Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 14 de 14
Filtrar
1.
Dermatol Online J ; 26(3)2020 Mar 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32609442

RESUMO

Gel nails are a common artificial nail option. Ultraviolet (UV) nail lamps are commonly used to cure gel nails. Ultraviolet A radiation is a known mutagen that penetrates into the nail bed. Although previously reported, the role of UV nail lamps in the carcinogenesis of both keratinocyte carcinoma and melanoma remains controversial. Herein, we report a patient taking the photosensitizing agent hydrochlorothiazide who developed numerous squamous cell carcinomas on the dorsal hands and feet with a 10-year history of UV nail light exposure every 2-3 weeks.


Assuntos
Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/etiologia , Neoplasias Induzidas por Radiação/etiologia , Neoplasias Cutâneas/etiologia , Raios Ultravioleta/efeitos adversos , Idoso , Indústria da Beleza , Feminino , Pé/efeitos da radiação , Mãos/efeitos da radiação , Humanos , Hidroclorotiazida/efeitos adversos , Hidroclorotiazida/uso terapêutico , Doença de Meniere/tratamento farmacológico , Unhas , Fármacos Fotossensibilizantes/efeitos adversos , Fármacos Fotossensibilizantes/uso terapêutico , Fatores de Risco
6.
Case Rep Dermatol Med ; 2021: 5543803, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33898070

RESUMO

Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is an emerging and noninvasive imaging tool in dermatological practice. Benefits of this modality include differentiation between benign and malignant skin lesions, prevention of unnecessary biopsies, and cost effectiveness. However, RCM findings for benign lesions are rarely reported in the literature. We describe a case of reflectance confocal microscopy findings of a hidrocystoma and review potential applications of this imaging technique in everyday clinical practice.

7.
J Clin Aesthet Dermatol ; 14(12): 36-43, 2021 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35096253

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Amelanotic melanoma (AM) is a rare form of melanoma lacking pigment. Data on AM risk factors and factors predicting survival are limited. OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify predictors of AM, survival differences in AM and melanotic melanoma, and AM-specific survival rates. METHODS: Using 2004 through 2015 National Cancer Database data, we compared 358,543 melanoma cases to 1,384 AM cases. Multivariable logistic regression identified AM risk factors, and AM survival was explored using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Increased age; tumor location on the face, scalp, and neck; increased Breslow thickness; metastatic disease; ulceration; and higher mitotic rate were associated with AM. Five- and ten-year survival rates were higher for patients with MM (melanotic melanoma) than AM tumors (75.4% vs. 58.8% and 62.4% vs 45.1%; log-rank P<0.0001). No survival difference was seen after adjusting for staging factors. Among patients with AM, more recent diagnosis was associated with improved survival. Increased age, T4 tumor size, higher N-stage, metastasis, and ulceration predicted poorer survival. No survival advantage was seen for chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiation therapy, likely due to confounding. CONCLUSION: AM is more common in older patients on sun-exposed skin and is diagnosed at later stages. Advanced staging at diagnosis explains the survival differences. In patients with AM, regional and metastatic disease were the primary contributors of poorer outcomes. In at-risk patients, the threshold to biopsy should be lower for suspicious nonpigmented lesions.

8.
JAMA Dermatol ; 157(2): 189-197, 2021 02 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33404623

RESUMO

Importance: Dermoscopy education in US dermatology residency programs varies widely, and there is currently no existing expert consensus identifying what is most important for resident physicians to know. Objectives: To identify consensus-based learning constructs representing an appropriate foundational proficiency in dermoscopic image interpretation for dermatology resident physicians, including dermoscopic diagnoses, associated features, and representative teaching images. Defining these foundational proficiency learning constructs will facilitate further skill development in dermoscopic image interpretation to help residents achieve clinical proficiency. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 2-phase modified Delphi surveying technique was used to identify resident learning constructs in 3 sequential sets of surveys-diagnoses, features, and images. Expert panelists were recruited through an email distributed to the 32 members of the Pigmented Lesion Subcommittee of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group. Twenty-six (81%) opted to participate. Surveys were distributed using RedCAP software. Main Outcomes and Measures: Consensus on diagnoses, associated dermoscopic features, and representative teaching images reflective of a foundational proficiency in dermoscopic image interpretation for US dermatology resident physicians. Results: Twenty-six pigmented lesion and dermoscopy specialists completed 8 rounds of surveys, with 100% (26/26) response rate in all rounds. A final list of 32 diagnoses and 116 associated dermoscopic features was generated. Three hundred seventy-eight representative teaching images reached consensus with panelists. Conclusions and Relevance: Consensus achieved in this modified Delphi process identified common dermoscopic diagnoses, associated features, and representative teaching images reflective of a foundational proficiency in dermoscopic image interpretation for dermatology residency training. This list of validated objectives provides a consensus-based foundation of key learning points in dermoscopy to help resident physicians achieve clinical proficiency in dermoscopic image interpretation.


Assuntos
Dermatologistas/normas , Dermatologia/métodos , Dermoscopia/normas , Internato e Residência/normas , Competência Clínica , Técnica Delphi , Dermatologistas/educação , Dermatologia/educação , Dermatologia/normas , Dermoscopia/educação , Humanos , Dermatopatias/diagnóstico , Inquéritos e Questionários
10.
JAMA Dermatol ; 156(9): 1004-1011, 2020 09 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32725204

RESUMO

Importance: Use of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) testing in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is rising despite a lack of endorsement as standard of care. Objective: To develop guidelines within the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) on integration of GEP testing into the management of patients with CM, including (1) review of published data using GEP tests, (2) definition of acceptable performance criteria, (3) current recommendations for use of GEP testing in clinical practice, and (4) considerations for future studies. Evidence Review: The MPWG members and other international melanoma specialists participated in 2 online surveys and then convened a summit meeting. Published data and meeting abstracts from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed. Findings: The MPWG members are optimistic about the future use of prognostic GEP testing to improve risk stratification and enhance clinical decision-making but acknowledge that current utility is limited by test performance in patients with stage I disease. Published studies of GEP testing have not evaluated results in the context of all relevant clinicopathologic factors or as predictors of regional nodal metastasis to replace sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The performance of GEP tests has generally been reported for small groups of patients representing particular tumor stages or in aggregate form, such that stage-specific performance cannot be ascertained, and without survival outcomes compared with data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition melanoma staging system international database. There are significant challenges to performing clinical trials incorporating GEP testing with SLNB and adjuvant therapy. The MPWG members favor conducting retrospective studies that evaluate multiple GEP testing platforms on fully annotated archived samples before embarking on costly prospective studies and recommend avoiding routine use of GEP testing to direct patient management until prospective studies support their clinical utility. Conclusions and Relevance: More evidence is needed to support using GEP testing to inform recommendations regarding SLNB, intensity of follow-up or imaging surveillance, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. The MPWG recommends further research to assess the validity and clinical applicability of existing and emerging GEP tests. Decisions on performing GEP testing and patient management based on these results should only be made in the context of discussion of testing limitations with the patient or within a multidisciplinary group.


Assuntos
Tomada de Decisão Clínica/métodos , Perfilação da Expressão Gênica/normas , Melanoma/diagnóstico , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Neoplasias Cutâneas/diagnóstico , Consenso , Conferências de Consenso como Assunto , Humanos , Melanoma/genética , Melanoma/patologia , Melanoma/terapia , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Prognóstico , Biópsia de Linfonodo Sentinela/normas , Neoplasias Cutâneas/genética , Neoplasias Cutâneas/patologia , Neoplasias Cutâneas/terapia
13.
JAMA Dermatol ; 149(3): 317-21, 2013 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23682368

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To better understand postoperative opioid use after dermatologic surgery. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Academic dermatology department. PATIENTS: The study included 212 adults (1) who were undergoing a single skin excision (including Mohs micrographic surgery), (2) who consented to participate,and (3) who were able to be reached by telephone on postoperative day 3 or 4. Patients who did not meet these criteria and those referred to another physician for further surgical treatment or repair were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The study examined(1) the incidence of opioid prescription after dermatologic surgery, (2) the percentage of prescribed opioid pain medications used in the postoperative period, and (3) patient and surgical characteristics associated with opioid pain medication prescription and use. RESULTS: Opioids were prescribed to 72 of the 212 patients(34%). Twenty-five of the 72 patients (35%) who were prescribed opioids did not use them. Forty-nine of 57 patients (86%) who filled an opioid prescription had leftover pills, and 26 of the 49 patients (53%) planned to keep them. Only maximum pain score was significantly associated with opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Opioids were over prescribed after dermatologic surgery. Patients who had left over opioids did not dispose of them properly, which could lead to potential misuse and abuse.


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Dermatológicos/métodos , Prescrição Inadequada/estatística & dados numéricos , Dor Pós-Operatória/prevenção & controle , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Cirurgia de Mohs/métodos , Medição da Dor , Padrões de Prática Médica/normas , Estudos Prospectivos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA