Patient knowledge of FDA-mandated sunscreen labeling terminology: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient understanding of sunscreen labeling terminology is a barrier to effective use. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the "final rule" on sunscreen labeling in 2011, in an effort to promote effective usage. However, relatively little is known about patient knowledge of sunscreen labeling terminology. This study assesses the sunscreen labeling knowledge of dermatology patients, with an emphasis on understanding of the FDA-mandated wording. METHODS: A validated survey was administered to consecutive dermatology office patients. Respondents answered questions about sunscreen use practices, sunscreen knowledge, and demographics. To assess their sunscreen knowledge, they responded to questions on the concepts of sun protection factor, broad-spectrum, and waterproof. RESULTS: A total of 334 patients completed surveys. Only 8.7% of patients correctly answered all three questions related to sunscreen labeling terminology. Patients with a personal history of skin cancer were more likely to answer more than half of the questions correctly (P = 0.004). Older persons and those with darker skin types were most likely to answer all questions incorrectly. CONCLUSION: General understanding of sunscreen labeling was poor, and a minority of consumers comprehended the key features of sunscreen labeling. This knowledge gap appeared to be slightly smaller in the subpopulation of patients with a personal history of skin cancer.

Online sunscreen purchases: Impact of product characteristics and marketing claims.

BACKGROUND: Sunscreens, unlike prescription medications, are purchased by consumers directly from retailers. The proportion of online sunscreen sales is increasing. It is therefore important for dermatologists to know what factors influence online sunscreen purchases to optimize appropriate recommendations. METHODS: Data on the top 100 best-selling sunscreens from an online retailer were collected. Variables included cost, formulation, product claims, ingredients, consumer ratings, and number of reviews. Ordinal logistic regression was used to analyze the impact of collected variables on position on the best-seller list. RESULTS: Ninety-six of the 100 search results could be defined as actual sunscreens with a total of 41 788 reviews. The median price per ounce was $3.02 (range $0.34-$309.18). The most popular formulations were lotions. The most common unregulated claim was "non-greasy" found in 57.3% of sunscreens. For 26 unregulated product claims analyzed, the mean number of claims per sunscreen was 5.2. Using an ordinal regression model, the following factors were found to significantly influence sunscreen sales: number of reviews, the claim "decreases the risk of skin cancer and early aging," and the presence of six or more unregulated claims. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple sunscreen options exist for consumers with varying price points, active ingredients, and formulations. Consumers who purchase online prefer sunscreens with a higher number of reviews and more unregulated marketing claims. FDA-regulated claims such as "decreases the risk of skin cancer and early aging" are not as impactful in this purchasing cohort. To facilitate usage, dermatologists should be cognizant of factors that influence sunscreen selection among this group.

Melanoma Reporting Practices of United States Dermatologists.

BACKGROUND: Accuracy of US cancer statistics depends on physicians' knowledge of and adherence to reporting mandates. Significant knowledge and practice gaps have been documented in regards to melanoma reporting requirements. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the gaps in dermatologists' knowledge and practice of melanoma reporting persist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors performed a survey of US dermatologists attending a national conference. The proportion aware of the melanoma reporting mandate and the proportion who routinely report newly diagnosed cases were calculated. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent (158/174) of those sampled completed the survey. Forty-nine percent correctly identified melanoma as being a disease of mandated reporting. Only 34% reported newly diagnosed cases to their state registry. Dermatologists seeing low melanoma volumes were less likely to routinely report newly diagnosed cases to registries than those seeing high volumes (22.9% vs 45.4%, p = .004). Those in practice for ≤10 years were less likely to be aware of the mandate than those in practice longer (32.6% vs 57.0%, p = .006). CONCLUSION: Most dermatologists remain unaware of melanoma reporting requirements. Resultant underestimates of the true incidence of melanoma could have resource allocation implications. Interventions aimed at improving knowledge of the mandate should focus on younger clinicians and those with lower melanoma case volumes.

Factors Affecting Dermatologists' Use of a 31-Gene Expression Profiling Test as an Adjunct for Predicting Metastatic Risk in Cutaneous Melanoma.

IMPORTANCE: A 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test to predict metastatic risk in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma has previously been validated and is available for clinical use. The impact of the availability of such a test on clinical decision-making has previously been studied. However, little is known about which factors play a role in clinicians' decision to utilize the test. OBJECTIVE: To determine factors affecting clinicians' decisions to utilize the 31-GEP test for metastatic risk stratification in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Dermatologists attending a national conference completed a series of questions based around four clinical vignettes using an audience response system. The vignettes and associated questions were designed to determine the impact of three factors-Breslow thickness, ulceration, and sentinel lymph node biopsy status-on the decision to order the 31-GEP test. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentage of respondents who would order the 31-GEP test in the various clinical scenarios was quantified. Differences between groups were assessed using the chi-squared test. RESULTS: A total of 181/187 individuals completed the survey (96.8% response rate). For tumors with a Breslow thickness ≥0.5 mm, a majority of respondents reported that they would recommend the 31-GEP test. Ulceration was associated with a statistically significant increase in the percentage of clinicians who would recommend the assay for all but the thickest (2.1 mm) tumors. A negative SLN was only associated with a statistically significant increase in the percentage of clinicians who would recommend the test for the thinnest (0.26 mm) tumors (22% to 34%, P=0.033). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Ulceration appears to be the most important factor impacting clinicians when deciding to order the 31-GEP test to assess risk for melanoma metastasis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(5):544-547.

THIS ARTICLE HAD BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO ACCESS THE FULL TEXT OF THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT LOGGING IN. NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. PLEASE CONTACT THE PUBLISHER WITH ANY QUESTIONS.

Realistic Sunscreen Durability: A Randomized, Double-blinded, Controlled Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND: Studies show that sunscreen under real-life conditions is often not reapplied and/or applied insufficiently. This study investigated the durability of 2 current sunscreens with different SPF protection over an 8-hour period under simulated real-life conditions. METHODS: Participants (n=24) were randomized into two study groups utilizing either 2 mg/cm2 (FDA testing concentration) or 1 mg/cm2 (real-life application levels) of sunscreen. Two current SPF 15 and 70 sunscreens were applied to test spots on each participant's back. SPF values were obtained at baseline, 3.5, and 8 hours after initial application, during which subjects completed 30 minutes of moderate exercise followed by 80 minutes of water exposure. RESULTS: Participants in both dose study groups revealed only a 15-40% overall decrease in their SPF protection 8 hours after application. The study group that received half the FDA test concentration of sunscreen achieved approximately half or less the labeled SPF. At 8 hours, the test sites that received SPF 70 maintained an average SPF greater than 64 (2 mg/cm2 application) and 26 (1 mg/cm2 application). Similarly, the SPF 15 product test sites revealed an in vivo protection of 13 (2 mg/cm2) and 7 (1 mg/cm2). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that current sunscreens may be durable on skin even following significant exercise and water exposure, suggesting that reapplication intervals may be longer than currently recommended. In addition, the higher SPF sunscreen maintained a skin cancer-protective level of SPF following extended use.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(1):116-117.

Hormonal Treatment of Acne and Hidradenitis Suppurativa in Adolescent Patients.

Homeostasis of the cutaneous microenvironment is complex and depends on multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors, including the influence of hormones. Hormones exert action on the hair follicle and associated sebaceous glands via both endocrine and intracrine mechanisms. The profound impact of hormonal action on follicular homeostasis can be leveraged in the treatment of disorders, such as acne and hidradenitis suppurativa. The clinician must have an intimate knowledge of the rationale for use, mechanism of action, and possible side effects of hormonal therapy when using these agents to treat adolescents with cutaneous disease.

Increased Uniformity in Diagnostic Accuracy of Pigmented Lesions Using Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy Information.

BACKGROUND: Novel non-invasive technologies augment information available to a clinician to enhance diagnosis. Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is a highly sensitive technology used before biopsy to differentiate equivocal lesions through differences in electrical resistance of benign versus malignant cells. A recent study of an EIS device approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration supported this device's impact on clinical management among dermatology residents. The device provides an EIS score, which increases with greater likelihood of malignancy. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether the addition of an EIS score improved uniformity and diagnostic accuracy of pigmented lesions. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of previously collected data from a survey of 164 dermatology residents was performed. Residents were asked to determine whether they would biopsy a lesion based on clinical morphology alone versus clinical morphology with an EIS score. A total of 45 lesions were assessed (including 17 malignant and 28 benign lesions). Subjects were grouped by percent correct pre-EIS score biopsy decisions and divided into quartiles. RESULTS: With clinical assessment alone, the mean correct decisions to biopsy was 59.9%. With the addition of EIS score, the mean increased to 71.0%. All quartiles significantly increased their correct biopsy decisions with EIS (P<0.001), but the lowest scoring quartiles improved more than the highest scoring quartiles. CONCLUSION: The data from the EIS device were designed to be integrated into the biopsy decision as an additional piece of information in the diagnostic pathway. The study findings are consistent with this objective. In addition to clinical judgment, the use of the EIS score most increased the lowest-scoring residents, but all were improved after integrating the EIS score. EIS information improved homogeneity of ability and diagnostic accuracy.

What's New in Melanoma.

Melanoma is rapidly evolving because of advances in noninvasive diagnosis, targeted therapies, and improved prognostic methods. This article discusses what is new in melanoma risk factors, prevention, clinical management, and targeted treatment. The incidence continues to increase worldwide, whereas mortality is steadily improving. This trend reinforces the importance of dermatologists comprehensively understanding all aspects of melanoma. Further research is needed to continue making a material impact on outcomes for patients.