Patterns and cost of care according to keratinocyte cancer risk stratification in a volunteer population screening clinic: Real-world data from the TRoPICS study.

BACKGROUND: Risk prediction tools have been developed for keratinocyte cancers (KCs) to effectively categorize individuals with different levels of skin cancer burden. Few have been clinically validated nor routinely used in clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether risk prediction tool categories associate with interventions including chemoprophylaxis for skin cancer, and health-care costs in a dermatologist-run screening clinic. METHODS: Adult participants who presented to a walk-in screening facility were invited to participate. A self-completed KC risk prediction tool was used to classify participants into one of the five risk categories. Participants subsequently underwent full skin examination by a dermatologist. Dermatological interventions and skin cancer-related medical prescriptions were documented. Total health-care costs, both to the health-care system and patients were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 507 participants recruited, 5-fluorouracil cream and nicotinamide were more frequently prescribed in the higher risk groups as chemoprophylaxis (p < 0.005). A significant association with high predicted risk was also observed in the use of cryotherapy and curettage and cautery (p < 0.05). The average health-care costs associated with a skin check visit increased from $90 ± 37 (standard deviation) in the lowest risk group to $149 ± 97 in the highest risk group (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a positive association between higher predicted risk of skin cancer and the prescription of chemoprophylaxis and health-care costs involved with opportunistic community skin cancer screening. A clinical use of risk stratification may be to provide an opportunity for clinicians to discuss skin cancer prevention and chemoprophylaxis with individual patients.

Method of Assessing Skin Cancerization and KeratosesTM (MASCK™): development and photographic validation in multiple anatomical sites of a novel assessment tool intended for clinical evaluation of patients with extensive skin field cancerization.

BACKGROUND: A range of 'field-directed' treatments is available for the management of extensive skin field cancerization (ESFC), but to date, the only validated objective quantitative tools are limited to assessment of actinic keratoses (AKs) affecting the head. AIMS: To develop a versatile quantitative instrument for objective clinical assessment of ESFC and perform initial internal validation across multiple anatomical zones. METHODS: The study comprised instrument development, pilot testing and instrument refinement and two rounds of reliability and inter-rater validation testing. The study was noninterventional and used a convenience sample of de-identified patient photographs selected based on preset criteria. An expert panel developed the instrument and scoring system via a modified Delphi voting process. A sample of 16 healthcare professionals from multiple specialties undertook the pilot testing, and a panel of seven dermatologists were involved in validation testing. Validation was determined by assessment of overall inter-rater agreement using Gwet chance-corrected agreement coefficients (ACs). RESULTS: The instrument produced, called the Method for Assessing Skin Cancer and Keratoses™ (MASCK™), comprises the Skin Field Cancerization Index (SFCIndex), derived from area of skin involvement and AKs (number and thickness), a global assessment score and a cancer-in-zone score, and uses Likert scales for quantitative scoring. The SFCIndex is a composite score comprising the number and thickness of AKs multiplied by area of skin involvement. ACs for the SFCIndex components, the overall SFCIndex score and the global assessment score were > 0.80 (rated 'almost perfect') while the AC for the cancer-in-zone metric was lower (0.33, rated 'fair'). Internal consistency was demonstrated via positive correlation between the overall SFCIndex score and the global assessment score. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found near-perfect agreement in inter-rater reliability when using MASCK to assess the severity of ESFC in multiple anatomical sites. Further validation of this novel instrument is planned to specifically assess its reliability, utility and feasibility in clinical practice.

Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) prevalence, demographics and management pathways in Australia: A population-based cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) is a painful, chronic inflammatory skin disease. Global estimates of prevalence vary between 0.03% and 4% of the population. Our main aim was to determine HS prevalence in the Australian adult population focussing on the demographics, management pathways and diagnosis rate of individuals living with HS. METHODS: In this population-based cross-sectional study, 17,050 individuals representative of the Australian adult population were asked through face-to-face household interviews to answer a previously validated HS screening questionnaire with high diagnostic power. Individuals who screened positive were asked additional questions, including previous diagnosis of HS and number/type of physicians consulted regarding their condition. RESULTS: 11,433 Australian residents answered the HS questionnaire, 88 screening positive for HS (0.77%; 95% CI 0.62-0.95). Considering the previously reported sensitivity (0.97) and positive predictive value (0.85) of the screening questionnaire, HS prevalence was estimated to be 0.67% (95% CI 0.53%-0.84%). 6 of 88 suspected HS individuals reported a pre-existing HS diagnosis (6.8%; 95% CI 3.2%-14.1%). 25.6% of the undiagnosed individuals suspected of having HS had not seen any clinicians regarding their boils; the remaining ones had consulted General Practitioners (96.7%), and clinicians from different specialties. Comparisons of individuals who screened positive for HS versus those who screened negative demonstrated statistically significant differences in gender (p = 0.0046), age (p<0.0001), BMI (p = 0.0307), smoking status (p<0.0001), employment status (p<0.0001) and income (p = 0.0321). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of HS in Australia was estimated to be 0.67% (95% CI 0.53%-0.84%). The diagnosis rate amongst the suspected HS cases was low, which appeared to be due to a combination of patients not seeking help and decentralization of care. Individuals suspected of having HS were more likely to be females, young, obese, smokers, unemployed or at home duties and having lower annual personal income in comparison with individuals not suspected of having HS.