Dermatopathologic features of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis: Consensus criteria and proposed reporting guidelines.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable variation in the literature regarding the dermatopathologic diagnostic features of and reporting guidelines for actinic keratosis (AK) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus recommendations regarding diagnostic criteria, nomenclature, and reporting of AK and cSCC. METHODS: Literature review and cross-sectional multiround Delphi process including an international group of expert dermatopathologists followed by a consensus meeting. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved regarding the key dermatopathologic features necessary for diagnosing cSCC, AK, and associated variants; grading of degree of cellular differentiation in cSCC; utility of immunohistochemistry for diagnosis of cSCC; and pathologic features that should be reported for cSCC and AK. LIMITATIONS: Consensus was not achieved on all questions considered. CONCLUSION: Despite the lack of clarity in the literature, there is consensus among expert dermatopathologists regarding diagnostic criteria and appropriate reporting of AK and cSCC. Widespread implementation of these consensus recommendations may improve communication between dermatopathologists and clinicians, facilitating appropriate treatment of AK and cSCC.

Treatment of Surgical Scars With Combination Pulsed Dye and Fractional Nonablative Laser: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of combined pulsed-dye laser (PDL) and NAFL for treatment of surgical scars. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: PDL and NAFL have not been compared to healing by time alone. METHODS: Randomized controlled, single-blinded clinical trial at an urban, university hospital. Healthy adults' status post skin surgery with primary closure were randomized to either 3 sessions of combination PDL and NAFL every 2 to 8 weeks, or control of no treatment. At baseline and 36-week follow-up, Patient and observer Scar Assessment Scale and Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating were completed by participants and blinded physicians. The primary outcome was scar improvement, as measured by the score difference over time. RESULTS: Of 76 participants, 52 completed the study (July 2017 to June 2019). No severe adverse events were reported. Patient and observer Scar Assessment Scale assessments demonstrated improvement in total score in the laser group compared to controls, as reported by patients [mean difference (standard deviation), laser: 12.86 (6.91) vs control: 7.25 (6.34); P = 0.004] and blinded physicians [18.32 (8.69) vs 13.08 (9.63); P = 0.044]. Patients observed a greater improvement in scar thickness [3.68 (2.04) vs 1.88 (1.85); P = 0.002] and stiffness [3.57 (2.78) vs 1.50 (2.11); P = 0.004] with lasers, and physicians reported greater improvement in vascularity [3.71 (1.98) vs 1.71 (1.52); P = 0.0002]. The live Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating subscore for erythema improved significantly with lasers [1.04 (0.79) vs 0.42 (0.50); P = 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Combined PDL and NAFL resulted in scar improvement. Scar thickness, stiffness, and erythema were improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03057964).

An International Needs Assessment Survey of Guideline Developers Demonstrates Variability in Resources and Challenges to Collaboration between Organizations.

BACKGROUND: The development of rigorous, high-quality clinical guidelines increases the need for resources and skilled personnel within guideline-producing organizations. While collaboration between organizations provides a unique opportunity to pool resources and save time and effort, the collaboration presents its own unique challenges. OBJECTIVE: To assess the perceived needs and current challenges of guideline producers worldwide related to guideline development and collaboration efforts. DESIGN: Survey questions were developed by the Guidelines International Network and the US GRADE Network, pilot-tested among attendees of a guideline development workshop, and disseminated electronically using convenience and snowball sampling methods. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 171 respondents representing 30 countries and more than 112 unique organizations were included in this analysis. MAIN MEASURES: The survey included free-response, multiple-choice, and seven-point Likert-scale questions. Questions assessed respondents' perceived value of guidelines, resource availability and needs, guideline development processes, and collaboration efforts of their organization. KEY RESULTS: Time required to develop high-quality systematic reviews and guidelines was the most relevant need (median=7; IQR=5.5-7). In-house resources to conduct literature searches (median=4; IQR=3-6) and the resources to develop rigorous guidelines rapidly (median=4; IQR=2-5) were perceived as the least available resources. Difficulties reconciling differences in guideline methodology (median=6; IQR=4-7) and the time required to establish collaborative agreements (median=6; IQR=5-6) were the most relevant barriers to collaboration between organizations. Results also indicated a general need for improvement in conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policies. CONCLUSION: The survey identified organizational challenges in supporting rigorous guideline development, including the time, resources, and personnel required. Connecting guideline developers to existing databases of high-quality systematic reviews and the use of freely available online platforms may facilitate guideline development. Guideline-producing organizations may also consider allocating resources to hiring or training personnel with expertise in systematic review methodologies or utilizing resources more effectively by establishing collaborations with other organizations.

Core outcome sets in clinical laser research: how better evidence can be better for patients.

Core outcome sets, or the minimum sets of outcomes that would be used in all clinical studies of a given disease or condition, have the potential to revolutionize clinical research in laser and energy devices. Currently, laser studies, like other clinical investigations in medicine, measure whatever outcomes the individual investigators deem appropriate, making it difficult to compare safety and efficacy of various treatments through meta-analyses. The development of core outcome sets is rigorous, and involves systematic literature reviews, interviews with various stakeholders such as industry researchers, regulatory bodies, non-physician providers, patients and family members, as well as an international Delphi consensus process with input from both patients and physicians. Following the establishment of core outcome sets, core outcome measures are developed, with one measure being the preferred means for assessing each core outcome. Uptake of core outcome sets and measures can make it much easier to combine the results of different studies of the same condition across treatment modalities and geographic regions. Once researchers are all reporting, at a minimum, the same outcomes and using the same outcome measures, patients will truly be well-served, and we will then be working cooperatively, worldwide, to answer the same important questions. In doing so, we will move the science of laser medicine forward.

Localized eruptive porokeratosis in pediatric patients following treatment of acute leukemia.

Porokeratosis is a rare diagnosis in the pediatric population, and eruptive disease has been documented prior in patients with history of stem cell transplantation. Comparing various porokeratosis eruptions between patients can be difficult due to limitations in current classification and nomenclature. Here, we discuss a single-institution case series of three children who developed porokeratosis following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute leukemia, and we propose that this presentation be termed localized eruptive porokeratosis (LEP). We present the distinguishing features of this variant by discussing the shortcomings in current nomenclature and also examine the association between porokeratosis and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the pediatric population.

Improvements and advances in core outcome set methodology: proceedings of the CS-COUSIN & COMFA Joint Meeting.

A COS is a systematically developed list of outcomes recommended for reporting all studies within a particular disease area. The Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative (CS-COUSIN) and the Core Outcome Measures in Food Allergy (COMFA) Initiative Joint Meeting was held virtually on September 23 through 28, 2021. This meeting brought together core outcome set (COS) developers within the domains of dermatology and food allergy, respectively. The meeting assessed the state of COS methodology, provided a forward look, and facilitated the networking of members of individual COS groups. The meeting hosted several expert-led key addresses and focus sessions, in which work was critically discussed, new developments were shared, and groundwork was laid for future projects. The conference emphasized the importance of ongoing COS work to improve patient outcomes and limit research waste.

Treatment of Angiosarcoma of the Head and Neck: A Systematic Review.

Primary cutaneous angiosarcoma (cAS) of the head and neck is a rare sarcoma with a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. We conducted a systematic review of treatments used for head and neck cAS and determined the treatment modalities that offer the longest mean overall survival (OS). Forty publications totaling 1295 patients were included. Both surgical and nonsurgical modalities have shown potential efficacy in the treatment of cAS; however, limited data preclude definitive recommendations. Multidisciplinary management of cAS should be considered to tailor treatment on a case-by-case basis.

Treatment of traumatic hypertrophic scars and keloids: a systematic review of randomized control trials.

Exaggerated healing and remodeling after skin injury may cause hypertrophic and keloidal scars, which are associated with functional and quality of life impairment. There is limited guidance available regarding the relative effectiveness of therapies for hypertrophic scars and keloids. In this review, we aim to compare the effectiveness of treatments for hypertrophic scars and keloids. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Collaboration database were searched from inception to March 2019 for randomized control trials of treatments for hypertrophic and keloid scars that included 20 or more patients. Outcomes evaluated included the standardized mean reduction in scarring and adverse events. The type of scar and the demographic features were analyzed for their effect on clinical outcome. Based on 25 included clinical trials, intralesional injection (64.1% [95% CI 60.8-67.5%]) may be more effective than physical (29.9% [95% CI 28.9-30.9%]) or topical treatments (34% [95% CI 31.8-36.8%]). Combination of 5-fluorouracil and triamcinolone (9:1 dilution) appeared superior among intralesional treatments for keloids. Ablative laser and pulsed-dye laser were the most useful laser treatments. Regression modeling showed laser treatment response was linked to Fitzpatrick skin type (p = 0.002). Adverse events were uncommon for all treatments and mostly transient. Intralesional treatments for keloid and hypertrophic scars may be the most reliable treatment option to improve pathologic scars, while laser treatment may have specific benefits for Fitzpatrick skin types I-III over types IV-VI. Management of pathological scars is an area of critical need, where appropriate treatment can have a significant impact on quality of life.

Development of an international glossary for clinical guidelines collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are often created through collaboration among organizations. The use of inconsistent terminology may cause poor communication and delays. This study aimed to develop a glossary of terms related to collaboration in guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature review of collaborative guidelines was performed to develop an initial list of terms related to guideline collaboration. The list of terms was presented to the members of the Guideline International Network Guidelines Collaboration Working Group, who provided presumptive definitions for each term and proposed additional terms to be included. The revised list was subsequently reviewed by an international, multidisciplinary panel of expert stakeholders. Recommendations received during this pre-Delphi review were implemented to augment an initial draft glossary. The glossary was then critically evaluated and refined through two rounds of Delphi surveys and a virtual consensus meeting with all panel members as Delphi participants. RESULTS: Forty-nine experts participated in the pre-Delphi survey, and 44 participated in the two-round Delphi process. Consensus was reached for 37 terms and definitions. CONCLUSION: Uptake and utilization of this guideline collaboration glossary by key organizations and stakeholder groups may facilitate collaboration among guideline-producing organizations by improving communication, minimizing conflicts, and increasing guideline development efficiency.