-centered care goes hand in hand with increasing MMS patient satisfaction. Careful evaluation and scrutiny of one’s current practices while remaining cognizant of patient population, resource availability, and clinical limitations often reveal opportunities for small adjustments that can have a great impact on patient satisfaction. This thorough assessment and review of the published literature aims to assist MMS surgeons in understanding the role that certain factors—(1) perioperative patient communication and education techniques and (2) patient anxiety, QOL, and additional considerations—have on overall satisfaction with MMS. Specific consideration should be placed on the fact that patient satisfaction is multifactorial, and many different interventions can have a positive impact on the overall patient experience.

To the Editor:

Actinic keratoses (AKs) are keratinocyte neoplasms that manifest as rough, scaly, erythematous papules with ill-defined borders (commonly known as precancers) and develop due to long-term UV light exposure.¹ They must be treated promptly due to the risk for progression to squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). One US Department of Veterans Affairs study reported that 0.6% of AKs progress to SCC in 1 year and 2.6% progressed to SCC in 4 years.² In 10% of AKs that will progress to SCC, one study reported progression in approximately 2 years.³

The risk for progression also increases in patients with multiple AKs; the risk is 4-fold higher in patients with 6 to 20 AKs and 11-fold higher in patients with more than 20 AKs.⁴ Common treatment options include lesion-directed therapies such as cryotherapy, laser therapy, surgery, and curettage, as well as field-directed therapies such as topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), diclofenac gel 3%, chemical peeling, topical imiquimod, and photodynamic therapy (PDT).⁴ When diclofenac gel is chosen as a treatment modality, it is commonly prescribed in the 3% formulation. Diclofenac gel 3% has been shown to be effective in the treatment of AKs,^5,6 but diclofenac gel 1% has not been well described in the literature. We report the case of a patient with AKs on the lower legs who was treated with diclofenac gel after other therapies failed.

A 55-year-old woman presented for a routine skin check due to a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer. Her medical history also included palmar hyperhidrosis, disseminated superficial actinic porokeratosis, and extensive actinic damage, as well as numerous biopsy-proven AKs. She had been evaluated every 3 months up to presentation due to the frequency of AK development over the past 5 years. The lesions were mainly localized to both lower legs, where the patient had acquired considerable lifetime sun exposure from tanning beds and sunbathing while boating. She also noted exposure to well water as a child, but none of her family members had a similar issue with AKs.

Prior to this visit, the patient had undergone 5 years of therapy for AKs. She initially was treated with multiple courses of topical 5-FU, but she consequently developed severe allergic contact dermatitis. Subsequent treatments included cryotherapy as well as application of tretinoin cream nightly for 2 weeks followed by PDT. She was unable to tolerate the tretinoin, which she reported led to dryness and irritation. She reported mild improvement after her first session of PDT but only minimal improvement after the next session. Ingenol mebutate was then prescribed for topical use on the legs for 2 days, which did not result in improvement. The patient continued to follow up for unresolved AKs on the legs and was prescribed acitretin to help reduce the risk for progression to SCC. At follow-up 3 months later, she reported decreased soreness from AKs after starting the acitretin and, aside from mild dryness, she tolerated the medication well; however, with continued use of acitretin, she began to experience adverse effects 6 months later, including thyroid suppression and hair loss, leading to discontinuation. Instead, 3 months later, she was recommended to start nicotinamide supplementation for prevention of SCC.

Due to continued AK development (Figure, A), we eventually prescribed diclofenac gel 3% twice daily for both legs 9 months after prescribing nicotinamide. This regimen was cost prohibitive, as the medication was not covered by her insurance and the cost was $300 for one tube. We recommended the patient instead apply the 3% gel to the right leg only due to greater severity of AKs on this leg and over-the-counter diclofenac gel 1% twice daily to the left leg. Approximately 5 months later, she reported a reduction in the discomfort from AKs as well as a reduction in the total number of AKs. She applied the 2 different products as instructed for the first month but did not notice a difference between them. She then continued to apply only the 1% gel on both legs for a total of 8 months with excellent response (Figure, B). At subsequent follow-up visits over a 2-year period, she has only required cryotherapy as spot treatment for AKs.

For 1 to a few discrete AKs, liquid nitrogen cryotherapy is considered first-line therapy.⁷ However, if multiple AKs are present, surrounding photodamaged skin also should be treated with field-directed therapy due to surrounding keratinocytes bearing a high mutational burden and risk of cancerization.⁸ Common field-directed therapies include topical 5-FU, topical imiquimod, topical tirbanibulin, PDT, retinoids, and topical diclofenac 3%.

One challenge in field-directed treatment of AKs is the side-effect profile seen in some patients, causing them to prematurely discontinue treatment. In our patient, 5-FU cream, tretinoin cream, and oral acitretin were not well tolerated. Topical diclofenac generally is well tolerated, with mostly mild local skin reactions and low risk for systemic adverse events. Adverse effects mainly consist of mild local skin reactions including pruritus (reported in 31%-52% of patients who used topical diclofenac), dryness (25%-27%), and irritation (less than 1%).^9,10 Although diclofenac carries a black-box warning for serious cardiovascular thrombotic events and serious gastrointestinal tract bleeding, systemic absorption of topical diclofenac has been proven to be substantially lower (5- to 17-fold) compared to the oral formulation, and resulting serious adverse effects have been found to be largely reduced compared to the oral formulation.^11,12 If allergic contact dermatitis develops, diclofenac should be discontinued.^9,13

Diclofenac’s antineoplastic mechanism of action of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition involves induction of apoptosis as well as reduction in tumor cell proliferation and tumor angiogenesis.^14,15 Topical diclofenac may result in decreased levels of lactate and amino acid in AK lesions, particularly in lesions responding to treatment.¹⁶ Topical diclofenac may alter immune infiltration by inducing infiltration of dermal CD8+ T cells along with high IFN-γ messenger RNA expression, suggesting improvement of T-cell function after topical diclofenac treatment.¹⁶

Although diclofenac gel 3% has been shown to be effective in treatment of AKs,^5,6 diclofenac gel 1% has not yet been well studied. Use of the 1% gel is indicated for osteoarthritis and musculoskeletal pain by the US Food and Drug Administration.^10,17 Efficacy of the 1% gel has been documented for these and other conditions including seborrheic keratoses.^18-20

Because the 1% diclofenac formulation is available over-the-counter, it is more accessible to patients compared to the 3% formulation and often substantially decreases the cost of the medication for the patient. The cost of diclofenac gel 1% in the United States ranges from $0.04 to $0.31 per gram compared to $1.07 to $11.79 per gram for the 3% gel prescription formulation.¹⁷ Efficacy of the 1% formulation compared to the 3% formulation could represent an avenue to increase accessibility to field-directed therapy in the population for the treatment of AKs with a potentially well-tolerated, effective, and low-cost medication formulation.

This case represents the effectiveness of diclofenac gel 1% in treating AKs. Several treatment modalities failed in our case, but she experienced improvement with use of over-the-counter diclofenac gel 1%. She also noted no difference in response between the prescription 3% diclofenac formulation and the over-the-counter 1% formulation. Diclofenac gel 1% may represent an excellent therapeutic option in treatment-refractory cases of AKs. Larger randomized trials should be considered to assess safety and efficacy.

To the Editor:

Actinic keratoses (AKs) are keratinocyte neoplasms that manifest as rough, scaly, erythematous papules with ill-defined borders (commonly known as precancers) and develop due to long-term UV light exposure.¹ They must be treated promptly due to the risk for progression to squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). One US Department of Veterans Affairs study reported that 0.6% of AKs progress to SCC in 1 year and 2.6% progressed to SCC in 4 years.² In 10% of AKs that will progress to SCC, one study reported progression in approximately 2 years.³

The risk for progression also increases in patients with multiple AKs; the risk is 4-fold higher in patients with 6 to 20 AKs and 11-fold higher in patients with more than 20 AKs.⁴ Common treatment options include lesion-directed therapies such as cryotherapy, laser therapy, surgery, and curettage, as well as field-directed therapies such as topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), diclofenac gel 3%, chemical peeling, topical imiquimod, and photodynamic therapy (PDT).⁴ When diclofenac gel is chosen as a treatment modality, it is commonly prescribed in the 3% formulation. Diclofenac gel 3% has been shown to be effective in the treatment of AKs,^5,6 but diclofenac gel 1% has not been well described in the literature. We report the case of a patient with AKs on the lower legs who was treated with diclofenac gel after other therapies failed.

A 55-year-old woman presented for a routine skin check due to a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer. Her medical history also included palmar hyperhidrosis, disseminated superficial actinic porokeratosis, and extensive actinic damage, as well as numerous biopsy-proven AKs. She had been evaluated every 3 months up to presentation due to the frequency of AK development over the past 5 years. The lesions were mainly localized to both lower legs, where the patient had acquired considerable lifetime sun exposure from tanning beds and sunbathing while boating. She also noted exposure to well water as a child, but none of her family members had a similar issue with AKs.

Prior to this visit, the patient had undergone 5 years of therapy for AKs. She initially was treated with multiple courses of topical 5-FU, but she consequently developed severe allergic contact dermatitis. Subsequent treatments included cryotherapy as well as application of tretinoin cream nightly for 2 weeks followed by PDT. She was unable to tolerate the tretinoin, which she reported led to dryness and irritation. She reported mild improvement after her first session of PDT but only minimal improvement after the next session. Ingenol mebutate was then prescribed for topical use on the legs for 2 days, which did not result in improvement. The patient continued to follow up for unresolved AKs on the legs and was prescribed acitretin to help reduce the risk for progression to SCC. At follow-up 3 months later, she reported decreased soreness from AKs after starting the acitretin and, aside from mild dryness, she tolerated the medication well; however, with continued use of acitretin, she began to experience adverse effects 6 months later, including thyroid suppression and hair loss, leading to discontinuation. Instead, 3 months later, she was recommended to start nicotinamide supplementation for prevention of SCC.

Due to continued AK development (Figure, A), we eventually prescribed diclofenac gel 3% twice daily for both legs 9 months after prescribing nicotinamide. This regimen was cost prohibitive, as the medication was not covered by her insurance and the cost was $300 for one tube. We recommended the patient instead apply the 3% gel to the right leg only due to greater severity of AKs on this leg and over-the-counter diclofenac gel 1% twice daily to the left leg. Approximately 5 months later, she reported a reduction in the discomfort from AKs as well as a reduction in the total number of AKs. She applied the 2 different products as instructed for the first month but did not notice a difference between them. She then continued to apply only the 1% gel on both legs for a total of 8 months with excellent response (Figure, B). At subsequent follow-up visits over a 2-year period, she has only required cryotherapy as spot treatment for AKs.

For 1 to a few discrete AKs, liquid nitrogen cryotherapy is considered first-line therapy.⁷ However, if multiple AKs are present, surrounding photodamaged skin also should be treated with field-directed therapy due to surrounding keratinocytes bearing a high mutational burden and risk of cancerization.⁸ Common field-directed therapies include topical 5-FU, topical imiquimod, topical tirbanibulin, PDT, retinoids, and topical diclofenac 3%.

One challenge in field-directed treatment of AKs is the side-effect profile seen in some patients, causing them to prematurely discontinue treatment. In our patient, 5-FU cream, tretinoin cream, and oral acitretin were not well tolerated. Topical diclofenac generally is well tolerated, with mostly mild local skin reactions and low risk for systemic adverse events. Adverse effects mainly consist of mild local skin reactions including pruritus (reported in 31%-52% of patients who used topical diclofenac), dryness (25%-27%), and irritation (less than 1%).^9,10 Although diclofenac carries a black-box warning for serious cardiovascular thrombotic events and serious gastrointestinal tract bleeding, systemic absorption of topical diclofenac has been proven to be substantially lower (5- to 17-fold) compared to the oral formulation, and resulting serious adverse effects have been found to be largely reduced compared to the oral formulation.^11,12 If allergic contact dermatitis develops, diclofenac should be discontinued.^9,13

Diclofenac’s antineoplastic mechanism of action of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition involves induction of apoptosis as well as reduction in tumor cell proliferation and tumor angiogenesis.^14,15 Topical diclofenac may result in decreased levels of lactate and amino acid in AK lesions, particularly in lesions responding to treatment.¹⁶ Topical diclofenac may alter immune infiltration by inducing infiltration of dermal CD8+ T cells along with high IFN-γ messenger RNA expression, suggesting improvement of T-cell function after topical diclofenac treatment.¹⁶

Although diclofenac gel 3% has been shown to be effective in treatment of AKs,^5,6 diclofenac gel 1% has not yet been well studied. Use of the 1% gel is indicated for osteoarthritis and musculoskeletal pain by the US Food and Drug Administration.^10,17 Efficacy of the 1% gel has been documented for these and other conditions including seborrheic keratoses.^18-20

Because the 1% diclofenac formulation is available over-the-counter, it is more accessible to patients compared to the 3% formulation and often substantially decreases the cost of the medication for the patient. The cost of diclofenac gel 1% in the United States ranges from $0.04 to $0.31 per gram compared to $1.07 to $11.79 per gram for the 3% gel prescription formulation.¹⁷ Efficacy of the 1% formulation compared to the 3% formulation could represent an avenue to increase accessibility to field-directed therapy in the population for the treatment of AKs with a potentially well-tolerated, effective, and low-cost medication formulation.

This case represents the effectiveness of diclofenac gel 1% in treating AKs. Several treatment modalities failed in our case, but she experienced improvement with use of over-the-counter diclofenac gel 1%. She also noted no difference in response between the prescription 3% diclofenac formulation and the over-the-counter 1% formulation. Diclofenac gel 1% may represent an excellent therapeutic option in treatment-refractory cases of AKs. Larger randomized trials should be considered to assess safety and efficacy.

To the Editor:

Actinic keratoses (AKs) are keratinocyte neoplasms that manifest as rough, scaly, erythematous papules with ill-defined borders (commonly known as precancers) and develop due to long-term UV light exposure.¹ They must be treated promptly due to the risk for progression to squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). One US Department of Veterans Affairs study reported that 0.6% of AKs progress to SCC in 1 year and 2.6% progressed to SCC in 4 years.² In 10% of AKs that will progress to SCC, one study reported progression in approximately 2 years.³

The risk for progression also increases in patients with multiple AKs; the risk is 4-fold higher in patients with 6 to 20 AKs and 11-fold higher in patients with more than 20 AKs.⁴ Common treatment options include lesion-directed therapies such as cryotherapy, laser therapy, surgery, and curettage, as well as field-directed therapies such as topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), diclofenac gel 3%, chemical peeling, topical imiquimod, and photodynamic therapy (PDT).⁴ When diclofenac gel is chosen as a treatment modality, it is commonly prescribed in the 3% formulation. Diclofenac gel 3% has been shown to be effective in the treatment of AKs,^5,6 but diclofenac gel 1% has not been well described in the literature. We report the case of a patient with AKs on the lower legs who was treated with diclofenac gel after other therapies failed.

A 55-year-old woman presented for a routine skin check due to a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer. Her medical history also included palmar hyperhidrosis, disseminated superficial actinic porokeratosis, and extensive actinic damage, as well as numerous biopsy-proven AKs. She had been evaluated every 3 months up to presentation due to the frequency of AK development over the past 5 years. The lesions were mainly localized to both lower legs, where the patient had acquired considerable lifetime sun exposure from tanning beds and sunbathing while boating. She also noted exposure to well water as a child, but none of her family members had a similar issue with AKs.

Prior to this visit, the patient had undergone 5 years of therapy for AKs. She initially was treated with multiple courses of topical 5-FU, but she consequently developed severe allergic contact dermatitis. Subsequent treatments included cryotherapy as well as application of tretinoin cream nightly for 2 weeks followed by PDT. She was unable to tolerate the tretinoin, which she reported led to dryness and irritation. She reported mild improvement after her first session of PDT but only minimal improvement after the next session. Ingenol mebutate was then prescribed for topical use on the legs for 2 days, which did not result in improvement. The patient continued to follow up for unresolved AKs on the legs and was prescribed acitretin to help reduce the risk for progression to SCC. At follow-up 3 months later, she reported decreased soreness from AKs after starting the acitretin and, aside from mild dryness, she tolerated the medication well; however, with continued use of acitretin, she began to experience adverse effects 6 months later, including thyroid suppression and hair loss, leading to discontinuation. Instead, 3 months later, she was recommended to start nicotinamide supplementation for prevention of SCC.

Due to continued AK development (Figure, A), we eventually prescribed diclofenac gel 3% twice daily for both legs 9 months after prescribing nicotinamide. This regimen was cost prohibitive, as the medication was not covered by her insurance and the cost was $300 for one tube. We recommended the patient instead apply the 3% gel to the right leg only due to greater severity of AKs on this leg and over-the-counter diclofenac gel 1% twice daily to the left leg. Approximately 5 months later, she reported a reduction in the discomfort from AKs as well as a reduction in the total number of AKs. She applied the 2 different products as instructed for the first month but did not notice a difference between them. She then continued to apply only the 1% gel on both legs for a total of 8 months with excellent response (Figure, B). At subsequent follow-up visits over a 2-year period, she has only required cryotherapy as spot treatment for AKs.

For 1 to a few discrete AKs, liquid nitrogen cryotherapy is considered first-line therapy.⁷ However, if multiple AKs are present, surrounding photodamaged skin also should be treated with field-directed therapy due to surrounding keratinocytes bearing a high mutational burden and risk of cancerization.⁸ Common field-directed therapies include topical 5-FU, topical imiquimod, topical tirbanibulin, PDT, retinoids, and topical diclofenac 3%.

One challenge in field-directed treatment of AKs is the side-effect profile seen in some patients, causing them to prematurely discontinue treatment. In our patient, 5-FU cream, tretinoin cream, and oral acitretin were not well tolerated. Topical diclofenac generally is well tolerated, with mostly mild local skin reactions and low risk for systemic adverse events. Adverse effects mainly consist of mild local skin reactions including pruritus (reported in 31%-52% of patients who used topical diclofenac), dryness (25%-27%), and irritation (less than 1%).^9,10 Although diclofenac carries a black-box warning for serious cardiovascular thrombotic events and serious gastrointestinal tract bleeding, systemic absorption of topical diclofenac has been proven to be substantially lower (5- to 17-fold) compared to the oral formulation, and resulting serious adverse effects have been found to be largely reduced compared to the oral formulation.^11,12 If allergic contact dermatitis develops, diclofenac should be discontinued.^9,13

Diclofenac’s antineoplastic mechanism of action of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition involves induction of apoptosis as well as reduction in tumor cell proliferation and tumor angiogenesis.^14,15 Topical diclofenac may result in decreased levels of lactate and amino acid in AK lesions, particularly in lesions responding to treatment.¹⁶ Topical diclofenac may alter immune infiltration by inducing infiltration of dermal CD8+ T cells along with high IFN-γ messenger RNA expression, suggesting improvement of T-cell function after topical diclofenac treatment.¹⁶

Although diclofenac gel 3% has been shown to be effective in treatment of AKs,^5,6 diclofenac gel 1% has not yet been well studied. Use of the 1% gel is indicated for osteoarthritis and musculoskeletal pain by the US Food and Drug Administration.^10,17 Efficacy of the 1% gel has been documented for these and other conditions including seborrheic keratoses.^18-20

Because the 1% diclofenac formulation is available over-the-counter, it is more accessible to patients compared to the 3% formulation and often substantially decreases the cost of the medication for the patient. The cost of diclofenac gel 1% in the United States ranges from $0.04 to $0.31 per gram compared to $1.07 to $11.79 per gram for the 3% gel prescription formulation.¹⁷ Efficacy of the 1% formulation compared to the 3% formulation could represent an avenue to increase accessibility to field-directed therapy in the population for the treatment of AKs with a potentially well-tolerated, effective, and low-cost medication formulation.

This case represents the effectiveness of diclofenac gel 1% in treating AKs. Several treatment modalities failed in our case, but she experienced improvement with use of over-the-counter diclofenac gel 1%. She also noted no difference in response between the prescription 3% diclofenac formulation and the over-the-counter 1% formulation. Diclofenac gel 1% may represent an excellent therapeutic option in treatment-refractory cases of AKs. Larger randomized trials should be considered to assess safety and efficacy.

A 90-year-old man presented for evaluation of a large basal cell carcinoma (BCC) involving the nasal region. The lesion was a 7×4-cm pink, crusted, verrucous plaque covering the majority of the nose and extending onto the malar cheeks that originally had been biopsied 26 years prior, and repeat biopsy was performed 3 years prior. Results from both biopsies were consistent with BCC. The patient had avoided treatment for many years due to fear of losing his nose.

Given the size and location of the tumor, surgical intervention posed major challenges for both functional and cosmetic outcomes. After careful consideration and discussion of treatment options, which included Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), wide local excision, radiation therapy, and systemic therapy, the decision was made to start the patient on vismodegib 150 mg once daily as well as L-carnitine 330 mg twice daily to help with muscle cramps. A baseline complete metabolic panel with an estimated glomerular filtration rate was unremarkable.

By the patient’s first follow-up visit after 2 months of therapy, he had experienced marked clinical improvement with notable regression of the tumor (Figure 1). He reported no adverse effects (eg, muscle cramps, dysgeusia, hair loss, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea). At subsequent follow-up visits, the patient continued to demonstrate clinical improvement. His only adverse effect was a 6-kg weight loss over the prior 6 months of initiating therapy despite no changes in taste or appetite. His dose of vismodegib was decreased to an alternative regimen of 150 mg daily for the first 2 weeks of each month with a drug holiday the rest of the month. Since that time, his weight has stabilized and he has continued with treatment.

Comment

Vismodegib was the first Hedgehog (Hh) inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for management of selected locally advanced and metastatic BCC in adults.^1,2 Genetic alterations in the Hh signaling pathway resulting in proliferation of basal cells are present in nearly all BCCs.² In normal function, when the Hh ligand is absent at the patched (PTCH1) receptor, smoothened (SMO) is inhibited. When Hh ligand binds PTCH1, SMO is activated with downstream effects of triggering cell survival and proliferation in the nucleus via GLI. Loss of function mutations at the PTCH1 receptor or SMO-activating mutations lead to the same downstream effects, even when Hh ligand is absent.¹ This allows for unregulated tumor growth.

Vismodegib is a small-molecule SMO inhibitor that blocks aberrant activation of the Hh signaling pathway, thereby slowing the growth of BCCs (Figure 2).^3,4 Vismodegib and sonidegib have been used to treat patients with basal cell nevus syndrome as well as metastatic or locally advanced BCCs. At least 50% of advanced BCCs develop resistance to vismodegib, commonly via acquiring mutations in SMO.⁴

Basal cell carcinoma can be classified as low or high risk based on risk for recurrence. First-line treatments for low-risk BCC are surgical excision, electrodessication and curettage, and MMS.⁴ Second-line treatment includes radiation therapy. High-risk tumors include those involving anatomic locations of Area H near the eyelids, nose, ears, hands, feet, or genitals in addition to tumors with an aggressive histologic subtype.^4,5 First-line treatments for high-risk BCC are MMS or surgical excision. Second-line treatments are radiation therapy or systemic therapy, such as vismodegib.⁴

Although Hh inhibitors are not a first-line treatment, our case highlights vismodegib’s effectiveness in the management of a large unresectable BCC on the nose of an elderly patient. Our patient opted out of surgical first-line options due to functional and cosmetic concerns.⁴ He also declined radiation treatment due to financial cost and difficulty with transportation. The patient chose to pursue systemic vismodegib therapy through shared decision-making with dermatology. Vismodegib treatment alone granted our patient a highly remarkable result.

There are limited clinical data on the effectiveness and safety profile of vismodegib in elderly patients, even though this is a high-risk population for BCC.⁶ In a study that categorized responses to vismodegib in 13 patients with canthal BCC, 5 experienced a complete clinical response (defined as complete regression of the tumor), and 8 achieved partial clinical response (defined as regression but not to the extent of a complete response).⁷ Our patient’s successful response is notable, as it reinforces vismodegib’s effectiveness as a treatment option for BCC in a sensitive facial area. In addition, our patient’s minimal adverse effect profile is evidence in support of establishing visogemib’s role as a viable treatment option in advanced BCC in the elderly.

Alternative dosing regimens of vismodegib involve the use of drug holidays.⁸ Utilizing a regimen of 1 week with and 3 weeks without vismodegib for 5 to 14 cycles has led to the resolution of BCC with decreased adverse effects.⁸ Furthermore, the MIKIE study demonstrated the efficacy of 2 dosing regimens: 12 weeks of vismodegib 150 mg followed by 3 cycles of 8 placebo weeks and 12 weeks of vismodegib 150 mg and 24 weeks of vismodegib 150 mg followed by 3 cycles of 8 placebo weeks and 8 weeks of vismodegib 150 mg.⁹ Both regimens appeared viable to treat BCC in patients who were at risk for treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects.¹⁰

One adverse effect associated with vismodegib is muscle cramps, which are a potential cause of treatment discontinuation. The mechanism by which vismodegib causes cramps is not fully understood but is attributed to contractions from Ca²⁺ influx into muscle cells and a lack of adenosine triphosphate to allow muscle relaxation.¹¹ This is due to vismodegib’s inhibition of the SMO signaling pathway and activation of the SMO–Ca2+/ AMP-related kinase axis.¹² L-carnitine can be used as an adjuvant with vismodegib to address this adverse effect. L-carnitine is found in muscle cells, where its role is to produce energy by utilizing fatty acids.¹³ It is hypothesized that L-carnitine helps prevent cramps through production of adenosine triphosphate via fatty acid Β-oxidation that aids in stabilizing the sarcolemma and promoting muscle relaxation in skeletal muscle.^13,14 Evidence suggests that making L-carnitine a common adjuvant to vismodegib can aid in preventing this adverse effect.

Vismodegib can be an effective treatment option for large nasal BCCs that are difficult to resect. Our case demonstrates both clinical efficacy and a favorable safety profile in an elderly patient. Further studies and long-term follow-up are warranted to establish the role of vismodegib in the evolving landscape of BCC management.

A 90-year-old man presented for evaluation of a large basal cell carcinoma (BCC) involving the nasal region. The lesion was a 7×4-cm pink, crusted, verrucous plaque covering the majority of the nose and extending onto the malar cheeks that originally had been biopsied 26 years prior, and repeat biopsy was performed 3 years prior. Results from both biopsies were consistent with BCC. The patient had avoided treatment for many years due to fear of losing his nose.

Given the size and location of the tumor, surgical intervention posed major challenges for both functional and cosmetic outcomes. After careful consideration and discussion of treatment options, which included Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), wide local excision, radiation therapy, and systemic therapy, the decision was made to start the patient on vismodegib 150 mg once daily as well as L-carnitine 330 mg twice daily to help with muscle cramps. A baseline complete metabolic panel with an estimated glomerular filtration rate was unremarkable.

By the patient’s first follow-up visit after 2 months of therapy, he had experienced marked clinical improvement with notable regression of the tumor (Figure 1). He reported no adverse effects (eg, muscle cramps, dysgeusia, hair loss, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea). At subsequent follow-up visits, the patient continued to demonstrate clinical improvement. His only adverse effect was a 6-kg weight loss over the prior 6 months of initiating therapy despite no changes in taste or appetite. His dose of vismodegib was decreased to an alternative regimen of 150 mg daily for the first 2 weeks of each month with a drug holiday the rest of the month. Since that time, his weight has stabilized and he has continued with treatment.

Comment

Vismodegib was the first Hedgehog (Hh) inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for management of selected locally advanced and metastatic BCC in adults.^1,2 Genetic alterations in the Hh signaling pathway resulting in proliferation of basal cells are present in nearly all BCCs.² In normal function, when the Hh ligand is absent at the patched (PTCH1) receptor, smoothened (SMO) is inhibited. When Hh ligand binds PTCH1, SMO is activated with downstream effects of triggering cell survival and proliferation in the nucleus via GLI. Loss of function mutations at the PTCH1 receptor or SMO-activating mutations lead to the same downstream effects, even when Hh ligand is absent.¹ This allows for unregulated tumor growth.

Vismodegib is a small-molecule SMO inhibitor that blocks aberrant activation of the Hh signaling pathway, thereby slowing the growth of BCCs (Figure 2).^3,4 Vismodegib and sonidegib have been used to treat patients with basal cell nevus syndrome as well as metastatic or locally advanced BCCs. At least 50% of advanced BCCs develop resistance to vismodegib, commonly via acquiring mutations in SMO.⁴

Basal cell carcinoma can be classified as low or high risk based on risk for recurrence. First-line treatments for low-risk BCC are surgical excision, electrodessication and curettage, and MMS.⁴ Second-line treatment includes radiation therapy. High-risk tumors include those involving anatomic locations of Area H near the eyelids, nose, ears, hands, feet, or genitals in addition to tumors with an aggressive histologic subtype.^4,5 First-line treatments for high-risk BCC are MMS or surgical excision. Second-line treatments are radiation therapy or systemic therapy, such as vismodegib.⁴

Although Hh inhibitors are not a first-line treatment, our case highlights vismodegib’s effectiveness in the management of a large unresectable BCC on the nose of an elderly patient. Our patient opted out of surgical first-line options due to functional and cosmetic concerns.⁴ He also declined radiation treatment due to financial cost and difficulty with transportation. The patient chose to pursue systemic vismodegib therapy through shared decision-making with dermatology. Vismodegib treatment alone granted our patient a highly remarkable result.

There are limited clinical data on the effectiveness and safety profile of vismodegib in elderly patients, even though this is a high-risk population for BCC.⁶ In a study that categorized responses to vismodegib in 13 patients with canthal BCC, 5 experienced a complete clinical response (defined as complete regression of the tumor), and 8 achieved partial clinical response (defined as regression but not to the extent of a complete response).⁷ Our patient’s successful response is notable, as it reinforces vismodegib’s effectiveness as a treatment option for BCC in a sensitive facial area. In addition, our patient’s minimal adverse effect profile is evidence in support of establishing visogemib’s role as a viable treatment option in advanced BCC in the elderly.

Alternative dosing regimens of vismodegib involve the use of drug holidays.⁸ Utilizing a regimen of 1 week with and 3 weeks without vismodegib for 5 to 14 cycles has led to the resolution of BCC with decreased adverse effects.⁸ Furthermore, the MIKIE study demonstrated the efficacy of 2 dosing regimens: 12 weeks of vismodegib 150 mg followed by 3 cycles of 8 placebo weeks and 12 weeks of vismodegib 150 mg and 24 weeks of vismodegib 150 mg followed by 3 cycles of 8 placebo weeks and 8 weeks of vismodegib 150 mg.⁹ Both regimens appeared viable to treat BCC in patients who were at risk for treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects.¹⁰

One adverse effect associated with vismodegib is muscle cramps, which are a potential cause of treatment discontinuation. The mechanism by which vismodegib causes cramps is not fully understood but is attributed to contractions from Ca²⁺ influx into muscle cells and a lack of adenosine triphosphate to allow muscle relaxation.¹¹ This is due to vismodegib’s inhibition of the SMO signaling pathway and activation of the SMO–Ca2+/ AMP-related kinase axis.¹² L-carnitine can be used as an adjuvant with vismodegib to address this adverse effect. L-carnitine is found in muscle cells, where its role is to produce energy by utilizing fatty acids.¹³ It is hypothesized that L-carnitine helps prevent cramps through production of adenosine triphosphate via fatty acid Β-oxidation that aids in stabilizing the sarcolemma and promoting muscle relaxation in skeletal muscle.^13,14 Evidence suggests that making L-carnitine a common adjuvant to vismodegib can aid in preventing this adverse effect.

Vismodegib can be an effective treatment option for large nasal BCCs that are difficult to resect. Our case demonstrates both clinical efficacy and a favorable safety profile in an elderly patient. Further studies and long-term follow-up are warranted to establish the role of vismodegib in the evolving landscape of BCC management.

A 90-year-old man presented for evaluation of a large basal cell carcinoma (BCC) involving the nasal region. The lesion was a 7×4-cm pink, crusted, verrucous plaque covering the majority of the nose and extending onto the malar cheeks that originally had been biopsied 26 years prior, and repeat biopsy was performed 3 years prior. Results from both biopsies were consistent with BCC. The patient had avoided treatment for many years due to fear of losing his nose.

Given the size and location of the tumor, surgical intervention posed major challenges for both functional and cosmetic outcomes. After careful consideration and discussion of treatment options, which included Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), wide local excision, radiation therapy, and systemic therapy, the decision was made to start the patient on vismodegib 150 mg once daily as well as L-carnitine 330 mg twice daily to help with muscle cramps. A baseline complete metabolic panel with an estimated glomerular filtration rate was unremarkable.

By the patient’s first follow-up visit after 2 months of therapy, he had experienced marked clinical improvement with notable regression of the tumor (Figure 1). He reported no adverse effects (eg, muscle cramps, dysgeusia, hair loss, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea). At subsequent follow-up visits, the patient continued to demonstrate clinical improvement. His only adverse effect was a 6-kg weight loss over the prior 6 months of initiating therapy despite no changes in taste or appetite. His dose of vismodegib was decreased to an alternative regimen of 150 mg daily for the first 2 weeks of each month with a drug holiday the rest of the month. Since that time, his weight has stabilized and he has continued with treatment.

Comment

Vismodegib was the first Hedgehog (Hh) inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for management of selected locally advanced and metastatic BCC in adults.^1,2 Genetic alterations in the Hh signaling pathway resulting in proliferation of basal cells are present in nearly all BCCs.² In normal function, when the Hh ligand is absent at the patched (PTCH1) receptor, smoothened (SMO) is inhibited. When Hh ligand binds PTCH1, SMO is activated with downstream effects of triggering cell survival and proliferation in the nucleus via GLI. Loss of function mutations at the PTCH1 receptor or SMO-activating mutations lead to the same downstream effects, even when Hh ligand is absent.¹ This allows for unregulated tumor growth.

Vismodegib is a small-molecule SMO inhibitor that blocks aberrant activation of the Hh signaling pathway, thereby slowing the growth of BCCs (Figure 2).^3,4 Vismodegib and sonidegib have been used to treat patients with basal cell nevus syndrome as well as metastatic or locally advanced BCCs. At least 50% of advanced BCCs develop resistance to vismodegib, commonly via acquiring mutations in SMO.⁴

Basal cell carcinoma can be classified as low or high risk based on risk for recurrence. First-line treatments for low-risk BCC are surgical excision, electrodessication and curettage, and MMS.⁴ Second-line treatment includes radiation therapy. High-risk tumors include those involving anatomic locations of Area H near the eyelids, nose, ears, hands, feet, or genitals in addition to tumors with an aggressive histologic subtype.^4,5 First-line treatments for high-risk BCC are MMS or surgical excision. Second-line treatments are radiation therapy or systemic therapy, such as vismodegib.⁴

Although Hh inhibitors are not a first-line treatment, our case highlights vismodegib’s effectiveness in the management of a large unresectable BCC on the nose of an elderly patient. Our patient opted out of surgical first-line options due to functional and cosmetic concerns.⁴ He also declined radiation treatment due to financial cost and difficulty with transportation. The patient chose to pursue systemic vismodegib therapy through shared decision-making with dermatology. Vismodegib treatment alone granted our patient a highly remarkable result.

There are limited clinical data on the effectiveness and safety profile of vismodegib in elderly patients, even though this is a high-risk population for BCC.⁶ In a study that categorized responses to vismodegib in 13 patients with canthal BCC, 5 experienced a complete clinical response (defined as complete regression of the tumor), and 8 achieved partial clinical response (defined as regression but not to the extent of a complete response).⁷ Our patient’s successful response is notable, as it reinforces vismodegib’s effectiveness as a treatment option for BCC in a sensitive facial area. In addition, our patient’s minimal adverse effect profile is evidence in support of establishing visogemib’s role as a viable treatment option in advanced BCC in the elderly.

Alternative dosing regimens of vismodegib involve the use of drug holidays.⁸ Utilizing a regimen of 1 week with and 3 weeks without vismodegib for 5 to 14 cycles has led to the resolution of BCC with decreased adverse effects.⁸ Furthermore, the MIKIE study demonstrated the efficacy of 2 dosing regimens: 12 weeks of vismodegib 150 mg followed by 3 cycles of 8 placebo weeks and 12 weeks of vismodegib 150 mg and 24 weeks of vismodegib 150 mg followed by 3 cycles of 8 placebo weeks and 8 weeks of vismodegib 150 mg.⁹ Both regimens appeared viable to treat BCC in patients who were at risk for treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects.¹⁰

One adverse effect associated with vismodegib is muscle cramps, which are a potential cause of treatment discontinuation. The mechanism by which vismodegib causes cramps is not fully understood but is attributed to contractions from Ca²⁺ influx into muscle cells and a lack of adenosine triphosphate to allow muscle relaxation.¹¹ This is due to vismodegib’s inhibition of the SMO signaling pathway and activation of the SMO–Ca2+/ AMP-related kinase axis.¹² L-carnitine can be used as an adjuvant with vismodegib to address this adverse effect. L-carnitine is found in muscle cells, where its role is to produce energy by utilizing fatty acids.¹³ It is hypothesized that L-carnitine helps prevent cramps through production of adenosine triphosphate via fatty acid Β-oxidation that aids in stabilizing the sarcolemma and promoting muscle relaxation in skeletal muscle.^13,14 Evidence suggests that making L-carnitine a common adjuvant to vismodegib can aid in preventing this adverse effect.

Vismodegib can be an effective treatment option for large nasal BCCs that are difficult to resect. Our case demonstrates both clinical efficacy and a favorable safety profile in an elderly patient. Further studies and long-term follow-up are warranted to establish the role of vismodegib in the evolving landscape of BCC management.

To the Editor:

Early skin cancer detection improves patient outcomes¹; however, socioeconomic and racial disparities may impact access to dermatologic care.² Although non-Hispanic White individuals have a high incidence of skin cancer, they experience higher melanoma-specific survival rates than non-White patients, who often receive later-stage diagnoses and experience higher mortality.² Furthermore, racial/ ethnic minorities often face longer surgery wait times after diagnosis and have lower socioeconomic status (SES) and less favorable health insurance coverage, contributing to poorer outcomes.^2,3

To examine access to full-body skin examinations (FBSEs) by board-certified dermatologists in Los Angeles (LA) County, California, we analyzed the availability of FBSEs based on racial demographics, income, and insurance type (Medicaid [Medi-Cal] vs private [Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS)]). Demographic data by zip code were obtained from the US Census Bureau.⁴ This validated metric highlights socioeconomic disparities and minimizes data gaps^5,6 and was used to assess health care access among different population subgroups. Dermatologists’ contact information was obtained from the Find a Dermatologist page on the American Academy of Dermatology website and the listed phone numbers of their practice were used to contact them. Practices with board-certified dermatologists accepting new patients were included in the study; practices were not included if they had exclusive insurance plans; were pediatric, cosmetic, or research only; or were nonresponsive to calls. From August 2022 to September 2022, each practice was called twice within a 36-hour period—once by a simulated patient with Medi-Cal and once by a simulated patient with BCBS—and were asked about availability for new patient FBSE appointments and accepted insurance types. Data were analyzed using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc.).

Los Angeles County comprises 269 zip codes, of which 82 (30.5%) have dermatology practices. Of 213 total dermatologists in LA County listed on the American Academy of Dermatology website, 193 (90.6%) met preliminary criteria, and 169 (79.3%) were successfully contacted. Almost all (94.6% [160/169]) accepted new patients for FBSEs; of those, 63.1% (101/160) accepted only private insurance, 16.9% (27/160) accepted both private insurance and Medi-Cal, and 16.2% (26/160) did not accept any insurance. Racial predominance for each dermatology practice was analyzed by zip code (Table). Dermatologists included in our study were significantly more concentrated in predominantly non- Hispanic White areas of LA County vs predominantly Hispanic areas (P<.0001). Notably, the average income in predominantly non-Hispanic White zip codes ($114,757.74) was significantly higher than in predominantly Hispanic areas ($58,278.54)(P=.001)(Table).⁴

In LA County, 40.1% (108/269) of zip codes have no racial majority, 28.2% (76/269) are predominantly Hispanic, 27.5% (74/269) are predominantly non-Hispanic White, 2.2% (6/269) are predominantly Black, and 1.9% (5/269) are predominantly Asian.⁴ There are no dermatologists in predominantly Black zip codes, 2 in predominantly Asian zip codes, 14 in predominantly Hispanic zip codes, 38 in zip codes with no racial majority, and 106 in predominantly non-Hispanic White zip codes. There are significantly more dermatologists in predominantly non-Hispanic White zip codes compared to predominantly Hispanic zip codes (P<.0001). In LA County, the average income in predominantly Asian, non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic zip codes was $93,594, $114,757.84, and $58,278.54, respectively, in 2021.4 The average income in predominantly non-Hispanic White zip codes was significantly higher than in predominantly Hispanic zip codes (P=.001). There were no income data available for predominantly Black zip codes or zip codes with no racial majority.

The results from our study revealed potential barriers to FBSEs for racial and ethnic minorities in LA County, which supports previous research on the impact of SES, race, and insurance on access to dermatologic care.^2,3 Predominantly Hispanic zip codes have significantly lower income (P<.0001) and fewer dermatologists (P=.001) compared to zip codes that are predominantly non-Hispanic White, reflecting how lower SES correlates with worse health outcomes and higher melanoma mortality. Conversely, predominantly non-Hispanic White areas with higher income have better access to dermatologists, which may contribute to the improved melanoma survival rates among White patients. Additionally, most dermatologists accept only private insurance, further highlighting the disparity in FBSE access for non-White patients across LA County. While our study focused on FBSE access, our findings may point to a wider barrier to dermatologic care, especially in zip codes with fewer dermatologists. Further studies are needed to determine whether these areas also face barriers to accessing primary care.

Our study was limited by the exclusion of nonphysician providers (eg, nurse practitioners, physician assistants), a small sample size, and lack of available economic data for predominantly Black zip codes.⁴ Additionally, the exclusion of practices with exclusive insurance plans (eg, Kaiser Permanente) limited the generalizability of our findings, as our results did not account for the populations served by these practices. Furthermore, our analysis did not account for variations in practice size or the proportion of care provided to patients with different insurance types, which could impact overall accessibility. Additional studies are needed to explore the impact of these factors on access to general dermatologic care and not just FBSEs.

Racial/ethnic minorities and lower SES populations face major barriers to FBSE access in LA County, such as difficulty finding a dermatologist in their area or one who accepts Medi-Cal. Addressing these disparities is crucial for improving skin cancer outcomes. Further research is needed to develop strategies to eliminate these barriers to dermatologic care, such as increasing access to teledermatology, offering mobile dermatology clinics, and improving insurance coverage.

To the Editor:

Early skin cancer detection improves patient outcomes¹; however, socioeconomic and racial disparities may impact access to dermatologic care.² Although non-Hispanic White individuals have a high incidence of skin cancer, they experience higher melanoma-specific survival rates than non-White patients, who often receive later-stage diagnoses and experience higher mortality.² Furthermore, racial/ ethnic minorities often face longer surgery wait times after diagnosis and have lower socioeconomic status (SES) and less favorable health insurance coverage, contributing to poorer outcomes.^2,3

To examine access to full-body skin examinations (FBSEs) by board-certified dermatologists in Los Angeles (LA) County, California, we analyzed the availability of FBSEs based on racial demographics, income, and insurance type (Medicaid [Medi-Cal] vs private [Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS)]). Demographic data by zip code were obtained from the US Census Bureau.⁴ This validated metric highlights socioeconomic disparities and minimizes data gaps^5,6 and was used to assess health care access among different population subgroups. Dermatologists’ contact information was obtained from the Find a Dermatologist page on the American Academy of Dermatology website and the listed phone numbers of their practice were used to contact them. Practices with board-certified dermatologists accepting new patients were included in the study; practices were not included if they had exclusive insurance plans; were pediatric, cosmetic, or research only; or were nonresponsive to calls. From August 2022 to September 2022, each practice was called twice within a 36-hour period—once by a simulated patient with Medi-Cal and once by a simulated patient with BCBS—and were asked about availability for new patient FBSE appointments and accepted insurance types. Data were analyzed using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc.).

Los Angeles County comprises 269 zip codes, of which 82 (30.5%) have dermatology practices. Of 213 total dermatologists in LA County listed on the American Academy of Dermatology website, 193 (90.6%) met preliminary criteria, and 169 (79.3%) were successfully contacted. Almost all (94.6% [160/169]) accepted new patients for FBSEs; of those, 63.1% (101/160) accepted only private insurance, 16.9% (27/160) accepted both private insurance and Medi-Cal, and 16.2% (26/160) did not accept any insurance. Racial predominance for each dermatology practice was analyzed by zip code (Table). Dermatologists included in our study were significantly more concentrated in predominantly non- Hispanic White areas of LA County vs predominantly Hispanic areas (P<.0001). Notably, the average income in predominantly non-Hispanic White zip codes ($114,757.74) was significantly higher than in predominantly Hispanic areas ($58,278.54)(P=.001)(Table).⁴

In LA County, 40.1% (108/269) of zip codes have no racial majority, 28.2% (76/269) are predominantly Hispanic, 27.5% (74/269) are predominantly non-Hispanic White, 2.2% (6/269) are predominantly Black, and 1.9% (5/269) are predominantly Asian.⁴ There are no dermatologists in predominantly Black zip codes, 2 in predominantly Asian zip codes, 14 in predominantly Hispanic zip codes, 38 in zip codes with no racial majority, and 106 in predominantly non-Hispanic White zip codes. There are significantly more dermatologists in predominantly non-Hispanic White zip codes compared to predominantly Hispanic zip codes (P<.0001). In LA County, the average income in predominantly Asian, non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic zip codes was $93,594, $114,757.84, and $58,278.54, respectively, in 2021.4 The average income in predominantly non-Hispanic White zip codes was significantly higher than in predominantly Hispanic zip codes (P=.001). There were no income data available for predominantly Black zip codes or zip codes with no racial majority.

The results from our study revealed potential barriers to FBSEs for racial and ethnic minorities in LA County, which supports previous research on the impact of SES, race, and insurance on access to dermatologic care.^2,3 Predominantly Hispanic zip codes have significantly lower income (P<.0001) and fewer dermatologists (P=.001) compared to zip codes that are predominantly non-Hispanic White, reflecting how lower SES correlates with worse health outcomes and higher melanoma mortality. Conversely, predominantly non-Hispanic White areas with higher income have better access to dermatologists, which may contribute to the improved melanoma survival rates among White patients. Additionally, most dermatologists accept only private insurance, further highlighting the disparity in FBSE access for non-White patients across LA County. While our study focused on FBSE access, our findings may point to a wider barrier to dermatologic care, especially in zip codes with fewer dermatologists. Further studies are needed to determine whether these areas also face barriers to accessing primary care.

Our study was limited by the exclusion of nonphysician providers (eg, nurse practitioners, physician assistants), a small sample size, and lack of available economic data for predominantly Black zip codes.⁴ Additionally, the exclusion of practices with exclusive insurance plans (eg, Kaiser Permanente) limited the generalizability of our findings, as our results did not account for the populations served by these practices. Furthermore, our analysis did not account for variations in practice size or the proportion of care provided to patients with different insurance types, which could impact overall accessibility. Additional studies are needed to explore the impact of these factors on access to general dermatologic care and not just FBSEs.

Racial/ethnic minorities and lower SES populations face major barriers to FBSE access in LA County, such as difficulty finding a dermatologist in their area or one who accepts Medi-Cal. Addressing these disparities is crucial for improving skin cancer outcomes. Further research is needed to develop strategies to eliminate these barriers to dermatologic care, such as increasing access to teledermatology, offering mobile dermatology clinics, and improving insurance coverage.

To the Editor:

Early skin cancer detection improves patient outcomes¹; however, socioeconomic and racial disparities may impact access to dermatologic care.² Although non-Hispanic White individuals have a high incidence of skin cancer, they experience higher melanoma-specific survival rates than non-White patients, who often receive later-stage diagnoses and experience higher mortality.² Furthermore, racial/ ethnic minorities often face longer surgery wait times after diagnosis and have lower socioeconomic status (SES) and less favorable health insurance coverage, contributing to poorer outcomes.^2,3

To examine access to full-body skin examinations (FBSEs) by board-certified dermatologists in Los Angeles (LA) County, California, we analyzed the availability of FBSEs based on racial demographics, income, and insurance type (Medicaid [Medi-Cal] vs private [Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS)]). Demographic data by zip code were obtained from the US Census Bureau.⁴ This validated metric highlights socioeconomic disparities and minimizes data gaps^5,6 and was used to assess health care access among different population subgroups. Dermatologists’ contact information was obtained from the Find a Dermatologist page on the American Academy of Dermatology website and the listed phone numbers of their practice were used to contact them. Practices with board-certified dermatologists accepting new patients were included in the study; practices were not included if they had exclusive insurance plans; were pediatric, cosmetic, or research only; or were nonresponsive to calls. From August 2022 to September 2022, each practice was called twice within a 36-hour period—once by a simulated patient with Medi-Cal and once by a simulated patient with BCBS—and were asked about availability for new patient FBSE appointments and accepted insurance types. Data were analyzed using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc.).

Los Angeles County comprises 269 zip codes, of which 82 (30.5%) have dermatology practices. Of 213 total dermatologists in LA County listed on the American Academy of Dermatology website, 193 (90.6%) met preliminary criteria, and 169 (79.3%) were successfully contacted. Almost all (94.6% [160/169]) accepted new patients for FBSEs; of those, 63.1% (101/160) accepted only private insurance, 16.9% (27/160) accepted both private insurance and Medi-Cal, and 16.2% (26/160) did not accept any insurance. Racial predominance for each dermatology practice was analyzed by zip code (Table). Dermatologists included in our study were significantly more concentrated in predominantly non- Hispanic White areas of LA County vs predominantly Hispanic areas (P<.0001). Notably, the average income in predominantly non-Hispanic White zip codes ($114,757.74) was significantly higher than in predominantly Hispanic areas ($58,278.54)(P=.001)(Table).⁴

In LA County, 40.1% (108/269) of zip codes have no racial majority, 28.2% (76/269) are predominantly Hispanic, 27.5% (74/269) are predominantly non-Hispanic White, 2.2% (6/269) are predominantly Black, and 1.9% (5/269) are predominantly Asian.⁴ There are no dermatologists in predominantly Black zip codes, 2 in predominantly Asian zip codes, 14 in predominantly Hispanic zip codes, 38 in zip codes with no racial majority, and 106 in predominantly non-Hispanic White zip codes. There are significantly more dermatologists in predominantly non-Hispanic White zip codes compared to predominantly Hispanic zip codes (P<.0001). In LA County, the average income in predominantly Asian, non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic zip codes was $93,594, $114,757.84, and $58,278.54, respectively, in 2021.4 The average income in predominantly non-Hispanic White zip codes was significantly higher than in predominantly Hispanic zip codes (P=.001). There were no income data available for predominantly Black zip codes or zip codes with no racial majority.

The results from our study revealed potential barriers to FBSEs for racial and ethnic minorities in LA County, which supports previous research on the impact of SES, race, and insurance on access to dermatologic care.^2,3 Predominantly Hispanic zip codes have significantly lower income (P<.0001) and fewer dermatologists (P=.001) compared to zip codes that are predominantly non-Hispanic White, reflecting how lower SES correlates with worse health outcomes and higher melanoma mortality. Conversely, predominantly non-Hispanic White areas with higher income have better access to dermatologists, which may contribute to the improved melanoma survival rates among White patients. Additionally, most dermatologists accept only private insurance, further highlighting the disparity in FBSE access for non-White patients across LA County. While our study focused on FBSE access, our findings may point to a wider barrier to dermatologic care, especially in zip codes with fewer dermatologists. Further studies are needed to determine whether these areas also face barriers to accessing primary care.

Our study was limited by the exclusion of nonphysician providers (eg, nurse practitioners, physician assistants), a small sample size, and lack of available economic data for predominantly Black zip codes.⁴ Additionally, the exclusion of practices with exclusive insurance plans (eg, Kaiser Permanente) limited the generalizability of our findings, as our results did not account for the populations served by these practices. Furthermore, our analysis did not account for variations in practice size or the proportion of care provided to patients with different insurance types, which could impact overall accessibility. Additional studies are needed to explore the impact of these factors on access to general dermatologic care and not just FBSEs.

Racial/ethnic minorities and lower SES populations face major barriers to FBSE access in LA County, such as difficulty finding a dermatologist in their area or one who accepts Medi-Cal. Addressing these disparities is crucial for improving skin cancer outcomes. Further research is needed to develop strategies to eliminate these barriers to dermatologic care, such as increasing access to teledermatology, offering mobile dermatology clinics, and improving insurance coverage.

To the Editor:

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC), which is the most common type of skin cancer, typically arises on sun-damaged skin as a result of long-term exposure to UV radiation. Another known risk factor for BCC is exposure to ionizing radiation, though this is less commonly encountered.¹ We present a unique case of a BCC arising at the site of an involuted infantile hemangioma that had been treated with implanted and retained gold radon seeds more than 7 decades prior. This case highlights the importance of obtaining a detailed history of radiation exposures to better counsel patients about skin cancer risk and manage disease in complex skin locations.

A 75-year-old woman presented to an outside dermatologist for evaluation of a pink papule on the right upper cutaneous lip that had enlarged over several months (Figure 1). The patient’s medical history was remarkable for an infantile hemangioma present since shortly after birth in the same location that had been treated with 10 implanted gold radon seeds when she was 6 years old. Over her lifetime, several seeds had self-extruded from the area, but some remained within the subcutaneous tissue as confirmed by dental radiographs. A shave biopsy of the papule demonstrated a superficial BCC, and the patient was referred to our institution for Mohs micrographic surgery.

Intraoperative frozen sections revealed both superficial and nodular BCC, and the tumor was cleared in 3 stages. During surgery, a gold radon seed was visualized at the base of the excised BCC and was removed from the subcutaneous tissue (Figure 2). The primary defect on the upper lip was closed with a rotation flap. The patient returned for follow-up 2 months later and showed good healing and cosmetic outcome.

Although not commonly encountered, ionizing radiation is a known risk factor for BCC.¹ Basal cell carcinoma arising from implanted gold radon seeds represents a minority of reported cases.^2,3 Radium was first used to treat skin disease in the early 1900s.¹ The radioactive decay of radium produced tissue destruction via alpha, beta, and gamma particles, which slowly released over weeks when radium was packaged into a capsule.⁴ Following implantation of the capsule, DNA damage occurred due to double-stranded breaks, chromosomal aberrations, and generation of reactive oxygen species. The downstream effect of these cellular insults resulted in cell-cycle shortening, apoptosis, and carcinogenesis.⁵

Gold radon seeds were used to treat infantile hemangiomas in the United States and Europe from the early 1940s to the 1960s; their use declined dramatically in the 1950s due to adverse effects and discovery of the potential for future malignancies as well as the development of safer and more effective treatments.^1,3 Our patient received a substantial dose of ionizing radiation from the implantation of gold radon seeds at the site of the infantile hemangioma, which dramatically increased her risk for BCC in this location.

Infantile hemangiomas are the most common vascular tumors in children. Most infantile hemangiomas regress spontaneously and are stably involuted by about 5 or 6 years of age.⁶ Treatment is indicated for rapidly growing hemangiomas that are at risk for ulceration or are located by critical structures (eg, the eyes or airway). Hemangiomas located on or near the lips should be treated to avoid disfigurement and loss of function as a consequence of rapid growth and involution.⁷ The treatment of choice for large or high-risk infantile hemangiomas over the past 10 to 15 years has been beta blockers.^6-8 Propranolol hydrochloride, a systemic beta blocker, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for the treatment of infantile hemangiomas and has demonstrated safety and effectiveness in promoting involution in these lesions.⁸ Unlike radiation therapy from implanted gold radon seeds, propranolol does not increase the risk for BCC. Although other risk factors such as skin type and cumulative UV exposure contribute to the development of BCC, the exact location of the BCC overlying the residual gold radon seeds was highly suggestive of ionizing radiation playing a major role in the carcinogenesis of the tumor in our patient.

Our case highlights the importance of screening elderly patients for exposures that may increase the risk for skin carcinogenesis. Dermatologists are accustomed to asking about history of UV exposure, sunburns, and use of sun-protective measures; however, direct questioning about less common sources of radiation exposure also may help stratify a patient’s risk for developing BCC. Although the US Preventive Services Task Force 2023 guidelines determined there is insufficient evidence to recommend visual skin cancer screening examinations in asymptomatic adults,⁹ we advocate for verbal screening of radiation exposure in both primary care and dermatology office settings. At a time when access to care, particularly dermatology services, is challenging, determining the appropriate interval for follow-up based on the patient’s skin cancer risk is imperative.

To the Editor:

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC), which is the most common type of skin cancer, typically arises on sun-damaged skin as a result of long-term exposure to UV radiation. Another known risk factor for BCC is exposure to ionizing radiation, though this is less commonly encountered.¹ We present a unique case of a BCC arising at the site of an involuted infantile hemangioma that had been treated with implanted and retained gold radon seeds more than 7 decades prior. This case highlights the importance of obtaining a detailed history of radiation exposures to better counsel patients about skin cancer risk and manage disease in complex skin locations.

A 75-year-old woman presented to an outside dermatologist for evaluation of a pink papule on the right upper cutaneous lip that had enlarged over several months (Figure 1). The patient’s medical history was remarkable for an infantile hemangioma present since shortly after birth in the same location that had been treated with 10 implanted gold radon seeds when she was 6 years old. Over her lifetime, several seeds had self-extruded from the area, but some remained within the subcutaneous tissue as confirmed by dental radiographs. A shave biopsy of the papule demonstrated a superficial BCC, and the patient was referred to our institution for Mohs micrographic surgery.

Intraoperative frozen sections revealed both superficial and nodular BCC, and the tumor was cleared in 3 stages. During surgery, a gold radon seed was visualized at the base of the excised BCC and was removed from the subcutaneous tissue (Figure 2). The primary defect on the upper lip was closed with a rotation flap. The patient returned for follow-up 2 months later and showed good healing and cosmetic outcome.

Although not commonly encountered, ionizing radiation is a known risk factor for BCC.¹ Basal cell carcinoma arising from implanted gold radon seeds represents a minority of reported cases.^2,3 Radium was first used to treat skin disease in the early 1900s.¹ The radioactive decay of radium produced tissue destruction via alpha, beta, and gamma particles, which slowly released over weeks when radium was packaged into a capsule.⁴ Following implantation of the capsule, DNA damage occurred due to double-stranded breaks, chromosomal aberrations, and generation of reactive oxygen species. The downstream effect of these cellular insults resulted in cell-cycle shortening, apoptosis, and carcinogenesis.⁵

Gold radon seeds were used to treat infantile hemangiomas in the United States and Europe from the early 1940s to the 1960s; their use declined dramatically in the 1950s due to adverse effects and discovery of the potential for future malignancies as well as the development of safer and more effective treatments.^1,3 Our patient received a substantial dose of ionizing radiation from the implantation of gold radon seeds at the site of the infantile hemangioma, which dramatically increased her risk for BCC in this location.

Infantile hemangiomas are the most common vascular tumors in children. Most infantile hemangiomas regress spontaneously and are stably involuted by about 5 or 6 years of age.⁶ Treatment is indicated for rapidly growing hemangiomas that are at risk for ulceration or are located by critical structures (eg, the eyes or airway). Hemangiomas located on or near the lips should be treated to avoid disfigurement and loss of function as a consequence of rapid growth and involution.⁷ The treatment of choice for large or high-risk infantile hemangiomas over the past 10 to 15 years has been beta blockers.^6-8 Propranolol hydrochloride, a systemic beta blocker, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for the treatment of infantile hemangiomas and has demonstrated safety and effectiveness in promoting involution in these lesions.⁸ Unlike radiation therapy from implanted gold radon seeds, propranolol does not increase the risk for BCC. Although other risk factors such as skin type and cumulative UV exposure contribute to the development of BCC, the exact location of the BCC overlying the residual gold radon seeds was highly suggestive of ionizing radiation playing a major role in the carcinogenesis of the tumor in our patient.

Our case highlights the importance of screening elderly patients for exposures that may increase the risk for skin carcinogenesis. Dermatologists are accustomed to asking about history of UV exposure, sunburns, and use of sun-protective measures; however, direct questioning about less common sources of radiation exposure also may help stratify a patient’s risk for developing BCC. Although the US Preventive Services Task Force 2023 guidelines determined there is insufficient evidence to recommend visual skin cancer screening examinations in asymptomatic adults,⁹ we advocate for verbal screening of radiation exposure in both primary care and dermatology office settings. At a time when access to care, particularly dermatology services, is challenging, determining the appropriate interval for follow-up based on the patient’s skin cancer risk is imperative.

To the Editor:

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC), which is the most common type of skin cancer, typically arises on sun-damaged skin as a result of long-term exposure to UV radiation. Another known risk factor for BCC is exposure to ionizing radiation, though this is less commonly encountered.¹ We present a unique case of a BCC arising at the site of an involuted infantile hemangioma that had been treated with implanted and retained gold radon seeds more than 7 decades prior. This case highlights the importance of obtaining a detailed history of radiation exposures to better counsel patients about skin cancer risk and manage disease in complex skin locations.

A 75-year-old woman presented to an outside dermatologist for evaluation of a pink papule on the right upper cutaneous lip that had enlarged over several months (Figure 1). The patient’s medical history was remarkable for an infantile hemangioma present since shortly after birth in the same location that had been treated with 10 implanted gold radon seeds when she was 6 years old. Over her lifetime, several seeds had self-extruded from the area, but some remained within the subcutaneous tissue as confirmed by dental radiographs. A shave biopsy of the papule demonstrated a superficial BCC, and the patient was referred to our institution for Mohs micrographic surgery.

Intraoperative frozen sections revealed both superficial and nodular BCC, and the tumor was cleared in 3 stages. During surgery, a gold radon seed was visualized at the base of the excised BCC and was removed from the subcutaneous tissue (Figure 2). The primary defect on the upper lip was closed with a rotation flap. The patient returned for follow-up 2 months later and showed good healing and cosmetic outcome.

Although not commonly encountered, ionizing radiation is a known risk factor for BCC.¹ Basal cell carcinoma arising from implanted gold radon seeds represents a minority of reported cases.^2,3 Radium was first used to treat skin disease in the early 1900s.¹ The radioactive decay of radium produced tissue destruction via alpha, beta, and gamma particles, which slowly released over weeks when radium was packaged into a capsule.⁴ Following implantation of the capsule, DNA damage occurred due to double-stranded breaks, chromosomal aberrations, and generation of reactive oxygen species. The downstream effect of these cellular insults resulted in cell-cycle shortening, apoptosis, and carcinogenesis.⁵

Gold radon seeds were used to treat infantile hemangiomas in the United States and Europe from the early 1940s to the 1960s; their use declined dramatically in the 1950s due to adverse effects and discovery of the potential for future malignancies as well as the development of safer and more effective treatments.^1,3 Our patient received a substantial dose of ionizing radiation from the implantation of gold radon seeds at the site of the infantile hemangioma, which dramatically increased her risk for BCC in this location.

Infantile hemangiomas are the most common vascular tumors in children. Most infantile hemangiomas regress spontaneously and are stably involuted by about 5 or 6 years of age.⁶ Treatment is indicated for rapidly growing hemangiomas that are at risk for ulceration or are located by critical structures (eg, the eyes or airway). Hemangiomas located on or near the lips should be treated to avoid disfigurement and loss of function as a consequence of rapid growth and involution.⁷ The treatment of choice for large or high-risk infantile hemangiomas over the past 10 to 15 years has been beta blockers.^6-8 Propranolol hydrochloride, a systemic beta blocker, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for the treatment of infantile hemangiomas and has demonstrated safety and effectiveness in promoting involution in these lesions.⁸ Unlike radiation therapy from implanted gold radon seeds, propranolol does not increase the risk for BCC. Although other risk factors such as skin type and cumulative UV exposure contribute to the development of BCC, the exact location of the BCC overlying the residual gold radon seeds was highly suggestive of ionizing radiation playing a major role in the carcinogenesis of the tumor in our patient.

Our case highlights the importance of screening elderly patients for exposures that may increase the risk for skin carcinogenesis. Dermatologists are accustomed to asking about history of UV exposure, sunburns, and use of sun-protective measures; however, direct questioning about less common sources of radiation exposure also may help stratify a patient’s risk for developing BCC. Although the US Preventive Services Task Force 2023 guidelines determined there is insufficient evidence to recommend visual skin cancer screening examinations in asymptomatic adults,⁹ we advocate for verbal screening of radiation exposure in both primary care and dermatology office settings. At a time when access to care, particularly dermatology services, is challenging, determining the appropriate interval for follow-up based on the patient’s skin cancer risk is imperative.

To the Editor:

The incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is rapidly increasing worldwide. Due to its highly curable nature when treated early, accurate diagnosis is the cornerstone to good patient outcomes.¹ Accurate diagnosis of skin cancer and subsequent treatment decisions rely heavily on the congruence between clinical observations and histopathologic assessments. Clinical misdiagnosis of a malignant lesion can lead to delayed and suboptimal treatment, which may contribute to serious complications such as metastasis or even mortality. In this study, data from clinically diagnosed basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) were compared to their identified histopathologic subtype classifications. The accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of these NMSCs was assessed by determining the rate of misdiagnosis and the respective positive predictive value (PPV).

A retrospective review of medical records from a private dermatology practice in Lubbock, Texas, was conducted to identify patients diagnosed with NMSC from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021. A total of 11,229 NMSCs were diagnosed and treated in 5877 patients. Of the NMSCs diagnosed, 11,145 were identified as keratinocyte carcinomas and were classified as BCCs or SCCs. The accuracy of the clinical diagnoses was determined by comparison to the histologic subtype identified via biopsy of the lesion. Although the use of a dermatoscope during the clinical encounter was not formally recorded, reports from the examining dermatologists indicated it was not used in the majority of cases.

If a lesion was clinically diagnosed as a BCC but was identified as a subtype of SCC on histology (or vice versa), the lesion was considered to be mismatched. The number of mismatched lesions and the mismatch rate for each lesion type/subtype is recorded in the Table. Of the total 11,145 keratinocyte carcinomas included in our study, there was an overall 10.63% mismatch rate, with 1185 of the malignancies having a differing clinical diagnosis (eg, BCC vs SCC) from the histologic findings. The clinical mismatch rate was notably higher for SCC compared to BCC (15.83% vs 7.03%, respectively).

The Table provides a breakdown of the BCC subtypes identified by histology with their computed mismatch rate and PPV. It is worth clarifying that lesions classified as more than one BCC subtype per the histologic findings were diagnosed as mixed BCC; these were further classified as mixed-aggressive BCC (if at least one aggressive BCC subtype was present) and mixed nonaggressive BCC (if no aggressive BCC subtype was present). Overall, BCCs were less likely to be misdiagnosed, with an average PPV of 92.97% compared to 84.17% for SCCs. Basosquamous BCC was the BCC subtype with the highest mismatch rate (25.48%), while sclerosing BCC has the lowest overall mismatch rate (1.33%). The most common malignancy was BCC, with nodular BCC being the most common subtype.

The Table also breaks down the SCC subtypes, reporting the most commonly misdiagnosed of any BCC or SCC subtype to be poorly differentiated SCC (mismatch rate, 38.46%). The lowest mismatch rate of the SCC subtypes was 5.97% for well-differentiated SCC.

There was an overall PPV of 89.37% in clinically evaluated malignancies and their respective histologic subtypes. Basal cell carcinoma had a lower overall mismatch rate of 7.03% compared to 15.83% in SCC. The most common misdiagnosis was attributed to poorly differentiated SCC (mismatch rate, 38.46%), while the least common misdiagnosed malignancy was sclerosing BCC (1.33%). The high mismatch rate of poorly differentiated SCC may be due to its diverging presentation from a typical SCC as a flat lesion with the absence of scaling, keratin, or bleeding, leading to the misdiagnosis of BCC.²

Accurate clinical diagnosis of NMSCs is the basis for further evaluation and treatment that should ensue in a timely manner; however, accurately identifying BCCs vs SCCs solely based on clinical examination can be challenging due to variable manifestations and overlapping features. Basal cell carcinoma commonly presents as a shiny pink/flesh-colored nodule, macule, or patch with surface telangiectasia, sometimes appearing with ulceration or crusting.³ Alternatively, SCC typically appears as a firm, sharply demarcated, red nodule with a thick overlying scale.⁴ Definitive diagnoses can be difficult upon clinical examination since these features can be shared between the 2 subtypes. To aid in these uncertainties, a growing number of clinicians are implementing the use of dermoscopy in their everyday practice.

Dermoscopy is an extremely useful tool in improving the diagnostic accuracy of skin cancers compared to examination with the naked eye, as it provides detailed visualization of specific structures and patterns in skin cancer lesions.⁵ The dermoscopic appearance of BCC is characterized by pearly blue-gray or translucent globules with arborizing vessels, spoke-wheel structures, and leaflike areas.^5,6 Conversely, dermoscopic features of SCC may include a milky-red globule with a scaly, sharply demarcated, crusted lesion with polymorphous vasculature, sometimes resembling a persistent sore or nonhealing wound.^4,5 Though the use of dermoscopy can aid in diagnosis upon initial examination, certain factors such as trauma, ulceration, and previous treatments that distorted the lesion’s architecture may lead to misdiagnosis. Furthermore, the distinct vascular patterns found in BCC and SCC may be mistaken for each other and therefore lead to misdiagnosis upon examination.⁷ Other variables that may complicate diagnosis include the location of the lesion, its size, and the presence of other skin conditions or nearby lesions.

The primary limitation of the current study was the limited scope of the data, as they were derived from patients seen at one private dermatology practice, preventing the generalizability of our findings. However, our results show trends similar to those observed in other studies analyzing the clinical accuracy of skin cancer diagnoses, with higher PPVs for BCC compared to SCC. A study by Ahnlide and Bjellerup⁸ was based in a hospital dermatology department and demonstrated a PPV of 85.5% for BCC compared to 92.97% in our study; for SCC, the PPV was 67.3% compared to 84.17% in our study. In another study by Heal et al,⁹ data were collected from an Australian registry that included records of all histologically confirmed skin cancers from December 1996 to October 1999 from 202 general practitioners and 42 specialists, including 1 dermatologist. The PPVs for BCC and SCC were 72.7% and 49.4%, respectively. Although our results indicated higher PPVs compared to these 2 studies, some of the discrepancies can be accounted for by the differences in clinical setting as well as the lack of expertise of nondermatologist physicians in identifying skin malignancies in the study by Heal et al.⁹

The current study was further limited by the lack of data quantifying the number of lesions clinically suspected to be malignant but found to be histologically benign. It is typical for clinicians to have a low threshold to biopsy a suspicious lesion with atypical features (eg, rapid evolution and growth, bleeding, crusting). Furthermore, the identification of risk factors in the patient’s medical and family history (eg, exposure to radiation, personal or family history of skin cancers) can heavily influence a clinician’s decision to biopsy a lesion with an atypical appearance.¹⁰ Many benign lesions are biopsied to avoid missing a diagnosis of malignancy. Consequently, our results suggest a high degree of clinical misdiagnosis of BCCs and SCCs. Obtaining data on the number of lesions suspected to be BCC or SCC that were found to be histologically benign would be a valuable addition to our study, as it would provide a measurable insight into the sensitivity of clinicians’ decision-making to identify a lesion as suspicious and warranting biopsy.

While clinical diagnosis plays a vital role in identifying suspected NMSCs such as BCC and SCC, its accuracy can be limited even with the use of dermoscopy. Overall, our data have shown a high rate of diagnostic accuracy upon suspicion of malignancy, but the different variables that affect clinical presentation promote histologic diagnosis to prevail as the gold standard.

To the Editor:

The incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is rapidly increasing worldwide. Due to its highly curable nature when treated early, accurate diagnosis is the cornerstone to good patient outcomes.¹ Accurate diagnosis of skin cancer and subsequent treatment decisions rely heavily on the congruence between clinical observations and histopathologic assessments. Clinical misdiagnosis of a malignant lesion can lead to delayed and suboptimal treatment, which may contribute to serious complications such as metastasis or even mortality. In this study, data from clinically diagnosed basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) were compared to their identified histopathologic subtype classifications. The accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of these NMSCs was assessed by determining the rate of misdiagnosis and the respective positive predictive value (PPV).

A retrospective review of medical records from a private dermatology practice in Lubbock, Texas, was conducted to identify patients diagnosed with NMSC from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021. A total of 11,229 NMSCs were diagnosed and treated in 5877 patients. Of the NMSCs diagnosed, 11,145 were identified as keratinocyte carcinomas and were classified as BCCs or SCCs. The accuracy of the clinical diagnoses was determined by comparison to the histologic subtype identified via biopsy of the lesion. Although the use of a dermatoscope during the clinical encounter was not formally recorded, reports from the examining dermatologists indicated it was not used in the majority of cases.

If a lesion was clinically diagnosed as a BCC but was identified as a subtype of SCC on histology (or vice versa), the lesion was considered to be mismatched. The number of mismatched lesions and the mismatch rate for each lesion type/subtype is recorded in the Table. Of the total 11,145 keratinocyte carcinomas included in our study, there was an overall 10.63% mismatch rate, with 1185 of the malignancies having a differing clinical diagnosis (eg, BCC vs SCC) from the histologic findings. The clinical mismatch rate was notably higher for SCC compared to BCC (15.83% vs 7.03%, respectively).

The Table provides a breakdown of the BCC subtypes identified by histology with their computed mismatch rate and PPV. It is worth clarifying that lesions classified as more than one BCC subtype per the histologic findings were diagnosed as mixed BCC; these were further classified as mixed-aggressive BCC (if at least one aggressive BCC subtype was present) and mixed nonaggressive BCC (if no aggressive BCC subtype was present). Overall, BCCs were less likely to be misdiagnosed, with an average PPV of 92.97% compared to 84.17% for SCCs. Basosquamous BCC was the BCC subtype with the highest mismatch rate (25.48%), while sclerosing BCC has the lowest overall mismatch rate (1.33%). The most common malignancy was BCC, with nodular BCC being the most common subtype.

The Table also breaks down the SCC subtypes, reporting the most commonly misdiagnosed of any BCC or SCC subtype to be poorly differentiated SCC (mismatch rate, 38.46%). The lowest mismatch rate of the SCC subtypes was 5.97% for well-differentiated SCC.

There was an overall PPV of 89.37% in clinically evaluated malignancies and their respective histologic subtypes. Basal cell carcinoma had a lower overall mismatch rate of 7.03% compared to 15.83% in SCC. The most common misdiagnosis was attributed to poorly differentiated SCC (mismatch rate, 38.46%), while the least common misdiagnosed malignancy was sclerosing BCC (1.33%). The high mismatch rate of poorly differentiated SCC may be due to its diverging presentation from a typical SCC as a flat lesion with the absence of scaling, keratin, or bleeding, leading to the misdiagnosis of BCC.²

Accurate clinical diagnosis of NMSCs is the basis for further evaluation and treatment that should ensue in a timely manner; however, accurately identifying BCCs vs SCCs solely based on clinical examination can be challenging due to variable manifestations and overlapping features. Basal cell carcinoma commonly presents as a shiny pink/flesh-colored nodule, macule, or patch with surface telangiectasia, sometimes appearing with ulceration or crusting.³ Alternatively, SCC typically appears as a firm, sharply demarcated, red nodule with a thick overlying scale.⁴ Definitive diagnoses can be difficult upon clinical examination since these features can be shared between the 2 subtypes. To aid in these uncertainties, a growing number of clinicians are implementing the use of dermoscopy in their everyday practice.

Dermoscopy is an extremely useful tool in improving the diagnostic accuracy of skin cancers compared to examination with the naked eye, as it provides detailed visualization of specific structures and patterns in skin cancer lesions.⁵ The dermoscopic appearance of BCC is characterized by pearly blue-gray or translucent globules with arborizing vessels, spoke-wheel structures, and leaflike areas.^5,6 Conversely, dermoscopic features of SCC may include a milky-red globule with a scaly, sharply demarcated, crusted lesion with polymorphous vasculature, sometimes resembling a persistent sore or nonhealing wound.^4,5 Though the use of dermoscopy can aid in diagnosis upon initial examination, certain factors such as trauma, ulceration, and previous treatments that distorted the lesion’s architecture may lead to misdiagnosis. Furthermore, the distinct vascular patterns found in BCC and SCC may be mistaken for each other and therefore lead to misdiagnosis upon examination.⁷ Other variables that may complicate diagnosis include the location of the lesion, its size, and the presence of other skin conditions or nearby lesions.

The primary limitation of the current study was the limited scope of the data, as they were derived from patients seen at one private dermatology practice, preventing the generalizability of our findings. However, our results show trends similar to those observed in other studies analyzing the clinical accuracy of skin cancer diagnoses, with higher PPVs for BCC compared to SCC. A study by Ahnlide and Bjellerup⁸ was based in a hospital dermatology department and demonstrated a PPV of 85.5% for BCC compared to 92.97% in our study; for SCC, the PPV was 67.3% compared to 84.17% in our study. In another study by Heal et al,⁹ data were collected from an Australian registry that included records of all histologically confirmed skin cancers from December 1996 to October 1999 from 202 general practitioners and 42 specialists, including 1 dermatologist. The PPVs for BCC and SCC were 72.7% and 49.4%, respectively. Although our results indicated higher PPVs compared to these 2 studies, some of the discrepancies can be accounted for by the differences in clinical setting as well as the lack of expertise of nondermatologist physicians in identifying skin malignancies in the study by Heal et al.⁹

The current study was further limited by the lack of data quantifying the number of lesions clinically suspected to be malignant but found to be histologically benign. It is typical for clinicians to have a low threshold to biopsy a suspicious lesion with atypical features (eg, rapid evolution and growth, bleeding, crusting). Furthermore, the identification of risk factors in the patient’s medical and family history (eg, exposure to radiation, personal or family history of skin cancers) can heavily influence a clinician’s decision to biopsy a lesion with an atypical appearance.¹⁰ Many benign lesions are biopsied to avoid missing a diagnosis of malignancy. Consequently, our results suggest a high degree of clinical misdiagnosis of BCCs and SCCs. Obtaining data on the number of lesions suspected to be BCC or SCC that were found to be histologically benign would be a valuable addition to our study, as it would provide a measurable insight into the sensitivity of clinicians’ decision-making to identify a lesion as suspicious and warranting biopsy.

While clinical diagnosis plays a vital role in identifying suspected NMSCs such as BCC and SCC, its accuracy can be limited even with the use of dermoscopy. Overall, our data have shown a high rate of diagnostic accuracy upon suspicion of malignancy, but the different variables that affect clinical presentation promote histologic diagnosis to prevail as the gold standard.

To the Editor:

The incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is rapidly increasing worldwide. Due to its highly curable nature when treated early, accurate diagnosis is the cornerstone to good patient outcomes.¹ Accurate diagnosis of skin cancer and subsequent treatment decisions rely heavily on the congruence between clinical observations and histopathologic assessments. Clinical misdiagnosis of a malignant lesion can lead to delayed and suboptimal treatment, which may contribute to serious complications such as metastasis or even mortality. In this study, data from clinically diagnosed basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) were compared to their identified histopathologic subtype classifications. The accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of these NMSCs was assessed by determining the rate of misdiagnosis and the respective positive predictive value (PPV).

A retrospective review of medical records from a private dermatology practice in Lubbock, Texas, was conducted to identify patients diagnosed with NMSC from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021. A total of 11,229 NMSCs were diagnosed and treated in 5877 patients. Of the NMSCs diagnosed, 11,145 were identified as keratinocyte carcinomas and were classified as BCCs or SCCs. The accuracy of the clinical diagnoses was determined by comparison to the histologic subtype identified via biopsy of the lesion. Although the use of a dermatoscope during the clinical encounter was not formally recorded, reports from the examining dermatologists indicated it was not used in the majority of cases.

If a lesion was clinically diagnosed as a BCC but was identified as a subtype of SCC on histology (or vice versa), the lesion was considered to be mismatched. The number of mismatched lesions and the mismatch rate for each lesion type/subtype is recorded in the Table. Of the total 11,145 keratinocyte carcinomas included in our study, there was an overall 10.63% mismatch rate, with 1185 of the malignancies having a differing clinical diagnosis (eg, BCC vs SCC) from the histologic findings. The clinical mismatch rate was notably higher for SCC compared to BCC (15.83% vs 7.03%, respectively).

The Table provides a breakdown of the BCC subtypes identified by histology with their computed mismatch rate and PPV. It is worth clarifying that lesions classified as more than one BCC subtype per the histologic findings were diagnosed as mixed BCC; these were further classified as mixed-aggressive BCC (if at least one aggressive BCC subtype was present) and mixed nonaggressive BCC (if no aggressive BCC subtype was present). Overall, BCCs were less likely to be misdiagnosed, with an average PPV of 92.97% compared to 84.17% for SCCs. Basosquamous BCC was the BCC subtype with the highest mismatch rate (25.48%), while sclerosing BCC has the lowest overall mismatch rate (1.33%). The most common malignancy was BCC, with nodular BCC being the most common subtype.

The Table also breaks down the SCC subtypes, reporting the most commonly misdiagnosed of any BCC or SCC subtype to be poorly differentiated SCC (mismatch rate, 38.46%). The lowest mismatch rate of the SCC subtypes was 5.97% for well-differentiated SCC.

There was an overall PPV of 89.37% in clinically evaluated malignancies and their respective histologic subtypes. Basal cell carcinoma had a lower overall mismatch rate of 7.03% compared to 15.83% in SCC. The most common misdiagnosis was attributed to poorly differentiated SCC (mismatch rate, 38.46%), while the least common misdiagnosed malignancy was sclerosing BCC (1.33%). The high mismatch rate of poorly differentiated SCC may be due to its diverging presentation from a typical SCC as a flat lesion with the absence of scaling, keratin, or bleeding, leading to the misdiagnosis of BCC.²

Accurate clinical diagnosis of NMSCs is the basis for further evaluation and treatment that should ensue in a timely manner; however, accurately identifying BCCs vs SCCs solely based on clinical examination can be challenging due to variable manifestations and overlapping features. Basal cell carcinoma commonly presents as a shiny pink/flesh-colored nodule, macule, or patch with surface telangiectasia, sometimes appearing with ulceration or crusting.³ Alternatively, SCC typically appears as a firm, sharply demarcated, red nodule with a thick overlying scale.⁴ Definitive diagnoses can be difficult upon clinical examination since these features can be shared between the 2 subtypes. To aid in these uncertainties, a growing number of clinicians are implementing the use of dermoscopy in their everyday practice.

Dermoscopy is an extremely useful tool in improving the diagnostic accuracy of skin cancers compared to examination with the naked eye, as it provides detailed visualization of specific structures and patterns in skin cancer lesions.⁵ The dermoscopic appearance of BCC is characterized by pearly blue-gray or translucent globules with arborizing vessels, spoke-wheel structures, and leaflike areas.^5,6 Conversely, dermoscopic features of SCC may include a milky-red globule with a scaly, sharply demarcated, crusted lesion with polymorphous vasculature, sometimes resembling a persistent sore or nonhealing wound.^4,5 Though the use of dermoscopy can aid in diagnosis upon initial examination, certain factors such as trauma, ulceration, and previous treatments that distorted the lesion’s architecture may lead to misdiagnosis. Furthermore, the distinct vascular patterns found in BCC and SCC may be mistaken for each other and therefore lead to misdiagnosis upon examination.⁷ Other variables that may complicate diagnosis include the location of the lesion, its size, and the presence of other skin conditions or nearby lesions.

The primary limitation of the current study was the limited scope of the data, as they were derived from patients seen at one private dermatology practice, preventing the generalizability of our findings. However, our results show trends similar to those observed in other studies analyzing the clinical accuracy of skin cancer diagnoses, with higher PPVs for BCC compared to SCC. A study by Ahnlide and Bjellerup⁸ was based in a hospital dermatology department and demonstrated a PPV of 85.5% for BCC compared to 92.97% in our study; for SCC, the PPV was 67.3% compared to 84.17% in our study. In another study by Heal et al,⁹ data were collected from an Australian registry that included records of all histologically confirmed skin cancers from December 1996 to October 1999 from 202 general practitioners and 42 specialists, including 1 dermatologist. The PPVs for BCC and SCC were 72.7% and 49.4%, respectively. Although our results indicated higher PPVs compared to these 2 studies, some of the discrepancies can be accounted for by the differences in clinical setting as well as the lack of expertise of nondermatologist physicians in identifying skin malignancies in the study by Heal et al.⁹

The current study was further limited by the lack of data quantifying the number of lesions clinically suspected to be malignant but found to be histologically benign. It is typical for clinicians to have a low threshold to biopsy a suspicious lesion with atypical features (eg, rapid evolution and growth, bleeding, crusting). Furthermore, the identification of risk factors in the patient’s medical and family history (eg, exposure to radiation, personal or family history of skin cancers) can heavily influence a clinician’s decision to biopsy a lesion with an atypical appearance.¹⁰ Many benign lesions are biopsied to avoid missing a diagnosis of malignancy. Consequently, our results suggest a high degree of clinical misdiagnosis of BCCs and SCCs. Obtaining data on the number of lesions suspected to be BCC or SCC that were found to be histologically benign would be a valuable addition to our study, as it would provide a measurable insight into the sensitivity of clinicians’ decision-making to identify a lesion as suspicious and warranting biopsy.

While clinical diagnosis plays a vital role in identifying suspected NMSCs such as BCC and SCC, its accuracy can be limited even with the use of dermoscopy. Overall, our data have shown a high rate of diagnostic accuracy upon suspicion of malignancy, but the different variables that affect clinical presentation promote histologic diagnosis to prevail as the gold standard.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

The shave biopsy revealed large cells with prominent nucleoli, clear cytoplasm, and thin cell borders in a nestlike arrangement (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical examination was negative for cytokeratin 5/6 and positive for PAX8 (Figure 2), which finalized the diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Later, our patient had a core biopsy-proven metastasis to the C6 spinous process, with concern for additional metastasis to the liver and lungs on positron emission tomography. Our patient’s treatment plan included pembrolizumab and axitinib to manage further cutaneous metastasis and radiation therapy for the C6 spinous process metastasis.

Renal cell carcinoma denotes cancer originating from the renal epithelium and is the most common kidney tumor in adults.¹ Renal cell carcinoma accounts for more than 90% of kidney malignancies in the United States and has 3 main subtypes: clear cell RCC, papillary RCC, and chromophobe RCC.² About 25% of cases metastasize, commonly to the lungs, liver, bones, lymph nodes, contralateral kidney, and adrenal glands.³

Cutaneous metastasis of RCC is rare, with an incidence of approximately 3.3%.⁴ Notably, 80% to 90% of patients with metastatic skin lesions had a prior diagnosis of RCC.² Skin metastases associated with RCC predominantly are found on the face and scalp, appearing as nodular, swiftly expanding, circular, or oval-shaped growths. The robust vascular element of these lesions can lead to confusion with regard to the proper diagnosis, as they often resemble hemangiomas, pyogenic granulomas, or Kaposi sarcomas.⁴

Many cutaneous metastases linked to RCC exhibit a histomorphologic pattern consistent with clear cell adenocarcinoma.² The malignant cells are large and possess transparent cytoplasm, round to oval nuclei, and prominent nucleoli. The cells can form glandular, acinar, or papillary arrangements; extravasated red blood cells frequently are found within the surrounding fibrovascular tissue.⁵ The presence of cytoplasmic glycogen can be revealed through periodic acid–Schiff staining. Other immunohistochemical markers commonly used to identify skin metastasis of RCC include epithelioid membrane antigen, carcinoembryonic antigen, and CD-10.¹

Various mechanisms are involved in the cutaneous metastases of RCC. The most common pathway involves infiltration of the skin directly overlying the malignant renal mass; additional potential mechanisms include the introduction of abnormal cells into the skin during surgical or diagnostic interventions and their dissemination through the lymphatic system or bloodstream.¹ Among urogenital malignancies other than RCC, skin metastases predominantly manifest in the abdominal region.² Conversely, the head and neck region are more frequently impacted in RCC. The vascular composition of these tumors plays a role in facilitating the extension of cancer cells through the bloodstream, fostering the emergence of distant metastases.⁶

The development of cutaneous metastasis in RCC is associated with a poor prognosis, as most patients die within 6 months of detection.³ Treatment options thus are limited and palliative. Although local excision is an alternative treatment for localized cutaneous metastasis, it often provides little benefit in the presence of extensive metastasis; radiotherapy also has been shown to have a limited effect on primary RCC, though its devascularization of the lesion may be effective in metastatic cases.⁵ Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab and ipilimumab have improved progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC, though uncertainty remains regarding their efficacy in attenuating cutaneous metastasis.^5,6

THE DIAGNOSIS: Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

The shave biopsy revealed large cells with prominent nucleoli, clear cytoplasm, and thin cell borders in a nestlike arrangement (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical examination was negative for cytokeratin 5/6 and positive for PAX8 (Figure 2), which finalized the diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Later, our patient had a core biopsy-proven metastasis to the C6 spinous process, with concern for additional metastasis to the liver and lungs on positron emission tomography. Our patient’s treatment plan included pembrolizumab and axitinib to manage further cutaneous metastasis and radiation therapy for the C6 spinous process metastasis.

Renal cell carcinoma denotes cancer originating from the renal epithelium and is the most common kidney tumor in adults.¹ Renal cell carcinoma accounts for more than 90% of kidney malignancies in the United States and has 3 main subtypes: clear cell RCC, papillary RCC, and chromophobe RCC.² About 25% of cases metastasize, commonly to the lungs, liver, bones, lymph nodes, contralateral kidney, and adrenal glands.³

Cutaneous metastasis of RCC is rare, with an incidence of approximately 3.3%.⁴ Notably, 80% to 90% of patients with metastatic skin lesions had a prior diagnosis of RCC.² Skin metastases associated with RCC predominantly are found on the face and scalp, appearing as nodular, swiftly expanding, circular, or oval-shaped growths. The robust vascular element of these lesions can lead to confusion with regard to the proper diagnosis, as they often resemble hemangiomas, pyogenic granulomas, or Kaposi sarcomas.⁴

Many cutaneous metastases linked to RCC exhibit a histomorphologic pattern consistent with clear cell adenocarcinoma.² The malignant cells are large and possess transparent cytoplasm, round to oval nuclei, and prominent nucleoli. The cells can form glandular, acinar, or papillary arrangements; extravasated red blood cells frequently are found within the surrounding fibrovascular tissue.⁵ The presence of cytoplasmic glycogen can be revealed through periodic acid–Schiff staining. Other immunohistochemical markers commonly used to identify skin metastasis of RCC include epithelioid membrane antigen, carcinoembryonic antigen, and CD-10.¹

Various mechanisms are involved in the cutaneous metastases of RCC. The most common pathway involves infiltration of the skin directly overlying the malignant renal mass; additional potential mechanisms include the introduction of abnormal cells into the skin during surgical or diagnostic interventions and their dissemination through the lymphatic system or bloodstream.¹ Among urogenital malignancies other than RCC, skin metastases predominantly manifest in the abdominal region.² Conversely, the head and neck region are more frequently impacted in RCC. The vascular composition of these tumors plays a role in facilitating the extension of cancer cells through the bloodstream, fostering the emergence of distant metastases.⁶

The development of cutaneous metastasis in RCC is associated with a poor prognosis, as most patients die within 6 months of detection.³ Treatment options thus are limited and palliative. Although local excision is an alternative treatment for localized cutaneous metastasis, it often provides little benefit in the presence of extensive metastasis; radiotherapy also has been shown to have a limited effect on primary RCC, though its devascularization of the lesion may be effective in metastatic cases.⁵ Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab and ipilimumab have improved progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC, though uncertainty remains regarding their efficacy in attenuating cutaneous metastasis.^5,6

THE DIAGNOSIS: Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

The shave biopsy revealed large cells with prominent nucleoli, clear cytoplasm, and thin cell borders in a nestlike arrangement (Figure 1). Immunohistochemical examination was negative for cytokeratin 5/6 and positive for PAX8 (Figure 2), which finalized the diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Later, our patient had a core biopsy-proven metastasis to the C6 spinous process, with concern for additional metastasis to the liver and lungs on positron emission tomography. Our patient’s treatment plan included pembrolizumab and axitinib to manage further cutaneous metastasis and radiation therapy for the C6 spinous process metastasis.

Renal cell carcinoma denotes cancer originating from the renal epithelium and is the most common kidney tumor in adults.¹ Renal cell carcinoma accounts for more than 90% of kidney malignancies in the United States and has 3 main subtypes: clear cell RCC, papillary RCC, and chromophobe RCC.² About 25% of cases metastasize, commonly to the lungs, liver, bones, lymph nodes, contralateral kidney, and adrenal glands.³

Cutaneous metastasis of RCC is rare, with an incidence of approximately 3.3%.⁴ Notably, 80% to 90% of patients with metastatic skin lesions had a prior diagnosis of RCC.² Skin metastases associated with RCC predominantly are found on the face and scalp, appearing as nodular, swiftly expanding, circular, or oval-shaped growths. The robust vascular element of these lesions can lead to confusion with regard to the proper diagnosis, as they often resemble hemangiomas, pyogenic granulomas, or Kaposi sarcomas.⁴

Many cutaneous metastases linked to RCC exhibit a histomorphologic pattern consistent with clear cell adenocarcinoma.² The malignant cells are large and possess transparent cytoplasm, round to oval nuclei, and prominent nucleoli. The cells can form glandular, acinar, or papillary arrangements; extravasated red blood cells frequently are found within the surrounding fibrovascular tissue.⁵ The presence of cytoplasmic glycogen can be revealed through periodic acid–Schiff staining. Other immunohistochemical markers commonly used to identify skin metastasis of RCC include epithelioid membrane antigen, carcinoembryonic antigen, and CD-10.¹

Various mechanisms are involved in the cutaneous metastases of RCC. The most common pathway involves infiltration of the skin directly overlying the malignant renal mass; additional potential mechanisms include the introduction of abnormal cells into the skin during surgical or diagnostic interventions and their dissemination through the lymphatic system or bloodstream.¹ Among urogenital malignancies other than RCC, skin metastases predominantly manifest in the abdominal region.² Conversely, the head and neck region are more frequently impacted in RCC. The vascular composition of these tumors plays a role in facilitating the extension of cancer cells through the bloodstream, fostering the emergence of distant metastases.⁶

The development of cutaneous metastasis in RCC is associated with a poor prognosis, as most patients die within 6 months of detection.³ Treatment options thus are limited and palliative. Although local excision is an alternative treatment for localized cutaneous metastasis, it often provides little benefit in the presence of extensive metastasis; radiotherapy also has been shown to have a limited effect on primary RCC, though its devascularization of the lesion may be effective in metastatic cases.⁵ Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab and ipilimumab have improved progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC, though uncertainty remains regarding their efficacy in attenuating cutaneous metastasis.^5,6

THE DIAGNOSIS: Poroma

Poromas are benign adnexal neoplasms that often are classified into the broader category of acrospiromas. They most commonly affect areas with a high density of eccrine sweat glands, such as the palms and soles, but also can appear in any area of the body with sweat glands.¹ Poromas may have cuboidal eccrine cells with ovoid nuclei and a delicate vascularized stroma on histology or may show apocrinelike features with sebaceous cells.^2,3 Immunohistochemically, poromas stain positively for carcinoembryonic antigen, epithelial membrane antigen, and periodic acid–Schiff (PAS) with diastase sensitivity.^1,4 Cytokeratin (CK) 1 and CK-10 are expressed in the tumor nests.¹

Poromas are the benign counterpart of porocarcinomas, which can recur and may become invasive and metastasize. Porocarcinomas have been shown to undergo malignant transformation from poromas as well as develop de novo.⁵ Histologic differentiation between the 2 conditions is key in determining excisional margins for treatment and follow-up. Poromas are histologically similar to porocarcinomas, but the latter show invasion into the dermis, nuclear and cytoplasmic pleomorphism, nuclear hyperchromatism, and increased mitotic activity.⁶ S-100 protein can be positive in porocarcinoma.⁷ Both poromas and porocarcinomas are associated with Yes-associated protein 1 (YAP1), Mastermind-like protein 2 (MAML2), and NUT midline carcinoma family member 1 (NUTM1) gene fusions.⁵

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common cutaneous malignancy. It rarely metastasizes but can be locally destructive.⁸ Basal cell carcinomas typically occur on sun-exposed skin in middle-aged and elderly patients and classically manifest as pink or flesh-colored pearly papules with rolled borders and overlying telangiectasia.⁹ Risk factors for BCC include a chronic sun exposure, lighter skin phenotypes, immunosuppression, and a family history of skin cancer. The 2 most common subtypes of BCC are nodular and superficial, which comprise around 85% of BCCs.¹⁰ Histologically, nodular BCCs demonstrate nests of malignant basaloid cells with central disorganization, peripheral palisading, tumor-stroma clefting, and a mucoid stroma with spindle cells (Figure 1). Superficial BCC manifests with small islands of malignant basaloid cells with peripheral palisading that connect with the epidermis, often with a lichenoid inflammatory infiltrate.⁹ Basal cell carcinomas stain positively for Ber-EP4 and are associated with patched 1 (PTCH1), patched 2 (PTCH2), and tumor protein 53 (TP53) gene mutations.^9,11

Spiradenomas are benign adnexal tumors manifesting as painful, usually singular, 1- to 3-cm nodules in younger adults.¹² Histologically, spiradenomas have large clusters of small irregularly shaped aggregations of small basaloid and large polygonal cells with surrounding hyalinized basement membrane material and intratumoral lymphocytes (Figure 2).⁴ Spiradenomas stain positive for p63, D2-40, and CK7 and are associated with cylindromatosis lysine 63 deubiquitinase (CYLD) and alpha-protein kinase 1 (ALPK1) gene mutations.⁵

Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the second most common nonmelanoma skin cancer worldwide.¹³ Lesions typically develop on sun-exposed skin and manifest as red, hyperkeratotic, and sometimes ulcerated plaques or nodules.¹⁴ Risk factors for SCC include chronic sun exposure, lighter skin phenotypes, increased age, and immunosuppression. Histologically, there are several variants of SCC: low-risk variants include keratoacanthomas, verrucous carcinomas, and clear cell SCC, and high-risk variants include acantholytic SCC, spindle cell SCC, and adenosquamous carcinoma.¹⁴ Generally, low-grade SCC will have well-differentiated or moderately differentiated intercellular bridges or keratin pearls with tumor cells in a solid or sheetlike pattern (Figure 3). High-grade SCC will be poorly differentiated with the presence of infiltrating individual tumor cells.¹⁵ Immunohistochemically, SCC stains positive for p63, p40, AE1/AE3, CK5/6, and MNF116 while Ber-Ep4 is negative.^14,15 Poorly differentiated SCCs have high rates of mutation, commonly in the tumor protein 53 (TP53), Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A), Ras pathway, and notch receptor 1 (NOTCH-1) genes.¹³

Syringomas are benign adnexal tumors that manifest as multiple soft, yellow to flesh-colored, 1- to 2-mm papules typically located on the lower eyelids, most commonly in women of reproductive age.¹⁶ Syringomas are described on histology as small comma-shaped nests with cords of eosinophilic to clear cells with central ducts surrounded by a sclerotic stroma (Figure 4). They stain positively for carcinoembryonic antigen, epithelial membrane antigen, and CK-5 and are associated with genetic mutations in phosphatidylinositol-4, 5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) and AKT serine/threonine kinase 1 (ATK1).⁴

Due to its regular exposure to sunlight, the eyelid accounts for 5% to 10% of all skin malignancies. Common eyelid lesions include squamous papilloma, seborrheic keratosis, epidermal inclusion cyst, hidrocystoma, intradermal nevus, BCC, SCC, and sebaceous carcinoma.¹⁷ Aside from syringomas, benign sweat gland tumors like poromas, hidradenomas, and spiradenomas usually do not manifest on the eyelids but should be included in the differential diagnosis of an unidentifiable lesion due to the small risk for malignant transformation. Eyelid poromas manifest polymorphically, most commonly being clinically diagnosed as BCC, making the histologic examination key for proper diagnosis and management.¹⁸

THE DIAGNOSIS: Poroma

Poromas are benign adnexal neoplasms that often are classified into the broader category of acrospiromas. They most commonly affect areas with a high density of eccrine sweat glands, such as the palms and soles, but also can appear in any area of the body with sweat glands.¹ Poromas may have cuboidal eccrine cells with ovoid nuclei and a delicate vascularized stroma on histology or may show apocrinelike features with sebaceous cells.^2,3 Immunohistochemically, poromas stain positively for carcinoembryonic antigen, epithelial membrane antigen, and periodic acid–Schiff (PAS) with diastase sensitivity.^1,4 Cytokeratin (CK) 1 and CK-10 are expressed in the tumor nests.¹

Poromas are the benign counterpart of porocarcinomas, which can recur and may become invasive and metastasize. Porocarcinomas have been shown to undergo malignant transformation from poromas as well as develop de novo.⁵ Histologic differentiation between the 2 conditions is key in determining excisional margins for treatment and follow-up. Poromas are histologically similar to porocarcinomas, but the latter show invasion into the dermis, nuclear and cytoplasmic pleomorphism, nuclear hyperchromatism, and increased mitotic activity.⁶ S-100 protein can be positive in porocarcinoma.⁷ Both poromas and porocarcinomas are associated with Yes-associated protein 1 (YAP1), Mastermind-like protein 2 (MAML2), and NUT midline carcinoma family member 1 (NUTM1) gene fusions.⁵

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common cutaneous malignancy. It rarely metastasizes but can be locally destructive.⁸ Basal cell carcinomas typically occur on sun-exposed skin in middle-aged and elderly patients and classically manifest as pink or flesh-colored pearly papules with rolled borders and overlying telangiectasia.⁹ Risk factors for BCC include a chronic sun exposure, lighter skin phenotypes, immunosuppression, and a family history of skin cancer. The 2 most common subtypes of BCC are nodular and superficial, which comprise around 85% of BCCs.¹⁰ Histologically, nodular BCCs demonstrate nests of malignant basaloid cells with central disorganization, peripheral palisading, tumor-stroma clefting, and a mucoid stroma with spindle cells (Figure 1). Superficial BCC manifests with small islands of malignant basaloid cells with peripheral palisading that connect with the epidermis, often with a lichenoid inflammatory infiltrate.⁹ Basal cell carcinomas stain positively for Ber-EP4 and are associated with patched 1 (PTCH1), patched 2 (PTCH2), and tumor protein 53 (TP53) gene mutations.^9,11

Spiradenomas are benign adnexal tumors manifesting as painful, usually singular, 1- to 3-cm nodules in younger adults.¹² Histologically, spiradenomas have large clusters of small irregularly shaped aggregations of small basaloid and large polygonal cells with surrounding hyalinized basement membrane material and intratumoral lymphocytes (Figure 2).⁴ Spiradenomas stain positive for p63, D2-40, and CK7 and are associated with cylindromatosis lysine 63 deubiquitinase (CYLD) and alpha-protein kinase 1 (ALPK1) gene mutations.⁵

Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the second most common nonmelanoma skin cancer worldwide.¹³ Lesions typically develop on sun-exposed skin and manifest as red, hyperkeratotic, and sometimes ulcerated plaques or nodules.¹⁴ Risk factors for SCC include chronic sun exposure, lighter skin phenotypes, increased age, and immunosuppression. Histologically, there are several variants of SCC: low-risk variants include keratoacanthomas, verrucous carcinomas, and clear cell SCC, and high-risk variants include acantholytic SCC, spindle cell SCC, and adenosquamous carcinoma.¹⁴ Generally, low-grade SCC will have well-differentiated or moderately differentiated intercellular bridges or keratin pearls with tumor cells in a solid or sheetlike pattern (Figure 3). High-grade SCC will be poorly differentiated with the presence of infiltrating individual tumor cells.¹⁵ Immunohistochemically, SCC stains positive for p63, p40, AE1/AE3, CK5/6, and MNF116 while Ber-Ep4 is negative.^14,15 Poorly differentiated SCCs have high rates of mutation, commonly in the tumor protein 53 (TP53), Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A), Ras pathway, and notch receptor 1 (NOTCH-1) genes.¹³

Syringomas are benign adnexal tumors that manifest as multiple soft, yellow to flesh-colored, 1- to 2-mm papules typically located on the lower eyelids, most commonly in women of reproductive age.¹⁶ Syringomas are described on histology as small comma-shaped nests with cords of eosinophilic to clear cells with central ducts surrounded by a sclerotic stroma (Figure 4). They stain positively for carcinoembryonic antigen, epithelial membrane antigen, and CK-5 and are associated with genetic mutations in phosphatidylinositol-4, 5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) and AKT serine/threonine kinase 1 (ATK1).⁴

Due to its regular exposure to sunlight, the eyelid accounts for 5% to 10% of all skin malignancies. Common eyelid lesions include squamous papilloma, seborrheic keratosis, epidermal inclusion cyst, hidrocystoma, intradermal nevus, BCC, SCC, and sebaceous carcinoma.¹⁷ Aside from syringomas, benign sweat gland tumors like poromas, hidradenomas, and spiradenomas usually do not manifest on the eyelids but should be included in the differential diagnosis of an unidentifiable lesion due to the small risk for malignant transformation. Eyelid poromas manifest polymorphically, most commonly being clinically diagnosed as BCC, making the histologic examination key for proper diagnosis and management.¹⁸

THE DIAGNOSIS: Poroma

Poromas are benign adnexal neoplasms that often are classified into the broader category of acrospiromas. They most commonly affect areas with a high density of eccrine sweat glands, such as the palms and soles, but also can appear in any area of the body with sweat glands.¹ Poromas may have cuboidal eccrine cells with ovoid nuclei and a delicate vascularized stroma on histology or may show apocrinelike features with sebaceous cells.^2,3 Immunohistochemically, poromas stain positively for carcinoembryonic antigen, epithelial membrane antigen, and periodic acid–Schiff (PAS) with diastase sensitivity.^1,4 Cytokeratin (CK) 1 and CK-10 are expressed in the tumor nests.¹

Poromas are the benign counterpart of porocarcinomas, which can recur and may become invasive and metastasize. Porocarcinomas have been shown to undergo malignant transformation from poromas as well as develop de novo.⁵ Histologic differentiation between the 2 conditions is key in determining excisional margins for treatment and follow-up. Poromas are histologically similar to porocarcinomas, but the latter show invasion into the dermis, nuclear and cytoplasmic pleomorphism, nuclear hyperchromatism, and increased mitotic activity.⁶ S-100 protein can be positive in porocarcinoma.⁷ Both poromas and porocarcinomas are associated with Yes-associated protein 1 (YAP1), Mastermind-like protein 2 (MAML2), and NUT midline carcinoma family member 1 (NUTM1) gene fusions.⁵

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common cutaneous malignancy. It rarely metastasizes but can be locally destructive.⁸ Basal cell carcinomas typically occur on sun-exposed skin in middle-aged and elderly patients and classically manifest as pink or flesh-colored pearly papules with rolled borders and overlying telangiectasia.⁹ Risk factors for BCC include a chronic sun exposure, lighter skin phenotypes, immunosuppression, and a family history of skin cancer. The 2 most common subtypes of BCC are nodular and superficial, which comprise around 85% of BCCs.¹⁰ Histologically, nodular BCCs demonstrate nests of malignant basaloid cells with central disorganization, peripheral palisading, tumor-stroma clefting, and a mucoid stroma with spindle cells (Figure 1). Superficial BCC manifests with small islands of malignant basaloid cells with peripheral palisading that connect with the epidermis, often with a lichenoid inflammatory infiltrate.⁹ Basal cell carcinomas stain positively for Ber-EP4 and are associated with patched 1 (PTCH1), patched 2 (PTCH2), and tumor protein 53 (TP53) gene mutations.^9,11

Spiradenomas are benign adnexal tumors manifesting as painful, usually singular, 1- to 3-cm nodules in younger adults.¹² Histologically, spiradenomas have large clusters of small irregularly shaped aggregations of small basaloid and large polygonal cells with surrounding hyalinized basement membrane material and intratumoral lymphocytes (Figure 2).⁴ Spiradenomas stain positive for p63, D2-40, and CK7 and are associated with cylindromatosis lysine 63 deubiquitinase (CYLD) and alpha-protein kinase 1 (ALPK1) gene mutations.⁵

Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the second most common nonmelanoma skin cancer worldwide.¹³ Lesions typically develop on sun-exposed skin and manifest as red, hyperkeratotic, and sometimes ulcerated plaques or nodules.¹⁴ Risk factors for SCC include chronic sun exposure, lighter skin phenotypes, increased age, and immunosuppression. Histologically, there are several variants of SCC: low-risk variants include keratoacanthomas, verrucous carcinomas, and clear cell SCC, and high-risk variants include acantholytic SCC, spindle cell SCC, and adenosquamous carcinoma.¹⁴ Generally, low-grade SCC will have well-differentiated or moderately differentiated intercellular bridges or keratin pearls with tumor cells in a solid or sheetlike pattern (Figure 3). High-grade SCC will be poorly differentiated with the presence of infiltrating individual tumor cells.¹⁵ Immunohistochemically, SCC stains positive for p63, p40, AE1/AE3, CK5/6, and MNF116 while Ber-Ep4 is negative.^14,15 Poorly differentiated SCCs have high rates of mutation, commonly in the tumor protein 53 (TP53), Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDKN2A), Ras pathway, and notch receptor 1 (NOTCH-1) genes.¹³

Syringomas are benign adnexal tumors that manifest as multiple soft, yellow to flesh-colored, 1- to 2-mm papules typically located on the lower eyelids, most commonly in women of reproductive age.¹⁶ Syringomas are described on histology as small comma-shaped nests with cords of eosinophilic to clear cells with central ducts surrounded by a sclerotic stroma (Figure 4). They stain positively for carcinoembryonic antigen, epithelial membrane antigen, and CK-5 and are associated with genetic mutations in phosphatidylinositol-4, 5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) and AKT serine/threonine kinase 1 (ATK1).⁴

Due to its regular exposure to sunlight, the eyelid accounts for 5% to 10% of all skin malignancies. Common eyelid lesions include squamous papilloma, seborrheic keratosis, epidermal inclusion cyst, hidrocystoma, intradermal nevus, BCC, SCC, and sebaceous carcinoma.¹⁷ Aside from syringomas, benign sweat gland tumors like poromas, hidradenomas, and spiradenomas usually do not manifest on the eyelids but should be included in the differential diagnosis of an unidentifiable lesion due to the small risk for malignant transformation. Eyelid poromas manifest polymorphically, most commonly being clinically diagnosed as BCC, making the histologic examination key for proper diagnosis and management.¹⁸

To the Editor:

Cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer is rare and portends a bleak prognosis. Diagnosis of the primary cancer can be challenging, as skin metastasis can mimic a variety of conditions. We report a case of metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma confirmed via biopsy of a new skin lesion.

A 97-year-old man presented to the dermatology clinic for routine follow-up of psoriasis. During the visit, a family member mentioned a new bleeding lesion on the left shoulder. It was not known how long the lesion had been present. Four months prior, the patient had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 582 ng/mL (reference range, 0-6.5 ng/mL), and computed tomography of the chest had shown innumerable pulmonary nodules in addition to lymphadenopathy of the left axilla, clavicle, and mediastinum. The imaging was ordered by the patient’s urologist as part of routine workup, as he had a history of obstructive renal failure and was being monitored for an indwelling catheter. Two months later, a bone scan ordered by the urologist due to high PSA levels showed extensive osteoblastic metastatic disease throughout the axial and proximal appendicular skeleton. The elevated PSA levels and findings of pulmonary and osteoblastic metastasis suggested a diagnosis of metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma, but no confirmatory biopsy was performed following the imaging because the patient’s family declined additional workup or intervention.

Physical examination at the current presentation revealed an 8-mm brown papule with an overlying blue-white veil (Figure 1). There were no other skin findings. Primary differential diagnoses included metastatic prostate cancer, nodular melanoma, and traumatized seborrheic keratosis. A shave biopsy of the lesion showed multiple glandular structures infiltrating the dermis lined by monomorphic epithelial cells with prominent eosinophilic nucleoli (Figures 2 and 3). Focal cribriform architecture of the glands was present as well as dermal hemorrhage and a lymphohistiocytic infiltrate (Figure 2A). Interestingly, in-transit vascular metastases were confirmed with the support of ERG, CD34, and CD31 immunohistochemical staining of the vessels.

Immunohistochemical staining was positive for PSA (Figure 2B), NKX 3.1, and ERG in the invasive glandular structures, which also displayed patchy weak staining with AMACR. Staining was negative for prostein, cytokeratin (CK) 7, CK20, CK5/6, p63, p40, CDX2, and thyroid transcription factor 1. These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of cutaneous metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma. Next-generation sequencing showed trans-membrane protease serine 2:v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (TMPRSS2-ERG) fusion compatible with the positive ERG immunohistochemical staining. The patient and family declined any treatment due to his age, comorbidities, and rapid decline. He died 2 months after diagnosis of the skin metastasis.

Aside from nonmelanoma skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men in the United States.¹ It most commonly metastasizes to the bones, nonregional lymph nodes, liver, and thorax.² Metastasis to the skin is very rare, with only a 0.36% incidence.³ When prostate cancer does metastasize to the skin, the prognosis is poor, with an estimated mean survival of 7 months after diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis.⁴ Our patient’s survival time was even shorter—only 2 months after diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis, likely the result of his late diagnosis.

Clinically, cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer can manifest as a wide variety of lesions; in one report of 78 cases, 56 (72%) were hard nodules, 11 (14%) were single nodules, 5 (7%) were edema or lymphedema, and 5 (7%) were an unspecific rash.⁴ Diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer can be challenging, as it often is mistaken for other skin conditions including herpes zoster, basal cell carcinoma, angiosarcoma, cellulitis, mammary Paget disease, telangiectasia, pyoderma, morphea, and trichoepithelioma.⁵ In our patient, the clinical appearance of the lesion resembled a nodular melanoma. Thus, in patients with a history of prostate cancer, it is important to keep cutaneous metastasis in the differential when examining the skin because of the prognostic implications. Cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer often indicates a poor prognosis.

In a report of 78 patients, the most common sites of skin metastasis for prostate cancer were the inguinal area and penis (28% [22/78]), abdomen (23% [18/78]), head and neck (16% [12/78]), and chest (14% [11/78]); the extremities and back were less frequently involved (10% [8/78] and 9% [7/78], respectively).⁴ Generally, cutaneous metastasis of internal malignancies involves the deep dermis and the subcutaneous tissue. It is common for cutaneous metastases to show histologic features of the primary tumor, as we saw in our patient. In a case series with 45 histologic diagnoses of cutaneous metastases from internal malignancies, 75.5% (34/45) of cases showed morphologic features of the primary tumor.⁶ However, this is not always the case, and the histologic appearance may vary. Metastatic prostate cancer may manifest as sheets, nests, or cords and often may have nuclear pleomorphism with prominent nucleoli.⁷

Immunohistochemical staining can help make a definitive diagnosis and differentiate the source of the tumor. Prostate cancer metastases often will stain positive for NKX3.1, PSA, AMACR, ERG, PSMA, and prosaposin, with PSA being the most specific marker.^7,8 In our patient, no prostate biopsy had been performed, thus the skin biopsy was the diagnostic tissue for the prostatic adenocarcinoma.

Next-generation sequencing showed a TMPRSS2- ERG fusion, which commonly is seen in prostate cancer.⁹ A search of Google Scholar using the terms next-generation sequencing, cutaneous metastasis, and prostate adenocarcinoma yielded 3 additional cases of cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer in which next-generation sequencing was performed.^10-12 One case showed mutations of the tumor protein 53 (TP53) and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) genes; one showed just a TP53 mutation; and one showed inactivation of the breast cancer predisposition gene 2 (BRCA2) and amplification of MYC proto-oncogene, BHLH transcription factor (MYC) and fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1).^10,11,12 While limited by a small number of reported cases, there does not appear to be a repeating mutation to suggest a genetic mechanism of skin metastasis.

The route of cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer still is unclear, but hypothesized mechanisms include hematogenous or lymphatic spread, direct infiltration, or implantation from a surgical scar.¹¹ When cutaneous involvement occurs in an area far from the primary tumor, it is thought to be the result of hematogenous spread, which would be consistent with our patient’s findings.¹³ Given the role of Batson venous plexus as a conduit from the prostate to the vertebral column for metastatic spread and considering the location of the lesion on our patient’s back, we hypothesized that the mechanism of metastasis to the skin was from vascular extension of the metastatic foci involving the vertebrae.

Our case highlights the importance of considering cutaneous involvement of prostatic adenocarcinoma in patients with new skin lesions, particularly in the setting of a known or suspected prostate malignancy. Skin metastasis can have a range of manifestations and provides prognostic information that can help determine the course of treatment.

To the Editor:

Cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer is rare and portends a bleak prognosis. Diagnosis of the primary cancer can be challenging, as skin metastasis can mimic a variety of conditions. We report a case of metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma confirmed via biopsy of a new skin lesion.

A 97-year-old man presented to the dermatology clinic for routine follow-up of psoriasis. During the visit, a family member mentioned a new bleeding lesion on the left shoulder. It was not known how long the lesion had been present. Four months prior, the patient had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 582 ng/mL (reference range, 0-6.5 ng/mL), and computed tomography of the chest had shown innumerable pulmonary nodules in addition to lymphadenopathy of the left axilla, clavicle, and mediastinum. The imaging was ordered by the patient’s urologist as part of routine workup, as he had a history of obstructive renal failure and was being monitored for an indwelling catheter. Two months later, a bone scan ordered by the urologist due to high PSA levels showed extensive osteoblastic metastatic disease throughout the axial and proximal appendicular skeleton. The elevated PSA levels and findings of pulmonary and osteoblastic metastasis suggested a diagnosis of metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma, but no confirmatory biopsy was performed following the imaging because the patient’s family declined additional workup or intervention.

Physical examination at the current presentation revealed an 8-mm brown papule with an overlying blue-white veil (Figure 1). There were no other skin findings. Primary differential diagnoses included metastatic prostate cancer, nodular melanoma, and traumatized seborrheic keratosis. A shave biopsy of the lesion showed multiple glandular structures infiltrating the dermis lined by monomorphic epithelial cells with prominent eosinophilic nucleoli (Figures 2 and 3). Focal cribriform architecture of the glands was present as well as dermal hemorrhage and a lymphohistiocytic infiltrate (Figure 2A). Interestingly, in-transit vascular metastases were confirmed with the support of ERG, CD34, and CD31 immunohistochemical staining of the vessels.

Immunohistochemical staining was positive for PSA (Figure 2B), NKX 3.1, and ERG in the invasive glandular structures, which also displayed patchy weak staining with AMACR. Staining was negative for prostein, cytokeratin (CK) 7, CK20, CK5/6, p63, p40, CDX2, and thyroid transcription factor 1. These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of cutaneous metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma. Next-generation sequencing showed trans-membrane protease serine 2:v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (TMPRSS2-ERG) fusion compatible with the positive ERG immunohistochemical staining. The patient and family declined any treatment due to his age, comorbidities, and rapid decline. He died 2 months after diagnosis of the skin metastasis.

Aside from nonmelanoma skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men in the United States.¹ It most commonly metastasizes to the bones, nonregional lymph nodes, liver, and thorax.² Metastasis to the skin is very rare, with only a 0.36% incidence.³ When prostate cancer does metastasize to the skin, the prognosis is poor, with an estimated mean survival of 7 months after diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis.⁴ Our patient’s survival time was even shorter—only 2 months after diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis, likely the result of his late diagnosis.

Clinically, cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer can manifest as a wide variety of lesions; in one report of 78 cases, 56 (72%) were hard nodules, 11 (14%) were single nodules, 5 (7%) were edema or lymphedema, and 5 (7%) were an unspecific rash.⁴ Diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer can be challenging, as it often is mistaken for other skin conditions including herpes zoster, basal cell carcinoma, angiosarcoma, cellulitis, mammary Paget disease, telangiectasia, pyoderma, morphea, and trichoepithelioma.⁵ In our patient, the clinical appearance of the lesion resembled a nodular melanoma. Thus, in patients with a history of prostate cancer, it is important to keep cutaneous metastasis in the differential when examining the skin because of the prognostic implications. Cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer often indicates a poor prognosis.

In a report of 78 patients, the most common sites of skin metastasis for prostate cancer were the inguinal area and penis (28% [22/78]), abdomen (23% [18/78]), head and neck (16% [12/78]), and chest (14% [11/78]); the extremities and back were less frequently involved (10% [8/78] and 9% [7/78], respectively).⁴ Generally, cutaneous metastasis of internal malignancies involves the deep dermis and the subcutaneous tissue. It is common for cutaneous metastases to show histologic features of the primary tumor, as we saw in our patient. In a case series with 45 histologic diagnoses of cutaneous metastases from internal malignancies, 75.5% (34/45) of cases showed morphologic features of the primary tumor.⁶ However, this is not always the case, and the histologic appearance may vary. Metastatic prostate cancer may manifest as sheets, nests, or cords and often may have nuclear pleomorphism with prominent nucleoli.⁷

Immunohistochemical staining can help make a definitive diagnosis and differentiate the source of the tumor. Prostate cancer metastases often will stain positive for NKX3.1, PSA, AMACR, ERG, PSMA, and prosaposin, with PSA being the most specific marker.^7,8 In our patient, no prostate biopsy had been performed, thus the skin biopsy was the diagnostic tissue for the prostatic adenocarcinoma.

Next-generation sequencing showed a TMPRSS2- ERG fusion, which commonly is seen in prostate cancer.⁹ A search of Google Scholar using the terms next-generation sequencing, cutaneous metastasis, and prostate adenocarcinoma yielded 3 additional cases of cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer in which next-generation sequencing was performed.^10-12 One case showed mutations of the tumor protein 53 (TP53) and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) genes; one showed just a TP53 mutation; and one showed inactivation of the breast cancer predisposition gene 2 (BRCA2) and amplification of MYC proto-oncogene, BHLH transcription factor (MYC) and fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1).^10,11,12 While limited by a small number of reported cases, there does not appear to be a repeating mutation to suggest a genetic mechanism of skin metastasis.

The route of cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer still is unclear, but hypothesized mechanisms include hematogenous or lymphatic spread, direct infiltration, or implantation from a surgical scar.¹¹ When cutaneous involvement occurs in an area far from the primary tumor, it is thought to be the result of hematogenous spread, which would be consistent with our patient’s findings.¹³ Given the role of Batson venous plexus as a conduit from the prostate to the vertebral column for metastatic spread and considering the location of the lesion on our patient’s back, we hypothesized that the mechanism of metastasis to the skin was from vascular extension of the metastatic foci involving the vertebrae.

Our case highlights the importance of considering cutaneous involvement of prostatic adenocarcinoma in patients with new skin lesions, particularly in the setting of a known or suspected prostate malignancy. Skin metastasis can have a range of manifestations and provides prognostic information that can help determine the course of treatment.

To the Editor:

Cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer is rare and portends a bleak prognosis. Diagnosis of the primary cancer can be challenging, as skin metastasis can mimic a variety of conditions. We report a case of metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma confirmed via biopsy of a new skin lesion.

A 97-year-old man presented to the dermatology clinic for routine follow-up of psoriasis. During the visit, a family member mentioned a new bleeding lesion on the left shoulder. It was not known how long the lesion had been present. Four months prior, the patient had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 582 ng/mL (reference range, 0-6.5 ng/mL), and computed tomography of the chest had shown innumerable pulmonary nodules in addition to lymphadenopathy of the left axilla, clavicle, and mediastinum. The imaging was ordered by the patient’s urologist as part of routine workup, as he had a history of obstructive renal failure and was being monitored for an indwelling catheter. Two months later, a bone scan ordered by the urologist due to high PSA levels showed extensive osteoblastic metastatic disease throughout the axial and proximal appendicular skeleton. The elevated PSA levels and findings of pulmonary and osteoblastic metastasis suggested a diagnosis of metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma, but no confirmatory biopsy was performed following the imaging because the patient’s family declined additional workup or intervention.

Physical examination at the current presentation revealed an 8-mm brown papule with an overlying blue-white veil (Figure 1). There were no other skin findings. Primary differential diagnoses included metastatic prostate cancer, nodular melanoma, and traumatized seborrheic keratosis. A shave biopsy of the lesion showed multiple glandular structures infiltrating the dermis lined by monomorphic epithelial cells with prominent eosinophilic nucleoli (Figures 2 and 3). Focal cribriform architecture of the glands was present as well as dermal hemorrhage and a lymphohistiocytic infiltrate (Figure 2A). Interestingly, in-transit vascular metastases were confirmed with the support of ERG, CD34, and CD31 immunohistochemical staining of the vessels.

Immunohistochemical staining was positive for PSA (Figure 2B), NKX 3.1, and ERG in the invasive glandular structures, which also displayed patchy weak staining with AMACR. Staining was negative for prostein, cytokeratin (CK) 7, CK20, CK5/6, p63, p40, CDX2, and thyroid transcription factor 1. These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of cutaneous metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma. Next-generation sequencing showed trans-membrane protease serine 2:v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (TMPRSS2-ERG) fusion compatible with the positive ERG immunohistochemical staining. The patient and family declined any treatment due to his age, comorbidities, and rapid decline. He died 2 months after diagnosis of the skin metastasis.

Aside from nonmelanoma skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men in the United States.¹ It most commonly metastasizes to the bones, nonregional lymph nodes, liver, and thorax.² Metastasis to the skin is very rare, with only a 0.36% incidence.³ When prostate cancer does metastasize to the skin, the prognosis is poor, with an estimated mean survival of 7 months after diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis.⁴ Our patient’s survival time was even shorter—only 2 months after diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis, likely the result of his late diagnosis.

Clinically, cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer can manifest as a wide variety of lesions; in one report of 78 cases, 56 (72%) were hard nodules, 11 (14%) were single nodules, 5 (7%) were edema or lymphedema, and 5 (7%) were an unspecific rash.⁴ Diagnosis of cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer can be challenging, as it often is mistaken for other skin conditions including herpes zoster, basal cell carcinoma, angiosarcoma, cellulitis, mammary Paget disease, telangiectasia, pyoderma, morphea, and trichoepithelioma.⁵ In our patient, the clinical appearance of the lesion resembled a nodular melanoma. Thus, in patients with a history of prostate cancer, it is important to keep cutaneous metastasis in the differential when examining the skin because of the prognostic implications. Cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer often indicates a poor prognosis.

In a report of 78 patients, the most common sites of skin metastasis for prostate cancer were the inguinal area and penis (28% [22/78]), abdomen (23% [18/78]), head and neck (16% [12/78]), and chest (14% [11/78]); the extremities and back were less frequently involved (10% [8/78] and 9% [7/78], respectively).⁴ Generally, cutaneous metastasis of internal malignancies involves the deep dermis and the subcutaneous tissue. It is common for cutaneous metastases to show histologic features of the primary tumor, as we saw in our patient. In a case series with 45 histologic diagnoses of cutaneous metastases from internal malignancies, 75.5% (34/45) of cases showed morphologic features of the primary tumor.⁶ However, this is not always the case, and the histologic appearance may vary. Metastatic prostate cancer may manifest as sheets, nests, or cords and often may have nuclear pleomorphism with prominent nucleoli.⁷

Immunohistochemical staining can help make a definitive diagnosis and differentiate the source of the tumor. Prostate cancer metastases often will stain positive for NKX3.1, PSA, AMACR, ERG, PSMA, and prosaposin, with PSA being the most specific marker.^7,8 In our patient, no prostate biopsy had been performed, thus the skin biopsy was the diagnostic tissue for the prostatic adenocarcinoma.

Next-generation sequencing showed a TMPRSS2- ERG fusion, which commonly is seen in prostate cancer.⁹ A search of Google Scholar using the terms next-generation sequencing, cutaneous metastasis, and prostate adenocarcinoma yielded 3 additional cases of cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer in which next-generation sequencing was performed.^10-12 One case showed mutations of the tumor protein 53 (TP53) and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) genes; one showed just a TP53 mutation; and one showed inactivation of the breast cancer predisposition gene 2 (BRCA2) and amplification of MYC proto-oncogene, BHLH transcription factor (MYC) and fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1).^10,11,12 While limited by a small number of reported cases, there does not appear to be a repeating mutation to suggest a genetic mechanism of skin metastasis.

The route of cutaneous metastasis of prostate cancer still is unclear, but hypothesized mechanisms include hematogenous or lymphatic spread, direct infiltration, or implantation from a surgical scar.¹¹ When cutaneous involvement occurs in an area far from the primary tumor, it is thought to be the result of hematogenous spread, which would be consistent with our patient’s findings.¹³ Given the role of Batson venous plexus as a conduit from the prostate to the vertebral column for metastatic spread and considering the location of the lesion on our patient’s back, we hypothesized that the mechanism of metastasis to the skin was from vascular extension of the metastatic foci involving the vertebrae.

Our case highlights the importance of considering cutaneous involvement of prostatic adenocarcinoma in patients with new skin lesions, particularly in the setting of a known or suspected prostate malignancy. Skin metastasis can have a range of manifestations and provides prognostic information that can help determine the course of treatment.