Developing a questionnaire for assessing clinician- and patient-reported outcomes in actinic keratosis: Results from an expert panel.

Background: Current assessments on topical treatment attributes in actinic keratosis (AK) do not evaluate safety, effectiveness, and satisfaction from both clinician and patient perspectives, creating an unmet need for more comprehensive AK-specific measures that fully capture the patient experience. Objective: To develop an actinic keratosis-specific expert panel questionnaire (AK-EPQ) of patient-reported outcomes and clinician-reported outcomes for use in research studies. Methods: Using interviews of patients with AK and targeted literature reviews, a 9-person consensus panel of dermatologists with expertise in AK treatment was convened to develop the AK-EPQ to assess AK-specific patient-reported outcomes and clinician-reported outcomes. Results: Nine expert advisers achieved consensus on 11 AK-EPQ items that encompass patient and clinician perspectives of treatment-related local skin reactions, clinical and cosmetic outcomes associated with AK, and satisfaction with treatment; the AK-EPQ will be first implemented in the Patient-Reported Outcomes for Actinic Keratosis study (NCT05260073). Limitations: The AK-EPQ does not directly measure quality of life, although it can be used with validated quality of life instruments. Conclusion: The newly developed AK-EPQ elicits insights into the patient and clinician experience with AK treatments. Comparative probing of these perspectives may help optimize precision medicine in AK treatment.

Factors Influencing Patient Selection of Sunscreen.

Sunscreen is an essential component of sun protection. The most important characteristics for patient selection of sunscreens have not been evaluated. A cross-sectional survey study was performed at an academic dermatology office. The sunscreen characteristic chosen most frequently was SPF (75.2%). Fewer patients selected broad-spectrum (20.7%) and water-resistance (22.7%). There remains a gap in patient knowledge regarding AAD recommendations for sunscreen characteristics and educational initiatives may be required. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(6):e154-e155.     doi:10.36849/JDD.8324e  .

Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcomes for Tirbanibulin in Actinic Keratosis in Clinical Practice Across the United States (PROAK).

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes in Actinic Keratosis (PROAK) study evaluated patient- and clinician-reported outcomes (PRO; ClinRO) during 24 weeks of follow-up among adult patients with actinic keratosis (AK) on the face or scalp who were administered tirbanibulin 1% ointment in real-world community practices in the United States.  Methods: Quality of life (QoL) was assessed by Skindex-16 at week (W) 8. Additionally, effectiveness (Investigator Global Assessment [IGA]), PRO and ClinRO (Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication and Expert Panel Questionnaire), safety, and tolerability were assessed at W8 and W24. RESULTS: The safety population included 300 patients; the full analysis set included 290 patients (278 patients at W24). At W8, a statistically significant difference (P<0.03) was observed for Skindex-16 domains in all assessed subgroups. Clinicians and patients reported high global satisfaction (mean [SD] scores of 74.9 [23.9] and 72.0 [24.6], respectively) at W24. Overall skin appearance improved from baseline to W24 (83.6% clinicians; 78.5% patients). IGA success (IGA score of 0-1) was achieved by 71.9% of patients at W24 with a similar % at W8 (73.8%) suggesting a stable effectiveness over time. About 5% of patients reported at least one adverse event, 4% reported at least one serious adverse event and no patients reported serious adverse drug reactions. At W8, the most frequently reported local skin reactions were mild/moderate erythema (47.6%) and flaking/scaling (49.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with tirbanibulin demonstrated effectiveness in the management of AK lesions and a favorable safety and tolerability profile. Furthermore, QoL was improved as early as W8, and both patients and clinicians reported high levels of treatment satisfaction, independently of patients' characteristics. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(5):338-346. doi:10.36849/JDD.8264.

Teledermatology Platforms Usage and Barriers: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of United States-Based Dermatologists Pre- and Post-COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: During the global COVID-19 pandemic, dermatologists increasingly adopted teledermatology to facilitate patient care. OBJECTIVE: To identify differences in teledermatology platform usage and functionality among dermatologists as a means of understanding the potential effect on virtual healthcare access. METHODS: Results from a 2021 cross-sectional pre-validated survey distributed to actively practicing United States dermatologists were analyzed based on timepoint when teledermatology was adopted relative to COVID-19, previous/currently used platforms, self-reported platform functionality, and barriers to teledermatology implementation. Analysis was performed using chi-square and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for categorical data and single-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc Tukey-Kramer for continuous data. P<.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Early adopters (EAs) trialed significantly more (2.3 vs 1.9, P=0.02) platforms than (post) COVID adopters (CAs) before choosing their current platform. More EAs reported using platforms capable of uploading images (P=.002), required a mobile application (P=.006), and allowed staff to join patient encounters (P<.001). While poor image quality was the most cited barrier to implementation, CAs and non-adaptors (NAs) were materially more likely to cite it as their largest barrier to teledermatology. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective nature of the study and potential response bias. CONCLUSION: Dermatologists' use of teledermatology materially correlates with their teledermatology-adoption timepoint, and future usage may be materially impacted by the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency. Future studies should aim at how implementation and barriers to teledermatology usage may impact access to care. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(2): doi:10.36849/JDD.7819e.

Telemedicine Versus Teledermatology Usage and Perception Among US-Based Physicians: A Survey Study.

The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked an increase in focus and use of telemedicine in several patient care settings. This survey study was distributed to actively practicing US-based physicians and examines telehealth use 2 years after the beginning of the COVID pandemic from a physician’s perspective. Notable findings include telehealth benefits which include increased patient access and the ability to work from home. A continued drawback in telehealth visits is the limitations on a complete physical examination, a drawback that was emphasized by the dermatology community. While this study sheds light on the developing nature of telehealth, it is limited by its retrospective nature and sample size. Future research with larger sample sizes focusing on economic incentives and telemedicine training may help to overcome barriers to using telehealth.  J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(11):e4-e8    doi:10.36849/JDD.7386e.

Retirement Planning.

The retirement process is an individualized endeavor. Both financial and social aspects are important to consider when making plans for retirement. In this article, we discuss details of retirement planning, including the need to save, how much and when to start saving, and types of retirement plans. We also review key considerations for deciding when to retire as well as aspects of retirement outside of financial planning, such as redefining one's purpose and finding meaningful activities to fill the void of work.

Characteristic Distinctions Between Pre-/Post-COVID-19 Teledermatology Adoptees: A Cross-Sectional United States-based Analysis and the Implications for Dermatologic Healthcare Equity.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest potential heterogeneity in telemedicine adoption with potential to exacerbate healthcare access inequity. METHODS: A pre-validated survey was electronically sent to a proprietary listserv of practicing US-based dermatologists. Results were stratified by when teledermatology was adopted. Chi-square and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were used to analyze categorical data while single-factor ANOVA with posthoc Tukey-Kramer was used for continuous data. RESULTS: 338 practicing US-based dermatologists completed the questionnaire. Academic/Government dermatologists were 4-times more likely (OR 4.08, 95%CI 2.37-7.03) to adopt teledermatology pre-COVID than private-practice dermatologists. Dermatologists with ≤10 years of experience were 1.8-times (OR 1.8, 95%CI 1.01-3.18) and 2.82-times more likely (OR 2.82, 95%CI 0.78-10.25) to adopt teledermatology pre-COVID-19 or at all, respectively, compared to dermatologists with ≥20 years of experience. Teledermatology adopters practiced more medical-dermatology (P<.0001) than non-adopters, who reported practicing more dermatologic surgery (P=.003; Tukey-Kramer α<.05) and dermatopathology (P<.0001; Tukey-Kramer α<.05). Pre-COVID-19 adopters were 4-times more likely (OR 4.69, 95%CI 1.46-15.07) to switch/incorporate live-interactive-only teledermatology (LI) post-COVID-19. Post-COVID-19 adopters were 6-times more likely (OR 6.09, 95%CI 3.36-11.06) to utilize LI than Pre-COVID-19 adopters. Pre-COVID-19 adopters use teledermatology for a larger proportion of patient visits than Post-COVID-19 adopters (19.6% v 10.4%, P<.0001), but also are 3.43-times more likely (OR 3.43, 95%CI 1.82-6.46) to report future decreases in usage. LIMITATIONS: Cross-sectional retrospective survey and potential response bias. CONCLUSION: Current teledermatology usage may be a suitable tool for medical-dermatology-focused practices. Material hurdles still exist for procedurally-oriented practices and future studies should investigate these barriers to maximize equitable access to dermatological care. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;21(1):101-104. doi:10.36849/JDD.7169.

Electrical impedance spectroscopy significantly enhances correct biopsy choice for pigmented skin lesions beyond clinical evaluation and dermoscopy.

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether EIS technology can further improve correct biopsy choices beyond clinical and dermoscopic evaluation for melanoma (MM), severe dysplastic nevi (SDN) and benign PSLs. Images of 49 MMs, SDNs and benign PSLs were randomly selected from a prior study and were provided in a reader-type survey study to dermatologists to evaluate for biopsy. A total of 33,957 biopsy decisions were analyzed. Respondents significantly improved on the correct biopsy choice with the addition of dermoscopy versus clinical image alone for melanoma and severely dysplastic nevi. Respondents also showed a statistically significant improvement in correct biopsy choice beyond their dermoscopic evaluation when integrating the EIS score versus dermoscopy with clinical images for MM, SDN and benign lesions. Respondents also made fewer incorrect biopsy choices with the addition of the EIS score versus dermoscopy and clinical image for MM and benign lesions. Sub-analyses of biopsy choices were also conducted based on experience and practice type. The findings from this study demonstrate that the integration of EIS technology into PSL biopsy decisions has the potential to significantly improve the accuracy of lesion selection for biopsy beyond clinical and dermoscopic evaluation alone.

Dermatology Match Preference Signaling Tokens: Impact and Implications.

BACKGROUND: The dermatology residency application process implemented a new system of preference signaling tokens (PSTs) in the 2021-2022 cycle to allow applicants to express a higher level of interest in specific programs. Limited data are available on the utilization and impact of these tokens. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of PSTs on the application process and where in the process PSTs had the greatest influence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 14-question survey was sent to 62 ACGME-accredited dermatology residency programs. Primary outcomes were PST impact on 2021-2022 applications. Variables were evaluated using open-ended questions, yes/no responses, and importance ratings from 0 to 100. RESULTS: An average of 7.1% of applicants were offered interviews, but 21.1% of applicants that submitted PSTs were interviewed versus 3.7% of nonsubmitters. 22.5% of ranked applicants and 19% of matched applicants submitted a PST to that program. LIMITATIONS: Not all programs responded, and PST submission restrictions could not be assessed. CONCLUSION: The greatest PST impact was on the interview decision but had minimal subsequent impact. Given PSTs cannot be submitted to home programs or in-person away rotations, the actual impact was probably greater than found. Programs will continue to implement PSTs in future cycles.

Knowledge Gaps Among Dermatologists Regarding Immunotherapy for Non-melanoma Skin Cancer.

Background: Advanced nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is a sometimes unrecognized public health burden. The development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), such as those affecting programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1), have dramatically changed the management of advanced NMSC. Dermatologists need to be knowledgeable about these therapies given their key role in diagnosing, treating, and comanaging NMSC. The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge base and identify knowledge gaps that dermatologists may have regarding ICIs and assess advanced NMSC referral patterns. Methods: A 10-question survey was emailed to United States-based dermatologists in July 2021 assessing knowledge of ICI therapy and referral patterns for metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (mcSCC) or locally advanced basal cell carcinoma (laBCC) management. Results: At their current knowledge level, respondents averaged 40.6 out of 100 (95% CI [35.1, 46.0]) when asked how comfortable they feel counseling a patient on the risks and benefits of an ICI. Seventy-one percent reported that having more information about treatment for mcSCC or laBCC would be helpful in their practice. Being in practice for less than 10 years was not significantly associated with desiring more information about treatment. The respondents reported that the highest number of annual average referrals out for mcSCC or laBCC were made to Mohs surgeons. Fifty-four percent of respondents received referrals for mcSCC or laBCC, and of the providers receiving referrals, 40 percent of them came from general dermatology. Conclusion: These results demonstrate that a knowledge gap exists for dermatologists in treating mcSCC and laBCC with immunotherapy. There is a need among all dermatologists, regardless of years in practice, to receive this information.

Variance from published guidelines and changes in temporal trends in the management of cutaneous malignant melanoma: a 5-year update.

This study aimed to assess the current management of melanoma from relative to present guidelines and determine changes 5 years ago. An eight-question survey was sent to practicing US dermatologists using the same methodology and questions from our JAAD study. Overall, saucerization/scoop biopsy (48%) was the most commonly used method. The most commonly chosen margin for melanoma in-situ (MMIS) removal was 6-10 mm (51% of respondents). For CMM with a depth greater than 1 mm, the most commonly chosen margins were in the 1.1-1.9 cm range (55% of respondents). More respondents referred cases of MMIS and CMM out for treatment as compared to 2016. Academic dermatologists in 2021 were 8% less likely to treat MMIS as compared to all other practice types in 2021, whereas 7% more likely to treat CMM greater than 1 mm. Academic dermatologists in 2016, as compared to 2021, were 4% more likely to treat MMIS and 19% more likely to treat CMM greater than 1 mm. A total of 91% of respondents reported having some change in their management of CMM. Our study findings suggest that a knowledge gap still exists representing a continued educational opportunity to more effectively distribute and implement CMM management guidelines.

Improved cutaneous melanoma survival stratification through integration of 31-gene expression profile testing with the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition Staging.

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) survival is assessed using averaged data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition (AJCC8). However, subsets of AJCC8 stages I-III have better or worse survival than the predicted average value. The objective of this study was to determine if the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test for CM can further risk-stratify melanoma-specific mortality within each AJCC8 stage. This retrospective multicenter study of 901 archival CM samples obtained from patients with stages I-III CM assessed 31-GEP test predictions of 5-year melanoma-specific survival (MSS) using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards. In stage I-III CM population, patients with a Class 2B result had a lower 5-year MSS (77.8%) than patients with a Class 1A result (98.7%) and log-rank testing demonstrated significant stratification of MSS [χ2 (2df, n = 901) = 99.7, P < 0.001). Within each stage, 31-GEP data provided additional risk stratification, including in stage I [χ2 (2df, n = 415) = 11.3, P = 0.004]. Cox regression multivariable analysis showed that the 31-GEP test was a significant predictor of melanoma-specific mortality (MSM) in patients with stage I-III CM [hazard ratio: 6.44 (95% confidence interval: 2.61-15.85), P < 0.001]. This retrospective study focuses on Class 1A versus Class 2B results. Intermediate results (Class 1B/2A) comprised 21.6% of cases with survival rates between Class 1A and 2B, and similar to 5-year MSS AJCC stage values. Data from the 31-GEP test significantly differentiates MSM into lower (Class 1A) and higher risk (Class 2B) groups within each AJCC8 stage. Incorporating 31-GEP results into AJCC8 survival calculations has the potential to more precisely assess survival and enhance management guidance.

Expert Consensus on the Use of Prognostic Gene Expression Profiling Tests for the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Consensus from the Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma relies on historical, clinicopathological, and phenotypic risk factors according to American Joint Committee on Cancer(AJCC) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines but may not account for a patient's individual additional genetic risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To review the available literature regarding commercially available gene expression profile (GEP) tests and their use in the management of cutaneous melanoma. METHODS: A literature search was conducted for original, English-language studies or meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2021 on commercially available GEP tests in cutaneous melanoma prognosis, clinical decision-making regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy, and real-world efficacy. After the literature review, the Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group, an expert panel of dermatologists with specialized training in melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer diagnosis and management, utilized a modified Delphi technique to develop consensus statements regarding prognostic gene expression profile tests. Statements were only adopted with a supermajority vote of > 80%. RESULTS: The initial search identified 1064 studies/meta-analyses that met the search criteria. Of these, we included 21 original articles and meta-analyses that studied the 31-GEP test (DecisionDx-Melanoma; Castle Biosciences, Inc.), five original articles that studied the 11-GEP test (Melagenix; NeraCare GmbH), and four original articles that studied the 8-GEP test with clinicopathological factors (Merlin; 8-GEP + CP; SkylineDx B.V.) in this review. Six statements received supermajority approval and were adopted by the panel. CONCLUSION: GEP tests provide additional, reproducible information for dermatologists to consider within the larger framework of the eighth edition of the AJCC and NCCN cutaneous melanoma guidelines when counseling regarding prognosis and when considering a sentinel lymph node biopsy.