Performing research and publishing in the peer-reviewed medical literature should be a requirement for completion of post-graduate residency and fellowship training.

Graduate medical education (GME) in the USA is an increasingly organized and formalized process overseen by regulatory bodies, notably the American Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and associated specialty-specific Residency Review Committees (RRCs) to ensure that trainees, including residents and fellows, receive comprehensive, high-quality didactic education, clinical training, and research experience. Among the required elements of GME, performance of independent research is emphasized less than clinical and didactic education. In general, there are no ACGME requirements that trainees successfully publish papers in the peer reviewed. Indeed, unlike as is the case with procedure case logs, there are no minimum thresholds for specific numbers of abstracts presented, posters accepted, or manuscripts published. As such, while residencies and fellowships in certain disciplines or institutions may require considerable, documented research activity, others may not. Since future attending physicians are expected to be experts in their fields, able to digest relevant medical knowledge, critically evaluate emerging findings in the literature, and lead multi-professional healthcare teams, they must have a level of facility with the medical literature than can only be acquired by having performed research and having published papers themselves. Publishing one paper during training is easily attainable for all trainees. Having this be an ACGME requirement will necessitate protected time, research methods education, and mentorship for trainees. This can be accomplished without disrupting the other elements of resident and fellow training. From an ACGME perspective, required scholarly activity will support the competencies of practice-based learning and improvement as well as professionalism. In lay terms, benefits will be a higher level of education and attainment for trainees, and a potentially higher standard of health care for our patients.

Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer in Patients Older Than Age 85 Years Presenting for Mohs Surgery: A Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study.

Importance: It has been suggested that Mohs surgery for skin cancer among individuals with limited life expectancy may be associated with needless risk and discomfort, along with increased health care costs. Objective: To investigate patient- and tumor-specific indications considered by clinicians for treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer in older individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, prospective cohort study was conducted using data from US private practice and academic centers. Included patients were those older than age 85 years presenting for skin cancer surgery and referred for Mohs surgery, with reference groups of those younger than age 85 years receiving Mohs surgery and those older than age 85 years not receiving Mohs surgery. Data were analyzed from November 2018 through January 2019. Exposures: Mohs surgery for nonmelanoma skin cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reason for treatment selection. Results: Among 1181 patients older than age 85 years referred for Mohs surgery (724 [61.9%] men among 1169 patients with sex data; 681 individuals aged >85 to 88 years [57.9%] among 1176 patients with age data) treated at 22 sites, 1078 patients (91.3%) were treated by Mohs surgery, and 103 patients (8.7%) received alternate treatment. Patients receiving Mohs surgery were more likely to have tumors on the face (738 patients [68.5%] vs 26 patients [25.2%]; P < .001) and nearly 4-fold more likely to have high functional status (614 patients [57.0%] vs 16 patients [15.5%]; P < .001). Of 15 distinct reasons provided by surgeons for opting to proceed with Mohs surgery, the most common were patient desire for treatment with a high cure rate (712 patients [66.0%]), good or excellent patient functional status for age (614 patients [57.0%]), and high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (433 patients [40.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that older patients who received Mohs surgery often had high functional status, high-risk tumors, and tumors located on the face. These findings suggest that timely surgical treatment may be appropriate in older patients given that their tumors may be aggressive, painful, disfiguring, and anxiety provoking.

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Microcystic Adnexal Carcinoma: Informed by a Systematic Review.

IMPORTANCE: Microcystic adnexal carcinoma (MAC) occurs primarily in older adults of white race/ethnicity on sun-exposed skin of the head and neck. There are no formal guiding principles based on expert review of the evidence to assist clinicians in providing the highest-quality care for patients. OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for the care of adults with MAC. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A systematic review of the literature (1990 to June 2018) was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The keywords searched were microcystic adnexal carcinoma, sclerosing sweat gland carcinoma, sclerosing sweat duct carcinoma, syringomatous carcinoma, malignant syringoma, sweat gland carcinoma with syringomatous features, locally aggressive adnexal carcinoma, and combined adnexal tumor. A multidisciplinary expert committee critically evaluated the literature to create recommendations for clinical practice. Statistical analysis was used to estimate optimal surgical margins. FINDINGS: In total, 55 studies met our inclusion criteria. The mean age of 1968 patients across the studies was 61.8 years; 54.1% were women. Recommendations were generated for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of MAC. There are 5 key findings of the expert committee based on the available evidence: (1) A suspect skin lesion requires a deep biopsy that includes subcutis. (2) MAC confined to the skin is best treated by surgery that examines the surrounding and deep edges of the tissue removed (Mohs micrographic surgery or complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment). (3) Radiotherapy can be considered as an adjuvant for MAC at high risk for recurrence, surgically unresectable tumors, or patients who cannot have surgery for medical reasons. (4) Patients should be seen by a physician familiar with MAC every 6 to 12 months for the first 5 years after treatment. Patient education on photoprotection, periodic skin self-examination, postoperative healing, and the possible normal changes in local sensation (eg, initial hyperalgesia) should be considered. (5) There is limited evidence to guide the treatment of metastasis in MAC due to its rarity. Limitations of our findings are that the medical literature on MAC comprises only retrospective reviews and descriptions of individual patients and there are no controlled studies to guide management. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The presented clinical practice guidelines provide an outline for the diagnosis and management of MAC. Future efforts using multi-institutional registries may improve our understanding of the natural history of the disease in patients with lymph node or nerve involvement, the role of radiotherapy, and the treatment of metastatic MAC with drug therapy.