[Melanocytoma, an intermediate entity between nevus and melanoma: implications of the WHO classification of melanocytic skin tumours]. / Melanocytoom, intermediair tussen naevus en melanoom.

The WHO classification of melanocytic skin tumours published in 2018 describes a new classification with nine different pathways based on molecular driver mutations, localization, clinical context and solar damage. The dichotomous concept of benign (nevus) versus malignant (melanoma) is replaced by a gradual concept starting with a benign nevus with progression into low to high grade intermediate melanocytic lesions, called melanocytoma, and ending at melanoma. The current European recommendation is (re-)excision with 2-5mm margin of low grade melanocytoma and with 5-10mm margin of high grade melanocytoma. Low grade melanocytoma needs no follow-up. For high grade melanocytoma a follow-up for at least 5 years every 6 months is recommended. Routine sentinel node procedure is not indicated. If diagnosis melanoma cannot be ruled out the lesions have to be treated as melanoma. Correct classification of a melanocytoma is a diagnostic challenge, but of high importance for therapeutic choices and prognosis.

[A man with discoloration of his lower legs]. / Een man met verkleuring van zijn onderbenen.

A 73-year-old man consulted his general practitioner with a non-itchy rash on his lower legs, which developed a few hours after golfing. We saw a blotchy, red, non-blanchable discoloration with some blisters. Microscopic examination showed dermal inflammatory infiltrate with minor vessel wall damage and extravasation of erythrocytes. Diagnosis: exercise-induced vasculitis.

[A woman with discoloration of her fingernail]. / Een vrouw met een verkleurde vingernagel.

A 34-year-old woman visited the general practitioner with a longitudinal brown pigment stripe on her fingernail (melanonychia striata). Histopathological research revealed melanin pigment increase based on lentigo (benign).

Narrowband ultraviolet B and medium-dose ultraviolet A1 are equally effective in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Phototherapy may be effective in atopic dermatitis (AD). Medium-dose (MD) ultraviolet (UV) A1 was introduced for the treatment of AD. Few immunohistochemical data are available pertaining to phototherapy in AD. Regulatory T cells may play a role in clearing AD. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the clinical and immunohistochemical effects of narrowband (NB) UVB and MD UVA1 treatment in patients with AD. METHODS: Thirteen adult patients with AD were included in this randomized investigator-blinded half-sided comparison study between NB UVB and MD UVA1. Disease activity was measured using the Leicester sign score. Skin biopsy specimens were taken before and after phototherapy. Regulatory T cells were stained with the forkhead box protein P3 (FoxP3). RESULTS: NB UVB and MD UVA1 both significantly decreased AD severity (P < .01) and the dermal cellular infiltrate. The percentage of FoxP3(+)CD3(+) T cells did not change after NB UVB or MD UVA1 treatment. LIMITATION: MD UVA1 therapy was given 3 times per week instead of the preferred regimen of 5 times per week. This was necessary to achieve good blinding of the study. CONCLUSIONS: NB UVB and MD UVA1 seem equally effective in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD. Neither MD UVA1 nor NB UVB had an effect on the percentage of FoxP3(+)CD3(+) T cells.

The prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients in the Netherlands: a prospective inception cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers frequently occur in hospitalised patients. The prevalence of pressure ulcers grade 2 or worse varies from 3% to 12% in hospitalised patients. Incidence figures are not frequently reported. While incidence and prevalence are both measures of disease frequency, they provide different perspectives on pressure ulcers. OBJECTIVES: To describe the incidence rate and prevalence of pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients. DESIGN: Prospective inception cohort study. SETTING: Two large hospitals, one general (530-beds) and one teaching (1042-beds), in The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: A non-selected, though not strictly random, sample of 1536 patients was eligible for inclusion in the study. One thousand four hundred and thirty one patients (93.2%) consented to participate. Eventually, 1229 patients (80%) had a complete follow-up. The sample consisted of patients admitted to the surgical, internal, neurological and geriatric wards for more than 5 days between January 1999 and June 2000. METHODS: Follow-up once a week until pressure ulcer occurrence, discharge or length of stay over 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Occurrence of a pressure ulcer grade 2 or worse during admission to hospital, according to the classification of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty four patients developed 172 pressure ulcers during follow-up. The overall weekly incidence rate was 0.06 per week (95% confidence interval 0.05-0.07 per week). Highest rates were observed for surgical patients and lowest for geriatric and neurologic patients (0.08 and 0.02, respectively). The week specific prevalence varied between 12.8% and 20.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalised for more than 5 days overall one may expect 6% per week to develop pressure ulcers. It would appear that any preventive measures can only be effective if taken timely. Accordingly, preventive measures should be considered early, because pressure ulcers were observed already within the first week of admission.

Predicting pressure ulcers: cases missed using a new clinical prediction rule.

AIM: The aim of this paper is to report a study describing patients with pressure ulcers that were incorrectly classified as 'not at risk' by the prediction rule and comparing them with patients who were correctly classified as 'not at risk'. BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to hospital are at risk of developing pressure ulcers. Although the majority of pressure ulcers can be predicted using a recently developed prediction rule, up to 30% of patients with pressure ulcers may still be misclassified. METHODS: Between January 1999 and June 2000 a prospective cohort study was conducted in two large hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients admitted to neurology, internal, surgical, and elder care wards for more than 5 days were included (n = 1229), and were examined weekly. Information on potential prognostic determinants for pressure ulcers mentioned in the literature was recorded. Outcome was defined as occurrence of a pressure ulcer grade 2 or worse during hospital admission. RESULTS: Patients who developed pressure ulcers experienced more problems with 'friction and shear' and underwent surgery more often and longer. Also, they were more often admitted because of malignant conditions. CONCLUSION: We found no specific characteristics that clearly distinguished patients with pressure ulcers that were incorrectly classified as 'not at risk' by the prediction rule from patients who were correctly classified as 'not at risk'. It appears difficult to improve further on the prediction of pressure ulcers using available clinical information.

Prospective cohort study of routine use of risk assessment scales for prediction of pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether risk assessment scales can be used to identify patients who are likely to get pressure ulcers. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two large hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 1229 patients admitted to the surgical, internal, neurological, or geriatric wards between January 1999 and June 2000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Occurrence of a pressure ulcer of grade 2 or worse while in hospital. RESULTS: 135 patients developed pressure ulcers during four weeks after admission. The weekly incidence of patients with pressure ulcers was 6.2% (95% confidence interval 5.2% to 7.2%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.56 (0.51 to 0.61) for the Norton scale, 0.55 (0.49 to 0.60) for the Braden scale, and 0.61 (0.56 to 0.66) for the Waterlow scale; the areas for the subpopulation, excluding patients who received preventive measures without developing pressure ulcers and excluding surgical patients, were 0.71 (0.65 to 0.77), 0.71 (0.64 to 0.78), and 0.68 (0.61 to 0.74), respectively. In this subpopulation, using the recommended cut-off points, the positive predictive value was 7.0% for the Norton, 7.8% for the Braden, and 5.3% for the Waterlow scale. CONCLUSION: Although risk assessment scales predict the occurrence of pressure ulcers to some extent, routine use of these scales leads to inefficient use of preventive measures. An accurate risk assessment scale based on prospectively gathered data should be developed.