Nicotinamide for Skin-Cancer Chemoprevention in Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressed organ-transplant recipients have an increased incidence of, and mortality from, skin cancer. Nicotinamide (vitamin B3) enhances the repair of ultraviolet (UV) radiation-induced DNA damage, reduces the cutaneous immunosuppressive effects of UV radiation, and reduces the incidence of keratinocyte cancers (including squamous-cell and basal-cell carcinomas) and actinic keratoses among high-risk immunocompetent patients. Whether oral nicotinamide is useful for skin-cancer chemoprevention in organ-transplant recipients is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, organ-transplant recipients who had had at least two keratinocyte cancers in the past 5 years to receive 500 mg of nicotinamide or placebo twice daily for 12 months. Participants were examined for skin lesions by dermatologists at 3-month intervals for 12 months. The primary end point was the number of new keratinocyte cancers during the 12-month intervention period. Secondary end points included the numbers of squamous-cell and basal-cell carcinomas during the 12-month intervention period, the number of actinic keratoses until 6 months after randomization, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 158 participants were enrolled, with 79 assigned to the nicotinamide group and 79 to the placebo group. The trial was stopped early owing to poor recruitment. At 12 months, there were 207 new keratinocyte cancers in the nicotinamide group and 210 in the placebo group (rate ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.8 to 1.3; P = 0.96). No significant between-group differences in squamous-cell and basal-cell carcinoma counts, actinic keratosis counts, or quality-of-life scores were observed. Adverse events and changes in blood or urine laboratory variables were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this 12-month, placebo-controlled trial, oral nicotinamide therapy did not lead to lower numbers of keratinocyte cancers or actinic keratoses in immunosuppressed solid-organ transplant recipients. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council; ONTRANS Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12617000599370.).

The impact of incomplete clinical information and initial biopsy technique on the histopathological diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Increased rates of histopathological misdiagnosis of melanoma have been associated with incisional punch more so than shave biopsy when compared with complete excisional biopsy. It is unknown how the increasing utilisation of shave biopsy may impact melanoma diagnosis. The extent to which the provision of clinical information to the pathologist may improve diagnostic accuracy remains unclear. This study assessed the impact of both initial biopsy technique and provision of adequate clinical information to pathologists on the accuracy of histopathological diagnosis of melanoma and disease progression. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort with nested case-control study of all histopathological false-negative and false-positive melanoma diagnoses from January 2014 to May 2019 from the Victorian Melanoma Service electronic database. Cases were assessed for the initial biopsy type, provision of clinical information on pathology request forms and disease progression associated with false-negative diagnosis. RESULTS: Partial shave biopsy had higher odds of false-negative (OR 5.19, 95% CI 2.89-9.32; P < 0.001) and false-positive diagnoses (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.45-2.63; P < 0.001) of melanoma when compared with elliptical excisional biopsy. These odds ratios were comparable with those found with incisional punch biopsy. Providing the suspected clinical diagnosis to pathologists also reduced the odds of false-negative diagnosis with melanoma progression by 3.8-fold (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The choice of initial biopsy technique and providing the suspected clinical diagnosis to pathologists are important for correct histopathological diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma and prevention of further disease progression.

Comparison of the EUROIMMUN Dermatology Profile ELISA to the novel BIOCHIP Mosaic 7 for the diagnosis of immunobullous skin disease.

BACKGROUND: The BIOCHIP is an indirect immunofluorescence diagnostic investigation which identifies multiple autoantibodies with a mosaic panel of target antigen-specific substrates in a single incubation field. The EUROIMMUN Dermatology Profile ELISA allows simultaneous investigation of the six most important autoantibodies in bullous autoimmune dermatoses. Evaluation of the BIOCHIP Mosaic 7, compared to that of the EUROIMMUN Dermatology Profile ELISA, when used as a diagnostic investigation in pemphigus and pemphigoid, was undertaken in an Australian cohort. METHODS: The serum of 27 patients was analysed including patients with pemphigus vulgaris (n = 10), pemphigus foliaceous (n = 4), bullous pemphigoid (n = 8), mucous membrane pemphigoid (n = 3) and negative controls (n = 2). Results of the BIOCHIP were compared with the EUROIMMUN Dermatology Profile ELISA, as well as with histology, direct immunofluorescence and indirect immunofluorescence. RESULTS: In pemphigus vulgaris, sensitivity & specificity for the BIOCHIP Mosaic 7 were 100% and 94.1%, comparable to that of the EUROIMMUN Dermatology Profile ELISA with 80% sensitivity and 100% specificity. In bullous pemphigoid, sensitivity of the BIOCHIP was 87.5% and sensitivity of the EUROIMMUN Dermatology ELISA profile was 75%, whilst specificities for both diagnostic methods were 100% in our limited cohort. There was substantial or almost perfect concordance between the BIOCHIP Mosaic 7 and EUROIMMUN Dermatology Profile ELISA for pemphigus vulgaris and bullous pemphigoid. CONCLUSION: The BIOCHIP Mosaic 7 is a rapid, reliable diagnostic investigation in pemphigus and bullous pemphigoid. Results indicate it is comparable to the EUROIMMUN Dermatology Profile ELISA, whilst also providing additional testing with salt split skin, on one field.