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.

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.

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.

Photoprotection for skin of all color: Consensus and clinical guidance from an expert panel.

The negative effects of sun exposure have become better accepted among health care professionals and the lay public over recent decades. Most attention has been focused on the effects of UV light, particularly UVB wavelengths (290-320 nm). Accordingly, products to protect skin from sunlight-associated harm (sunscreens) have been developed to minimize UVB exposure. The effects of longer wavelengths, including UVA (320-400 nm) and visible light (VL, 400-700 nm), are increasingly appreciated. VL accounts for approximately half of the solar radiation that reaches the earth's surface and understanding of its effects on the skin is improving. Studies have shown that VL can induce hyperpigmentation in individuals with dark skin types (Fitzpatrick skin types IV-VI). In addition, VL can contribute to the exacerbation of pigmentary disorders, including melasma. Because these findings are relatively new, there are gaps in understanding the needs for photoprotection and guidance for clinicians. A panel of dermatologists and photobiologists was convened to develop consensus recommendations and clinical guidance about sunscreen use relevant to the current understanding of risks associated with sun exposure using a modified Delphi method.

Photoprotection for all: Current gaps and opportunities.

The effects of solar radiation on human skin differ based on the skin phototype, presence or absence of photodermatoses, biologic capacity to repair DNA damage, wavelength, intensity of sun exposure, geographic latitude, and other factors, underscoring the need for a more tailored approach to photoprotection. To date, the focus of photoprotection guidelines has been to prevent sunburn and DNA damage induced by UV radiation, both UVB and UVA; however, several recent studies have shown that visible light also generates reactive oxygen and nitrogen species that can contribute to skin damage and pigmentation on the skin, particularly in people with skin of color. Therefore, individuals with dark skin, while naturally better protected against UVB radiation by virtue of the high eumelanin content in melanocytes, may need additional protection from visible light-induced skin damage. The current options for photoprotection products need to expand, and potential strategies against visible light include the addition of iron oxide, titanium dioxide, and biologically relevant antioxidants to sunscreen formulations as well as supplementation with orally active antioxidants.

Advances and Considerations in the Management of Actinic Keratosis: An Expert Consensus Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Actinic Keratosis (AK) is a potentially pre-malignant tumor with a poorly defined risk of progression to invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Because of the typical need for recurrent cycles of AK treatment, outcomes can be limited by both therapeutic efficacy and patient adherence. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the available and most current literature into overarching principles to provide guidance on the management of AKs, improving patient experiences and treatment outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review querying epidemiology, natural history, prognosis, management of AKs as well as the mechanism of action of and adherence to current AK therapy was conducted. After reviewing the literature, an expert consensus panel consisting of 10 expert dermatologists and dermatopathologists used a modified Delphi process to develop statements regarding the pathogenesis and management of AKs. Final statements were only adopted with a supermajority vote (≥7/10). RESULTS: The panel developed 7 consensus statements regarding AKs pathogenesis and management. CONCLUSION: The poorly defined risk for AK progression into invasive SCC without universally accepted clinical-histopathological factors highlights the importance of long-term efficacious treatment. To effectively counsel and treat patients with actinic keratoses, dermatologists must understand how newer therapeutic approaches with mechanisms of action that have more rapid onset of action, shorter treatment courses, and less intense local skin reaction (LSRs) may promote adherence and improve long-term outcomes. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(8):888-893. doi:10.36849/JDD.6078 THIS ARTICLE HAD BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO ACCESS THE FULL fTEXT OF THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT LOGGING IN. NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. PLEASE CONTACT THE PUBLISHER WITH ANY QUESTIONS.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Physician-Pharmaceutical Office-Based Interactions.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has had significant negative economic ramifications on dermatologic care delivery, including curtailing live on-site physician-pharmaceutical-representative interactions (PPRI). OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of COVID-19 and pandemic regulations on current and future PPRI. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey-based study that analyzed data from 400 surveyed dermatologists using a pre-validated questionnaire sent via email. Data regarding PPRI were collected over 1 week in July 2020 to compare demographics and practice standards from April 2019, April 2020, July 2020, and predictions for 2021. RESULTS: Virtual-only PPRI increased from 7.8% in April 2019 to 26.5% during April 2020 (mean difference, 18.8%; 95% confidence interval, 13.6%–23.9%). Virtual-only PPRI remained elevated at 24.5% while hybrid PPRI increased, eventually surpassing the April 2019 mark (27.0%). These trends persisted among all studied practice types and levels of experience. Practices predicted no significant percent differences in participation in PPRI (87.3% vs 90.3%; P=0.0834), but a significant shift in method of delivery where the odds ratio of incorporating a virtual component into PPRI in 2021 increased by a factor of 3. LIMITATIONS: Relatively small sample size, especially among subgroups. Responses may have been retrospective estimates. There may also be selection bias given slightly increased representation of more experienced dermatologists. CONCLUSION: PPRI materially decreased during the initial COVID-19 peak but will likely return to baseline volume moving forward with a significant component being hybrid PPRI. Further studies may better elucidate the economic and clinical impact associated with these changes and their effect on dermatologists’ ability to provide patients with samples and educational materials. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(2):215-223. doi:10.36849/JDD.5651.

Validation of a 40-gene expression profile test to predict metastatic risk in localized high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Current staging systems for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) have limited positive predictive value for identifying patients who will experience metastasis. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a gene expression profile (GEP) test for predicting risk for metastasis in localized, high-risk cSCC with the goal of improving risk-directed patient management. METHODS: Archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary cSCC tissue and clinicopathologic data (n = 586) were collected from 23 independent centers in a prospectively designed study. A GEP signature was developed using a discovery cohort (n = 202) and validated in a separate, nonoverlapping, independent cohort (n = 324). RESULTS: A prognostic 40-GEP test was developed and validated, stratifying patients with high-risk cSCC into classes based on metastasis risk: class 1 (low risk), class 2A (high risk), and class 2B (highest risk). For the validation cohort, 3-year metastasis-free survival rates were 91.4%, 80.6%, and 44.0%, respectively. A positive predictive value of 60% was achieved for the highest-risk group (class 2B), an improvement over staging systems, and negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were comparable to staging systems. LIMITATIONS: Potential understaging of cases could affect metastasis rate accuracy. CONCLUSION: The 40-GEP test is an independent predictor of metastatic risk that can complement current staging systems for patients with high-risk cSCC.

Impact of a prognostic 40-gene expression profiling test on clinical management decisions for high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

Objective: To determine how results from a prognostic 40-gene expression profiling (40-GEP) test would impact clinician management decisions and how their choices would align with a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) compliant, risk-directed management plan for high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC).Methods: Clinicians attending a national dermatology conference were presented with 40-GEP test validation data. They were asked to rate clinicopathological features and molecular test results to assess their opinion of how concerning each is to cSCC prognosis. When presented with vignettes describing patients with NCCN-defined high-risk features, clinicians were asked to select a treatment plan using pre-test (no 40-GEP results), then, post-test (40-GEP Class 1, 2A, or 2B results) methodology along with corresponding metastasis rates for each test group.Results: Risk factors deemed of highest concern for metastatic outcomes were a Class 2B 40-GEP result, perineural invasion, immunosuppression, invasion beyond subcutaneous fat, and tumor diameter >1 cm on the scalp. When presented with a 40-GEP result that indicated reduced risk of metastasis (Class 1), clinicians altered their treatment management plan accordingly. Specifically, there was significant reduction in the recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy, adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy, follow-up time, and nodal imaging. By comparison, when a 40-GEP result indicated an increased risk of metastasis (Class 2B), significant risk-appropriate increases in management intensity was observed for the aforementioned clinical decisions.Conclusion: Integration of 40-GEP results impacted management decisions in a significant and risk-appropriate manner for high-risk cSCC patient scenarios, while remaining aligned with national guidelines for patient management.