Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

To the Editor:

A 47-year-old man presented to the dermatology service with an asymptomatic plaque on the right thigh of 2 months’ duration. He had a medical history of HIV and Kaposi sarcoma as well as a recently relapsed primary effusion lymphoma (PEL) subsequent to an allogeneic bone marrow transplant. He initially was diagnosed with PEL 3 years prior to the current presentation during a workup for fever and weight loss. Imaging at the time demonstrated a bladder mass, which was biopsied and demonstrated PEL. Further imaging demonstrated both sinus and bone marrow involvement. Prior to dermatologic consultation, he had been treated with 6 cycles of etoposide, prednisolone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin (EPOCH); 6 cycles of brentuximab; 4 cycles of rituximab with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin; and 2 cycles of ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide. Despite these therapies, he had 3 relapses, and oncology determined the need for a matched unrelated donor allogeneic stem cell transplant for his PEL.

At the time of dermatology consultation, the patient was being managed on daratumumab and bortezomib. Physical examination revealed an infiltrative plaque on the right inferomedial thigh measuring approximately 6.0 cm (largest dimension) with a small amount of peripheral scale (Figure 1). An ultrasound revealed notable subcutaneous tissue edema and increased vascularity without a discrete mass or fluid collection. A 4-mm punch biopsy demonstrated a dense infiltrate comprised of collections of histiocytes admixed with scattered plasma cells and mature lymphoid aggregates. Additionally, rare enlarged plasmablastic cells with scant basophilic cytoplasm and slightly irregular nuclear contours were visualized (Figure 2A). Immunohistochemistry was positive for CD3 with a normal CD4:CD8 ratio, CD68-highlighted histiocytes within the lymphoid aggregates, and human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8)(or Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus) demonstrated stippled nuclear staining within the scattered large cells (Figure 2B). Epstein-Barr virus–encoded RNA staining was negative, though the area of interest was lost on deeper sectioning of the tissue block. The histopathologic findings were consistent with cutaneous extracavitary PEL. Shortly after this diagnosis, he died from disease complications.

Primary effusion lymphoma is an aggressive non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma that was first described by Knowles et al¹ in 1989. Primary effusion lymphoma occurs exclusively in the setting of HHV-8 infection and typically is associated with chronic immunosuppression related to HIV/AIDS. Cases that are negative for HIV-1 are rare but have been reported in organ transplant recipients and elderly men from areas with a high prevalence of HHV-8 infections. Most HIV-associated cases show concurrent Epstein-Barr virus infection, though the pathogenic meaning of this co-infection remains unclear.^2,3

Primary effusion lymphoma classically presents as an isolated effusion of malignant lymphoid cells within body cavities in the absence of solid tumor masses. The pleural, peritoneal, and pericardial spaces most commonly are involved. Extracavitary PEL, a rare variant, may present as a solid mass without effusion. In general, extracavitary tumors may occur in the setting of de novo malignancy or recurrent PEL.⁴ Cutaneous manifestations associated with extracavitary PEL are rare; 4 cases have been described in which skin lesions were the heralding sign of the disease.³ Interestingly, despite obligatory underlying HHV-8 infection, a review by Pielasinski et al³ noted only 2 patients with cutaneous PEL who had prior or concurrent Kaposi sarcoma. This heterogeneity in HHV-8–related phenotypes may be related to differences in microRNA expression, but further study is needed.⁵

The diagnosis of PEL relies on histologic, immunophenotypic, and molecular analysis of the affected tissue. The malignant cells typically are large with round to irregular nuclei. These cells may demonstrate a variety of appearances, including anaplastic, plasmablastic, and immunoblastic morphologies.^6,7 The immunophenotype displays CD45 positivity and markers of lymphocyte activation (CD30, CD38, CD71), while typical B-cell (CD19, CD20, CD79a) and T-cell (CD3, CD4, CD8) markers often are absent.^6-8 Human herpesvirus 8 detection by polymerase chain reaction testing of the peripheral blood or by immunohistochemistry staining of the affected tissue is required for diagnosis.^6,7 Epstein-Barr virus infection may be detected via in situ hybridization, though it is not required for diagnosis.

The overall prognosis for PEL is poor; Brimo et al⁶ reported a median survival of less than 6 months, and Guillet et al⁹ reported 5-year overall survival (OS) for PEL vs extracavitary PEL to be 43% vs 39%. Another review noted variation in survival contingent on the number of body cavities involved; patients with a single body cavity involved experienced a median OS of 18 months, whereas patients with multiple involved cavities experienced a median OS of 4 months,⁷ possibly due to the limited study of treatment regimens or disease aggressiveness. Even in cases of successful initial treatment, relapse within 6 to 8 months is common. Extracavitary PEL may have improved disease-free survival relative to classic PEL, though the data were less clear for OS.⁹ Limitations of the Guillet et al⁹ study included a small sample size, the impossibility to randomize to disease type, and loss of power on the log-rank test for OS in the setting of possible nonproportional hazards (crossing survival curves). Overall, prognostic differences between the groups may be challenging to ascertain until further data are obtained.

As with many HIV-associated neoplasms, antiretroviral treatment (ART) for HIV-positive patients affords a better prognosis when used in addition to therapy directed at malignancy.⁷ The general approach is for concurrent ART with systemic therapies such as rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone for the rare CD20⁺ cases, and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) or dose-adjusted EPOCH therapy in the more common CD20⁻ PEL cases. Narkhede et al⁷ suggested avoidance of methotrexate in patients with effusions because of increased toxicity, but it is unclear if this recommendation is applicable in extracavitary PEL patients without an effusion. Additionally, second-line treatment modalities include radiation for solid PEL masses, HHV-8–targeted antivirals, and stem cell transplantation, though evidence is limited. Of note, there is a phase I-II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02911142) ongoing for treatment-naïve PEL patients involving the experimental treatment DA-EPOCH-R plus lenalidomide, but the trial is ongoing.¹⁰

We report a case of cutaneous PEL in a patient with a history of Kaposi sarcoma. The patient’s deterioration and ultimate death despite initial treatment with EPOCH and bone marrow transplantation followed by final management with daratumumab and bortezomib confirm other reports that PEL has a poor prognosis and that optimal treatments are not well delineated for these patients. In general, the current approach is to utilize ART for HIV-positive patients and to then implement chemotherapy such as CHOP. Without continued research and careful planning of treatments, data will remain limited on how best to serve patients with PEL.

To the Editor:

A 47-year-old man presented to the dermatology service with an asymptomatic plaque on the right thigh of 2 months’ duration. He had a medical history of HIV and Kaposi sarcoma as well as a recently relapsed primary effusion lymphoma (PEL) subsequent to an allogeneic bone marrow transplant. He initially was diagnosed with PEL 3 years prior to the current presentation during a workup for fever and weight loss. Imaging at the time demonstrated a bladder mass, which was biopsied and demonstrated PEL. Further imaging demonstrated both sinus and bone marrow involvement. Prior to dermatologic consultation, he had been treated with 6 cycles of etoposide, prednisolone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin (EPOCH); 6 cycles of brentuximab; 4 cycles of rituximab with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin; and 2 cycles of ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide. Despite these therapies, he had 3 relapses, and oncology determined the need for a matched unrelated donor allogeneic stem cell transplant for his PEL.

At the time of dermatology consultation, the patient was being managed on daratumumab and bortezomib. Physical examination revealed an infiltrative plaque on the right inferomedial thigh measuring approximately 6.0 cm (largest dimension) with a small amount of peripheral scale (Figure 1). An ultrasound revealed notable subcutaneous tissue edema and increased vascularity without a discrete mass or fluid collection. A 4-mm punch biopsy demonstrated a dense infiltrate comprised of collections of histiocytes admixed with scattered plasma cells and mature lymphoid aggregates. Additionally, rare enlarged plasmablastic cells with scant basophilic cytoplasm and slightly irregular nuclear contours were visualized (Figure 2A). Immunohistochemistry was positive for CD3 with a normal CD4:CD8 ratio, CD68-highlighted histiocytes within the lymphoid aggregates, and human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8)(or Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus) demonstrated stippled nuclear staining within the scattered large cells (Figure 2B). Epstein-Barr virus–encoded RNA staining was negative, though the area of interest was lost on deeper sectioning of the tissue block. The histopathologic findings were consistent with cutaneous extracavitary PEL. Shortly after this diagnosis, he died from disease complications.

Primary effusion lymphoma is an aggressive non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma that was first described by Knowles et al¹ in 1989. Primary effusion lymphoma occurs exclusively in the setting of HHV-8 infection and typically is associated with chronic immunosuppression related to HIV/AIDS. Cases that are negative for HIV-1 are rare but have been reported in organ transplant recipients and elderly men from areas with a high prevalence of HHV-8 infections. Most HIV-associated cases show concurrent Epstein-Barr virus infection, though the pathogenic meaning of this co-infection remains unclear.^2,3

Primary effusion lymphoma classically presents as an isolated effusion of malignant lymphoid cells within body cavities in the absence of solid tumor masses. The pleural, peritoneal, and pericardial spaces most commonly are involved. Extracavitary PEL, a rare variant, may present as a solid mass without effusion. In general, extracavitary tumors may occur in the setting of de novo malignancy or recurrent PEL.⁴ Cutaneous manifestations associated with extracavitary PEL are rare; 4 cases have been described in which skin lesions were the heralding sign of the disease.³ Interestingly, despite obligatory underlying HHV-8 infection, a review by Pielasinski et al³ noted only 2 patients with cutaneous PEL who had prior or concurrent Kaposi sarcoma. This heterogeneity in HHV-8–related phenotypes may be related to differences in microRNA expression, but further study is needed.⁵

The diagnosis of PEL relies on histologic, immunophenotypic, and molecular analysis of the affected tissue. The malignant cells typically are large with round to irregular nuclei. These cells may demonstrate a variety of appearances, including anaplastic, plasmablastic, and immunoblastic morphologies.^6,7 The immunophenotype displays CD45 positivity and markers of lymphocyte activation (CD30, CD38, CD71), while typical B-cell (CD19, CD20, CD79a) and T-cell (CD3, CD4, CD8) markers often are absent.^6-8 Human herpesvirus 8 detection by polymerase chain reaction testing of the peripheral blood or by immunohistochemistry staining of the affected tissue is required for diagnosis.^6,7 Epstein-Barr virus infection may be detected via in situ hybridization, though it is not required for diagnosis.

The overall prognosis for PEL is poor; Brimo et al⁶ reported a median survival of less than 6 months, and Guillet et al⁹ reported 5-year overall survival (OS) for PEL vs extracavitary PEL to be 43% vs 39%. Another review noted variation in survival contingent on the number of body cavities involved; patients with a single body cavity involved experienced a median OS of 18 months, whereas patients with multiple involved cavities experienced a median OS of 4 months,⁷ possibly due to the limited study of treatment regimens or disease aggressiveness. Even in cases of successful initial treatment, relapse within 6 to 8 months is common. Extracavitary PEL may have improved disease-free survival relative to classic PEL, though the data were less clear for OS.⁹ Limitations of the Guillet et al⁹ study included a small sample size, the impossibility to randomize to disease type, and loss of power on the log-rank test for OS in the setting of possible nonproportional hazards (crossing survival curves). Overall, prognostic differences between the groups may be challenging to ascertain until further data are obtained.

As with many HIV-associated neoplasms, antiretroviral treatment (ART) for HIV-positive patients affords a better prognosis when used in addition to therapy directed at malignancy.⁷ The general approach is for concurrent ART with systemic therapies such as rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone for the rare CD20⁺ cases, and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) or dose-adjusted EPOCH therapy in the more common CD20⁻ PEL cases. Narkhede et al⁷ suggested avoidance of methotrexate in patients with effusions because of increased toxicity, but it is unclear if this recommendation is applicable in extracavitary PEL patients without an effusion. Additionally, second-line treatment modalities include radiation for solid PEL masses, HHV-8–targeted antivirals, and stem cell transplantation, though evidence is limited. Of note, there is a phase I-II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02911142) ongoing for treatment-naïve PEL patients involving the experimental treatment DA-EPOCH-R plus lenalidomide, but the trial is ongoing.¹⁰

We report a case of cutaneous PEL in a patient with a history of Kaposi sarcoma. The patient’s deterioration and ultimate death despite initial treatment with EPOCH and bone marrow transplantation followed by final management with daratumumab and bortezomib confirm other reports that PEL has a poor prognosis and that optimal treatments are not well delineated for these patients. In general, the current approach is to utilize ART for HIV-positive patients and to then implement chemotherapy such as CHOP. Without continued research and careful planning of treatments, data will remain limited on how best to serve patients with PEL.

To the Editor:

A 47-year-old man presented to the dermatology service with an asymptomatic plaque on the right thigh of 2 months’ duration. He had a medical history of HIV and Kaposi sarcoma as well as a recently relapsed primary effusion lymphoma (PEL) subsequent to an allogeneic bone marrow transplant. He initially was diagnosed with PEL 3 years prior to the current presentation during a workup for fever and weight loss. Imaging at the time demonstrated a bladder mass, which was biopsied and demonstrated PEL. Further imaging demonstrated both sinus and bone marrow involvement. Prior to dermatologic consultation, he had been treated with 6 cycles of etoposide, prednisolone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin (EPOCH); 6 cycles of brentuximab; 4 cycles of rituximab with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin; and 2 cycles of ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide. Despite these therapies, he had 3 relapses, and oncology determined the need for a matched unrelated donor allogeneic stem cell transplant for his PEL.

At the time of dermatology consultation, the patient was being managed on daratumumab and bortezomib. Physical examination revealed an infiltrative plaque on the right inferomedial thigh measuring approximately 6.0 cm (largest dimension) with a small amount of peripheral scale (Figure 1). An ultrasound revealed notable subcutaneous tissue edema and increased vascularity without a discrete mass or fluid collection. A 4-mm punch biopsy demonstrated a dense infiltrate comprised of collections of histiocytes admixed with scattered plasma cells and mature lymphoid aggregates. Additionally, rare enlarged plasmablastic cells with scant basophilic cytoplasm and slightly irregular nuclear contours were visualized (Figure 2A). Immunohistochemistry was positive for CD3 with a normal CD4:CD8 ratio, CD68-highlighted histiocytes within the lymphoid aggregates, and human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8)(or Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus) demonstrated stippled nuclear staining within the scattered large cells (Figure 2B). Epstein-Barr virus–encoded RNA staining was negative, though the area of interest was lost on deeper sectioning of the tissue block. The histopathologic findings were consistent with cutaneous extracavitary PEL. Shortly after this diagnosis, he died from disease complications.

Primary effusion lymphoma is an aggressive non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma that was first described by Knowles et al¹ in 1989. Primary effusion lymphoma occurs exclusively in the setting of HHV-8 infection and typically is associated with chronic immunosuppression related to HIV/AIDS. Cases that are negative for HIV-1 are rare but have been reported in organ transplant recipients and elderly men from areas with a high prevalence of HHV-8 infections. Most HIV-associated cases show concurrent Epstein-Barr virus infection, though the pathogenic meaning of this co-infection remains unclear.^2,3

Primary effusion lymphoma classically presents as an isolated effusion of malignant lymphoid cells within body cavities in the absence of solid tumor masses. The pleural, peritoneal, and pericardial spaces most commonly are involved. Extracavitary PEL, a rare variant, may present as a solid mass without effusion. In general, extracavitary tumors may occur in the setting of de novo malignancy or recurrent PEL.⁴ Cutaneous manifestations associated with extracavitary PEL are rare; 4 cases have been described in which skin lesions were the heralding sign of the disease.³ Interestingly, despite obligatory underlying HHV-8 infection, a review by Pielasinski et al³ noted only 2 patients with cutaneous PEL who had prior or concurrent Kaposi sarcoma. This heterogeneity in HHV-8–related phenotypes may be related to differences in microRNA expression, but further study is needed.⁵

The diagnosis of PEL relies on histologic, immunophenotypic, and molecular analysis of the affected tissue. The malignant cells typically are large with round to irregular nuclei. These cells may demonstrate a variety of appearances, including anaplastic, plasmablastic, and immunoblastic morphologies.^6,7 The immunophenotype displays CD45 positivity and markers of lymphocyte activation (CD30, CD38, CD71), while typical B-cell (CD19, CD20, CD79a) and T-cell (CD3, CD4, CD8) markers often are absent.^6-8 Human herpesvirus 8 detection by polymerase chain reaction testing of the peripheral blood or by immunohistochemistry staining of the affected tissue is required for diagnosis.^6,7 Epstein-Barr virus infection may be detected via in situ hybridization, though it is not required for diagnosis.

The overall prognosis for PEL is poor; Brimo et al⁶ reported a median survival of less than 6 months, and Guillet et al⁹ reported 5-year overall survival (OS) for PEL vs extracavitary PEL to be 43% vs 39%. Another review noted variation in survival contingent on the number of body cavities involved; patients with a single body cavity involved experienced a median OS of 18 months, whereas patients with multiple involved cavities experienced a median OS of 4 months,⁷ possibly due to the limited study of treatment regimens or disease aggressiveness. Even in cases of successful initial treatment, relapse within 6 to 8 months is common. Extracavitary PEL may have improved disease-free survival relative to classic PEL, though the data were less clear for OS.⁹ Limitations of the Guillet et al⁹ study included a small sample size, the impossibility to randomize to disease type, and loss of power on the log-rank test for OS in the setting of possible nonproportional hazards (crossing survival curves). Overall, prognostic differences between the groups may be challenging to ascertain until further data are obtained.

As with many HIV-associated neoplasms, antiretroviral treatment (ART) for HIV-positive patients affords a better prognosis when used in addition to therapy directed at malignancy.⁷ The general approach is for concurrent ART with systemic therapies such as rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone for the rare CD20⁺ cases, and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) or dose-adjusted EPOCH therapy in the more common CD20⁻ PEL cases. Narkhede et al⁷ suggested avoidance of methotrexate in patients with effusions because of increased toxicity, but it is unclear if this recommendation is applicable in extracavitary PEL patients without an effusion. Additionally, second-line treatment modalities include radiation for solid PEL masses, HHV-8–targeted antivirals, and stem cell transplantation, though evidence is limited. Of note, there is a phase I-II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02911142) ongoing for treatment-naïve PEL patients involving the experimental treatment DA-EPOCH-R plus lenalidomide, but the trial is ongoing.¹⁰

We report a case of cutaneous PEL in a patient with a history of Kaposi sarcoma. The patient’s deterioration and ultimate death despite initial treatment with EPOCH and bone marrow transplantation followed by final management with daratumumab and bortezomib confirm other reports that PEL has a poor prognosis and that optimal treatments are not well delineated for these patients. In general, the current approach is to utilize ART for HIV-positive patients and to then implement chemotherapy such as CHOP. Without continued research and careful planning of treatments, data will remain limited on how best to serve patients with PEL.

To the Editor:

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis (CNH) is a benign inflammatory condition of the cartilage of the helix or antihelix as well as the overlying skin. Inflammation produces a firm painful nodule that often forms a central crust and enlarges rapidly, mimicking cutaneous malignancy. Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis is believed to be caused by chronic pressure on the pinna, usually from sleeping, which causes compromised blood supply. However, there is a wide range of additional risk factors,¹ including trauma (eg, pressure), environmental insult (eg, sun or cold exposure), and autoimmune processes (eg, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma). Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is rare. We report a novel case of CNH as a postoperative complication of MMS following adjuvant radiation therapy.

A 61-year-old man presented to the MMS clinic for treatment of a primary squamous cell carcinoma of the right posterior helix. Stage I MMS demonstrated tumor invasion in the deep dermis directly overlying the auricular cartilage, as well as large-nerve (ie, >0.1 mm) perineural invasion. Two additional stages were taken; negative margins were obtained on Stage III. The defect was repaired by primary closure (Figure 1). Considering the presence of perineural invasion around a large nerve, the patient elected to receive adjuvant radiation therapy consisting of 50 Gy in 20 fractions administered to the right ear over 1 month.

Two months after completion of adjuvant radiation therapy, the patient returned to the clinic with a tender pink papule on the right crus within the radiation portal but nonadjacent to the surgical scar (Figure 2). Histopathology from a tangential biopsy revealed acanthosis, dermal sclerosis, and degenerated cartilage, consistent with CNH. Stellate fibroblasts also were seen, suggesting changes related to prior radiation therapy (Figure 3).

Although CNH is a benign condition, it can be concerning in the context of patient follow-up after MMS given its clinical appearance, which is similar to nonmelanoma skin cancer. The differential diagnosis of CNH includes hypertrophic actinic keratosis, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. The diagnosis is based on clinical history and confirmed by histopathologic examination.

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis in close proximity to a prior MMS site should lower the threshold for biopsy because the area is already known to be affected by actinic damage and cutaneous carcinogenesis. The histopathology of CNH often is characterized by epidermal acanthosis with ulceration, perichondral fibrosis, and a variable degree of cartilage degeneration associated with granulation tissue.²

The scarce subcutaneous tissue and limited blood supply of the pinna offer minimal cushioning and poor circulation to underlying cartilage. These anatomic features predispose the pinna to inflammation and ischemia.¹ Mohs micrographic surgery may inadvertently cause damage to surrounding tissue because of excision of cartilage, mechanical manipulation, severance of the extant blood supply, electrocautery, fenestration in preparation for skin grafting, compression from a wound dressing, and other factors related to surgery. In addition, following MMS, scar tissue and swelling with compression of adjacent structures can further inhibit circulation and lead to CNH.

In our case, multiple factors may have contributed to CNH after MMS, including postoperative swelling and compression, prior actinic damage, and other environmental factors. Given that CNH occurred within the radiation portal, we postulated that adjuvant radiation may have played a role in the pathogenesis of the patient’s CNH. Pandya et al³ reported CNH after radiation therapy for a brain tumor.

One prior study showed that CNH treated by surgical excision recurred in 34% of patients.⁴ In all of these patients, the CNH was completely excised; however, trauma from the surgical procedure itself likely resulted in recurrence of CNH. Darragh et al⁵ reported a case of CNH after MMS on the right nasal vestibule following wound reconstruction that utilized a cartilage graft from the right ear.

Our patient demonstrated an unusual but concerning complication associated with MMS. The location of CNH also was not in a traditional location but rather near the superior helical crus. Although CNH is benign by nature, it can mimic recurrence of a tumor when it presents close to the site of prior MMS. Diagnostic biopsy of CNH should be considered to rule out recurrence of skin cancer.

To the Editor:

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis (CNH) is a benign inflammatory condition of the cartilage of the helix or antihelix as well as the overlying skin. Inflammation produces a firm painful nodule that often forms a central crust and enlarges rapidly, mimicking cutaneous malignancy. Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis is believed to be caused by chronic pressure on the pinna, usually from sleeping, which causes compromised blood supply. However, there is a wide range of additional risk factors,¹ including trauma (eg, pressure), environmental insult (eg, sun or cold exposure), and autoimmune processes (eg, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma). Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is rare. We report a novel case of CNH as a postoperative complication of MMS following adjuvant radiation therapy.

A 61-year-old man presented to the MMS clinic for treatment of a primary squamous cell carcinoma of the right posterior helix. Stage I MMS demonstrated tumor invasion in the deep dermis directly overlying the auricular cartilage, as well as large-nerve (ie, >0.1 mm) perineural invasion. Two additional stages were taken; negative margins were obtained on Stage III. The defect was repaired by primary closure (Figure 1). Considering the presence of perineural invasion around a large nerve, the patient elected to receive adjuvant radiation therapy consisting of 50 Gy in 20 fractions administered to the right ear over 1 month.

Two months after completion of adjuvant radiation therapy, the patient returned to the clinic with a tender pink papule on the right crus within the radiation portal but nonadjacent to the surgical scar (Figure 2). Histopathology from a tangential biopsy revealed acanthosis, dermal sclerosis, and degenerated cartilage, consistent with CNH. Stellate fibroblasts also were seen, suggesting changes related to prior radiation therapy (Figure 3).

Although CNH is a benign condition, it can be concerning in the context of patient follow-up after MMS given its clinical appearance, which is similar to nonmelanoma skin cancer. The differential diagnosis of CNH includes hypertrophic actinic keratosis, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. The diagnosis is based on clinical history and confirmed by histopathologic examination.

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis in close proximity to a prior MMS site should lower the threshold for biopsy because the area is already known to be affected by actinic damage and cutaneous carcinogenesis. The histopathology of CNH often is characterized by epidermal acanthosis with ulceration, perichondral fibrosis, and a variable degree of cartilage degeneration associated with granulation tissue.²

The scarce subcutaneous tissue and limited blood supply of the pinna offer minimal cushioning and poor circulation to underlying cartilage. These anatomic features predispose the pinna to inflammation and ischemia.¹ Mohs micrographic surgery may inadvertently cause damage to surrounding tissue because of excision of cartilage, mechanical manipulation, severance of the extant blood supply, electrocautery, fenestration in preparation for skin grafting, compression from a wound dressing, and other factors related to surgery. In addition, following MMS, scar tissue and swelling with compression of adjacent structures can further inhibit circulation and lead to CNH.

In our case, multiple factors may have contributed to CNH after MMS, including postoperative swelling and compression, prior actinic damage, and other environmental factors. Given that CNH occurred within the radiation portal, we postulated that adjuvant radiation may have played a role in the pathogenesis of the patient’s CNH. Pandya et al³ reported CNH after radiation therapy for a brain tumor.

One prior study showed that CNH treated by surgical excision recurred in 34% of patients.⁴ In all of these patients, the CNH was completely excised; however, trauma from the surgical procedure itself likely resulted in recurrence of CNH. Darragh et al⁵ reported a case of CNH after MMS on the right nasal vestibule following wound reconstruction that utilized a cartilage graft from the right ear.

Our patient demonstrated an unusual but concerning complication associated with MMS. The location of CNH also was not in a traditional location but rather near the superior helical crus. Although CNH is benign by nature, it can mimic recurrence of a tumor when it presents close to the site of prior MMS. Diagnostic biopsy of CNH should be considered to rule out recurrence of skin cancer.

To the Editor:

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis (CNH) is a benign inflammatory condition of the cartilage of the helix or antihelix as well as the overlying skin. Inflammation produces a firm painful nodule that often forms a central crust and enlarges rapidly, mimicking cutaneous malignancy. Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis is believed to be caused by chronic pressure on the pinna, usually from sleeping, which causes compromised blood supply. However, there is a wide range of additional risk factors,¹ including trauma (eg, pressure), environmental insult (eg, sun or cold exposure), and autoimmune processes (eg, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma). Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is rare. We report a novel case of CNH as a postoperative complication of MMS following adjuvant radiation therapy.

A 61-year-old man presented to the MMS clinic for treatment of a primary squamous cell carcinoma of the right posterior helix. Stage I MMS demonstrated tumor invasion in the deep dermis directly overlying the auricular cartilage, as well as large-nerve (ie, >0.1 mm) perineural invasion. Two additional stages were taken; negative margins were obtained on Stage III. The defect was repaired by primary closure (Figure 1). Considering the presence of perineural invasion around a large nerve, the patient elected to receive adjuvant radiation therapy consisting of 50 Gy in 20 fractions administered to the right ear over 1 month.

Two months after completion of adjuvant radiation therapy, the patient returned to the clinic with a tender pink papule on the right crus within the radiation portal but nonadjacent to the surgical scar (Figure 2). Histopathology from a tangential biopsy revealed acanthosis, dermal sclerosis, and degenerated cartilage, consistent with CNH. Stellate fibroblasts also were seen, suggesting changes related to prior radiation therapy (Figure 3).

Although CNH is a benign condition, it can be concerning in the context of patient follow-up after MMS given its clinical appearance, which is similar to nonmelanoma skin cancer. The differential diagnosis of CNH includes hypertrophic actinic keratosis, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. The diagnosis is based on clinical history and confirmed by histopathologic examination.

Chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis in close proximity to a prior MMS site should lower the threshold for biopsy because the area is already known to be affected by actinic damage and cutaneous carcinogenesis. The histopathology of CNH often is characterized by epidermal acanthosis with ulceration, perichondral fibrosis, and a variable degree of cartilage degeneration associated with granulation tissue.²

The scarce subcutaneous tissue and limited blood supply of the pinna offer minimal cushioning and poor circulation to underlying cartilage. These anatomic features predispose the pinna to inflammation and ischemia.¹ Mohs micrographic surgery may inadvertently cause damage to surrounding tissue because of excision of cartilage, mechanical manipulation, severance of the extant blood supply, electrocautery, fenestration in preparation for skin grafting, compression from a wound dressing, and other factors related to surgery. In addition, following MMS, scar tissue and swelling with compression of adjacent structures can further inhibit circulation and lead to CNH.

In our case, multiple factors may have contributed to CNH after MMS, including postoperative swelling and compression, prior actinic damage, and other environmental factors. Given that CNH occurred within the radiation portal, we postulated that adjuvant radiation may have played a role in the pathogenesis of the patient’s CNH. Pandya et al³ reported CNH after radiation therapy for a brain tumor.

One prior study showed that CNH treated by surgical excision recurred in 34% of patients.⁴ In all of these patients, the CNH was completely excised; however, trauma from the surgical procedure itself likely resulted in recurrence of CNH. Darragh et al⁵ reported a case of CNH after MMS on the right nasal vestibule following wound reconstruction that utilized a cartilage graft from the right ear.

Our patient demonstrated an unusual but concerning complication associated with MMS. The location of CNH also was not in a traditional location but rather near the superior helical crus. Although CNH is benign by nature, it can mimic recurrence of a tumor when it presents close to the site of prior MMS. Diagnostic biopsy of CNH should be considered to rule out recurrence of skin cancer.

SEATTLE – The majority of patients who underwent a teledermatology follow-up after Mohs micrographic surgery reported that they preferred it to in-person follow up, according to new findings.

In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.

“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”

The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.

Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.

“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.

The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.

There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”

In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.

Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”

The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.

On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.

Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”

There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”

“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”

Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.

“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

SEATTLE – The majority of patients who underwent a teledermatology follow-up after Mohs micrographic surgery reported that they preferred it to in-person follow up, according to new findings.

In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.

“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”

The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.

Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.

“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.

The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.

There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”

In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.

Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”

The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.

On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.

Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”

There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”

“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”

Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.

“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

SEATTLE – The majority of patients who underwent a teledermatology follow-up after Mohs micrographic surgery reported that they preferred it to in-person follow up, according to new findings.

In addition, nearly all patients surveyed (91.4%) were willing to go through electronic follow-up again.

“A big takeaway from our study is that streamlining this process is really essential for successful implementation,” said study author Laura Rezac, MD, a PGY IV dermatology resident at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. “This study demonstrated the flexibility and convenience for both patients and surgeons and can serve as a prototype for future innovation.”

The study results were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

The role of telehealth has rapidly expanded over the past decade, with its use accelerating during the COVID-19 pandemic and transforming into an indispensable resource. It can be synchronous, Dr. Rezac explained, which is when telehealth happens in live, real-time settings where the patient interacts with a clinician. This usually occurs via phone or video, and providers and patients communicate directly.

Conversely, asynchronous telehealth, also known as “store-and-forward,” is often used for patient intake or follow-up care. For example, in dermatology, a patient can send a photo of a skin condition that is then reviewed by a dermatologist later.

“A pilot survey regarding the adoption of telemedicine in Mohs surgery found that, although most dermatologic surgeons felt that it can play a role, most said that they didn’t plan on using it after the pandemic,” said Dr. Rezac.

The survey, which was reported by this news organization, found that 80% of surveyed surgeons said that they turned to telemedicine during the pandemic, compared with just 23% who relied on the technology prior to the pandemic.

There were numerous perceived barriers to the use of telemedicine, and the one most commonly cited was the uncertainty of how telemedicine fits in the workflow of clinical practice. Other limitations reported were for physical exams (88%), patient response and training (57%), reimbursement concerns (50%), implementation of the technology (37%), regulations such as HIPAA (24%), training of staff (17%), and licensing (8%).

“The survey did identify one key use of telemedicine in Mohs and that was for [postoperative] visits,” she said. “But thus far, a postoperative evaluation after Mohs via an integrated asynchronous ‘store and forward’ teledermatology platform has not yet been evaluated.”

In the study, Dr. Rezac and colleagues sought to evaluate feasibility and efficacy, as well as patient attitudes, using a telemedicine platform for postoperative follow-up. A total of 163 patients who were treated with Mohs at a single academic institution during the 9-month study period (December 2021 through August 2022) responded to a survey and elected to participate in postoperative follow-up using telemedicine.

Dr. Rezac explained how their procedure was implemented for the patient. “On the day of the follow-up, the patient receives a text with a link that takes them to the MyChart website or app on their phone,” she said. “Once they log in, they see that they have a message telling them that they have a teledermatology message waiting for them. When they view it, they are taken to the curated message with instructions and a phone call if they need assistance, and then at the bottom, it shows they have a task to complete, which is the questionnaire.”

The patient will then be prompted to upload photos, which can be taken with their phone camera. The next step is to answer questions regarding the surgical site or pain concerns, and finally, patients are asked to respond to a few short questions about this type of follow-up. Once submitted, then they wait to be contacted by the surgeon.

On the surgeon’s side, these answers come into their EPIC inbox, and they can respond via a MyChart message.

Patient response was overwhelmingly positive, Dr. Rezac noted. Of the patients, 80.4% found the electronic surgery follow-up process to be “easy” or “very easy,” while only 4% found it “difficult” or “very difficult,” she said. “Also, 75.5% preferred electronic follow-up while 17.2% preferred in-person follow-up.”

There were limitations to this study, primarily that the asynchronous method does reduce live interaction, which could be an issue, depending on person’s needs, she pointed out. “But it is easy to schedule a phone call or video call or office visit.”

“The universal barrier is how to adopt it into the workflow, which includes training of staff,” she continued, “But this was a very streamlined process and gave very detailed instructions to the staff. Additionally, widespread use is limited to dermatological proficiency and access, and patients have to be amenable to it, so there is a selection bias since these patients chose to participate.”

Asked to comment on the study, Vishal Patel, MD, director of cutaneous oncology at George Washington University in Washington, said: “The COVID pandemic changed how practices and providers considered follow-up visits for small routine matters. Postoperative visits are often simple and do not require an in-depth, in-person evaluation.” Dr. Patel was not involved with this research.

“This study highlights the comfort of the vast majority of patients to have follow-up postoperative visits conducted via teledermatology – an approach that can help cut overall costs and also increase access for patients who are more in need of in-office care,” he added.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Rezac reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

SEATTLE – At least for now, the number of physicians trained to perform Mohs surgery is not only stable but appears to be increasing. New findings show that the number of new fellows offsets the attrition rate and that has been the case for the past 5 years.

Using CMS billing codes as a surrogate, the researchers found that there was a steady increase in the number of physicians who billed from 2015 to 2020. With the exception of 2020, which was the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of times that a specific code was billed for increased on average by 4.7% annually.

“Thus, if the attrition rate remains stable, even with changes in board certification and potential payer eligibility restrictions, the number of physicians will continue to increase,” study author Ji Won Ahn, MD, who specializes in dermatology and Mohs surgery at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery, where she presented the results.

The growth in the number of Mohs surgeons has been fueled by several factors, including a rising incidence of skin cancer as well as the superior cure rates and cosmetic outcomes with the procedure. Reimbursement has been favorable and training pathways have expanded. A 2019 retrospective study reported that there were 2,240 dermatologists who performed Mohs surgery in the United States, with nearly all of them (94.6%) residing in metropolitan areas.

Dr. Ahn explained that it was important to define the workforce because of several new factors that will be affecting it in the future. “With the establishment of Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology [MSDO] board certification that went into effect 2 years ago, potential future payer eligibility restrictions may be coming,” she said. “The adequacy of the Mohs surgery workforce is an important consideration.”

Another issue is that new board certification will be limited to fellowship-trained physicians after the first 5 years. “We wanted to compare these numbers with the fellowship numbers,” she said. “Although fellowship numbers are something that the college potentially has the power to change.”

Dr. Ahn and colleagues used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database to evaluate the use of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 17311, which is one of the most common billing codes for Mohs micrographic technique. Looking at data from 2015-2020, they found that there was an annual increase in the number of unique national provider identifiers (NPIs) billing for 17311, at an average rate of 75.6 per year.

The total number of times that 17311 was billed also increased from 2015 to 2019 at an average rate of 4.7% per year but declined in 2020 by 8.4%. “Overall, there was an average of 135 new NPIs that appeared and an average of 59.4 NPIs that stopped billing for 17311,” thus, an attrition rate of 59 surgeons, Dr. Ahn explained.

She emphasized that notably, the number of approved MSDO fellowship spots has remained stable since 2016 and is about 92 to 93 per year. “There are about 135 new surgeons and about two-thirds are new fellowship graduates,” she said.

The researchers were also interested in seeing how saturated each surgeon was and looked at the approximate number of cases that they were handling.

Of the physicians who billed 17311 through CMS, over 26% billed less than 100 times and more than 45% billed less than 200 times, and over 80% billed less than 500 times.

“One might be able to conclude that there might be some potential flexibility depending on the future need for surgeons,” she said.

The study was limited by several factors, one being that the researchers looked only at CPT code 17311 and not other designated codes for Mohs surgery. Other factors such as staff and space limitations were not accounted for since only billing data were used.

Dr. Ahn and her team are going to continue their work, and the next steps are to look at geographic trends and monitor for insurance network eligibility changes. “We are currently doing a workforce survey so we can better understand our current workforce rather than just historical data,” she concluded.

Asked to comment on the results, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, noted that the increase in the “billing rates of the first stage of Mohs micrographic surgery highlights not only the growing skin cancer epidemic, but also the number of providers who are providing these services. This underscores the importance of standardized training guidelines and board certifications of Mohs micrographic surgeons to assure high levels of patient care and the appropriate use of Mohs micrographic surgery,” he said.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Ahn reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

SEATTLE – At least for now, the number of physicians trained to perform Mohs surgery is not only stable but appears to be increasing. New findings show that the number of new fellows offsets the attrition rate and that has been the case for the past 5 years.

Using CMS billing codes as a surrogate, the researchers found that there was a steady increase in the number of physicians who billed from 2015 to 2020. With the exception of 2020, which was the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of times that a specific code was billed for increased on average by 4.7% annually.

“Thus, if the attrition rate remains stable, even with changes in board certification and potential payer eligibility restrictions, the number of physicians will continue to increase,” study author Ji Won Ahn, MD, who specializes in dermatology and Mohs surgery at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery, where she presented the results.

The growth in the number of Mohs surgeons has been fueled by several factors, including a rising incidence of skin cancer as well as the superior cure rates and cosmetic outcomes with the procedure. Reimbursement has been favorable and training pathways have expanded. A 2019 retrospective study reported that there were 2,240 dermatologists who performed Mohs surgery in the United States, with nearly all of them (94.6%) residing in metropolitan areas.

Dr. Ahn explained that it was important to define the workforce because of several new factors that will be affecting it in the future. “With the establishment of Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology [MSDO] board certification that went into effect 2 years ago, potential future payer eligibility restrictions may be coming,” she said. “The adequacy of the Mohs surgery workforce is an important consideration.”

Another issue is that new board certification will be limited to fellowship-trained physicians after the first 5 years. “We wanted to compare these numbers with the fellowship numbers,” she said. “Although fellowship numbers are something that the college potentially has the power to change.”

Dr. Ahn and colleagues used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database to evaluate the use of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 17311, which is one of the most common billing codes for Mohs micrographic technique. Looking at data from 2015-2020, they found that there was an annual increase in the number of unique national provider identifiers (NPIs) billing for 17311, at an average rate of 75.6 per year.

The total number of times that 17311 was billed also increased from 2015 to 2019 at an average rate of 4.7% per year but declined in 2020 by 8.4%. “Overall, there was an average of 135 new NPIs that appeared and an average of 59.4 NPIs that stopped billing for 17311,” thus, an attrition rate of 59 surgeons, Dr. Ahn explained.

She emphasized that notably, the number of approved MSDO fellowship spots has remained stable since 2016 and is about 92 to 93 per year. “There are about 135 new surgeons and about two-thirds are new fellowship graduates,” she said.

The researchers were also interested in seeing how saturated each surgeon was and looked at the approximate number of cases that they were handling.

Of the physicians who billed 17311 through CMS, over 26% billed less than 100 times and more than 45% billed less than 200 times, and over 80% billed less than 500 times.

“One might be able to conclude that there might be some potential flexibility depending on the future need for surgeons,” she said.

The study was limited by several factors, one being that the researchers looked only at CPT code 17311 and not other designated codes for Mohs surgery. Other factors such as staff and space limitations were not accounted for since only billing data were used.

Dr. Ahn and her team are going to continue their work, and the next steps are to look at geographic trends and monitor for insurance network eligibility changes. “We are currently doing a workforce survey so we can better understand our current workforce rather than just historical data,” she concluded.

Asked to comment on the results, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, noted that the increase in the “billing rates of the first stage of Mohs micrographic surgery highlights not only the growing skin cancer epidemic, but also the number of providers who are providing these services. This underscores the importance of standardized training guidelines and board certifications of Mohs micrographic surgeons to assure high levels of patient care and the appropriate use of Mohs micrographic surgery,” he said.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Ahn reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

SEATTLE – At least for now, the number of physicians trained to perform Mohs surgery is not only stable but appears to be increasing. New findings show that the number of new fellows offsets the attrition rate and that has been the case for the past 5 years.

Using CMS billing codes as a surrogate, the researchers found that there was a steady increase in the number of physicians who billed from 2015 to 2020. With the exception of 2020, which was the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of times that a specific code was billed for increased on average by 4.7% annually.

“Thus, if the attrition rate remains stable, even with changes in board certification and potential payer eligibility restrictions, the number of physicians will continue to increase,” study author Ji Won Ahn, MD, who specializes in dermatology and Mohs surgery at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery, where she presented the results.

The growth in the number of Mohs surgeons has been fueled by several factors, including a rising incidence of skin cancer as well as the superior cure rates and cosmetic outcomes with the procedure. Reimbursement has been favorable and training pathways have expanded. A 2019 retrospective study reported that there were 2,240 dermatologists who performed Mohs surgery in the United States, with nearly all of them (94.6%) residing in metropolitan areas.

Dr. Ahn explained that it was important to define the workforce because of several new factors that will be affecting it in the future. “With the establishment of Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology [MSDO] board certification that went into effect 2 years ago, potential future payer eligibility restrictions may be coming,” she said. “The adequacy of the Mohs surgery workforce is an important consideration.”

Another issue is that new board certification will be limited to fellowship-trained physicians after the first 5 years. “We wanted to compare these numbers with the fellowship numbers,” she said. “Although fellowship numbers are something that the college potentially has the power to change.”

Dr. Ahn and colleagues used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database to evaluate the use of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 17311, which is one of the most common billing codes for Mohs micrographic technique. Looking at data from 2015-2020, they found that there was an annual increase in the number of unique national provider identifiers (NPIs) billing for 17311, at an average rate of 75.6 per year.

The total number of times that 17311 was billed also increased from 2015 to 2019 at an average rate of 4.7% per year but declined in 2020 by 8.4%. “Overall, there was an average of 135 new NPIs that appeared and an average of 59.4 NPIs that stopped billing for 17311,” thus, an attrition rate of 59 surgeons, Dr. Ahn explained.

She emphasized that notably, the number of approved MSDO fellowship spots has remained stable since 2016 and is about 92 to 93 per year. “There are about 135 new surgeons and about two-thirds are new fellowship graduates,” she said.

The researchers were also interested in seeing how saturated each surgeon was and looked at the approximate number of cases that they were handling.

Of the physicians who billed 17311 through CMS, over 26% billed less than 100 times and more than 45% billed less than 200 times, and over 80% billed less than 500 times.

“One might be able to conclude that there might be some potential flexibility depending on the future need for surgeons,” she said.

The study was limited by several factors, one being that the researchers looked only at CPT code 17311 and not other designated codes for Mohs surgery. Other factors such as staff and space limitations were not accounted for since only billing data were used.

Dr. Ahn and her team are going to continue their work, and the next steps are to look at geographic trends and monitor for insurance network eligibility changes. “We are currently doing a workforce survey so we can better understand our current workforce rather than just historical data,” she concluded.

Asked to comment on the results, Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington, who was not involved with the study, noted that the increase in the “billing rates of the first stage of Mohs micrographic surgery highlights not only the growing skin cancer epidemic, but also the number of providers who are providing these services. This underscores the importance of standardized training guidelines and board certifications of Mohs micrographic surgeons to assure high levels of patient care and the appropriate use of Mohs micrographic surgery,” he said.

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Ahn reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
 

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

SEATTLE – The use of Mohs surgery may improve survival for patients with early-stage Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), results from a large, retrospective study show.

Compared with conventional wide local excision, survival was significantly improved among patients treated with Mohs, and a subgroup analysis showed that the survival benefit remained for patients with risk factors.

“At 10 years, overall survival was about 21% higher for those treated with Mohs surgery versus those treated with conventional surgery,” said lead author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, a dermatology resident at the New York University School of Medicine. “On multivariable analysis, which controlled for tumor and patient factors, Mohs was associated with an over 40% reduction in the hazard for death.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

MCC is a rare, aggressive, neuroendocrine cutaneous malignancy that carries a high mortality rate. The estimated 5-year survival for patients with localized disease is about 50%, Dr. Cheraghlou noted. “That extrapolates to about 55% for T1 tumors and down to about 30% for T4 tumors.”

Although it’s considered to be a rare cancer, the incidence of MCC has been rapidly rising, and in fact it doubled during the period from the 1990s to the 2010s.

Most commonly treated with wide local excision with or without adjuvant radiation therapy, Mohs as monotherapy may offer an alternative treatment option for patients with MCC. It is generally accepted that the optimal treatment for tumors without regional lymph node involvement is surgical, but the data regarding the optimal surgical approach are mixed. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that either Mohs surgery or wide local excision can be used.

“However, these guidelines do not indicate a preference for one modality over the other,” said Dr. Cheraghlou, “and present them as interchangeable treatment options.”

A growing body of literature supports Mohs surgery for many types of rare tumors, including MCC. For example, as previously reported at the 2021 ACMS meeting, one study found that Mohs surgery compared favorably with the standard treatment approach when it came to recurrence rates for patients with MCC. The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for patients with stage I disease and 68.6% for patients with stage IIa. These rates were comparable with rates for historical control patients who were treated with wide local excision, with or without radiation (81%-87% for stage I disease, and 63%-67% for stage II).

Study details

In the current study, Dr. Cheraghlou and colleagues sought to evaluate the association of the type of surgical approach with patient survival after excision of early-stage MCC. They conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database to identify cases of MCC with T1/T2 tumors. A total of 2,313 patients who were diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 with pathologically confirmed negative lymph node involvement and who were treated with Mohs surgery or wide lesion excision were included in the analysis.

“About 90% were T1 tumors, about 40% were located on the head and neck, and the vast majority – about 60% – were treated with wide local excision,” he explained. “Only about 5% received Mohs surgery for treatment of the primary tumor.”

But when the researchers assessed survival outcomes, they found that treatment with Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved overall survival.

The unadjusted 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates for patients treated with Mohs was 87.4% (SE: 3.4%), 84.5% (SE: 3.9%), and 81.8% (SE: 4.6%), respectively, while for wide lesion excision, the rates were 86.1% (SE: 0.9%), 76.9% (SE: 1.2%), and 60.9% (SE: 2.0%), respectively.

For patients who underwent treatment with narrow margin excision, survival rates were similar as for those treated with wide lesion excision, with 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 84.8% (SE: 1.4%), 78.3% (SE: 1.7%), and 60.8% (SE: 3.6%), respectively.

On multivariable survival analysis, Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with wide lesion excision (hazard ratio, 0.594; P = .038). This was also true after multivariable analysis for patients who had one or more NCCN risk factors, for whom improved survival was also seen with Mohs (HR, 0.530; P = .026).

The results did not differ after a sensitivity analysis that included T3 and T4 tumors.

Given that the use of Mohs was so infrequent, compared with standard surgery, the researchers investigated the factors that were associated with the use of Mohs. High-volume MCC centers were significantly more likely to utilize Mohs than wide lesion excision (odds ratio, 1.993; P < .001), compared with other facilities.

“This study has important implications going forward,” Dr. Cheraghlou concluded. “We think it’s important how few patients were treated with Mohs for Merkel cell, and it was slightly more likely to happen in a high-volume center.”

The reasoning for that may be that high-volume centers are more likely to have a surgeon trained to perform Mohs surgery for MCC. “Or perhaps they are more attuned to the benefits of this procedure,” he said. “We can’t tell that from our data, but its notable that it’s such a small proportion of patients – especially when we consider that it is associated with improved survival for the patients who receive it.”

He added that efforts to increase the utilization of Mohs may yield improved local control and overall survival for these patients. “And perhaps with more data, future versions of guidelines may indicate a preference for Mohs over conventional incisions.”
 

No changes to current practice

Asked to comment on the study, Anthony J. Olszanski, RPh, MD, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that while the results are intriguing, they must be interpreted with caution.

“This study was retrospective in nature, and unrecognized biases can influence results,” he said. “Additionally, given the relative rarity of Merkel cell carcinoma, the sample size is expectantly small.”

But importantly, Dr. Olszanski emphasized, Mohs may more often have been recommended for patients with lesions that appear less aggressive. “Many patients undergoing wide lesion excision may have been referred by Mohs surgeons secondary to features or characteristics of lesions which were worrisome,” he explained. “The results of this study do not opine on why Mohs would impact overall survival over wide lesion excision, a point worthy of consideration. Presently, both modalities can be considered for patients with T1/T2 MCC. The results of this study should not change current practice and would lend themselves to a more robust study.”

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Cheraghlou has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Olszanski has received financial support from Merck and BMS for participated on advisory boards.

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

SEATTLE – The use of Mohs surgery may improve survival for patients with early-stage Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), results from a large, retrospective study show.

Compared with conventional wide local excision, survival was significantly improved among patients treated with Mohs, and a subgroup analysis showed that the survival benefit remained for patients with risk factors.

“At 10 years, overall survival was about 21% higher for those treated with Mohs surgery versus those treated with conventional surgery,” said lead author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, a dermatology resident at the New York University School of Medicine. “On multivariable analysis, which controlled for tumor and patient factors, Mohs was associated with an over 40% reduction in the hazard for death.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

MCC is a rare, aggressive, neuroendocrine cutaneous malignancy that carries a high mortality rate. The estimated 5-year survival for patients with localized disease is about 50%, Dr. Cheraghlou noted. “That extrapolates to about 55% for T1 tumors and down to about 30% for T4 tumors.”

Although it’s considered to be a rare cancer, the incidence of MCC has been rapidly rising, and in fact it doubled during the period from the 1990s to the 2010s.

Most commonly treated with wide local excision with or without adjuvant radiation therapy, Mohs as monotherapy may offer an alternative treatment option for patients with MCC. It is generally accepted that the optimal treatment for tumors without regional lymph node involvement is surgical, but the data regarding the optimal surgical approach are mixed. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that either Mohs surgery or wide local excision can be used.

“However, these guidelines do not indicate a preference for one modality over the other,” said Dr. Cheraghlou, “and present them as interchangeable treatment options.”

A growing body of literature supports Mohs surgery for many types of rare tumors, including MCC. For example, as previously reported at the 2021 ACMS meeting, one study found that Mohs surgery compared favorably with the standard treatment approach when it came to recurrence rates for patients with MCC. The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for patients with stage I disease and 68.6% for patients with stage IIa. These rates were comparable with rates for historical control patients who were treated with wide local excision, with or without radiation (81%-87% for stage I disease, and 63%-67% for stage II).

Study details

In the current study, Dr. Cheraghlou and colleagues sought to evaluate the association of the type of surgical approach with patient survival after excision of early-stage MCC. They conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database to identify cases of MCC with T1/T2 tumors. A total of 2,313 patients who were diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 with pathologically confirmed negative lymph node involvement and who were treated with Mohs surgery or wide lesion excision were included in the analysis.

“About 90% were T1 tumors, about 40% were located on the head and neck, and the vast majority – about 60% – were treated with wide local excision,” he explained. “Only about 5% received Mohs surgery for treatment of the primary tumor.”

But when the researchers assessed survival outcomes, they found that treatment with Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved overall survival.

The unadjusted 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates for patients treated with Mohs was 87.4% (SE: 3.4%), 84.5% (SE: 3.9%), and 81.8% (SE: 4.6%), respectively, while for wide lesion excision, the rates were 86.1% (SE: 0.9%), 76.9% (SE: 1.2%), and 60.9% (SE: 2.0%), respectively.

For patients who underwent treatment with narrow margin excision, survival rates were similar as for those treated with wide lesion excision, with 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 84.8% (SE: 1.4%), 78.3% (SE: 1.7%), and 60.8% (SE: 3.6%), respectively.

On multivariable survival analysis, Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with wide lesion excision (hazard ratio, 0.594; P = .038). This was also true after multivariable analysis for patients who had one or more NCCN risk factors, for whom improved survival was also seen with Mohs (HR, 0.530; P = .026).

The results did not differ after a sensitivity analysis that included T3 and T4 tumors.

Given that the use of Mohs was so infrequent, compared with standard surgery, the researchers investigated the factors that were associated with the use of Mohs. High-volume MCC centers were significantly more likely to utilize Mohs than wide lesion excision (odds ratio, 1.993; P < .001), compared with other facilities.

“This study has important implications going forward,” Dr. Cheraghlou concluded. “We think it’s important how few patients were treated with Mohs for Merkel cell, and it was slightly more likely to happen in a high-volume center.”

The reasoning for that may be that high-volume centers are more likely to have a surgeon trained to perform Mohs surgery for MCC. “Or perhaps they are more attuned to the benefits of this procedure,” he said. “We can’t tell that from our data, but its notable that it’s such a small proportion of patients – especially when we consider that it is associated with improved survival for the patients who receive it.”

He added that efforts to increase the utilization of Mohs may yield improved local control and overall survival for these patients. “And perhaps with more data, future versions of guidelines may indicate a preference for Mohs over conventional incisions.”
 

No changes to current practice

Asked to comment on the study, Anthony J. Olszanski, RPh, MD, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that while the results are intriguing, they must be interpreted with caution.

“This study was retrospective in nature, and unrecognized biases can influence results,” he said. “Additionally, given the relative rarity of Merkel cell carcinoma, the sample size is expectantly small.”

But importantly, Dr. Olszanski emphasized, Mohs may more often have been recommended for patients with lesions that appear less aggressive. “Many patients undergoing wide lesion excision may have been referred by Mohs surgeons secondary to features or characteristics of lesions which were worrisome,” he explained. “The results of this study do not opine on why Mohs would impact overall survival over wide lesion excision, a point worthy of consideration. Presently, both modalities can be considered for patients with T1/T2 MCC. The results of this study should not change current practice and would lend themselves to a more robust study.”

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Cheraghlou has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Olszanski has received financial support from Merck and BMS for participated on advisory boards.

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

SEATTLE – The use of Mohs surgery may improve survival for patients with early-stage Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), results from a large, retrospective study show.

Compared with conventional wide local excision, survival was significantly improved among patients treated with Mohs, and a subgroup analysis showed that the survival benefit remained for patients with risk factors.

“At 10 years, overall survival was about 21% higher for those treated with Mohs surgery versus those treated with conventional surgery,” said lead author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, a dermatology resident at the New York University School of Medicine. “On multivariable analysis, which controlled for tumor and patient factors, Mohs was associated with an over 40% reduction in the hazard for death.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

MCC is a rare, aggressive, neuroendocrine cutaneous malignancy that carries a high mortality rate. The estimated 5-year survival for patients with localized disease is about 50%, Dr. Cheraghlou noted. “That extrapolates to about 55% for T1 tumors and down to about 30% for T4 tumors.”

Although it’s considered to be a rare cancer, the incidence of MCC has been rapidly rising, and in fact it doubled during the period from the 1990s to the 2010s.

Most commonly treated with wide local excision with or without adjuvant radiation therapy, Mohs as monotherapy may offer an alternative treatment option for patients with MCC. It is generally accepted that the optimal treatment for tumors without regional lymph node involvement is surgical, but the data regarding the optimal surgical approach are mixed. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that either Mohs surgery or wide local excision can be used.

“However, these guidelines do not indicate a preference for one modality over the other,” said Dr. Cheraghlou, “and present them as interchangeable treatment options.”

A growing body of literature supports Mohs surgery for many types of rare tumors, including MCC. For example, as previously reported at the 2021 ACMS meeting, one study found that Mohs surgery compared favorably with the standard treatment approach when it came to recurrence rates for patients with MCC. The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for patients with stage I disease and 68.6% for patients with stage IIa. These rates were comparable with rates for historical control patients who were treated with wide local excision, with or without radiation (81%-87% for stage I disease, and 63%-67% for stage II).

Study details

In the current study, Dr. Cheraghlou and colleagues sought to evaluate the association of the type of surgical approach with patient survival after excision of early-stage MCC. They conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database to identify cases of MCC with T1/T2 tumors. A total of 2,313 patients who were diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 with pathologically confirmed negative lymph node involvement and who were treated with Mohs surgery or wide lesion excision were included in the analysis.

“About 90% were T1 tumors, about 40% were located on the head and neck, and the vast majority – about 60% – were treated with wide local excision,” he explained. “Only about 5% received Mohs surgery for treatment of the primary tumor.”

But when the researchers assessed survival outcomes, they found that treatment with Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved overall survival.

The unadjusted 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates for patients treated with Mohs was 87.4% (SE: 3.4%), 84.5% (SE: 3.9%), and 81.8% (SE: 4.6%), respectively, while for wide lesion excision, the rates were 86.1% (SE: 0.9%), 76.9% (SE: 1.2%), and 60.9% (SE: 2.0%), respectively.

For patients who underwent treatment with narrow margin excision, survival rates were similar as for those treated with wide lesion excision, with 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 84.8% (SE: 1.4%), 78.3% (SE: 1.7%), and 60.8% (SE: 3.6%), respectively.

On multivariable survival analysis, Mohs surgery was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with wide lesion excision (hazard ratio, 0.594; P = .038). This was also true after multivariable analysis for patients who had one or more NCCN risk factors, for whom improved survival was also seen with Mohs (HR, 0.530; P = .026).

The results did not differ after a sensitivity analysis that included T3 and T4 tumors.

Given that the use of Mohs was so infrequent, compared with standard surgery, the researchers investigated the factors that were associated with the use of Mohs. High-volume MCC centers were significantly more likely to utilize Mohs than wide lesion excision (odds ratio, 1.993; P < .001), compared with other facilities.

“This study has important implications going forward,” Dr. Cheraghlou concluded. “We think it’s important how few patients were treated with Mohs for Merkel cell, and it was slightly more likely to happen in a high-volume center.”

The reasoning for that may be that high-volume centers are more likely to have a surgeon trained to perform Mohs surgery for MCC. “Or perhaps they are more attuned to the benefits of this procedure,” he said. “We can’t tell that from our data, but its notable that it’s such a small proportion of patients – especially when we consider that it is associated with improved survival for the patients who receive it.”

He added that efforts to increase the utilization of Mohs may yield improved local control and overall survival for these patients. “And perhaps with more data, future versions of guidelines may indicate a preference for Mohs over conventional incisions.”
 

No changes to current practice

Asked to comment on the study, Anthony J. Olszanski, RPh, MD, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that while the results are intriguing, they must be interpreted with caution.

“This study was retrospective in nature, and unrecognized biases can influence results,” he said. “Additionally, given the relative rarity of Merkel cell carcinoma, the sample size is expectantly small.”

But importantly, Dr. Olszanski emphasized, Mohs may more often have been recommended for patients with lesions that appear less aggressive. “Many patients undergoing wide lesion excision may have been referred by Mohs surgeons secondary to features or characteristics of lesions which were worrisome,” he explained. “The results of this study do not opine on why Mohs would impact overall survival over wide lesion excision, a point worthy of consideration. Presently, both modalities can be considered for patients with T1/T2 MCC. The results of this study should not change current practice and would lend themselves to a more robust study.”

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Cheraghlou has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Olszanski has received financial support from Merck and BMS for participated on advisory boards.

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

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Communities with easy access to fast food were 77% more likely to have high levels of obesity-related cancer mortality, based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.

Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.

In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.

“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.

In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.

Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.

The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).

Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.

A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).

Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.

The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
 

Community-level investments can benefit individual health

Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.  

“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said. 

“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.

Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
 

Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions

The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.

The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.

“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SAN DIEGO – Primary care providers can draw from a wide range of diets to give patients evidence-based advice on how to lose weight, prevent diabetes, and achieve other health goals, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
 

Predominantly plant‐based diets

Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).

The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.

“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.

A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.

“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.

For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
 

Time‐restricted feeding

There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.

Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.

These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
 

Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets

Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.

The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
 

Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options

Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.

In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
 

Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications

When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”

In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.

“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.

When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.

Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – Primary care providers can draw from a wide range of diets to give patients evidence-based advice on how to lose weight, prevent diabetes, and achieve other health goals, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
 

Predominantly plant‐based diets

Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).

The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.

“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.

A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.

“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.

For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
 

Time‐restricted feeding

There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.

Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.

These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
 

Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets

Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.

The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
 

Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options

Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.

In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
 

Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications

When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”

In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.

“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.

When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.

Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – Primary care providers can draw from a wide range of diets to give patients evidence-based advice on how to lose weight, prevent diabetes, and achieve other health goals, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
 

Predominantly plant‐based diets

Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).

The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.

“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.

A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.

“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.

For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
 

Time‐restricted feeding

There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.

Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.

These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
 

Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets

Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.

The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
 

Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options

Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.

In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
 

Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications

When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”

In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.

“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.

When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.

Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.

PHOENIX – Treating superficial and nodular basal cell cancers (BCCs) with an apoptotic process induced by controlled hyperthermia resulted in strong histologic clearance of tumors, an interim report from an ongoing study showed.

“For 2,000 years, it’s been known that heat can kill cancers,” an apoptotic reaction “rather than a destructive reaction coming from excessive heat,” Christopher B. Zachary, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the study was presented during an abstract session.

Dr. Zachary, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues, evaluated a novel, noninvasive technique of controlled hyperthermia and mapping protocol (CHAMP) designed to help clinicians with margin assessment and treatment of superficial and nodular BCCs. For this prospective study, which was first described at the 2022 ASLMS annual conference and is being conducted at three centers, 73 patients with biopsy-proven superficial and nodular BCCs have been scanned with the VivoSight Dx optical coherence tomography (OCT) device to map BCC tumor margins.

The BCCs were treated with the Sciton 1,064-nm Er:YAG laser equipped with a 4-mm beam diameter scan pattern with no overlap and an 8-millisecond pulse duration, randomized to either standard 120-140 J/cm² pulses until tissue graying and contraction was observed, or the CHAMP controlled hyperthermia technique using repeated 25 J/cm² pulses under thermal camera imaging to maintain a consistent temperature of 55º C for 60 seconds. Patients were rescanned by OCT at 3 to 12 months for any signs of residual tumor and if positive, were retreated. Finally, lesions were excised for evidence of histological clearance.

To date, 48 patients have completed the study. Among the 26 patients treated with the CHAMP method, 22 (84.6%) were histologically clear, as were 19 of the 22 (86.4%) in the standard treatment group. Ulceration was uncommon with the CHAMP method, and patients healed with modest erythema, Dr. Zachary said.

Pretreatment OCT mapping of BCCs indicated that tumors extended beyond their 5-mm clinical margins in 11 cases (15%). “This will be of interest to those who treat BCCs by Mohs or standard excision,” he said. Increased vascularity measured by dynamic OCT was noted in most CHAMP patients immediately after irradiation, which suggests that apoptosis was the primary mechanism of tumor response instead of vascular destruction.

“The traditional technique for using the long pulsed 1,064-nm Er:YAG laser to cause damage and destruction of BCC is 120-140 J/cm² at one or two passes until you get to an endpoint of graying and contraction of tissue,” Dr. Zachary said. “That’s opposed to the ‘Low and Slow’ approach [where you use] multiple pulses at 25 J/cm² until you achieve an optimal time and temperature. If you treat above 60º C, you tend to get epidermal blistering, prolonged healing, and interestingly, absence of pain. I think that’s because you kill off the nerve fibers. With the low fluence multiple scan technique, you’re going for an even flat-top heating.”

Currently, he and his colleagues consider 55 degrees at 60 seconds as “the optimal parameters,” he said, but “it could be 45 degrees at 90 seconds or two minutes. We don’t know yet.”

In an interview at the meeting, one of the abstract session moderators, Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that he was encouraged by the study results as investigations into effective, noninvasive treatment of BCC continue to move forward. “Details matter such as the temperature [of energy delivery] and noninvasive imaging to delineate the appropriate margins,” said Dr. Avram, who has conducted research on the 1,064-nm long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser as an alternative treatment for nonfacial BCCs in patients who are poor surgical candidates.

“Hopefully, at some point,” he said, such approaches will “become the standard of care for many BCCs that we are now treating surgically. I don’t think this will happen in the next 3 years, but I think in the long term, it will emerge as the treatment of choice.”

The study is being funded by Michelson Diagnostics. Sciton provided the long-pulsed 1,064-nm lasers devices being used in the trial. Dr. Zachary reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Sciton.

PHOENIX – Treating superficial and nodular basal cell cancers (BCCs) with an apoptotic process induced by controlled hyperthermia resulted in strong histologic clearance of tumors, an interim report from an ongoing study showed.

“For 2,000 years, it’s been known that heat can kill cancers,” an apoptotic reaction “rather than a destructive reaction coming from excessive heat,” Christopher B. Zachary, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the study was presented during an abstract session.

Dr. Zachary, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues, evaluated a novel, noninvasive technique of controlled hyperthermia and mapping protocol (CHAMP) designed to help clinicians with margin assessment and treatment of superficial and nodular BCCs. For this prospective study, which was first described at the 2022 ASLMS annual conference and is being conducted at three centers, 73 patients with biopsy-proven superficial and nodular BCCs have been scanned with the VivoSight Dx optical coherence tomography (OCT) device to map BCC tumor margins.

The BCCs were treated with the Sciton 1,064-nm Er:YAG laser equipped with a 4-mm beam diameter scan pattern with no overlap and an 8-millisecond pulse duration, randomized to either standard 120-140 J/cm² pulses until tissue graying and contraction was observed, or the CHAMP controlled hyperthermia technique using repeated 25 J/cm² pulses under thermal camera imaging to maintain a consistent temperature of 55º C for 60 seconds. Patients were rescanned by OCT at 3 to 12 months for any signs of residual tumor and if positive, were retreated. Finally, lesions were excised for evidence of histological clearance.

To date, 48 patients have completed the study. Among the 26 patients treated with the CHAMP method, 22 (84.6%) were histologically clear, as were 19 of the 22 (86.4%) in the standard treatment group. Ulceration was uncommon with the CHAMP method, and patients healed with modest erythema, Dr. Zachary said.

Pretreatment OCT mapping of BCCs indicated that tumors extended beyond their 5-mm clinical margins in 11 cases (15%). “This will be of interest to those who treat BCCs by Mohs or standard excision,” he said. Increased vascularity measured by dynamic OCT was noted in most CHAMP patients immediately after irradiation, which suggests that apoptosis was the primary mechanism of tumor response instead of vascular destruction.

“The traditional technique for using the long pulsed 1,064-nm Er:YAG laser to cause damage and destruction of BCC is 120-140 J/cm² at one or two passes until you get to an endpoint of graying and contraction of tissue,” Dr. Zachary said. “That’s opposed to the ‘Low and Slow’ approach [where you use] multiple pulses at 25 J/cm² until you achieve an optimal time and temperature. If you treat above 60º C, you tend to get epidermal blistering, prolonged healing, and interestingly, absence of pain. I think that’s because you kill off the nerve fibers. With the low fluence multiple scan technique, you’re going for an even flat-top heating.”

Currently, he and his colleagues consider 55 degrees at 60 seconds as “the optimal parameters,” he said, but “it could be 45 degrees at 90 seconds or two minutes. We don’t know yet.”

In an interview at the meeting, one of the abstract session moderators, Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that he was encouraged by the study results as investigations into effective, noninvasive treatment of BCC continue to move forward. “Details matter such as the temperature [of energy delivery] and noninvasive imaging to delineate the appropriate margins,” said Dr. Avram, who has conducted research on the 1,064-nm long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser as an alternative treatment for nonfacial BCCs in patients who are poor surgical candidates.

“Hopefully, at some point,” he said, such approaches will “become the standard of care for many BCCs that we are now treating surgically. I don’t think this will happen in the next 3 years, but I think in the long term, it will emerge as the treatment of choice.”

The study is being funded by Michelson Diagnostics. Sciton provided the long-pulsed 1,064-nm lasers devices being used in the trial. Dr. Zachary reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Sciton.

PHOENIX – Treating superficial and nodular basal cell cancers (BCCs) with an apoptotic process induced by controlled hyperthermia resulted in strong histologic clearance of tumors, an interim report from an ongoing study showed.

“For 2,000 years, it’s been known that heat can kill cancers,” an apoptotic reaction “rather than a destructive reaction coming from excessive heat,” Christopher B. Zachary, MD, said at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the study was presented during an abstract session.

Dr. Zachary, professor and chair emeritus of the department of dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues, evaluated a novel, noninvasive technique of controlled hyperthermia and mapping protocol (CHAMP) designed to help clinicians with margin assessment and treatment of superficial and nodular BCCs. For this prospective study, which was first described at the 2022 ASLMS annual conference and is being conducted at three centers, 73 patients with biopsy-proven superficial and nodular BCCs have been scanned with the VivoSight Dx optical coherence tomography (OCT) device to map BCC tumor margins.

The BCCs were treated with the Sciton 1,064-nm Er:YAG laser equipped with a 4-mm beam diameter scan pattern with no overlap and an 8-millisecond pulse duration, randomized to either standard 120-140 J/cm² pulses until tissue graying and contraction was observed, or the CHAMP controlled hyperthermia technique using repeated 25 J/cm² pulses under thermal camera imaging to maintain a consistent temperature of 55º C for 60 seconds. Patients were rescanned by OCT at 3 to 12 months for any signs of residual tumor and if positive, were retreated. Finally, lesions were excised for evidence of histological clearance.

To date, 48 patients have completed the study. Among the 26 patients treated with the CHAMP method, 22 (84.6%) were histologically clear, as were 19 of the 22 (86.4%) in the standard treatment group. Ulceration was uncommon with the CHAMP method, and patients healed with modest erythema, Dr. Zachary said.

Pretreatment OCT mapping of BCCs indicated that tumors extended beyond their 5-mm clinical margins in 11 cases (15%). “This will be of interest to those who treat BCCs by Mohs or standard excision,” he said. Increased vascularity measured by dynamic OCT was noted in most CHAMP patients immediately after irradiation, which suggests that apoptosis was the primary mechanism of tumor response instead of vascular destruction.

“The traditional technique for using the long pulsed 1,064-nm Er:YAG laser to cause damage and destruction of BCC is 120-140 J/cm² at one or two passes until you get to an endpoint of graying and contraction of tissue,” Dr. Zachary said. “That’s opposed to the ‘Low and Slow’ approach [where you use] multiple pulses at 25 J/cm² until you achieve an optimal time and temperature. If you treat above 60º C, you tend to get epidermal blistering, prolonged healing, and interestingly, absence of pain. I think that’s because you kill off the nerve fibers. With the low fluence multiple scan technique, you’re going for an even flat-top heating.”

Currently, he and his colleagues consider 55 degrees at 60 seconds as “the optimal parameters,” he said, but “it could be 45 degrees at 90 seconds or two minutes. We don’t know yet.”

In an interview at the meeting, one of the abstract session moderators, Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that he was encouraged by the study results as investigations into effective, noninvasive treatment of BCC continue to move forward. “Details matter such as the temperature [of energy delivery] and noninvasive imaging to delineate the appropriate margins,” said Dr. Avram, who has conducted research on the 1,064-nm long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser as an alternative treatment for nonfacial BCCs in patients who are poor surgical candidates.

“Hopefully, at some point,” he said, such approaches will “become the standard of care for many BCCs that we are now treating surgically. I don’t think this will happen in the next 3 years, but I think in the long term, it will emerge as the treatment of choice.”

The study is being funded by Michelson Diagnostics. Sciton provided the long-pulsed 1,064-nm lasers devices being used in the trial. Dr. Zachary reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Sciton.

Adults with cancer experienced significant reductions in pain after taking medicinal cannabis, in a study.

Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.

In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.

The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.

Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.

Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).

Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).

“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.

Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.

Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.

The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with cancer experienced significant reductions in pain after taking medicinal cannabis, in a study.

Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.

In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.

The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.

Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.

Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).

Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).

“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.

Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.

Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.

The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with cancer experienced significant reductions in pain after taking medicinal cannabis, in a study.

Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.

In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.

The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.

Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.

Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).

Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).

“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.

Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.

Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.

The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

On January 1, 2021, the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) evaluation and management (E/M) reporting rules changed dramatically, with “bullet counting” no longer necessary and the coding level now based on either the new medical decision making (MDM) table or time spent on all activities relating to the care of the patient on the day of the encounter.¹ This is described in the CPT Professional Edition 2023, a book every practitioner should review annually.² In particular, every provider should read and reread pages 1 to 14—and beyond if you provide services beyond standard office visits. These changes were made with the intent to simplify the process of documentation and allow a provider to spend more time with patients, though there is still a paucity of data related to whether the new system achieves these aims.

The general rule of reporting work with CPT codes can be simply stated—“Document what you did, do what you documented, and report that which is medically necessary” (David McCafferey, MD, personal communication)—and you should never have any difficulty with audits. Unfortunately, the new system does not let an auditor, who typically lacks a medical degree, audit effectively unless they have a clear understanding of diseases and their stages. Many medical societies, including the American Medical Association³ and American Academy of Dermatology,⁴ have provided education that focuses on how to report a given vignette, but specific examples of documentation with commentary are uncommon.

To make your documentation more likely to pass audits, explicitly link parts of your documentation to CPT MDM descriptors. We offer scenarios and tips. In part 1 of this series, we discuss how to approach the “spot check,” a commonly encountered chief concern (CC) within dermatology.

Scenario 1: A Funny-Looking New Spot

A 34-year-old presents with a new spot on the left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly. You examine the patient and discuss treatment options. The documentation reads as follows:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma.

• Plan: Consent, biopsy via shave technique. Lidocaine hydrochloride 1% with epinephrine, 1 cc, prepare and drape, hemostasis obtained, ointment and bandage applied, and care instructions provided.

As was the case before 2021, you still need a CC, along with a medically (and medicolegally) appropriate history and physical examination. A diagnostic impression and treatment plan also should be included.

In this situation, reporting is straightforward. There is no separate E/M visit; only the CPT code 11102 for tangential biopsy is reported. An International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code of D48.5 (neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin) will be included.

Why no E/M code? This is because the biopsy includes preservice and postservice time and work that would be double reported with the E/M. Remember that the preservice work would include any history and physical examination related to the area to be biopsied.

Specifically, preservice work includes:

Inspect and palpate lesion to assess surface size, subcutaneous depth and extension, and whether fixed to underlying structures. Select the most representative and appropriate site to obtain specimen. Examine draining lymph node basins. Discuss need for skin biopsy and biopsy technique options. Describe the tangential biopsy procedure method and expected result and the potential for inconclusive pathology result. Review procedural risks, including bleeding, pain, edema, infection, delayed healing, scarring, and hyper- or hypopigmentation.⁵

Postservice work includes:

Instruct patient and family on postoperative wound care and dressing changes, as well as problems such as bleeding or pain and restrictions on activities, and follow-up care. Provide prescriptions for pain and antibiotics as necessary. Advise patient and family when results will be available and how they will be communicated. The pathology request form is filled out and signed by the physician. Complete medical record and communicate procedure/results to referring physician as appropriate.⁵

The Takeaway—Procedure codes include preservice and postservice work. If additional work for the procedure is not documented beyond that, an E/M cannot be included in the encounter.

Scenario 2: What If We Don’t Biopsy?

A 34-year-old presents with a new spot on the left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly. You examine the patient and discuss treatment options. The documentation reads as follows:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma.

• Plan: Review risk, benefits, and alternative options. Schedule biopsy. Discuss unique risk factor of sebaceous peau d’orange skin more prone to contour defects after biopsy.

When determining the coding level for this scenario by MDM, 3 components must be considered: number and complexity of problems addressed at the encounter (column 1), amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed (column 2), and risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management (column 3).¹ There are no data that are reviewed, so the auditor will assume minimal data to be reviewed and/or analyzed (level 2, row 2 in the MDM table). However, there may be a lot of variation in how an auditor would address the number and complexity of problems (level 1). Consider that you must explicitly state what you are thinking, as an auditor may not know melanoma is a life-threatening diagnosis. From the perspective of the auditor, could this be a:

• Self-limited or minor problem (level 2, or minimal problem in the MDM table)?¹

• Stable chronic illness (level 3, or low-level problem)?¹

• Undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis (level 4, or moderate level problem)?¹

• Acute illness with systemic symptoms (level 4, or moderate level problem)?¹

• Acute or chronic illness or injury that poses a threat to life or bodily function (level 5, or high-level problem)?¹

• All of the above?

Similarly, there may be variation in how the risk (column 3) would be interpreted in this scenario. The treatment gives no guidance, so the auditor may assume this has a minimal risk of morbidity (level 2) or possibly a low risk of morbidity from additional diagnostic testing or treatment (level 3), as opposed to a moderate risk of morbidity (level 4).¹The Takeaway—In the auditor’s mind, this could be a straightforward (CPT codes 99202/99212) or lowlevel (99203/99213) visit as opposed to a moderate-level (99204/99214) visit. From the above documentation, an auditor would not be able to tell what you are thinking, and you can be assured they will not look further into the diagnosis or treatment to learn. That is not their job. So, let us clarify by explicitly stating what you are thinking in the context of the MDM grid.

Modified Scenario 2: A Funny-Looking New Spot With MDM Descriptors to Guide an Auditor

Below are modifications to the documentation for scenario 2 to guide an auditor:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma (undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis).

• Plan: Discuss risks, benefits, and alternatives, including biopsy (decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors) vs a noninvasive gene expression profiling melanoma rule-out test. Patient prefers the latter.

In this scenario, the level of MDM is much more clearly documented (as bolded above).

The number and complexity of problems would be an undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis, which would be moderate complexity (column 1, level 4).¹ There are no data that are reviewed or analyzed, which would be straightforward (column 2, level 2). For risk, the discussion of the biopsy as part of the diagnostic choices should include discussion of possible scarring, bleeding, pain, and infection, which would be considered best described as a decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors, which would make this of moderate complexity (column 3, level 4).¹

Importantly, even if the procedure is not chosen as the final treatment plan, the discussion regarding the surgery, including the risks, benefits, and alternatives, can still count toward this category in the MDM table. Therefore, in this scenario with the updated and clarified documentation, this would be reported as CPT code 99204 for a new patient, while an established patient would be 99214.

Scenario 1 Revisited: A Funny-Looking New Spot

Below is scenario 1 with enhanced documentation, now applied to our procedure-only visit.

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma (undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis).

• Plan: Discuss risks, benefits, and alternatives, including biopsy (decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors) vs a noninvasive 2 gene expression profiling melanoma rule-out test. Patient wants biopsy. Consent, biopsy via shave technique. Lidocaine hydrochloride 1% with epinephrine, 1 cc, prepare and drape, hemostasis obtained, ointment and bandage applied, and care instructions provided.

This documentation would only allow reporting the biopsy as in Scenario 1, as the decision to perform a 0- or 10-day global procedure is bundled with the procedure if performed on the same date of service.

Final Thoughts

Spot checks are commonly encountered dermatologic visits. With the updated E/M guidelines, clarifying and streamlining your documentation is crucial. In particular, utilizing language that clearly defines number and complexity of problems, amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed, and appropriate risk stratification is crucial to ensuring appropriate reimbursement and minimizing your pain with audits.

On January 1, 2021, the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) evaluation and management (E/M) reporting rules changed dramatically, with “bullet counting” no longer necessary and the coding level now based on either the new medical decision making (MDM) table or time spent on all activities relating to the care of the patient on the day of the encounter.¹ This is described in the CPT Professional Edition 2023, a book every practitioner should review annually.² In particular, every provider should read and reread pages 1 to 14—and beyond if you provide services beyond standard office visits. These changes were made with the intent to simplify the process of documentation and allow a provider to spend more time with patients, though there is still a paucity of data related to whether the new system achieves these aims.

The general rule of reporting work with CPT codes can be simply stated—“Document what you did, do what you documented, and report that which is medically necessary” (David McCafferey, MD, personal communication)—and you should never have any difficulty with audits. Unfortunately, the new system does not let an auditor, who typically lacks a medical degree, audit effectively unless they have a clear understanding of diseases and their stages. Many medical societies, including the American Medical Association³ and American Academy of Dermatology,⁴ have provided education that focuses on how to report a given vignette, but specific examples of documentation with commentary are uncommon.

To make your documentation more likely to pass audits, explicitly link parts of your documentation to CPT MDM descriptors. We offer scenarios and tips. In part 1 of this series, we discuss how to approach the “spot check,” a commonly encountered chief concern (CC) within dermatology.

Scenario 1: A Funny-Looking New Spot

A 34-year-old presents with a new spot on the left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly. You examine the patient and discuss treatment options. The documentation reads as follows:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma.

• Plan: Consent, biopsy via shave technique. Lidocaine hydrochloride 1% with epinephrine, 1 cc, prepare and drape, hemostasis obtained, ointment and bandage applied, and care instructions provided.

As was the case before 2021, you still need a CC, along with a medically (and medicolegally) appropriate history and physical examination. A diagnostic impression and treatment plan also should be included.

In this situation, reporting is straightforward. There is no separate E/M visit; only the CPT code 11102 for tangential biopsy is reported. An International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code of D48.5 (neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin) will be included.

Why no E/M code? This is because the biopsy includes preservice and postservice time and work that would be double reported with the E/M. Remember that the preservice work would include any history and physical examination related to the area to be biopsied.

Specifically, preservice work includes:

Inspect and palpate lesion to assess surface size, subcutaneous depth and extension, and whether fixed to underlying structures. Select the most representative and appropriate site to obtain specimen. Examine draining lymph node basins. Discuss need for skin biopsy and biopsy technique options. Describe the tangential biopsy procedure method and expected result and the potential for inconclusive pathology result. Review procedural risks, including bleeding, pain, edema, infection, delayed healing, scarring, and hyper- or hypopigmentation.⁵

Postservice work includes:

Instruct patient and family on postoperative wound care and dressing changes, as well as problems such as bleeding or pain and restrictions on activities, and follow-up care. Provide prescriptions for pain and antibiotics as necessary. Advise patient and family when results will be available and how they will be communicated. The pathology request form is filled out and signed by the physician. Complete medical record and communicate procedure/results to referring physician as appropriate.⁵

The Takeaway—Procedure codes include preservice and postservice work. If additional work for the procedure is not documented beyond that, an E/M cannot be included in the encounter.

Scenario 2: What If We Don’t Biopsy?

A 34-year-old presents with a new spot on the left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly. You examine the patient and discuss treatment options. The documentation reads as follows:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma.

• Plan: Review risk, benefits, and alternative options. Schedule biopsy. Discuss unique risk factor of sebaceous peau d’orange skin more prone to contour defects after biopsy.

When determining the coding level for this scenario by MDM, 3 components must be considered: number and complexity of problems addressed at the encounter (column 1), amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed (column 2), and risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management (column 3).¹ There are no data that are reviewed, so the auditor will assume minimal data to be reviewed and/or analyzed (level 2, row 2 in the MDM table). However, there may be a lot of variation in how an auditor would address the number and complexity of problems (level 1). Consider that you must explicitly state what you are thinking, as an auditor may not know melanoma is a life-threatening diagnosis. From the perspective of the auditor, could this be a:

• Self-limited or minor problem (level 2, or minimal problem in the MDM table)?¹

• Stable chronic illness (level 3, or low-level problem)?¹

• Undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis (level 4, or moderate level problem)?¹

• Acute illness with systemic symptoms (level 4, or moderate level problem)?¹

• Acute or chronic illness or injury that poses a threat to life or bodily function (level 5, or high-level problem)?¹

• All of the above?

Similarly, there may be variation in how the risk (column 3) would be interpreted in this scenario. The treatment gives no guidance, so the auditor may assume this has a minimal risk of morbidity (level 2) or possibly a low risk of morbidity from additional diagnostic testing or treatment (level 3), as opposed to a moderate risk of morbidity (level 4).¹The Takeaway—In the auditor’s mind, this could be a straightforward (CPT codes 99202/99212) or lowlevel (99203/99213) visit as opposed to a moderate-level (99204/99214) visit. From the above documentation, an auditor would not be able to tell what you are thinking, and you can be assured they will not look further into the diagnosis or treatment to learn. That is not their job. So, let us clarify by explicitly stating what you are thinking in the context of the MDM grid.

Modified Scenario 2: A Funny-Looking New Spot With MDM Descriptors to Guide an Auditor

Below are modifications to the documentation for scenario 2 to guide an auditor:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma (undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis).

• Plan: Discuss risks, benefits, and alternatives, including biopsy (decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors) vs a noninvasive gene expression profiling melanoma rule-out test. Patient prefers the latter.

In this scenario, the level of MDM is much more clearly documented (as bolded above).

The number and complexity of problems would be an undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis, which would be moderate complexity (column 1, level 4).¹ There are no data that are reviewed or analyzed, which would be straightforward (column 2, level 2). For risk, the discussion of the biopsy as part of the diagnostic choices should include discussion of possible scarring, bleeding, pain, and infection, which would be considered best described as a decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors, which would make this of moderate complexity (column 3, level 4).¹

Importantly, even if the procedure is not chosen as the final treatment plan, the discussion regarding the surgery, including the risks, benefits, and alternatives, can still count toward this category in the MDM table. Therefore, in this scenario with the updated and clarified documentation, this would be reported as CPT code 99204 for a new patient, while an established patient would be 99214.

Scenario 1 Revisited: A Funny-Looking New Spot

Below is scenario 1 with enhanced documentation, now applied to our procedure-only visit.

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma (undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis).

• Plan: Discuss risks, benefits, and alternatives, including biopsy (decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors) vs a noninvasive 2 gene expression profiling melanoma rule-out test. Patient wants biopsy. Consent, biopsy via shave technique. Lidocaine hydrochloride 1% with epinephrine, 1 cc, prepare and drape, hemostasis obtained, ointment and bandage applied, and care instructions provided.

This documentation would only allow reporting the biopsy as in Scenario 1, as the decision to perform a 0- or 10-day global procedure is bundled with the procedure if performed on the same date of service.

Final Thoughts

Spot checks are commonly encountered dermatologic visits. With the updated E/M guidelines, clarifying and streamlining your documentation is crucial. In particular, utilizing language that clearly defines number and complexity of problems, amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed, and appropriate risk stratification is crucial to ensuring appropriate reimbursement and minimizing your pain with audits.

On January 1, 2021, the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) evaluation and management (E/M) reporting rules changed dramatically, with “bullet counting” no longer necessary and the coding level now based on either the new medical decision making (MDM) table or time spent on all activities relating to the care of the patient on the day of the encounter.¹ This is described in the CPT Professional Edition 2023, a book every practitioner should review annually.² In particular, every provider should read and reread pages 1 to 14—and beyond if you provide services beyond standard office visits. These changes were made with the intent to simplify the process of documentation and allow a provider to spend more time with patients, though there is still a paucity of data related to whether the new system achieves these aims.

The general rule of reporting work with CPT codes can be simply stated—“Document what you did, do what you documented, and report that which is medically necessary” (David McCafferey, MD, personal communication)—and you should never have any difficulty with audits. Unfortunately, the new system does not let an auditor, who typically lacks a medical degree, audit effectively unless they have a clear understanding of diseases and their stages. Many medical societies, including the American Medical Association³ and American Academy of Dermatology,⁴ have provided education that focuses on how to report a given vignette, but specific examples of documentation with commentary are uncommon.

To make your documentation more likely to pass audits, explicitly link parts of your documentation to CPT MDM descriptors. We offer scenarios and tips. In part 1 of this series, we discuss how to approach the “spot check,” a commonly encountered chief concern (CC) within dermatology.

Scenario 1: A Funny-Looking New Spot

A 34-year-old presents with a new spot on the left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly. You examine the patient and discuss treatment options. The documentation reads as follows:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma.

• Plan: Consent, biopsy via shave technique. Lidocaine hydrochloride 1% with epinephrine, 1 cc, prepare and drape, hemostasis obtained, ointment and bandage applied, and care instructions provided.

As was the case before 2021, you still need a CC, along with a medically (and medicolegally) appropriate history and physical examination. A diagnostic impression and treatment plan also should be included.

In this situation, reporting is straightforward. There is no separate E/M visit; only the CPT code 11102 for tangential biopsy is reported. An International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code of D48.5 (neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin) will be included.

Why no E/M code? This is because the biopsy includes preservice and postservice time and work that would be double reported with the E/M. Remember that the preservice work would include any history and physical examination related to the area to be biopsied.

Specifically, preservice work includes:

Inspect and palpate lesion to assess surface size, subcutaneous depth and extension, and whether fixed to underlying structures. Select the most representative and appropriate site to obtain specimen. Examine draining lymph node basins. Discuss need for skin biopsy and biopsy technique options. Describe the tangential biopsy procedure method and expected result and the potential for inconclusive pathology result. Review procedural risks, including bleeding, pain, edema, infection, delayed healing, scarring, and hyper- or hypopigmentation.⁵

Postservice work includes:

Instruct patient and family on postoperative wound care and dressing changes, as well as problems such as bleeding or pain and restrictions on activities, and follow-up care. Provide prescriptions for pain and antibiotics as necessary. Advise patient and family when results will be available and how they will be communicated. The pathology request form is filled out and signed by the physician. Complete medical record and communicate procedure/results to referring physician as appropriate.⁵

The Takeaway—Procedure codes include preservice and postservice work. If additional work for the procedure is not documented beyond that, an E/M cannot be included in the encounter.

Scenario 2: What If We Don’t Biopsy?

A 34-year-old presents with a new spot on the left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly. You examine the patient and discuss treatment options. The documentation reads as follows:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma.

• Plan: Review risk, benefits, and alternative options. Schedule biopsy. Discuss unique risk factor of sebaceous peau d’orange skin more prone to contour defects after biopsy.

When determining the coding level for this scenario by MDM, 3 components must be considered: number and complexity of problems addressed at the encounter (column 1), amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed (column 2), and risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management (column 3).¹ There are no data that are reviewed, so the auditor will assume minimal data to be reviewed and/or analyzed (level 2, row 2 in the MDM table). However, there may be a lot of variation in how an auditor would address the number and complexity of problems (level 1). Consider that you must explicitly state what you are thinking, as an auditor may not know melanoma is a life-threatening diagnosis. From the perspective of the auditor, could this be a:

• Self-limited or minor problem (level 2, or minimal problem in the MDM table)?¹

• Stable chronic illness (level 3, or low-level problem)?¹

• Undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis (level 4, or moderate level problem)?¹

• Acute illness with systemic symptoms (level 4, or moderate level problem)?¹

• Acute or chronic illness or injury that poses a threat to life or bodily function (level 5, or high-level problem)?¹

• All of the above?

Similarly, there may be variation in how the risk (column 3) would be interpreted in this scenario. The treatment gives no guidance, so the auditor may assume this has a minimal risk of morbidity (level 2) or possibly a low risk of morbidity from additional diagnostic testing or treatment (level 3), as opposed to a moderate risk of morbidity (level 4).¹The Takeaway—In the auditor’s mind, this could be a straightforward (CPT codes 99202/99212) or lowlevel (99203/99213) visit as opposed to a moderate-level (99204/99214) visit. From the above documentation, an auditor would not be able to tell what you are thinking, and you can be assured they will not look further into the diagnosis or treatment to learn. That is not their job. So, let us clarify by explicitly stating what you are thinking in the context of the MDM grid.

Modified Scenario 2: A Funny-Looking New Spot With MDM Descriptors to Guide an Auditor

Below are modifications to the documentation for scenario 2 to guide an auditor:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma (undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis).

• Plan: Discuss risks, benefits, and alternatives, including biopsy (decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors) vs a noninvasive gene expression profiling melanoma rule-out test. Patient prefers the latter.

In this scenario, the level of MDM is much more clearly documented (as bolded above).

The number and complexity of problems would be an undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis, which would be moderate complexity (column 1, level 4).¹ There are no data that are reviewed or analyzed, which would be straightforward (column 2, level 2). For risk, the discussion of the biopsy as part of the diagnostic choices should include discussion of possible scarring, bleeding, pain, and infection, which would be considered best described as a decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors, which would make this of moderate complexity (column 3, level 4).¹

Importantly, even if the procedure is not chosen as the final treatment plan, the discussion regarding the surgery, including the risks, benefits, and alternatives, can still count toward this category in the MDM table. Therefore, in this scenario with the updated and clarified documentation, this would be reported as CPT code 99204 for a new patient, while an established patient would be 99214.

Scenario 1 Revisited: A Funny-Looking New Spot

Below is scenario 1 with enhanced documentation, now applied to our procedure-only visit.

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma (undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis).

• Plan: Discuss risks, benefits, and alternatives, including biopsy (decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors) vs a noninvasive 2 gene expression profiling melanoma rule-out test. Patient wants biopsy. Consent, biopsy via shave technique. Lidocaine hydrochloride 1% with epinephrine, 1 cc, prepare and drape, hemostasis obtained, ointment and bandage applied, and care instructions provided.

This documentation would only allow reporting the biopsy as in Scenario 1, as the decision to perform a 0- or 10-day global procedure is bundled with the procedure if performed on the same date of service.

Final Thoughts

Spot checks are commonly encountered dermatologic visits. With the updated E/M guidelines, clarifying and streamlining your documentation is crucial. In particular, utilizing language that clearly defines number and complexity of problems, amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed, and appropriate risk stratification is crucial to ensuring appropriate reimbursement and minimizing your pain with audits.