Toward personalized skin cancer care: multiple skin cancer development in five cohorts.

Importance: Many patients will develop more than one skin cancer, however most research to date has examined only case status. Objective: Describe the frequency and timing of the treatment of multiple skin cancers in individual patients over time. Design: Longitudinal claims and electronic health record-based cohort study. Setting: Vanderbilt University Medical Center database called the Synthetic Derivative, VA, Medicare, Optum Clinformatics® Data Mart Database, IBM Marketscan. Participants: All patients with a Current Procedural Terminology code for the surgical management of a skin cancer in each of five cohorts. Exposures: None. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of CPT codes for skin cancer treatment in each individual occurring on the same day as an ICD code for skin cancer over time. Results: Our cohort included 5,508,374 patients and 13,102,123 total skin cancers treated. Conclusions and Relevance: Nearly half of patients treated for skin cancer were treated for more than one skin cancer. Patients who have not developed a second skin cancer by 2 years after the first are unlikely to develop multiple skin cancers within the following 5 years. Better data formatting will allow for improved granularity in identifying individuals at high risk for multiple skin cancers and those unlikely to benefit from continued annual surveillance. Resource planning should take into account not just the number of skin cancer cases, but the individual burden of disease.

Multicenter prospective blinded melanoma detection study with a handheld elastic scattering spectroscopy device.

Background: The elastic scattering spectroscopy (ESS) device (DermaSensor Inc., Miami, FL) is a noninvasive, painless, adjunctive tool for skin cancer detection. Objectives: To investigate the performance of the ESS device in the detection of melanoma. Methods: A prospective, investigator-blinded, multicenter study was conducted at 8 United States (US) and 2 Australian sites. All eligible skin lesions were clinically concerning for melanoma, examined with the ESS device, subsequently biopsied according to dermatologists' standard of care, and evaluated with histopathology. A total of 311 participants with 440 lesions were enrolled, including 44 melanomas (63.6% in situ and 36.4% invasive) and 44 severely dysplastic nevi. Results: The observed sensitivity of the ESS device for melanoma detection was 95.5% (95% CI, 84.5% to 98.8%, 42 of 44 melanomas), and the observed specificity was 32.5% (95% CI, 27.2% to 38.3%). The positive and negative predictive values were 16.0% and 98.1%, respectively. Limitations: The device was tested in a high-risk population with lesions selected for biopsy based on clinical and dermoscopic assessments of board-certified dermatologists. Most enrolled lesions were pigmented. Conclusion: The ESS device's high sensitivity and NPV for the detection of melanoma suggest the device may be a useful adjunctive, point-of-care tool for melanoma detection.

Prognostic gene expression profile testing to inform use of adjuvant therapy: A survey of melanoma experts.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate current practices and attitudes regarding use of adjuvant immunotherapy and prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) testing among melanoma medical and surgical oncologists. METHODS: An anonymous RedCap-based survey was emailed to ~300 melanoma experts. RESULTS: Respondents generally favored adjuvant immunotherapy over observation (73% for all Stage IIIA, 50% for Stage IIB/IIC) and cited a minimum 10-year recurrence risk of 11%-20% (48%) or 21%-30% (33%) to justify treatment, but acknowledged that risks of serious adverse events may outweigh potential benefits for some Stage IIB/IIC patients. While GEP test results did not strongly influence decision-making regarding follow-up or intervention, most were receptive to randomized trials using GEP testing to identify subsets of Stage IIB/IIC (74%) and Stage IB/IIA (54%) patients who may not or may, respectively, benefit from adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION: Although most respondents do not routinely use GEP testing, many would participate in clinical trials to determine clinical utility.

Incidence of In Situ and Invasive Cutaneous Melanomas During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US.

This cohort study provides detailed annual rates and percentage changes of melanoma incidence before vs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nodular lymphangitis related to methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus infection.

Nodular lymphangitis, also known as lymphocutaneous syndrome or sporotrichoid lymphangitis, presents with inflammatory nodules along the lymphatic vessels, typically involving the upper or lower extremities. Although the most common cause of nodular lymphangitis is infection due to Sporothrix schenckii, Nocardia brasiliensis, Mycobacterium marinum, or Leishmania braziliensis, it is important for clinicians to be aware of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus as a rare cause of nodular lymphangitis and perform gram stain, bacterial culture, and antibiotic sensitivity profiles when appropriate. History of recent travel or exposures, incubation time, presence of systemic symptoms, and presence of ulceration, suppuration, or drainage can serve as diagnostic clues, but microbiological tissue cultures and histopathologic studies confirm the diagnosis. Herein, we present a case of nodular lymphangitis caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA); tissue culture and antibiotic sensitivities were used to guide treatment.

Early Detection and Prognostic Assessment of Cutaneous Melanoma: Consensus on Optimal Practice and the Role of Gene Expression Profile Testing.

Importance: Therapy for advanced melanoma has transformed during the past decade, but early detection and prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma (CM) remain paramount goals. Best practices for screening and use of pigmented lesion evaluation tools and gene expression profile (GEP) testing in CM remain to be defined. Objective: To provide consensus recommendations on optimal screening practices and prebiopsy diagnostic, postbiopsy diagnostic, and prognostic assessment of CM. Evidence Review: Case scenarios were interrogated using a modified Delphi consensus method. Melanoma panelists (n = 60) were invited to vote on hypothetical scenarios via an emailed survey (n = 42), which was followed by a consensus conference (n = 51) that reviewed the literature and the rationale for survey answers. Panelists participated in a follow-up survey for final recommendations on the scenarios (n = 45). Findings: The panelists reached consensus (≥70% agreement) in supporting a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening in clinical settings and public screening events, screening personnel recommendations (self/partner, primary care provider, general dermatologist, and pigmented lesion expert), screening intervals, and acceptable appointment wait times. Participants also reached consensus that visual and dermoscopic examination are sufficient for evaluation and follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions deemed innocuous. The panelists reached consensus on interpreting reflectance confocal microscopy and some but not all results from epidermal tape stripping, but they did not reach consensus on use of certain pigmented lesion evaluation tools, such as electrical impedance spectroscopy. Regarding GEP scores, the panelists reached consensus that a low-risk prognostic GEP score should not outweigh concerning histologic features when selecting patients to undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy but did not reach consensus on imaging recommendations in the setting of a high-risk prognostic GEP score and low-risk histology and/or negative nodal status. Conclusions and Relevance: For this consensus statement, panelists reached consensus on aspects of a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening and follow-up as well as use of visual examination and dermoscopy. These findings support a practical approach to diagnosing and evaluating CM. Panelists did not reach consensus on a clearly defined role for GEP testing in clinical decision-making, citing the need for additional studies to establish the clinical use of existing GEP assays.

Expert Consensus Statement on Proficiency Standards for Dermoscopy Education in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) frequently address dermatologic concerns and perform skin examinations during clinical encounters. For PCPs who evaluate concerning skin lesions, dermoscopy (a noninvasive skin visualization technique) has been shown to increase the sensitivity for skin cancer diagnosis compared with unassisted clinical examinations. Because no formal consensus existed on the fundamental knowledge and skills that PCPs should have with respect to dermoscopy for skin cancer detection, the objective of this study was to develop an expert consensus statement on proficiency standards for PCPs learning or using dermoscopy. METHODS: A 2-phase modified Delphi method was used to develop 2 proficiency standards. In the study's first phase, a focus group of PCPs and dermatologists generated a list of dermoscopic diagnoses and associated features. In the second phase, a larger panel evaluated the proposed list and determined whether each diagnosis was reflective of a foundational or intermediate proficiency or neither. RESULTS: Of the 35 initial panelists, 5 PCPs were lost to follow-up or withdrew; 30 completed the fifth and last round. The final consensus-based list contained 39 dermoscopic diagnoses and associated features. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus statement will inform the development of PCP-targeted dermoscopy training initiatives designed to support early cancer detection.