Sexual Orientation and Lifetime Prevalence of Skin Cancer Across Racial and Ethnic Groups.

Importance: Sexual minority (SM) persons have been found to have differential rates of skin cancer, but limited data exist on differences across racial and ethnic groups and by individual sexual identities. Objective: To examine differences by sexual orientation in the lifetime prevalence of skin cancer among US adult females and males across racial and ethnic groups and by individual sexual identity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021, for US adults from the general population. Data were analyzed from December 1, 2023, to March 1, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported lifetime prevalence of skin cancer by sexual orientation. Age-adjusted prevalence and adjusted prevalence odds ratios (AORs) compared heterosexual and SM adults in analyses stratified by individual race. Results: Of 1 512 400 participants studied, 805 161 (53.2%) were heterosexual females; 38 933 (2.6%), SM females; 638 651 (42.2%), heterosexual males; and 29 655 (2.0%), SM males. A total of 6.6% of participants were Hispanic; 3.4%, non-Hispanic Asian, Pacific Islander, or Hawaiian; 7.5%, non-Hispanic Black; 78.2%, non-Hispanic White; and 4.3%, other race and ethnicity. Mean (SE) age was 48.5 (0.03) years (incomplete data for age of respondents ≥80 years). The lifetime prevalence of skin cancer was overall higher among SM males compared with heterosexual males (7.4% vs 6.8%; AOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.33), including specifically among Hispanic males (4.0% vs 1.6%; AOR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.96-7.41) and non-Hispanic Black males (1.0% vs 0.5%; AOR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.13-4.19) in analyses stratified by race and ethnicity. Lifetime prevalence rates were lower among SM females compared with heterosexual females among non-Hispanic White females (7.8% vs 8.5%; AOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97) and were higher among Hispanic (2.1% vs 1.8%; AOR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.28-4.70) and non-Hispanic Black (1.8% vs 0.5%; AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.01-5.54) females in analyses stratified by race and ethnicity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US adults, differences in the lifetime prevalence of skin cancer among SM adults compared with heterosexual adults differed across racial and ethnic groups and by individual sexual identity among both females and males. Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black and SM females and males had higher rates of skin cancer compared with their heterosexual counterparts. Further research addressing the individual factors contributing to these differences is needed to inform screening guidelines and public health interventions focused on these diverse, heterogeneous populations.

Discrepancies in hidradenitis suppurativa lesion characterization by providers and patients.

BACKGROUND: The hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) clinical response (HiSCR) has come under scrutiny as several HS clinical trials failed to meet primary endpoints with high placebo responses. This may be due to limitations of the tool and raters' ability to accurately characterize and count lesions, rather than lack of efficacy of the studied drug. Due to HS lesion complexity and potential differences in rater training, it was hypothesized that there would be discrepancies in how providers characterize and count lesions for HS clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how HS providers and patients name and count HS lesions and to identify discrepancies among providers to initiate the development of consensus-driven guidance for HS rater training. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to the members of HIdradenitis SuppuraTiva cORe outcomes set International Collaboration (HISTORIC). Respondents were asked to classify lesion images composed of multiple and different morphology types and answer questions regarding inclusion of associated dermatological conditions. RESULTS: Forty-seven HISTORIC members responded (29 providers; 18 patients). There was variability in how respondents classified HS lesions. Of 12 questions containing images, four had ≥50% of respondents choosing the same answer. With an image of a lesion composed of different morphologies, 45% of providers counted it as a single lesion and 45% counted it as multiple distinct lesions. With an image of multiple interconnected draining tunnels, 7% of providers classified it as a single draining tunnel while 79% categorized it as multiple draining tunnels with the number estimated by visual inspection. There was also variability in deciding whether lesions occurring in associated conditions should be considered separately or included in HS lesion counts. Patient responses were also variable. CONCLUSIONS: The result of the current study reaffirms the gap in how providers characterize and count HS lesions for clinical trials and the need to develop consensus-driven rater training related to HS outcome measures.