US FDA Advisory Panel Members' Assessment of Premarket Approval Process and Suggestions for Improvement.

Importance: The manufacturing and marketing of medical devices is regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the FDA premarket approval (PMA) process evaluates the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. The PMA process includes a detailed scientific, regulatory and quality system review and is critical to ensure that novel devices are safe, effective, and meet the needs of patients. Objective: To survey current voting members serving on panels of the FDA's Medical Devices Advisory Committee to better characterize panel decision-making and identify steps for improvement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative survey study included 36 questions that were mailed to FDA device panelists regarding their opinions on the influence of sources of information, pivotal trial design, quality of evidence, panel composition and internal deliberative process, time allocation, and impartiality of the FDA. The survey was mailed to the members of all 18 FDA device panels in January and February 2017. Data were collected from January to May 2017 and analyzed from 2018 to 2019. Exposures: Respondents read and returned the aforementioned paper survey, while nonrespondents did not. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes included panel members' perceptions, and their implications for process improvement. χ2 or Fisher exact tests were used to test differences between subgroups. Results: Of 64 of 92 panel members who responded (69.6%), 38 of 64 (59.4%) were male, 3 of 63 (4.8%) were Black respondents, 46 of 63 (73.0%) were White respondents, and 36 of 60 (60.0%) were in academic practice. The mean (range) panel service was 6.8 (1-22) years with 3.9 (1-19) meetings attended. Overall, respondents considered information presented by the FDA unbiased, and 28 of 61 (45.9%) believed that pivotal trials were frequently well-designed, 55 of 62 respondents (88.7%) suggested FDA consult panel members preemptively regarding trial design and 54 of 64 (84.4%) regarding the device label. Most indicated that prior FDA approval of another device serving the same medical purpose (43 of 62 [69.4%]) or approval in other countries with comparable regulatory regimes, such as Canada and Europe (39 of 62 [62.9%]), would make them more likely to recommend approval. Respondents rated written information (50 of 60 [83.3%]), live presentations (43 of 58 [74.1%]), and prior professional knowledge (41 of 60 [68.3%]) as the most important sources of information in deciding whether to recommend approval. Additionally, 52 of 58 respondents (89.7%) recommended that a panel member-only executive session would allow more clarity and honesty in deliberations, and 33 of 59 (55.9%) believed a three-fourths majority appropriate for recommending approval, which would be a deviation from the current system in which an overall vote is reported without designation of a vote threshold. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of FDA device panel members, respondents wanted improved study designs, more relevant clinical data, including from other countries, involvement of panelists in study design and device label development, and inclusion of an executive session. Demographically, panels could be made more diverse.

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.

Protocol of a scoping review of outcome domains in dermatology.

INTRODUCTION: Core outcome sets (COSs) are agreed outcomes (domains (subdomains) and instruments) that should be measured as a minimum in clinical trials or practice in certain diseases or clinical fields. Worldwide, the number of COSs is increasing and there might be conceptual overlaps of domains (subdomains) and instruments within disciplines. The aim of this scoping review is to map and to classify all outcomes identified with COS projects relating to skin diseases. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review of outcomes of skin disease-related COS initiatives to identify all concepts and their definitions. We will search PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. The search dates will be 1 January 2010 (the point at which Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) was established) to 1 January 2024. We will also review the COMET database and C3 website to identify parts of COSs (domains and/or instruments) that are being developed and published. This review will be supplemented by querying relevant stakeholders from COS organisations, dermatology organisations and patient organisations for additional COSs that were developed. The resulting long lists of outcomes will then be mapped into conceptually similar concepts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was supported by departmental research funds from the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University. An ethics committee review was waived since this protocol was done by staff researchers with no involvement of patient care. Conflicts of interests, if any, will be addressed by replacing participants with relevant conflicts or reassigning them. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, social media posts and promotion by COS organisations.

Outcomes of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lip Treated With Mohs Micrographic Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs) of the lip have been reported to be at higher risk for poorer post-treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To examine outcomes of patients with SCC of the lip treated with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) and identify factors for recurrence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective review of a single tertiary referral center's Mohs case logs from 2010 to 2019 identified cases of lip SCC. Clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes (local recurrence [LR], metastasis, and disease-specific death) were reviewed. RESULTS: One hundred ninety cases of SCC of the lip were identified and demonstrated that MMS offered a disease-free survival of 96.8% over an average follow-up period of 42 months. Younger age (61 vs 74 years p = .006), increased MMS stages ( p = .009), and higher American Joint Committee on Cancer and Brigham and Women's Hospital T stages were risk factors for LR. Immunosuppression, large tumor size, mucosal lip involvement, aggressive histology, and perineural invasion were not associated with LR. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that SCC of the lip behaved similarly to cSCC outside the lip area, and that both primary and recurrent lesions can be treated effectively with MMS.

Acquired ichthyosis: a clinical review.

Acquired ichthyosis (AI) is a rare, nonhereditary cutaneous disorder that has been associated with numerous neoplastic, infectious, drugs, endocrine, metabolic, autoimmune, and malabsorptive diseases. Review all demographical, clinical, histological, and therapeutic features of AI and focus on all reported associated diseases. We performed a systematic literature review in Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane collaboration databases, searching for all articles on AI, with no limits on publication date, participant age, sex or nationality. Eighty-four articles were included. Total number of included patients was 167 patients with a mean age at presentation of 39 years [range 0.5-85] and a sex ratio M:F of 5:2. The most common malignancy associated with AI is Hodgkin's lymphoma. AI occurred before, simultaneously or after the onset of malignancy or systemic disease. The severity of AI depends on the severity of the underlying disorder and regresses once the disease goes into remission and may also be a marker of disease recurrence or relapse. 8% have been reported to be drug related and all occurred weeks to months after drug intake and resolved after stopping or decreasing the dose of the drug. Data were derived from case reports and observational studies. Limitations include the accuracy of published data, potential patient selection, and reporting bias. AI can be associated with numerous systemic diseases and drugs. Physicians should be particularly alert to these associations to provide adequate screening and management of patients with AI.

Pain of local anesthetic injection of lidocaine during subsequent stages of Mohs micrographic surgery: A multicenter prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients awake during staged cutaneous surgery procedures may experience procedure-related pain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the level of pain associated with local anesthetic injections prior to each Mohs stage increases with subsequent Mohs stages. METHODS: Multicenter longitudinal cohort study. Patients rated pain (visual analog scale: 1-10) after anesthetic injection preceding each Mohs stage. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-nine adult patients presenting for Mohs who required multiple Mohs stages at 2 academic medical centers were enrolled; 330 stages were excluded due to complete anesthesia from prior stages, and 511 stages were analyzed. Mean visual analog scale pain ratings were nominally but not significantly different for subsequent stages of Mohs surgery (stage 1: 2.5; stage 2: 2.5; stage 3: 2.7: stage 4:2.8: stage 5: 3.2; P = .770). Between 37% and 44% experienced moderate pain, and 9.5% and 12.5% severe pain, during first as versus subsequent stages (P > .05) LIMITATIONS: Both academic centers were in urban areas. Pain rating is inherently subjective. CONCLUSIONS: Patients did not report significantly increased anesthetic injection pain level during subsequent stages of Mohs.