Evaluating remote skin cancer multidisciplinary team meetings in the United Kingdom post-COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was concern that virtual or remote multidisciplinary teams (MDT) meetings represented a niche concept that was unlikely to replace traditional face-to-face meetings in the management of cancer. However, the sudden shift to virtual meetings during COVID-19 has been one of the most dramatic changes since the inception of the MDT. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of virtual skin MDTs since the move to virtual meetings. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was sent to all Specialist Skin Cancer MDTs (SSMDTs) and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgeons Skin Oncology Special Interest and Advisory Group. RESULTS: There were 68 responses (55.3% response rate) from 36 SSMDTs in the UK. Respondents felt communication, chairing, and decision-making were similar in virtual and in-person MDTs, but the team working was worse in virtual meetings. Recruitment, data security, and patient confidentiality were maintained in virtual MDTs. Most preferred a hybrid format for future MDTs, with the option to attend virtually. Recommendations for improvement included better connectivity, IT support, training, and staff integration. CONCLUSION: The virtual MDT is here to stay. We highlight the strengths and weaknesses of remote virtual skin MDTs. It is key that we look at ways to retain team working to ensure that the collegiate nature of MDT working, and therefore treatment options for patients, are not lost in this transformation in MDT delivery.

The association between immunosuppression and skin cancer in solid organ transplant recipients: a control-matched cohort study of 2,852 patients.

Skin cancer is more common in transplant recipients, although the quoted incidence is variable. This study investigated the incidence of skin cancer in solid organ transplant recipients (OTRs) in a national cohort and the effect of pharmacotherapeutic agents Transplant patients were identified from Patient Episode Database for Wales (PEDW) using Office of Population Census and Surveys Classifications of Interventions and Procedures-4 (OPCS-4) codes. Controls were matched to cases according to age, sex and socioeconomic status. Skin cancer data were obtained from linkage with other national data sources. Incidence was calculated per 100,000 person-years at risk (PYAR). Negative binomial regression was used to calculate adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for each organ type. During 2000-2018, 2,852 Welsh patients underwent solid organ transplantation. A total of 13,527 controls were matched from the general population. The incidence of skin cancer within the OTR cohort was 1203.2 per 100,000 PYAR vs 133.9 in the matched control group. Age, male gender and azathioprine use were all associated with an increased risk of skin cancer. Contemporary immunomodulators such as tacrolimus and mycophenolate were associated with a reduction in skin cancer risk when compared to their predecessors, cyclosporin and azathioprine. The highest adjusted IRR was observed in heart transplant recipients (IRR: 10.82; 95% CI: 3.64-32.19) and the lowest in liver transplant recipients (IRR: 2.86; 95% CI: 1.15-7.13). This study highlights the need for long-term routine skin cancer surveillance for all OTRs and the importance of using contemporary immunomodulators, when possible, for risk reduction.

Skin cancer screening in organ transplant centres in the United Kingdom: a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Organ transplant recipients (OTRs) have up to 500-fold increased risk of keratinocyte skin cancer (KSC). International guidelines recommend at least annual skin cancer screening for OTRs. OBJECTIVES: To explore the current skin cancer surveillance practice in UK transplant centres across all solid organs and the barriers to surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was sent to all 59 transplant centres in the UK specialising in kidney (n = 24), pancreas (n = 10), heart and/or lung (n = 13), liver (n = 8) and intestine (n = 4) transplants. RESULTS: Fifty-one (86%) transplant centres responded. Twenty-eight (55%) centres provided skin cancer surveillance post-transplantation, of which 18 (64%) had a non-skin cancer specialist providing screening. Only 21 (41%) units performed a full skin examination. Eight units (29%) screened at least bi-annually in the first five years post-transplantation. Of the 23 (45%) centres that did not provide skin cancer surveillance, limitations included: reliance on patient-reported lesions (48%), lack of skin surveillance training (30%), lack of funding (48%), not a requirement in all patients (17%) and time restraints in the clinic (30%). CONCLUSION: In the UK, many transplant units do not provide skin surveillance. Collaboration between skin cancer and transplant specialists would improve surveillance rates and reduce morbidity and mortality.

Skin tissue engineering using 3D bioprinting: An evolving research field.

BACKGROUND: Commercially available tissue engineered skin remains elusive despite extensive research because the multi-stratified anisotropic structure is difficult to replicate in vitro using traditional tissue engineering techniques. Bioprinting, involving computer-controlled deposition of cells and scaffolds into spatially controlled patterns, is able to control not only the macro but also micro and nanoarchitecture and could offer the potential to more faithfully replicate native skin. METHODS: We conducted a literature review using PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies on skin 3D bioprinting between 2009 and 2016, evaluating the bioprinting technique, cell source, scaffold type and in vitro and in vivo outcomes. RESULTS: We outline the evolution of biological skin replacements, principles of bioprinting and how they apply to the skin tissue engineering field, potential clinical applications as well the current limitations and future avenues for research. Of the studies analysed, the most common types of bioinks consisted of keratinocytes and fibroblasts combined with collagen, although stem cells are gaining increasing recognition. Laser assisted deposition was the most common printing modality, although ink-jet and pneumatic extrusion have also been tested. Bioprinted skin promoted accelerated wound healing, was able to mimic stratified epidermis but not the thick, elastic, vascular dermis. CONCLUSIONS: Although 3D bioprinting shows promise in engineering skin, evidenced by large collective investments from the cosmetic industry, the research is still in its infancy. The resolution, vascularity, optimal cell and scaffold combinations and cost of bioprinted skin are hurdles that need to be overcome before the clinical applicability can be realised. Small scale 3D skin tissue models for cosmetics, drug and toxicity testing as well as tumour modelling are likely to be translated first before we see this technology used in reconstructive surgery patients.