Concordant Surgical Treatment: Non-melanocytic Skin Cancer of the Head and Neck.

BACKGROUND: Skin cancer is the most common type of cancer. Of the 4 million skin lesions excised annually worldwide, approximately 2 million are considered cancerous. In this study, we aimed to describe a regional experience with skin cancers treated by a single senior surgeon and to provide a treatment algorithm. METHODS: The medical records of 176 patients with head and neck non-melanocytic skin cancer (NMSC) who were treated by a single surgeon at our institution between January 2010 and May 2016 were retrospectively reviewed, and their data (age, sex, pathological type, tumor location/size, treatment modality) were analyzed. Patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) who were classified as a high-risk group for nodal metastasis underwent sentinel node mapping according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. RESULTS: Among the patients with NMSC who were treated during this period, basal cell carcinoma (BCC; n=102, 57.9%) was the most common pathological type, followed by cSCC (n=66, 37.5%). Most lesions were treated by complete excision, with tumor-free surgical margins determined via frozen section pathology. Thirty-one patients with high-metastasis-risk cSCC underwent sentinel node mapping, and 17 (54.8%) exhibited radiologically positive sentinel nodes. Although these nodes were pathologically negative for metastasis, 2 patients (6.5%) later developed lymph node metastases. CONCLUSION: In our experience, BCC treatment should comprise wide excision with tumor-free surgical margins and proper reconstruction. In contrast, patients with cSCC should undergo lymphoscintigraphy, as nodal metastases are a possibility. Proper diagnosis and treatment could reduce the undesirably high morbidity and mortality rates.

Effects of inappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy on mortality in patients with healthcare-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: a propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purported value of empirical therapy to cover methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been debated for decades. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of inappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy on clinical outcomes in patients with healthcare-associated MRSA bacteremia (HA-MRSAB). METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted in 15 teaching hospitals in the Republic of Korea from February 2010 to July 2011. The study subjects included adult patients with HA-MRSAB. Covariate adjustment using the propensity score was performed to control for bias in treatment assignment. The predictors of in-hospital mortality were determined by multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 345 patients with HA-MRSAB were analyzed. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 33.0 %. Appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy was given to 154 (44.6 %) patients. The vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations of the MRSA isolates ranged from 0.5 to 2 mg/L by E-test. There was no significant difference in mortality between propensity-matched patient pairs receiving inappropriate or appropriate empirical antibiotics (odds ratio [OR] = 1.20; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.71-2.03). Among patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, there was no significant difference in mortality between the treatment groups. In multivariate analyses, severe sepsis or septic shock (OR = 5.45; 95 % CI = 2.14-13.87), Charlson's comorbidity index (per 1-point increment; OR = 1.52; 95 % CI = 1.27-1.83), and prior receipt of glycopeptides (OR = 3.24; 95 % CI = 1.08-9.67) were independent risk factors for mortality. CONCLUSION: Inappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy was not associated with clinical outcome in patients with HA-MRSAB. Prudent use of empirical glycopeptide therapy should be justified even in hospitals with high MRSA prevalence.

Multicenter prospective observational study of the comparative efficacy and safety of vancomycin versus teicoplanin in patients with health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of vancomycin to those of teicoplanin for the treatment of adult patients with health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (HA-MRSA) bacteremia. A multicenter observational study was prospectively conducted in 15 teaching hospitals in Korea between February 2010 and July 2011. Adult patients (≥18 years old) with HA-MRSA bacteremia who were initially treated with vancomycin (VAN) (n = 134) or teicoplanin (TEC) (n = 56) were enrolled. Clinical and microbiological responses and drug-related adverse events were compared between the two treatment groups using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. The vancomycin and teicoplanin MICs were determined by Etest. The MRSA-related mortality, duration of fever, and duration of MRSA bacteremia in the treatment groups were not significantly different. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of drug-related adverse events. Among the 190 MRSA isolates, the VAN MICs ranged from 0.5 to 2 µg/ml (MIC50 and MIC90, 1.5 µg/ml), and the TEC MIC ranged from 0.5 to 8 µg/ml (MIC50, 3 µg/ml; MIC90, 6 µg/ml). In multivariate analyses, the antibiotic type (vancomycin or teicoplanin) was not associated with treatment outcomes. This study indicates that teicoplanin is an effective and safe alternative to vancomycin for the treatment of HA-MRSA bacteremia.