Unusual clinical presentations of cutaneous squamous cell involving distal extremities in four patients: the importance of tissue sampling.

INTRODUCTION: cSCC is the second most common cutaneous malignancy worldwide behind basal cell carcinoma. Typically, SCC is diagnosed early before it infiltrates local subcutaneous tissue or metastasizes. However, unusual presentations are possible and can lead to delayed treatment and possibly worse outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients were White of non-Hispanic or Latino decent. Three-quarters of the cases were male, and a quarter female. The age range was 45 to 78 years. The documented sizes of lesions ranged from 6 cm to 10 cm in diameter. Three of the cases were initially diagnosed as nonhealing wounds, and one was diagnosed as cellulitis. RESULTS: The authors observed that SCC can present unusually by mimicking nonhealing infected ulcers or skin infections such as cellulitis. Over 18 months, the authors' practice recorded 4 cases of cSCC that were initially treated as persistent infections, which potentially lead to worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: These cases provide patterns and clues to potentially expedite the diagnosis and treatment of cSCC. Any skin lesion thought to be infectious but not responding to treatment should undergo tissue sampling.

Performance of ABCD-10 and SCORTEN mortality prediction models in a cohort of patients with Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis.

BACKGROUND: Age, bicarbonate, cancer, dialysis, 10% body surface area risk model (ABCD-10) has recently been proposed as an alternative to the SCORe of toxic epidermal necrolysis (SCORTEN) model for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN). In contrast to SCORTEN, ABCD-10 incorporates prior dialysis and upweights the impact of cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine the performance of ABCD-10 compared with that of SCORTEN in mortality prediction at a large, tertiary burn center. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 192 patients with SJS/TEN admitted to the North Carolina Jaycee Burn Center from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2019, was conducted. Data on these patients were collected using the burn registry and a manual chart review. The performance of both the mortality prediction models was assessed using univariate logistic regression and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. RESULTS: The overall mortality was 22% (n = 43). Nine (5%) patients had cancer, and 7 (4%) had undergone prior dialysis; neither factor was associated with mortality (P = .11 and P = .62, respectively). SCORTEN was well calibrated to predict inpatient mortality (P = .82), whereas ABCD-10 appeared to have a poorer fit (P < .001) in these patients. Both the models showed good discrimination. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size. CONCLUSION: SCORTEN was a better predictor of inpatient mortality than ABCD-10 in a North American cohort of patients treated at the tertiary burn center.

Use of teledermatology by dermatology hospitalists is effective in the diagnosis and management of inpatient disease.

BACKGROUND: Patient outcomes are improved when dermatologists provide inpatient consultations. Inpatient access to dermatologists is limited, illustrating an opportunity to use teledermatology. Little is known about the ability of dermatologists to accurately diagnose disease and manage inpatients with teledermatology, particularly when using nondermatologist-generated clinical data. METHODS: This prospective study assessed the ability of teledermatology to diagnose disease and manage 41 dermatology consultations from a large urban tertiary care center, using internal medicine referral documentation and photographs. Twenty-seven dermatology hospitalists were surveyed. Interrater agreement was assessed by the κ statistic. RESULTS: There was substantial agreement between in-person and teledermatology assessment of the diagnosis with differential diagnosis (median κ = 0.83), substantial agreement in laboratory evaluation decisions (median κ = 0.67), almost perfect agreement in imaging decisions (median κ = 1.0), and moderate agreement in biopsy decisions (median κ = 0.43). There was almost perfect agreement in treatment (median κ = 1.0), but no agreement in follow-up planning (median κ = 0.0). There was no association between raw photograph quality and the primary plus differential diagnosis or primary diagnosis alone. LIMITATIONS: Selection bias and single-center nature. CONCLUSIONS: Teledermatology may be effective in the inpatient setting, with concordant diagnosis, evaluation, and management decisions.

Cutaneous adverse reactions in B-RAF positive metastatic melanoma following sequential treatment with B-RAF/MEK inhibitors and immune checkpoint blockade or vice versa. A single-institutional case-series.

BACKGROUND: With the advent of immune-checkpoint inhibitors and targeted treatments (TT), there have been unprecedented response rates and survival in advanced melanoma, but the optimal sequencing of these two treatments modalities is unknown. Combining or sequencing these agents could potentially result in unique toxicities. Cutaneous adverse events (CAE) after sequential exposure to these agents represents one toxicity that needs further description. METHODS: After retrospectively reviewing charts of patients from 2015 to 2018, we identified six patients who experienced CAEs after recent exposure to sequential immunotherapy and TT or vice versa for the treatment for metastatic melanoma at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Skin biopsies were available in five patients. RESULTS: Five patients received TT after immunotherapy, and one patient received immunotherapy after TT. TT consisted of vemurafenib/cobimetinib (V/C) in five patients with four patients starting V/C immediately before manifesting with a CAE. In patients receiving V/C after immunotherapy, the median time from beginning V/C to development of CAE was 14.5 days. The clinical presentation of diffuse morbilliform rash, fevers, hypotension, and end-organ damage raised concern for Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS) syndrome. Histopathological features of lympho-eosinophilic infiltrate were supportive of a drug eruption. Immunotherapy or TT were re-initiated in five patients within 1-8 weeks after resolution of the index CAE. This resulted in two patients re-experiencing the CAE. Both of these patients were off prednisone at the time of therapy re-initiation, whereas none of the patients who were restarted on targeted therapy with a steroid overlap had a rash recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential treatment using immunotherapy and TT, especially the sequence of V/C after immunotherapy appears to be the most common trigger for CAE with a median time to onset of approximately 2 weeks. Although the clinical presentation of these CAEs can be dramatic, they respond well to prednisone therapy. This unique presentation suggests that it may be reasonably safe to re-challenge certain patients with a steroid overlap after rash resolution.

The psychological harms of screening: the evidence we have versus the evidence we need.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews for the US Preventive Services Task Force have found less high-quality evidence on psychological than physical harms of screening. To understand the extent of evidence on psychological harms, we developed an evidence map that quantifies the distribution of evidence on psychological harms for five adult screening services. We also note gaps in the literature and make recommendations for future research. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, PsycInfo, and CINAHL from 2002 to 2012 for studies of any research design that assessed the burden or frequency of psychological harm associated with screening for: prostate and lung cancers, osteoporosis, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and carotid artery stenosis (CAS). We also searched for studies that estimated rates of overdiagnosis (a marker for unnecessary labeling). We included studies published in English and used dual independent review to determine study inclusion and to abstract information on design, types of measures, and outcomes assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight studies assessing psychological harms met our criteria; 62 % concerned prostate cancer and 16 % concerned lung cancer. Evidence was scant for the other three screening services. Overall, only about one-third of the studies used both longitudinal designs and condition-specific measures (ranging from 0 % for AAA and CAS to 78 % for lung cancer), which can provide the best evidence on harms. An additional 20 studies that met our criteria estimated rates of overdiagnosis in lung or prostate cancer. No studies estimated overdiagnosis for the non-cancer screening services. DISCUSSION: Evidence on psychological harms varied markedly across screening services in number and potential usefulness. We found important evidence gaps for all five screening services. The evidence that we have on psychological harms is inadequate in number of studies and in research design and measures. Future research should focus more clearly on the evidence that we need for decision making about screening.