How dermatologic surgeons decide to proceed with surgery for nonmelanoma skin cancer when site identification is initially uncertain: A nationwide, multicenter, prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies show how dermatologic surgeons manage problems with site identification. OBJECTIVE: To estimate frequency and characterize management of skin cancer treated by surgery when the anatomic location of the tumor is in question. METHODS: Nationwide, prospective, multisite cohort study. RESULTS: Among 17,076 cases at 22 centers, 98 (0.60%) were lesions in question for which site identification was initially uncertain, with these more often in patients who were male, older, and biopsied more than 30 days ago. Surgeons employed on average 5.0 (95% CI: 4.61-5.39) additional techniques to confirm the site location, with common approaches including: re-checking available documentation (90 lesions, 92%); performing an expanded physical examination (89 lesions, 91%); and asking the patient to point using a mirror (61 lesions, 62%). In 15%, photographs were requested from the biopsying provider, and also in 15%, frozen section biopsies were obtained. In 10%, the referring physician was contacted. Eventually, surgeons succeeded in definitively identifying 82% (80 of 98) of initially uncertain sites, with the remaining 18% (18 of 98) postponed. Most postponed surgeries were at non-facial sites. LIMITATIONS: Sites were academic centers. CONCLUSIONS: When the anatomic location of the tumor is uncertain, dermatologic surgeons use multiple methods to identify the site, and sometimes cases are postponed.

Why different types of patients seek cosmetic treatments.

The extent to which demographics drive patients to pursue minimally invasive cosmetic procedures is not well-understood. The aim of this project was to better understand how patient demographics impact motivations for cosmetic procedures, irrespective of the procedure desired. Patient-level information from the Cosmetic Motivation Database was evaluated using linear regression analyses to determine whether geographic region, age, gender, race, and education independently influence patients to pursue any cosmetic treatment or consultation. Patients in the Midwest reported fewer motivations related to cosmetic appearance, mental/emotional health, physical health, social life, and school/work success than those in the South. Patients younger than 45 years reported more mental/emotional health and cost/convenience motives compared to older patients. Men noted fewer motives related to cosmetic appearance, mental/emotional health, and cost/convenience but more related to school/work success. Non-White patients reported more cost/convenience motives. Participants with up to a high school diploma cited more mental/emotional health, physical health, social life, and school/work success motivations than those with post-bachelor's education. College graduates cited more school/work success motives than those with graduate-level education. In summary, patient's gender, education, age, location, and race affect why they seek cosmetic treatments. Future research may study younger and less educated patients to improve their access to treatment.

US FDA Advisory Panel Members' Assessment of Premarket Approval Process and Suggestions for Improvement.

Importance: The manufacturing and marketing of medical devices is regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the FDA premarket approval (PMA) process evaluates the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. The PMA process includes a detailed scientific, regulatory and quality system review and is critical to ensure that novel devices are safe, effective, and meet the needs of patients. Objective: To survey current voting members serving on panels of the FDA's Medical Devices Advisory Committee to better characterize panel decision-making and identify steps for improvement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative survey study included 36 questions that were mailed to FDA device panelists regarding their opinions on the influence of sources of information, pivotal trial design, quality of evidence, panel composition and internal deliberative process, time allocation, and impartiality of the FDA. The survey was mailed to the members of all 18 FDA device panels in January and February 2017. Data were collected from January to May 2017 and analyzed from 2018 to 2019. Exposures: Respondents read and returned the aforementioned paper survey, while nonrespondents did not. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes included panel members' perceptions, and their implications for process improvement. χ2 or Fisher exact tests were used to test differences between subgroups. Results: Of 64 of 92 panel members who responded (69.6%), 38 of 64 (59.4%) were male, 3 of 63 (4.8%) were Black respondents, 46 of 63 (73.0%) were White respondents, and 36 of 60 (60.0%) were in academic practice. The mean (range) panel service was 6.8 (1-22) years with 3.9 (1-19) meetings attended. Overall, respondents considered information presented by the FDA unbiased, and 28 of 61 (45.9%) believed that pivotal trials were frequently well-designed, 55 of 62 respondents (88.7%) suggested FDA consult panel members preemptively regarding trial design and 54 of 64 (84.4%) regarding the device label. Most indicated that prior FDA approval of another device serving the same medical purpose (43 of 62 [69.4%]) or approval in other countries with comparable regulatory regimes, such as Canada and Europe (39 of 62 [62.9%]), would make them more likely to recommend approval. Respondents rated written information (50 of 60 [83.3%]), live presentations (43 of 58 [74.1%]), and prior professional knowledge (41 of 60 [68.3%]) as the most important sources of information in deciding whether to recommend approval. Additionally, 52 of 58 respondents (89.7%) recommended that a panel member-only executive session would allow more clarity and honesty in deliberations, and 33 of 59 (55.9%) believed a three-fourths majority appropriate for recommending approval, which would be a deviation from the current system in which an overall vote is reported without designation of a vote threshold. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of FDA device panel members, respondents wanted improved study designs, more relevant clinical data, including from other countries, involvement of panelists in study design and device label development, and inclusion of an executive session. Demographically, panels could be made more diverse.

Voting behavior during FDA Medical Device Advisory Committee panel meetings.

OBJECTIVES: During premarket review, the US Food and Drug Administration may ask its Medical Device Advisory Committee (MDAC) Panels to assess the safety and effectiveness of medical devices being considered for approval. The objective of this study is to assess the relationship, if any, between individual votes and Panel recommendations and: (1) the composition of Panels, specifically the expertise and demographic features of individual members; or (2) Panel members' propensity to speak during Panel deliberations. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of routinely collected data from voting members of MDAC panels convened between January 2011 to June 2016 to consider premarket approval. Data sources were verbatim transcripts available publicly from the FDA. Number of words spoken, directionality of votes on device approval, profession, and demographics were collected. RESULTS: 658,954 words spoken by 536 members during 49 meetings of 11 Panels were analyzed. Based on multivariate analysis, biostatisticians spoke more (+373 words; P = 0.0002), and women (-187 words; P = 0.0184) and other non-physician voting members less (-213 words; P = 0.0306), than physicians. Speaking more was associated with abstaining (P = 0.0179), and with voting against the majority (P = 0.0153). Non-physician, non-biostatistician members (P = 0.0109), and those having attended more meetings as a voting member (P = 0.0249) were more likely to vote against approval. In bivariable analysis, unanimous Panels had a greater proportion of biostatisticians (mean 0.1580; 95% CI 0.1237-0.1923) than non-unanimous Panels (0.1107; 95% CI 0.0912-0.1301; p = 0.0201). CONCLUSIONS: Panelists likely to vote against the majority include non-physician, non-biostatisticians; experienced Panelists; and more talkative members. The increased presence of biostatisticians on Panels leads to greater voting consensus. Having a diversity of opinions on Panels, including in sufficient numbers those members likely to dissent from majority views, may help ensure that a diversity of opinions are aired before decision-making.

Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer in Patients Older Than Age 85 Years Presenting for Mohs Surgery: A Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study.

Importance: It has been suggested that Mohs surgery for skin cancer among individuals with limited life expectancy may be associated with needless risk and discomfort, along with increased health care costs. Objective: To investigate patient- and tumor-specific indications considered by clinicians for treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer in older individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, prospective cohort study was conducted using data from US private practice and academic centers. Included patients were those older than age 85 years presenting for skin cancer surgery and referred for Mohs surgery, with reference groups of those younger than age 85 years receiving Mohs surgery and those older than age 85 years not receiving Mohs surgery. Data were analyzed from November 2018 through January 2019. Exposures: Mohs surgery for nonmelanoma skin cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reason for treatment selection. Results: Among 1181 patients older than age 85 years referred for Mohs surgery (724 [61.9%] men among 1169 patients with sex data; 681 individuals aged >85 to 88 years [57.9%] among 1176 patients with age data) treated at 22 sites, 1078 patients (91.3%) were treated by Mohs surgery, and 103 patients (8.7%) received alternate treatment. Patients receiving Mohs surgery were more likely to have tumors on the face (738 patients [68.5%] vs 26 patients [25.2%]; P < .001) and nearly 4-fold more likely to have high functional status (614 patients [57.0%] vs 16 patients [15.5%]; P < .001). Of 15 distinct reasons provided by surgeons for opting to proceed with Mohs surgery, the most common were patient desire for treatment with a high cure rate (712 patients [66.0%]), good or excellent patient functional status for age (614 patients [57.0%]), and high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (433 patients [40.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that older patients who received Mohs surgery often had high functional status, high-risk tumors, and tumors located on the face. These findings suggest that timely surgical treatment may be appropriate in older patients given that their tumors may be aggressive, painful, disfiguring, and anxiety provoking.

Daily Quality-of-life Impact of Scars: An Interview-based Foundational Study of Patient-reported Themes.

BACKGROUND: Scars negatively impact mental health. Prior patient interview studies on cutaneous scars have elicited opinions pertaining to psychosocial effects, appearance, and symptoms. There remains a need for patient-reported opinions in broader contexts, including career and sexual well-being, to better understand patients' experiences with their cutaneous scars. METHODS: In this qualitative study, patients with cutaneous scars participated in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparative approach using the data software QDAMiner, to generate a thematic framework encompassing patients' experience with cutaneous scars. RESULTS: In total, 37 patients aged 25-79 years (mean 45, SD 17.9) were interviewed. Patients presented with keloid (2/37, 5%), hypertrophic (5/37, 14%), atrophic (4/37, 11%), and linear surgical (18/37, 49%) scars. Opinions fell under 8 overarching themes. Patients spoke commonly about psychological and social well-being (references to the frequency of thinking about a scar and talking about scars with others were mentioned 56 times by 26 patients and 103 times by 29 patients, respectively, for example). Discussions of sexual well-being and career were elicited but rarer (references to feeling uncomfortable when naked and negative impacts on professional networking were mentioned 17 times by 7 patients and 5 times by 3 patients, respectively, for example). CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between determinants of patients' opinions of their scars and their impact on quality-of-life is complex. These results expand upon the existing knowledge of the effects scars have on quality-of-life and can contribute to the development and validation of future scar outcome measures.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: A Review of Current Evidence.

Immuno-oncology is a rapidly evolving field with growing relevance in the treatment of numerous malignancies. The prior study of immunotherapy in dermatologic oncology has largely focused on cutaneous melanoma. However, recent focus has shifted to the use of immunotherapy to treat non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs), such as basal cell carcinoma (BCC), cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), and Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). NMSCs represent the most ubiquitous cancers globally and, while they have a lower propensity to develop into advanced disease than cutaneous melanoma, their absolute mortality burden has recently surpassed that of melanoma. Patients with advanced NMSC are now benefiting from the successes of immunotherapy, including checkpoint inhibition with anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies. In this review, we discuss the existing clinical evidence for immunotherapy in the treatment of NMSCs, with an emphasis on checkpoint inhibitor therapies. We highlight key studies in the field and provide up-to-date clinical evidence regarding ongoing clinical trials, as well as future study directions. Our review demonstrates that checkpoint inhibitors are positioned to provide unparalleled results in the previously challenging landscape of advanced NMSC treatment.

A systematic review of the safety and effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for skin aging.

Injection of platelet concentrates for the treatment of aging skin has gained popularity. The objective was to systematically assess the evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for reducing the visible signs of aging. Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and Scopus were searched from inception to March 2019 for prospective trials and case series assessing PRP for skin aging in 10 or more patients. Twenty-four studies, including 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), representing 480 total patients receiving PRP, were included. Based on physician global assessment, injection PRP monotherapy was shown to at least temporarily induce modest improvement in facial skin appearance, texture, and lines. Periorbital fine lines and pigmentation may also benefit. Adjuvant PRP accelerated healing after fractional laser resurfacing. Although the degree of improvement was typically less than 50%, patients generally reported high satisfaction. It was limited by heterogeneity in PRP preparation and administration, and lack of standardization in outcome measures. PRP injections are safe and may be modestly beneficial for aging skin. The evidence is most convincing for improvement of facial skin texture. The persistence of these effects is not known. More high-quality trials with sufficient follow-up are needed to optimize treatment regimens.