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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Patient knowledge of FDA-mandated sunscreen labeling terminology: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient understanding of sunscreen labeling terminology is a barrier to effective use. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the "final rule" on sunscreen labeling in 2011, in an effort to promote effective usage. However, relatively little is known about patient knowledge of sunscreen labeling terminology. This study assesses the sunscreen labeling knowledge of dermatology patients, with an emphasis on understanding of the FDA-mandated wording. METHODS: A validated survey was administered to consecutive dermatology office patients. Respondents answered questions about sunscreen use practices, sunscreen knowledge, and demographics. To assess their sunscreen knowledge, they responded to questions on the concepts of sun protection factor, broad-spectrum, and waterproof. RESULTS: A total of 334 patients completed surveys. Only 8.7% of patients correctly answered all three questions related to sunscreen labeling terminology. Patients with a personal history of skin cancer were more likely to answer more than half of the questions correctly (P = 0.004). Older persons and those with darker skin types were most likely to answer all questions incorrectly. CONCLUSION: General understanding of sunscreen labeling was poor, and a minority of consumers comprehended the key features of sunscreen labeling. This knowledge gap appeared to be slightly smaller in the subpopulation of patients with a personal history of skin cancer.

Online sunscreen purchases: Impact of product characteristics and marketing claims.

BACKGROUND: Sunscreens, unlike prescription medications, are purchased by consumers directly from retailers. The proportion of online sunscreen sales is increasing. It is therefore important for dermatologists to know what factors influence online sunscreen purchases to optimize appropriate recommendations. METHODS: Data on the top 100 best-selling sunscreens from an online retailer were collected. Variables included cost, formulation, product claims, ingredients, consumer ratings, and number of reviews. Ordinal logistic regression was used to analyze the impact of collected variables on position on the best-seller list. RESULTS: Ninety-six of the 100 search results could be defined as actual sunscreens with a total of 41 788 reviews. The median price per ounce was $3.02 (range $0.34-$309.18). The most popular formulations were lotions. The most common unregulated claim was "non-greasy" found in 57.3% of sunscreens. For 26 unregulated product claims analyzed, the mean number of claims per sunscreen was 5.2. Using an ordinal regression model, the following factors were found to significantly influence sunscreen sales: number of reviews, the claim "decreases the risk of skin cancer and early aging," and the presence of six or more unregulated claims. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple sunscreen options exist for consumers with varying price points, active ingredients, and formulations. Consumers who purchase online prefer sunscreens with a higher number of reviews and more unregulated marketing claims. FDA-regulated claims such as "decreases the risk of skin cancer and early aging" are not as impactful in this purchasing cohort. To facilitate usage, dermatologists should be cognizant of factors that influence sunscreen selection among this group.

Impact of Gene Expression Profile Testing on the Management of Squamous Cell Carcinoma by Dermatologists

Background: The incidence of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is increasing likely due to improved detection and a growing elderly population. Although the prognosis of cSCC is excellent with complete surgical excision, many patients who go on to develop metastasis are initially classified as low-risk. The most commonly used staging systems, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and Brigham Women's Hospital (BWH), have low sensitivity and low positive predictive value for predicting metastasis. A gene expression profile test (cSCC-GEP) is in development to identify patients with cSCC at high risk for metastasis and death. Objective: To determine the impact of cSCC-GEP test results on management decisions made by dermatologists for cSCC patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: 402 dermatologists attending a national dermatology conference completed an online survey designed to determine the impact of cSCC-GEP test results on management decisions in a variety of clinical situations. Participants answered a series of questions related to three cSCC patient vignettes, each featuring different patient and lesion characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of dermatologists who would recommend radiation, chemotherapy/immunotherapy, or sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNBx) for each patient vignette (without cSCC-GEP results, with a lower risk result, or with a higher risk result). The effect of the test results on the follow-up intervals recommended by dermatologists was also examined. Results: In the majority of vignettes, a lower risk cSCC-GEP test result led to a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of dermatologists who would recommend radiation, chemotherapy/immunotherapy, SLNBx, or quarterly follow-up. Conversely, a higher risk cSCC-GEP result significantly altered management toward increased intensity (more recommendations for radiation, chemotherapy/immunotherapy, SLNBx, or quarterly follow-up) in all vignettes. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of a cSCC-GEP test appear to significantly impact decisions made by dermatologists regarding subsequent management, SLNBx, and follow-up intervals for patients with cSCC. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18(10):980-984.

Impact on clinical practice of a non-invasive gene expression melanoma rule-out test: 12-month follow-up of negative test results and utility data from a large US registry study.

The Pigmented Lesion Assay (PLA, sensitivity 91-95%, specificity 69-91%, negative predictive value ?99%) is a commercially available, non-invasive gene expression test that helps dermatologists guide pigmented lesion management decisions and rule out melanoma. Earlier studies have demonstrated high clinical utility and no missed melanomas in a 3-6-month follow-up period. We undertook the current investigations to provide 12-month follow-up data on PLA(-) tests, and to further confirm utility. A 12-month chart review follow-up of 734 pigmented lesions that had negative PLA results from 5 US dermatology centers was performed. Thirteen of these lesions (1.8%) were biopsied in the follow-up period and submitted for histopathologic review. None of the lesions biopsied had a histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma. The test's utility was studied further in a registry (N=1575, 40 US dermatology offices, 62 participating providers), which demonstrated that 99.9% of PLA(-) lesions were clinically monitored, thereby avoiding a surgical procedure, and 96.5% of all PLA(+) lesions were appropriately biopsied, most commonly with a tangential shave. This long-term follow-up study confirms the PLA's high negative predictive value and high utility in helping guide the management of pigmented lesions to avoid unnecessary surgical procedures.

Corrigendum: Impact on clinical practice of a non-invasive gene expression melanoma rule-out test: 12-month followup of negative test results and utility data from a large US registry study.

The revised version of the article corrected Figure 2. This change appears in the revised online PDF copy of this article.

SPF 100+ sunscreen is more protective against sunburn than SPF 50+ in actual use: Results of a randomized, double-blind, split-face, natural sunlight exposure clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The value of additional photoprotection provided by use of high-sun protection factor (SPF) sunscreens is controversial, and limited clinical evidence exists. OBJECTIVE: To compare the sunburn protection provided by SPF 100+ and SPF 50+ sunscreen in conditions of actual use. METHODS: A total of 199 healthy men and women (≥18 years) participated in a natural sunlight, single-exposure, split-face, randomized, double-blind study in Vail, Colorado. Each participant wore both sunscreens simultaneously during activities, with no use restrictions other than designation of the treatment area. Erythema was clinically assessed on the day following exposure. Comparative efficacy was evaluated through bilateral comparison of sunburn between treatment areas and erythema score, as evaluated separately for each treatment area. RESULTS: Following an average 6.1 ± 1.3 hours of sun exposure, investigator-blinded evaluation identified 55.3% of the participants (110 of 199) as more sunburned on the SPF 50+ protected side and 5% (10 of 199) on the SPF 100+ protected side. After exposure, 40.7% of the participants (81 of 199) exhibited increased erythema scores (by ≥1) on the SPF 50+ protected side as compared with 13.6% (27 of 199) on the SPF 100+ protected side. LIMITATIONS: Single-day exposure may not extrapolate to benefits of longer-term protection. CONCLUSION: SPF 100+ sunscreen was significantly more effective in protecting against sunburn than SPF 50+ sunscreen in actual use conditions.

Melanoma Reporting Practices of United States Dermatologists.

BACKGROUND: Accuracy of US cancer statistics depends on physicians' knowledge of and adherence to reporting mandates. Significant knowledge and practice gaps have been documented in regards to melanoma reporting requirements. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the gaps in dermatologists' knowledge and practice of melanoma reporting persist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors performed a survey of US dermatologists attending a national conference. The proportion aware of the melanoma reporting mandate and the proportion who routinely report newly diagnosed cases were calculated. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent (158/174) of those sampled completed the survey. Forty-nine percent correctly identified melanoma as being a disease of mandated reporting. Only 34% reported newly diagnosed cases to their state registry. Dermatologists seeing low melanoma volumes were less likely to routinely report newly diagnosed cases to registries than those seeing high volumes (22.9% vs 45.4%, p = .004). Those in practice for ≤10 years were less likely to be aware of the mandate than those in practice longer (32.6% vs 57.0%, p = .006). CONCLUSION: Most dermatologists remain unaware of melanoma reporting requirements. Resultant underestimates of the true incidence of melanoma could have resource allocation implications. Interventions aimed at improving knowledge of the mandate should focus on younger clinicians and those with lower melanoma case volumes.

Factors Affecting Dermatologists' Use of a 31-Gene Expression Profiling Test as an Adjunct for Predicting Metastatic Risk in Cutaneous Melanoma.

IMPORTANCE: A 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test to predict metastatic risk in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma has previously been validated and is available for clinical use. The impact of the availability of such a test on clinical decision-making has previously been studied. However, little is known about which factors play a role in clinicians' decision to utilize the test. OBJECTIVE: To determine factors affecting clinicians' decisions to utilize the 31-GEP test for metastatic risk stratification in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Dermatologists attending a national conference completed a series of questions based around four clinical vignettes using an audience response system. The vignettes and associated questions were designed to determine the impact of three factors-Breslow thickness, ulceration, and sentinel lymph node biopsy status-on the decision to order the 31-GEP test. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentage of respondents who would order the 31-GEP test in the various clinical scenarios was quantified. Differences between groups were assessed using the chi-squared test. RESULTS: A total of 181/187 individuals completed the survey (96.8% response rate). For tumors with a Breslow thickness ≥0.5 mm, a majority of respondents reported that they would recommend the 31-GEP test. Ulceration was associated with a statistically significant increase in the percentage of clinicians who would recommend the assay for all but the thickest (2.1 mm) tumors. A negative SLN was only associated with a statistically significant increase in the percentage of clinicians who would recommend the test for the thinnest (0.26 mm) tumors (22% to 34%, P=0.033). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Ulceration appears to be the most important factor impacting clinicians when deciding to order the 31-GEP test to assess risk for melanoma metastasis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(5):544-547.

THIS ARTICLE HAD BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO ACCESS THE FULL TEXT OF THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT LOGGING IN. NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. PLEASE CONTACT THE PUBLISHER WITH ANY QUESTIONS.

Dermatologist Practices During Total Body Skin Examinations: A Survey Study.

Though screening for skin cancer is an essential practice in dermatology, limited data are published on dermatologists' total body skin examination (TBSE) behaviors. We surveyed 6500 dermatologists on their TBSE practices, including questions about less commonly examined body sites. We found varied TBSE practices among all dermatologists and discrepancies in examinations between dermatologists of opposite genders. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(5):516-520.

Realistic Sunscreen Durability: A Randomized, Double-blinded, Controlled Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND: Studies show that sunscreen under real-life conditions is often not reapplied and/or applied insufficiently. This study investigated the durability of 2 current sunscreens with different SPF protection over an 8-hour period under simulated real-life conditions. METHODS: Participants (n=24) were randomized into two study groups utilizing either 2 mg/cm2 (FDA testing concentration) or 1 mg/cm2 (real-life application levels) of sunscreen. Two current SPF 15 and 70 sunscreens were applied to test spots on each participant's back. SPF values were obtained at baseline, 3.5, and 8 hours after initial application, during which subjects completed 30 minutes of moderate exercise followed by 80 minutes of water exposure. RESULTS: Participants in both dose study groups revealed only a 15-40% overall decrease in their SPF protection 8 hours after application. The study group that received half the FDA test concentration of sunscreen achieved approximately half or less the labeled SPF. At 8 hours, the test sites that received SPF 70 maintained an average SPF greater than 64 (2 mg/cm2 application) and 26 (1 mg/cm2 application). Similarly, the SPF 15 product test sites revealed an in vivo protection of 13 (2 mg/cm2) and 7 (1 mg/cm2). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that current sunscreens may be durable on skin even following significant exercise and water exposure, suggesting that reapplication intervals may be longer than currently recommended. In addition, the higher SPF sunscreen maintained a skin cancer-protective level of SPF following extended use.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(1):116-117.

The evolution of melanoma diagnosis: 25 years beyond the ABCDs.

Early detection of malignant melanoma remains the key factor in lowering mortality from this cancer. Recognizing the importance of this issue 25 years ago, our group at New York University published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians the mnemonic "ABCD" to facilitate the early diagnosis of melanoma. Studies have demonstrated the usefulness of this paradigm in enhancing early melanoma diagnosis as a part of clinical examinations, mass screenings, and public education programs. Approaches to melanoma diagnosis have dynamically evolved during the ensuing quarter century. In the 1990s, dermoscopy enabled the recognition of new subsurface features to differentiate between malignant and benign pigmented lesions. During the last decade, new computer-based technologies have improved diagnostic sensitivity and specificity and may result in optimizing lesion selection for biopsy and pathology review. Despite all of the advances in melanoma diagnosis, timely recognition, detection, and rapid treatment of melanoma remain critical. Although pathologic examination remains the gold standard for diagnosis, this cancer has the potential to be diagnosed through noninvasive approaches because of its cutaneous location. From the development of the ABCDs through current attempts that use complex computer algorithms and genetic markers, a clinician's ability to detect melanoma in its earliest form has been augmented. However, a "good clinical eye" is still fundamental to selecting the lesions for evaluation among the sea of those that are prevalent. As current approaches are refined and new techniques are developed, the improved ability to diagnose this cancer will hopefully enhance reaching the goal of reducing melanoma mortality.

Identification of high-risk cutaneous melanoma tumors is improved when combining the online American Joint Committee on Cancer Individualized Melanoma Patient Outcome Prediction Tool with a 31-gene expression profile-based classification.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)-defined early-stage cutaneous melanoma have disease recurrence and die. A 31-gene expression profile (GEP) that accurately assesses metastatic risk associated with primary cutaneous melanomas has been described. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare accuracy of the GEP in combination with risk determined using the web-based AJCC Individualized Melanoma Patient Outcome Prediction Tool. METHODS: GEP results from 205 stage I/II cutaneous melanomas with sufficient clinical data for prognostication using the AJCC tool were classified as low (class 1) or high (class 2) risk. Two 5-year overall survival cutoffs (AJCC 79% and 68%), reflecting survival for patients with stage IIA or IIB disease, respectively, were assigned for binary AJCC risk. RESULTS: Cox univariate analysis revealed significant risk classification of distant metastasis-free and overall survival (hazard ratio range 3.2-9.4, P < .001) for both tools. In all, 43 (21%) cases had discordant GEP and AJCC classification (using 79% cutoff). Eleven of 13 (85%) deaths in that group were predicted as high risk by GEP but low risk by AJCC. LIMITATIONS: Specimens reflect tertiary care center referrals; more effective therapies have been approved for clinical use after accrual. CONCLUSIONS: The GEP provides valuable prognostic information and improves identification of high-risk melanomas when used together with the AJCC online prediction tool.

Impact of a 31-gene Expression Profiling Test for Cutaneous Melanoma on Dermatologists' Clinical Management Decisions.

Importance: Current guidelines for cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) provide general recommendations regarding surveillance while indicating that management should be tailored to patients' individual probability of recurrence. A 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test to predict metastatic risk has been previously validated, and classifies patients as either Class 1 (low risk) or Class 2 (high risk).

Objective: To determine the impact of the 31-GEP test's result on clinical decision-making.

Design, Setting, and Participants: Dermatology residents who attended a national educational conference were presented with clinical validity evidence for the 31-GEP. Respondents were given six CMM patient vignettes with descriptions of clinical features and answered questions about their willingness to recommend sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNBx) or imaging based on each scenario. Additionally, respondents were asked to provide the Breslow thickness (BT), ranging from 0.7-1.5mm in 0.1mm increments, at which they would recommend SLNBx, imaging, or oncology referral.

Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of respondents who would recommend each management modality based upon three outcomes (no result, Class 1, or Class 2) was quantified. Differences between response groups were assessed using Fisher's exact test.

Results: The majority of respondents (62%, 57%, and 55%, respectively) indicated a 1.0mm BT as the guiding modality, reflecting adherence to current guidelines. After inclusion of a Class 2 result, the BT used to guide SLNBx, oncology referral, and imaging was changed in 47%, 50% and 47% of the responses, respectively, with 95%, 84% and 97% of the cases, respectively, changed in a risk-appropriate direction (decreased BT). Based on a 31-GEP Class 1 or Class 2 result, risk appropriate recommendations were more likely to be made for each management modality tested in five of the six patient vignettes (P less than 0.05).

Conclusions and Relevance: The 31-GEP test had a significant and appropriate impact on management while remaining within the context of established guidelines.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2017;16(5):428-431.