Development and Validation of the Oxford Skin Cancer Treatment Scale, a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Health-Related Quality of Life and Treatment Satisfaction After Skin Cancer Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are necessary to assess the value of skin cancer treatment and to better compare therapeutic options. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate the Oxford Skin Cancer Treatment (OxSCanTr) scale, evaluating health-related quality of life and satisfaction after skin cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After qualitative patient interviews, international expert consultation, and item reduction, 2 separate patient samples were used to assess the factor structure of the scale. Exploratory factor analysis with categorical variables and a polychoric correlation matrix followed by promax oblique rotation was performed to establish a factor structure on Group A. Confirmatory factor analysis with a Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic evaluating the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR), and comparative fit index (CFI) was conducted on Group B. Reliability as internal consistency was assessed using McDonald omega. Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 480 subjects returned completed surveys (completion rate 96%). A 12-item scale was developed encompassing 4 domains: aesthetic satisfaction, treatment choice satisfaction, treatment experience, and future concerns regarding recurrence/spread. Confirmatory factor analysis showed excellent goodness-of-fit characteristics, with RMSEA = 0.048, SRMR = 0.051, and CFI = 0.962 using the 4-factor model. Reliability was very good (McDonald omega 0.81-0.82), as was convergent validity with the FACE-Q skin cancer module appraisal of scars subscale (r = 0.55). Discriminant validity with a single question regarding being conservative was similarly excellent (r = -0.02). CONCLUSION: The OxSCanTr scale is a parsimonious, feasible, and valid PROM for the holistic assessment of the experience of patients who have undergone skin cancer treatment.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline: Reconstruction after skin cancer resection.

A multi-disciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies was convened to develop guidelines for the management of reconstruction after skin cancer resection. The goal was to identify areas of common ground and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care. Given the heterogeneity of reconstructive techniques and clinical scenarios, investigation centered around common elements in the process. In some cases, a distinction was made between treatment options in the office-based setting as opposed to those in the facility setting. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology). Final recommendations are related to concepts concerning the timing of reconstruction, management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics, methods of pain control, and follow-up assessment. At times, there was insufficient evidence to make high-level recommendations. The literature analysis highlights the need for additional methodologically robust studies in this area, to help guide clinical practice.

Willingness to Pay for Surgical Treatments for Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) treatment accounts for approximately $5 billion in spending per year, yet no studies have evaluated the US general public's willingness to pay (WTP) for these procedures. OBJECTIVE: To determine the monetary value of surgical KC treatments, as perceived by society, as a measure of preference. PARTICIPANTS, METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed an internet-based age-, sex-, and race-stratified cross-sectional survey of 425 subjects representative of the US general population. Stated WTP and desirability of electrodesiccation and curettage (EDC), excision, and Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) for facial and extrafacial basal cell carcinoma (BCC) were assessed. A discrete choice experiment was performed using maximum likelihood estimation, and a secondary analysis was performed to determine the influence of framing MMS as the best treatment option. RESULTS: A total of 425 subjects finished their questionnaires, yielding a completion rate of 97%. Median (interquartile range) stated WTP for EDC, excision, and MMS were $1,000 (421-2,079), $1,503 (562-3,062), and $3,006 (1,250-5,084), respectively, when MMS was framed in a standard fashion. Stated WTP for MMS increased to $3,989 (2,015-5,801) when it was framed as the best option. For BCC on the back, WTP for MMS dropped by 12%. CONCLUSION: There is markedly higher societal WTP for MMS on both the face and trunk, regardless of whether MMS is framed as the best option. Gold-standard bias may affect WTP and desirability in medical decision-making under uncertainty, inflating the WTP of options framed as the best while decreasing the desirability of alternatives.

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline: Reconstruction after Skin Cancer Resection.

SUMMARY: A multi-disciplinary work group involving stakeholders from various backgrounds and societies was convened to develop guidelines for the management of reconstruction after skin cancer resection. The goal was to identify areas of common ground and provide evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care. Given the heterogeneity of reconstructive techniques and clinical scenarios, investigation centered around common elements in the process. In some cases, a distinction was made between treatment options in the office-based setting as opposed to those in the facility setting. A systematic literature review was performed, and an established appraisal process was used to rate the quality of relevant scientific research (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology). Final recommendations are related to concepts concerning the timing of reconstruction, management of anticoagulation, use of antibiotics, methods of pain control, and follow-up assessment. At times, there was insufficient evidence to make high-level recommendations. The literature analysis highlights the need for additional methodologically robust studies in this area, to help guide clinical practice.

Surgical Volume of Dermatologists Who Do Not Perform Mohs Micrographic Dermatologic Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Individual-Level Analysis Using Medicare Data.

BACKGROUND: Dermatologists overall perform a large number of procedures billed to Medicare, though the proportion of surgical procedures attributable to general dermatologists who do not perform Mohs micrographic dermatologic surgery (MDS) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the surgical volume of dermatologists who do not perform MDS and compare it to the surgical volume of MDS-performing dermatologists and all non-dermatologists. METHODS: A cross-sectional analytical study was performed using the Medicare public use file for 2014. Data were divided by physician specialty (dermatologists vs all non-dermatologists), and dermatologists were then dichotomized by MDS performance. RESULTS: Non-MDS dermatologists performed 42.19% of the benign excisions, 57.18% of the malignant excisions, and 46.00% of the intermediate repairs billed to Medicare in 2014. Micrographic dermatologic surgery-performing dermatologists were responsible for most of the complex repairs (67.56%), flaps (52.85%), and grafts (59.65%) billed to Medicare. CONCLUSION: Dermatologists who do not perform MDS represent the single largest group billing Medicare for benign excisions, malignant excisions, and intermediate repairs. They also bill for more complex repairs than all non-dermatologists combined. Micrographic dermatologic surgery-performing dermatologists performed most of the complex repairs, flaps, and grafts billed to Medicare.

Skin and Soft Tissue Surgery in the Office Versus Operating Room Setting: An Analysis Based on Individual-Level Medicare Data.

BACKGROUND: The relative volume of skin and soft tissue excision and reconstructive procedures performed in the outpatient office versus facility (ambulatory surgical center or hospital) differs by specialty, and has major implications for quality of care, outcomes, development of guidelines, resident education, health care economics, and patient perception. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative volume of surgical procedures performed in each setting (office vs ambulatory surgery center [ASC]/hospital) by dermatologists and nondermatologists. METHODS: A cross-sectional analytical study was performed using the Medicare public use file (PUF) for 2014, which includes every patient seen in an office, ASC, or hospital in the United States billed to Medicare part B. Data were divided by physician specialty and setting. RESULT: A total of 9,316,307 individual encounters were included in the Medicare PUF. Dermatologists account for 195,001 (2.1%) of the total. Dermatologists were more likely to perform surgical procedures in an office setting only (odds ratio 5.48 [95% confidence interval 5.05-5.95], p < .0001) than other specialists in aggregate. CONCLUSION: More than 90% of surgical procedures are performed in an office setting, and dermatologists are more than 5 times as likely as other specialists to operate in an office setting.