Validation of the 2022 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Risk Stratification for Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Importance: The 2022 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) reclassified cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) into low-, high-, and very high-risk groups to better risk stratify tumors. Mohs micrographic surgery (Mohs) or peripheral and deep en face margin assessment (PDEMA) became preferred surgical modalities for high- and very high-risk tumors. This new risk stratification and the recommendation for Mohs or PDEMA in high- and very high-risk groups have not been validated. Objective: To compare outcomes in very high-, high-, and low-risk NCCN groups of CSCCs and in CSCCs treated with Mohs or PDEMA compared with wide local excision (WLE). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study of CSCCs was performed in 2 tertiary care academic medical centers. Patients 18 years or older and diagnosed between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2019, at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Cleveland Clinic Foundation were included. Data were analyzed from October 20, 2021, to March 29, 2023. Exposures: NCCN risk group, Mohs or PDEMA, and WLE. Main Outcomes and Measures: Local recurrence (LR), nodal metastasis (NM), distant metastasis (DM), and disease-specific death (DSD). Results: A total of 10 196 tumors from 8727 patients were stratified by NCCN guidelines into low-, high-, and very high-risk groups (6003 [59.0%] men; mean [SD] age, 72.4 [11.8] years). Compared with the low-risk group, the high- and very high-risk groups demonstrated a greater risk of LR (high-risk subhazard ratio [SHR], 1.99 [95% CI, 1.21-3.27; P = .007]; very high-risk SHR, 12.66 [95% CI, 7.86-20.39; P < .001]), NM (high-risk SHR, 4.26 [95% CI, 1.28-14.23; P = .02]; very high-risk SHR, 62.98 [95% CI, 19.24-206.17; P < .001]), DM (high-risk SHR, 2.2 × 107 [95% CI, 4.7 × 103-1.1 × 1011; P < .001]; very high-risk SHR, 6.3 × 108 [95% CI, 1.4 × 105-2.9 × 1012; P < .001]), and DSD (high-risk SHR, 4.02 [95% CI, 1.18-13.71; P = .03]; very high-risk SHR, 93.87 [95% CI, 29.19-301.85; P < .001]). Adjusted 5-year cumulative incidence was significantly higher in very high- vs high- and low-risk groups for LR (9.4% [95% CI, 9.2%-14.0%] vs 1.5% [95% CI, 1.4%-2.1%] and 0.8% [95% CI, 0.5%-1.2%], respectively), NM (7.3% [95% CI, 6.8%-10.9%] vs 0.5% [95% CI, 0.4%-0.8%] and 0.1% [95% CI, 0.03%-0.3%], respectively), DM (3.9% [95% CI, 2.6%-5.6%] vs 0.1% [95% CI, 0.04%-0.2%] and 0.01% [95% CI, not applicable], respectively), and DSD (10.5% [95% CI, 10.3%-15.4%] vs 0.5% [95% CI, 0.4%-0.8%] and 0.1% [95% CI, 0.04%-0.3%], respectively). Compared with CSCCs treated with WLE, those treated with Mohs or PDEMA had lower risk of LR (SHR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.90]; P = .009), DM (SHR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.18-0.83]; P = .02), and DSD (SHR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.36-0.84]; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that the NCCN high- and very high-risk groups identify CSCCs at greatest risk for developing poor outcomes. Further, Mohs or PDEMA resulted in lower LR, DM, and DSD compared with WLE.

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures for advanced skin cancer patients.

Many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been used to study quality of life (QOL) in the skin cancer population. Advanced melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) may be associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and treatment side effects; however, it is unclear which PROM is valid and appropriate to use in these populations for both clinical and research purposes. We aimed to identify the PROMs that have been used to measure QOL in advanced skin cancer patients and determine which of these PROMs have been validated to assess QOL outcomes in this population. A PubMed and EMBASE search was conducted from its inception to March 2021 according to PRISMA guidelines with a comprehensive list of search terms under three main topics: (1) PROM; (2) advanced skin cancer; and (3) staging and interventions. We included articles utilizing a PROM measuring QOL and having a patient population with advanced skin cancer defined as melanoma stage > T1a or non-melanoma AJCC stage T3 or greater. Advanced skin cancer patients were also defined as those with metastasis or requiring adjuvant therapy (systemic chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy). Studies were excluded according to the following criteria: mix of low-risk and advanced skin cancer patients in the study population without stratification into low-risk and advanced groups, stage T1a melanoma or mix of stages without stratification, low-risk NMSC, no PROM (i.e., study specific questionnaires), non-English publication, review article or protocol paper, conference abstract, or populations including non-skin cancers. A total of 1,998 articles were identified. 82 met our inclusion criteria resulting in 22 PROMs: five generic health-related (QWB-SA, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D, SF-36, and PRISM), six general cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-C36, LASA, IOC, Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, and FACT-G), nine disease-focused or specialized (EORTC QLQ-H&N35, EORTC QLQ-MEL38, EORTC QLQ-BR23, Facial Disability Index, FACT-H&N, FACT-BRM, FACT-B, FACT-M, and scqolit), and two general dermatology (Skindex-16 and DLQI) PROMs. All PROMs have been generally validated except for EORTC QLQ-MEL38. Only two PROMs have been validated in the advanced melanoma population: FACT-M and EORTC QLQ-C36. No PROMS have been validated in the advanced NMSC population. The PROMs that were validated in the advanced melanoma population do not include QOL issues unique to advanced skin tumors such as odor, bleeding, itching, wound care burden, and public embarrassment. Breast cancer and head and neck cancer instruments were adapted but not validated for use in the advanced skin cancer population due to the lack of an adequate instrument for this population. This study highlights the need for PROM instrument validation or creation specifically geared toward the advanced skin cancer population. Future studies should aim to develop and validate a PROM to assess QOL in this population.

Immune status does not independently influence cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma metastasis and death when stratified by tumor stage: A dual-center retrospective cohort analysis of primary N0 disease.

BACKGROUND: Although immunocompromised patients have a higher risk of developing cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas, it is unknown whether immune status is an independent risk factor for poor outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma outcomes in immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients when controlling for T-stage. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study at 2 tertiary care centers, examining 989 primary tumors from 814 immunocompromised patients (solid organ transplant: 259 [31.7%], chronic lymphocytic leukemia: 113 [13.9%]) and 6608 tumors from 4198 immunocompetent patients. Our primary outcome was the composite of disease-specific death or tumor metastasis ("poor outcomes"). RESULTS: Immunocompromised patients had 50% more high T-stage tumors (ie, Brigham and Women's Hospital stage T2b and T3), than immunocompetent patients (3.3% vs 4.9%, respectively; P < .001). Significant predictors of poor outcomes included tumor stage (sub hazards ratio [SHR], 14.8 for high T-stage tumors; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0-27.6; P < .001) and male sex (SHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.8; P = .002). Immune status was not a significant predictor (SHR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.69-1.6; P = .85). LIMITATIONS: This study is retrospective. CONCLUSION: Although immunocompromised patients had 50% more high T-stage tumors than immunocompetent patients, immunocompromised patients had a similar chance of metastasis and disease-specific death when adjusting for T-stage in our cohort of primary tumors.

Isotretinoin and Timing of Procedural Interventions: A Systematic Review With Consensus Recommendations.

Importance: The notion that systemic isotretinoin taken within 6 to 12 months of cutaneous surgery contributes to abnormal scarring or delayed wound healing is widely taught and practiced; however, it is based on 3 small case series from the mid-1980s. Objective: To evaluate the body of literature to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the safety of procedural interventions performed either concurrently with, or immediately following the cessation of systemic isotretinoin therapy. Evidence Review: A panel of national experts in pediatric dermatology, procedural/cosmetic dermatology, plastic surgery, scars, wound healing, acne, and isotretinoin was convened. A systematic PubMed review of English-language articles published from 1982 to 2017 was performed using the following search terms: isotretinoin, 13-cis-retinoic acid, Accutane, retinoids, acitretin, surgery, surgical, laser, ablative laser, nonablative laser, laser hair removal, chemical peel, dermabrasion, wound healing, safety, scarring, hypertrophic scar, and keloid. Evidence was graded, and expert consensus was obtained. Findings: Thirty-two relevant publications reported 1485 procedures. There was insufficient evidence to support delaying manual dermabrasion, superficial chemical peels, cutaneous surgery, laser hair removal, and fractional ablative and nonablative laser procedures for patients currently receiving or having recently completed isotretinoin therapy. Based on the available literature, mechanical dermabrasion and fully ablative laser are not recommended in the setting of systemic isotretinoin treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: Physicians and patients may have an evidence-based discussion regarding the known risk of cutaneous surgical procedures in the setting of systemic isotretinoin therapy. For some patients and some conditions, an informed decision may lead to earlier and potentially more effective interventions.