Curettage and electrodessication combined with photodynamic therapy in the treatment of large squamous cell carcinomas in unfit and frail patients.

A Caucasian female patient in her 90s was referred to the department of plastic and reconstructive surgery for surgical removal of a large invasive squamous cell carcinoma on the anterior chest wall. A skin biopsy prior to the referral indicated that the tumour was moderately differentiated. The patient suffered from severe congestive heart failure with a mechanical valve prosthesis and atrial fibrillation, and was therefore treated with anticoagulants. Hence, a surgical procedure would be hazardous. Therefore, other treatment options were considered. The principal aim was to reduce the amount of tumour tissue to an appropriate size suitable for later excision with primary wound closure. After interdisciplinary discussions, curettage and electrodessication combined with photodynamic therapy was judged the best alternative treatment in this case. At the 1.5 years follow-up after the intervention there was no indication for further surgery. The patient was at that stage content with the treatment and its outcome.

A comparative study between the two patch test systems Finn chambers and Finn chambers AQUA.

BACKGROUND: Finn Chambers AQUA (FCA) is a development of the Finn Chambers (FC) test system in which the test chambers are mounted on a moisture-resistant adhesive patch. FCA has pre-fixed filter papers. Because the use of FCA does not require any extra taping or use of separate filter papers, a change from FC to FCA chambers may be beneficial for both patients and patch test technicians. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether there are any differences regarding detection of contact allergy when simultaneous patch testing is performed with FC and FCA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Results from 434 dermatitis patients simultaneously tested with 10 allergens in both FC and FCA were evaluated. RESULTS: There were no significant differences regarding detection of positive reactions between the two test systems. There were significantly more doubtful reactions to methylisothiazolinone, fragrance mix I and hydroperoxides of linalool when testing with FCA. We only observed significantly more doubtful reactions in FC regarding nickel(II)sulfate. Irritant reactions to formaldehyde were also significantly more common when using FCA. CONCLUSION: The FC and FCA had good agreement in detection of positive reactions. However, the results including doubtful and irritant reactions justify further research regarding optimization of the dose.