How Dermatologic Surgeons Decide to Proceed with Surgery for Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer When Site Identification is Initially Uncertain: A Nationwide, Multicenter, Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies show how dermatologic surgeons manage problems with site identification. OBJECTIVE: To estimate frequency and characterize management of skin cancer treated by surgery when the anatomic location of the tumor is in question. METHODS: Nationwide, prospective, multi-site cohort study. RESULTS: Among 17,076 cases at 22 centers, 98 (0.60%) were lesions in question (LIQ) for which site identification was initially uncertain, with these more often in patients who were male, older, and biopsied more than 30 days ago. Surgeons employed on average 5.0 (95% CI: 4.61-5.39) additional techniques to confirm the site location, with common approaches including: re-checking available documentation (90 lesions, 92%); performing an expanded physical examination (89 lesions, 91%); and asking the patient to point using a mirror (61 lesions, 62%). In 15%, photographs were requested from the biopsying provider, and also in 15%, frozen section biopsies were obtained. In 10%, the referring physician was contacted. Eventually, surgeons succeeded in definitively identifying 82% (80/98) of initially uncertain sites, with the remaining 18% (18/98) postponed. Most postponed surgeries were at non-facial sites. LIMITATIONS: Sites were academic centers. CONCLUSIONS: When the anatomic location of the tumor is uncertain, dermatologic surgeons use multiple methods to identify the site, and sometimes cases are postponed.

Subcision with and without suction for acne scars: a split-faced, rater-blinded randomized control trial.

Therapeutic options for acne scars include subcision and suction with microdermabrasion, but these treatment modalities have not been studied in conjunction. To compare effectiveness of subcision alone versus subcision with suction for the treatment of facial acne scars. Randomized, split-faced, evaluator-blinded control trial. Participants underwent one subcision treatment on both sides of the face followed by 10 sessions of suction to one side. Photographs at baseline, 1-month, and 4-months were assessed. Primary outcome measures were the validated Acne Scar Severity Scale (ASSS) (0 = no acne scarring, 4 = severe), Acne Scar Improvement Grading Scale (ASIGS) (-100 to 100%), and modified Quantitative Global Scarring Grades (QGSG) (point-based questionnaire instrument), as well as subject preference. Twenty-eight treatment areas and 154 treatments were analyzed. Dermatologist raters found no differences between subcision alone and subcision-suction at 1-month or 4-months. Mean subject-assessed percent improvement for subcision-suction was higher than that for subcision alone at 1-month (37% versus 24%, p = 0.04) but not at 4-months (p = 0.37). Subjects preferred combination therapy to monotherapy at 1-month (50% vs. 21%) and 4-months (43% vs. 21%). While blinded raters did not detect significant differences, subjects perceived combination treatment as working more quickly than monotherapy, and preferred combination treatment at all time points.Clinical trial registration NCT01696513 on Clinicaltrials.gov.

Split face randomized, evaluator blinded study on the effect of multiple subcisions on rolling acne scars.

Acne scarring results from a common inflammatory condition present in many people. These scars can have an impact on quality of life by influencing self-esteem and social acceptance. Current acne scarring treatments, such as chemical peels and laser treatments, often have limited success due to their time-consuming nature and the variability of acne scar types. The subcision technique has shown promise for the treatment of rolling acne scars. There are few studies to date that examine the effects of multiple subcision treatments on rolling acne scars. We evaluated whether the use of multiple subcision treatments improved the appearance of rolling acne scars compared to no treatment. Five patients with rolling acne scars on both sides of their face who met inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. One side of the face was randomized to receive treatment, while the contralateral side of the face received no treatment. Subjects underwent five sequential subcision treatments, spaced 4 weeks apart, with two follow-up visits at weeks 20 and 36 from the 1st treatment. Photographs were taken before and after the initial treatment visit and at each subsequent visit. Acne scar appearance was evaluated by the subject, a blinded live rater, and two double-blinded dermatologist raters. Evaluations of treatment outcomes involved overall acne scar appearance on a 5-point scale, acne scar improvement on a percentage scale, a modified quantitative global scarring grading system, and potential treatment side effects. There was a greater decrease in global scarring scores in the multiple subcision side compared to the control side. There was a greater difference in the average acne scar appearance scores between the Week 36 follow-up visit and baseline for the multiple subcision side compared to that of the control side. 50% of patients reported being more satisfied with the treatment side compared to the control side in regard to overall improvement. The study results suggest that multiple subcision treatments may improve the appearance of rolling acne scars compared to no treatment.

Rosacea Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials and Practice: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of rosacea is impeding and likely preventing accurate data pooling and meta-analyses. There is a need for standardization of outcomes assessed during intervention trials of rosacea. Objective: To develop a rosacea core outcome set (COS) based on key domains that are globally relevant and applicable to all demographic groups to be used as a minimum list of outcomes for reporting by rosacea clinical trials, and when appropriate, in clinical practice. Evidence Review: A systematic literature review of rosacea clinical trials was conducted. Discrete outcomes were extracted and augmented through discussions and focus groups with key stakeholders. The initial list of 192 outcomes was refined to identify 50 unique outcomes that were rated through the Delphi process Round 1 by 88 panelists (63 physicians from 17 countries and 25 patients with rosacea in the US) on 9-point Likert scale. Based on feedback, an additional 11 outcomes were added in Round 2. Outcomes deemed to be critical for inclusion (rated 7-9 by ≥70% of both groups) were discussed in consensus meetings. The outcomes deemed to be most important for inclusion by at least 85% of the participants were incorporated into the final core domain set. Findings: The Delphi process and consensus-building meetings identified a final core set of 8 domains for rosacea clinical trials: ocular signs and symptoms; skin signs of disease; skin symptoms; overall severity; patient satisfaction; quality of life; degree of improvement; and presence and severity of treatment-related adverse events. Recommendations were also made for application in the clinical setting. Conclusions and Relevance: This core domain set for rosacea research is now available; its adoption by researchers may improve the usefulness of future trials of rosacea therapies by enabling meta-analyses and other comparisons across studies. This core domain set may also be useful in clinical practice.