Incidental melanomas detected in veterans referred to dermatology.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of melanoma is integral to preventing morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize and compare incidental versus consult melanomas detected in veterans referred to the Minneapolis, MN, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center dermatology clinic. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed charts of all dermatology consults between January 2004 and March 2012. RESULTS: Of the 28,405 consults sent during the study period, 17,174 met inclusion criteria. There were 231 melanomas identified in 221 patients. In all, 144 melanomas were identified on the consult and 87 melanomas were discovered incidentally. The incidental melanoma detection rate was 0.5% (84/17,174). Consult melanomas were more likely to be invasive than incidental melanomas (relative risk 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.23-1.86, P < .0001) and less likely to have a Breslow depth of less than 1.00 mm (relative risk 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.88, P = .0036). Incidental melanomas were smaller than consult melanomas (mean diameter 0.98 vs 1.3 cm, respectively) and thinner (mean Breslow depth 0.64 vs 1.74 mm). Consult melanomas were more likely to be detected on the head/neck (relative risk 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.52, P = .0295). LIMITATIONS: Nondiverse patient population is a limitation. CONCLUSION: Melanomas detected during an in-person skin examination by a dermatologist were more likely to be detected at an earlier stage of disease.

Incidental lesions found in veterans referred to dermatology: the value of a dermatologic examination.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the detection of incidental skin cancers. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the rate of incidental cutaneous malignancies in routine dermatology consults. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of all dermatology consults at the Minneapolis Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center over 8.25 years. Inclusion criteria included an in-person clinic visit within 18 months of the initial consult date. Patients with an in-person skin examination by a dermatologist in the 18 months before consult date were excluded. RESULTS: Of 28,405 consults sent during the study period, 17,174 met inclusion criteria. In all, 2257 (13.1%) patients had 1 or more biopsied incidental lesions. Half (50.3%; n = 1674) of the 3328 biopsied incidental lesions were malignant, which included 1187 patients. The per-person detection rate for an incidental malignant lesion was 6.9% (1187/17,174). There were 87 incidental melanomas identified in 84 patients. The per-person detection rate for an incidental melanoma was 0.5% (84/17,174). The most frequent anatomical location for biopsied incidental malignancies was the head and neck (53.9%). Incidental melanomas were most frequently located on the back (33.3%). LIMITATIONS: Nondiverse patient population and conservative detection rate estimates are limitations. CONCLUSION: An in-person skin examination by a trained dermatologist is important for detection of skin malignancies. This may have implications for teledermatology.

Body piercing and metal allergic contact sensitivity: North American contact dermatitis group data from 2007 to 2010.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the association between piercing and patch test sensitivity to metals (nickel, cobalt, and chromium) in North America. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 9334 patients tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 2007 to 2010 was conducted. RESULTS: Nickel sensitivity was statistically associated with at least 1 piercing (risk ratio [RR], 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.26-2.81; P < 0.0001) and nickel sensitivity rates increased with the number of piercings (16% for 1 piercing to 32% for ≥ 5 piercings). Prevalence of nickel sensitivity was higher in females (23.2%) than in males (7.1%), but the association with piercing was stronger in males (RR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.72-3.30; P < 0.0001) than in females (RR, 1.30; CI, 1.13-1.49; P = 0.0002). Crude analysis indicated that cobalt sensitivity was statistically associated with piercing (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.40-1.91; P < 0.0001); however, stratified analysis showed that this relationship was confounded by nickel. After adjusting for nickel sensitivity, the adjusted risk ratio for piercing and cobalt was 0.78 (not significant). Chromium sensitivity was negatively associated with piercing (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48-0.75; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Piercing was statistically associated with sensitivity to nickel. This relationship was dose dependent and stronger in males. Cobalt sensitivity was not associated with piercing when adjusted for nickel. Chromium sensitivity was negatively associated with piercing.