Nonablative laser therapy is emerging as an effective noninvasive treatment option for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) with reduced adverse effects and good cosmetic outcomes compared to surgery. Vascular lasers, such as the pulsed dye laser (PDL), are thought to work by selectively targeting the tumor’s vascular network while preserving normal surrounding tissue.^1,2 Although high energy and multiple passes might be required, adjunctive use of dynamic cooling reduces the risk for nonselective thermal injury vs ablative lasers, which destroy the tumor itself through vaporization of tissue water.²

With no established laser management guidelines for the treatment of BCC, earlier studies using a 595-nm PDL varied highly in their protocol.^3-8 Pulsed dye laser parameters ranged from a spot size of 7 to 10 mm, fluence of 7.5 to 15 J/cm², and pulse duration of 0.5 to 3 milliseconds. Follow-up ranged from 12 days to 25 months after the final laser treatment. The number of lesions in prior studies ranged from 7 to 100 BCCs, with the clinical clearance rate ranging from 71.4% to 75% for facial BCC and 78.6% to 95% for nonfacial BCC.^3-8 Studies with histologic confirmation had a clearance rate of 66.6% for facial BCC and 25% to 92.3% for nonfacial BCC.^3-5,7,8 Most studies examined BCCs on the trunk and extremities with few investigating facial BCC,^3-8 which is especially important given that the head and neck are the most common and cosmetically sensitive anatomic locations.^9-13

Noninvasive imaging devices, such as reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) can assist with the diagnosis and treatment monitoring of BCC. These devices enable in vivo visualization of tissue in both cross-sectional and en face views and therefore can reduce the need for diagnostic biopsy. Reflectance confocal microscopy enables near-histologic visualization of the epidermis and superficial dermis with a resolution of 0.5 to 1 μm.¹⁴ Optical coherence tomography uses an infrared broadband light source that allows users to view skin architecture as deep as 1.5 to 2 mm with a resolution of 5 μm.¹⁵

When used synergistically, both devices can enhance the efficacy of nonablative laser treatment. With its increased depth and wider field of view, OCT is an optimal tool for repetitive evaluation of the same site over time and for following biopsy-confirmed tumors undergoing management.¹⁶ In addition to delineating tumor margins before treatment, imaging improves the detection of residual skin cancers, despite clearance on clinical and dermoscopic examination. Noninvasive imaging and nonsurgical management with laser therapy allow the physician to leave the skin intact and avoid scar tissue that might otherwise make it more difficult to detect and manage recurrence. The ability of OCT and RCM to monitor the efficacy of nonsurgical therapies for skin cancer has been demonstrated with imiquimod, photodynamic therapy, vismodegib, and ablative laser therapy.^17-20

With limited data on nonablative laser management of BCC, several gaps in the literature exist. First, in previously published studies the number of treatments was either determined to be an arbitrary set number or based on clinical clearance, which has the potential to miss residual tumor. Second, many follow-ups were limited to shortly after the final treatment, which limits the accuracy of the clearance rate, given that inflammation and scars can hide residual tumor.^21-23 Third, because many studies excised the treated area, long-term follow-up for recurrence was obscured. Last, only a few studies involved facial BCC, which is the most common and cosmetically concerning anatomic location.¹³

Our study attempted to address these gaps by evaluating the use of noninvasive imaging to guide management of primarily facial BCC. The objective was to perform a retrospective chart review on a subgroup of patients with BCC who were treated with combined nonablative PDL and fractional laser treatment with an extended follow-up period.

Methods

Study Design
We performed a retrospective chart review of 68 patients with 93 BCCs who had been treated with nonablative laser therapy as an alternative to surgery at the Mount Sinai Faculty Practice Associates between February 2011 and December 2018. Patients were followed throughout this period for assessment of clinical and subclinical recurrence. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Program for the Protection of Human Subjects provided institutional review board approval.

Patients
Inclusion criteria included the following: (1) BCC diagnosed by biopsy (see eTable 1 for subtypes) and (2) treated with a nonablative laser due to patient preference and eligibility by the principal investigator (PI). As a retrospective study, lesions were included irrespective of tumor subtype or size. Although the risk for perineural invasion (PNI) is extremely low with BCC (<0.2%), none of the cases demonstrated PNI on diagnostic biopsy and none exhibited clinical evidence of PNI, such as paresthesia, pain, facial paralysis, or diplopia.²⁴

Eligibility determined by the PI included limited clinical ulceration or bleeding, or both, and a safe distance from the eye when wearing an external eye shield (ie, outside the orbital rim). Patients who had Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) or excision (or both) with recurrence at the treatment site were included. Detailed and thorough clinical and dermoscopic skin examination was critical in early detection of these cancers, allowing for treatment of less advanced tumors. The PI’s diagnostic approach utilized the published diagnostic color wheel algorithm,²⁵ which encompasses both clinical and dermoscopic colors and patterns for early diagnosis (ie, ulceration, pink-white to white shiny areas, absence of pigmented network, leaflike structures, large blue-gray ovoid nests or globular structures, spoke wheel structures, a crystalline pattern, a singular vascular pattern of arborizing vessels), combined with OCT or RCM, when necessary.²⁶ All lesions were imaged with OCT prior to laser treatment to confirm residual tumor following biopsy.

Although postsurgical patients were included, lesions receiving concurrent or prior nonsurgical therapy, such as a topical immunomodulator or oral hedgehog inhibitor (eg, vismodegib), were excluded.

Treatment Protocol
All patients received thorough information about the treatment, treatment alternatives, and potential adverse effects and complications. Lesions were selected based on clinical and dermoscopic findings and were biopsy confirmed. Clinical and dermoscopic photographs were taken at every visit. A camera was used for clinical photographs and a dermatoscope was attached for all contact polarized dermoscopic images. All lesions were imaged with OCT prior to laser therapy to delineate tumor margins and to confirm residual disease following biopsy to preclude biopsy-mediated regression.

Laser treatment consisted of a 595-nm PDL followed by fractional laser treatment with the 1927-nm setting. The range of PDL settings was similar to published studies of PDL for BCC (spot size, 7–10 mm; fluence, 6–15 J/cm²; pulse duration, 0.45–3 milliseconds).^3-8 The fractional laser also was used at settings similar to earlier studies for actinic keratosis (fluence, 5–20 mJ; treatment density, 40%–70%).²⁷ Laser treatment was performed by 1 of 5 medically trained providers who were fellows supervised by the PI.

All tumors received 1 to 7 treatments (average, 2.89) at 1- to 2-month intervals. Treatment end point (complete clearance) was judged on the absence of skin cancer clinically, dermoscopically on OCT, or histologically by biopsy, or a combination of these modalities. Recurrence was defined as a new histologically confirmed BCC occurring in an area that was previously documented as clear. Patients returned for follow-up 1 to 2 months after the final treatment to monitor tumor clearance and subsequently every 6 to 12 months for tumor recurrence. Posttreatment care included application of a thick emollient, such as a petrolatum-based product, until the area completely healed.

Data Collection
Clinical photographs, dermoscopic photographs, OCT scans, RCM scans, and biopsy reports were reviewed for each patient, as applicable. All patients were given an unidentifiable number; no protected health information was recorded. Data recorded for each patient included age, tumor subtype and location, tumor size, classification of the tumor as primary or a recurrence, number of treatments, treatment duration, lesion clearance, and length of follow-up.

Results

Patient and Lesion Characteristics
Sixty-eight patients with 93 BCCs (77 facial; 16 nonfacial) were included. The median age of patients was 70 years (range, 31–91 years). All 93 BCCs demonstrated residual tumor on OCT after diagnostic biopsy. Four BCCs had been treated earlier with MMS and were biopsy-proven recurrences. Most BCCs were of the nodular subtype; however, sclerosing, superficial, pigmented, morpheaform, and infiltrative subtypes also were included (eTable 1). Eight BCCs were obtained at outside institutions with no subtype provided. Facial BCCs had a mean (SD) clinical and dermoscopic diameter of 6.75 (4.71) mm (range, 2–24 mm). Patients were followed for 2.53 months to 6.03 years (mean follow-up, 2.43 years) and assessed for clinical and subclinical recurrence.

Tumor Clearance
Most lesions were effectively treated, with 89 of 93 BCCs (95.70%) demonstrating complete tumor clearance. Complete tumor clearance following laser therapy was reported in 74 of 77 facial BCCs (96.10%) and 15 of 16 nonfacial BCCs (93.75%)(eTable 2). Successfully treated BCCs underwent an average of 2.88 laser treatments over a mean duration of 3.54 months (range, 1 week to 1.92 years). Four incomplete responders underwent an average of 3.25 laser treatments over a mean duration of 3.44 months (range, 1.13–6.87 months). Of the 4 lesions that did not clear, 2 were nodular, 1 was pigmented, and 1 was sclerosing.

• Lesions receiving 3 or fewer treatments had a clearance rate of 96.05% (73/76) for all BCCs, 96.72% (59/61) for facial BCCs, and 93.33% (14/15) for nonfacial BCCs.

• Lesions receiving more than 3 laser treatments had a clearance rate of 94.12% (16/17) for all BCCs, 93.75% (15/16) for facial BCCs, and 100% (1/1) for nonfacial BCCs.

The relationship between facial BCC tumor diameter and number of treatments required for clearance had a positive correlation coefficient (Pearson r=0.319), indicating that larger BCCs required more laser treatments (eTable 3).

Comment

High Tumor Clearance Rates With OCT
This study yielded a clearance rate of 95.70% for all BCCs, 96.10% for facial BCCs, and 93.75% for nonfacial BCCs. This rate is higher than the clinical or histologic clearance rate (or both) of earlier studies on facial and nonfacial BCCs, which ranged from 25% to 95%.^8-11 In this study, we were able to utilize OCT and histology to confirm clearance. Optical coherence tomography, which has been shown to have a high sensitivity ranging from 86% to 95.7%, is therefore optimally used in treatment monitoring.^19,26,28 Optical coherence tomography has a broader specificity range of 75.3% to 98% and was not utilized for diagnostic purposes in this study. Combining OCT with a color wheel dermoscopic approach was helpful in confirming treatment efficacy of nonsurgical therapies and is significantly more accurate than clinical analysis alone (P<.01).^19,26,28

We suspect that the higher clearance rates observed in our study were due to the OCT-guided treatment protocol. Optical coherence tomography was used for margination while providing a modality for tailored treatment through visualization of residual tumor on clinically and dermoscopically clear follow-ups, given that several studies found residual tumor at the lateral edge of the tumor margin on histopathologic analysis.⁵ Utilizing noninvasive imaging technology to delineate tumor margins before treatment can improve efficacy and limit unnecessary treatment to the surrounding normal skin (eFigure 2).²⁹

After grouping lesions by number of laser treatments, the clearance rate remained similar among facial BCCs with 3 or fewer treatments (59/61 [96.72%]), but there was a slightly decreased clearance rate for facial BCCs with more than 3 treatments (15/16 [93.75%]), which may be explained by the need for more laser treatments for larger BCCs (eTable 3). The relationship between facial BCC size and number of laser treatments was found to correlate positively (Pearson r=0.319). The largest lesion (24 mm) was successfully treated with 5 treatments (Figure). The number of nonfacial lesions was limited in this study and was not statistically significant.

• The third was a BCC on the nose of a nonadherent patient, which may have contributed to the lack of clearance. We defined nonadherent patients as those who did not follow-up within the appropriate periods and who therefore ran the risk for tumor growth in between treatments.

The nonfacial BCC that did not clear had histologic features of focal sclerosing BCC, a more aggressive subtype of basal cell skin cancer.

Tumor Recurrence
Only 4 of 89 BCCs (4.49%) recurred, with a 5.41% (4/74) recurrence rate among facial BCCs. All recurrences lacked clinical and dermoscopic evidence of BCC but were found on follow-up OCT scan and confirmed with RCM. All recurrences were found 1.5 to 3.9 years posttreatment.

Recurrent tumors following MMS required, on average, more laser treatments than primary tumors to achieve successful tumor clearance, which we attribute to scar tissue from prior therapy obscuring recurrence, resulting in delayed diagnosis, and to inflammation and fibrosis masking residual tumors (eFigure 1). An added benefit of laser treatment is that all 4 recurrent tumors demonstrated improved cosmetic appearance of the original MMS scar.

The benefit of using OCT scans to check for recurrences is that OCT can find residual skin cancers despite the area looking clinically clear, which is especially important during clinical evaluation of a healed postsurgical scar for recurrence because OCT imaging allows us to look as deep as 2 mm under the skin. Nonsurgical treatments also enable us to leave skin intact and avoid creating scar tissue, which makes it easier to detect and manage recurrence.

Limitations
There were several important limitations of this retrospective study:

• Patients were treated by 1 of 5 medically trained fellows. Although the fellows worked under the supervision of the PI, variation in their work from one to another might have led to different end points.

• All patients who appeared clinically clear were offered biopsy to confirm clearance on histology. Some patients agreed to biopsy, but many did not because they were pleased with the cosmetic outcome, which is similar to other studies exhibiting only clinical clearance rates without providing histologic clearance following nonsurgical therapy.⁶ We believe that imaging with OCT circumvents this problem and offers more accurate confirmation than clinical or dermoscopic correlation alone, or the combination of the 2 modalities.

• Lack of treatment standardization and short length of follow-up can result in underestimation of the recurrence rate. In particular, most patients were followed up with OCT in less than 6 months. These are unavoidable features in a retrospective study and we are currently addressing this problem in a new prospective study.

Extended Follow-up
Although this study is not a prospective design, it does provide recurrence data over extended follow-up for the nonablative laser management of BCCs (eTables 4 and 5). Studies have demonstrated that MMS has a 5-year cure rate as high as 99% for BCC.³² Given the limited follow-up period of prior nonablative laser management studies, recurrences might not have been fully evaluated. Our study had a 4.49% recurrence rate for all BCCs and a 5.41% recurrence rate for facial BCCs but was not detectable by clinical examination combined with dermoscopic findings alone. All recurrences required the utilization of OCT or RCM or a combination of these modalities to be diagnosed. In 1 patient with recurrence, we were able to see residual tumor on both OCT and RCM without any inflammation obscuring the scan, given that 3 years had passed. Although 2 months is an optimal follow-up time for OCT, we have not found an optimal follow-up time for RCM, which is another reason why OCT might be preferable to other imaging modalities, such as RCM and high-definition OCT, that have higher resolution but provide less depth on imaging. Although only 40 of 89 patients (4.49%) had follow-up ranging from 3 years to greater than 5 years, long-term follow-up to date has been limited in prior studies.

We believe the high clearance rates and limited recurrence are secondary to the utilization of noninvasive imaging, as the majority of these recurrences would not have been diagnosed based on clinical and/or dermoscopic information alone. Additionally, the 4 biopsy-proven post-MMS recurrence patients that were treated in this study also may not have been diagnosed this early without the use of additional noninvasive imaging. In our opinion, although laser management can be used without noninvasive imaging guidance—dermoscopy, OCT, and/or RCM—this technology is critical not only for early detection but also for proper management of patients.

Conclusion

This study showed a 95.70% clearance rate for all BCCs and a 96.10% clearance rate for facial BCCs. Although we had a zero clinical recurrence rate, 4.49% of all BCCs and 5.41% of facial BCCs had recurred on subsequent monitoring with noninvasive imaging. Given the large size of the study and extended follow-up, we found nonablative laser management to be a reliable treatment alternative with improved cosmetic outcome (Figure) and minimal short-term adverse effects compared to surgery.

Tailored care for the individual patient is based on a variety of options and patient preference, including ease of compliance, number of follow-up visits, invasive vs noninvasive diagnosis and monitoring, and downtime for healing. The use of noninvasive imaging also allowed us to find a more standardized treatment regimen using this nonablative laser combination. We found that 3 or fewer and more than 3 treatments had similar efficacy in tumor clearance. We recommend a standard laser protocol of 3 treatments every 4 to 6 weeks with follow-up 2 months after the final treatment to assess for clearance with OCT.

Larger BCCs might require additional treatments; therefore, we caution against laser therapy without concomitant use of OCT imaging to visualize residual tumor. Utilizing other noninvasive modalities, such as dermoscopy, in combination with thorough skin examination also is critical in the early detection of skin cancers to improve the efficacy of this less-aggressive, nonablative, and cosmetically optimal treatment protocol.

Acknowledgement—We would like to acknowledge Dimitrios Karponis, BSc, from the Impirial College London, England, for his assistance with a portion of the statistical analysis.

Nonablative laser therapy is emerging as an effective noninvasive treatment option for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) with reduced adverse effects and good cosmetic outcomes compared to surgery. Vascular lasers, such as the pulsed dye laser (PDL), are thought to work by selectively targeting the tumor’s vascular network while preserving normal surrounding tissue.^1,2 Although high energy and multiple passes might be required, adjunctive use of dynamic cooling reduces the risk for nonselective thermal injury vs ablative lasers, which destroy the tumor itself through vaporization of tissue water.²

With no established laser management guidelines for the treatment of BCC, earlier studies using a 595-nm PDL varied highly in their protocol.^3-8 Pulsed dye laser parameters ranged from a spot size of 7 to 10 mm, fluence of 7.5 to 15 J/cm², and pulse duration of 0.5 to 3 milliseconds. Follow-up ranged from 12 days to 25 months after the final laser treatment. The number of lesions in prior studies ranged from 7 to 100 BCCs, with the clinical clearance rate ranging from 71.4% to 75% for facial BCC and 78.6% to 95% for nonfacial BCC.^3-8 Studies with histologic confirmation had a clearance rate of 66.6% for facial BCC and 25% to 92.3% for nonfacial BCC.^3-5,7,8 Most studies examined BCCs on the trunk and extremities with few investigating facial BCC,^3-8 which is especially important given that the head and neck are the most common and cosmetically sensitive anatomic locations.^9-13

Noninvasive imaging devices, such as reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) can assist with the diagnosis and treatment monitoring of BCC. These devices enable in vivo visualization of tissue in both cross-sectional and en face views and therefore can reduce the need for diagnostic biopsy. Reflectance confocal microscopy enables near-histologic visualization of the epidermis and superficial dermis with a resolution of 0.5 to 1 μm.¹⁴ Optical coherence tomography uses an infrared broadband light source that allows users to view skin architecture as deep as 1.5 to 2 mm with a resolution of 5 μm.¹⁵

When used synergistically, both devices can enhance the efficacy of nonablative laser treatment. With its increased depth and wider field of view, OCT is an optimal tool for repetitive evaluation of the same site over time and for following biopsy-confirmed tumors undergoing management.¹⁶ In addition to delineating tumor margins before treatment, imaging improves the detection of residual skin cancers, despite clearance on clinical and dermoscopic examination. Noninvasive imaging and nonsurgical management with laser therapy allow the physician to leave the skin intact and avoid scar tissue that might otherwise make it more difficult to detect and manage recurrence. The ability of OCT and RCM to monitor the efficacy of nonsurgical therapies for skin cancer has been demonstrated with imiquimod, photodynamic therapy, vismodegib, and ablative laser therapy.^17-20

With limited data on nonablative laser management of BCC, several gaps in the literature exist. First, in previously published studies the number of treatments was either determined to be an arbitrary set number or based on clinical clearance, which has the potential to miss residual tumor. Second, many follow-ups were limited to shortly after the final treatment, which limits the accuracy of the clearance rate, given that inflammation and scars can hide residual tumor.^21-23 Third, because many studies excised the treated area, long-term follow-up for recurrence was obscured. Last, only a few studies involved facial BCC, which is the most common and cosmetically concerning anatomic location.¹³

Our study attempted to address these gaps by evaluating the use of noninvasive imaging to guide management of primarily facial BCC. The objective was to perform a retrospective chart review on a subgroup of patients with BCC who were treated with combined nonablative PDL and fractional laser treatment with an extended follow-up period.

Methods

Study Design
We performed a retrospective chart review of 68 patients with 93 BCCs who had been treated with nonablative laser therapy as an alternative to surgery at the Mount Sinai Faculty Practice Associates between February 2011 and December 2018. Patients were followed throughout this period for assessment of clinical and subclinical recurrence. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Program for the Protection of Human Subjects provided institutional review board approval.

Patients
Inclusion criteria included the following: (1) BCC diagnosed by biopsy (see eTable 1 for subtypes) and (2) treated with a nonablative laser due to patient preference and eligibility by the principal investigator (PI). As a retrospective study, lesions were included irrespective of tumor subtype or size. Although the risk for perineural invasion (PNI) is extremely low with BCC (<0.2%), none of the cases demonstrated PNI on diagnostic biopsy and none exhibited clinical evidence of PNI, such as paresthesia, pain, facial paralysis, or diplopia.²⁴

Eligibility determined by the PI included limited clinical ulceration or bleeding, or both, and a safe distance from the eye when wearing an external eye shield (ie, outside the orbital rim). Patients who had Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) or excision (or both) with recurrence at the treatment site were included. Detailed and thorough clinical and dermoscopic skin examination was critical in early detection of these cancers, allowing for treatment of less advanced tumors. The PI’s diagnostic approach utilized the published diagnostic color wheel algorithm,²⁵ which encompasses both clinical and dermoscopic colors and patterns for early diagnosis (ie, ulceration, pink-white to white shiny areas, absence of pigmented network, leaflike structures, large blue-gray ovoid nests or globular structures, spoke wheel structures, a crystalline pattern, a singular vascular pattern of arborizing vessels), combined with OCT or RCM, when necessary.²⁶ All lesions were imaged with OCT prior to laser treatment to confirm residual tumor following biopsy.

Although postsurgical patients were included, lesions receiving concurrent or prior nonsurgical therapy, such as a topical immunomodulator or oral hedgehog inhibitor (eg, vismodegib), were excluded.

Treatment Protocol
All patients received thorough information about the treatment, treatment alternatives, and potential adverse effects and complications. Lesions were selected based on clinical and dermoscopic findings and were biopsy confirmed. Clinical and dermoscopic photographs were taken at every visit. A camera was used for clinical photographs and a dermatoscope was attached for all contact polarized dermoscopic images. All lesions were imaged with OCT prior to laser therapy to delineate tumor margins and to confirm residual disease following biopsy to preclude biopsy-mediated regression.

Laser treatment consisted of a 595-nm PDL followed by fractional laser treatment with the 1927-nm setting. The range of PDL settings was similar to published studies of PDL for BCC (spot size, 7–10 mm; fluence, 6–15 J/cm²; pulse duration, 0.45–3 milliseconds).^3-8 The fractional laser also was used at settings similar to earlier studies for actinic keratosis (fluence, 5–20 mJ; treatment density, 40%–70%).²⁷ Laser treatment was performed by 1 of 5 medically trained providers who were fellows supervised by the PI.

All tumors received 1 to 7 treatments (average, 2.89) at 1- to 2-month intervals. Treatment end point (complete clearance) was judged on the absence of skin cancer clinically, dermoscopically on OCT, or histologically by biopsy, or a combination of these modalities. Recurrence was defined as a new histologically confirmed BCC occurring in an area that was previously documented as clear. Patients returned for follow-up 1 to 2 months after the final treatment to monitor tumor clearance and subsequently every 6 to 12 months for tumor recurrence. Posttreatment care included application of a thick emollient, such as a petrolatum-based product, until the area completely healed.

Data Collection
Clinical photographs, dermoscopic photographs, OCT scans, RCM scans, and biopsy reports were reviewed for each patient, as applicable. All patients were given an unidentifiable number; no protected health information was recorded. Data recorded for each patient included age, tumor subtype and location, tumor size, classification of the tumor as primary or a recurrence, number of treatments, treatment duration, lesion clearance, and length of follow-up.

Results

Patient and Lesion Characteristics
Sixty-eight patients with 93 BCCs (77 facial; 16 nonfacial) were included. The median age of patients was 70 years (range, 31–91 years). All 93 BCCs demonstrated residual tumor on OCT after diagnostic biopsy. Four BCCs had been treated earlier with MMS and were biopsy-proven recurrences. Most BCCs were of the nodular subtype; however, sclerosing, superficial, pigmented, morpheaform, and infiltrative subtypes also were included (eTable 1). Eight BCCs were obtained at outside institutions with no subtype provided. Facial BCCs had a mean (SD) clinical and dermoscopic diameter of 6.75 (4.71) mm (range, 2–24 mm). Patients were followed for 2.53 months to 6.03 years (mean follow-up, 2.43 years) and assessed for clinical and subclinical recurrence.

Tumor Clearance
Most lesions were effectively treated, with 89 of 93 BCCs (95.70%) demonstrating complete tumor clearance. Complete tumor clearance following laser therapy was reported in 74 of 77 facial BCCs (96.10%) and 15 of 16 nonfacial BCCs (93.75%)(eTable 2). Successfully treated BCCs underwent an average of 2.88 laser treatments over a mean duration of 3.54 months (range, 1 week to 1.92 years). Four incomplete responders underwent an average of 3.25 laser treatments over a mean duration of 3.44 months (range, 1.13–6.87 months). Of the 4 lesions that did not clear, 2 were nodular, 1 was pigmented, and 1 was sclerosing.

• Lesions receiving 3 or fewer treatments had a clearance rate of 96.05% (73/76) for all BCCs, 96.72% (59/61) for facial BCCs, and 93.33% (14/15) for nonfacial BCCs.

• Lesions receiving more than 3 laser treatments had a clearance rate of 94.12% (16/17) for all BCCs, 93.75% (15/16) for facial BCCs, and 100% (1/1) for nonfacial BCCs.

The relationship between facial BCC tumor diameter and number of treatments required for clearance had a positive correlation coefficient (Pearson r=0.319), indicating that larger BCCs required more laser treatments (eTable 3).

Comment

High Tumor Clearance Rates With OCT
This study yielded a clearance rate of 95.70% for all BCCs, 96.10% for facial BCCs, and 93.75% for nonfacial BCCs. This rate is higher than the clinical or histologic clearance rate (or both) of earlier studies on facial and nonfacial BCCs, which ranged from 25% to 95%.^8-11 In this study, we were able to utilize OCT and histology to confirm clearance. Optical coherence tomography, which has been shown to have a high sensitivity ranging from 86% to 95.7%, is therefore optimally used in treatment monitoring.^19,26,28 Optical coherence tomography has a broader specificity range of 75.3% to 98% and was not utilized for diagnostic purposes in this study. Combining OCT with a color wheel dermoscopic approach was helpful in confirming treatment efficacy of nonsurgical therapies and is significantly more accurate than clinical analysis alone (P<.01).^19,26,28

We suspect that the higher clearance rates observed in our study were due to the OCT-guided treatment protocol. Optical coherence tomography was used for margination while providing a modality for tailored treatment through visualization of residual tumor on clinically and dermoscopically clear follow-ups, given that several studies found residual tumor at the lateral edge of the tumor margin on histopathologic analysis.⁵ Utilizing noninvasive imaging technology to delineate tumor margins before treatment can improve efficacy and limit unnecessary treatment to the surrounding normal skin (eFigure 2).²⁹

After grouping lesions by number of laser treatments, the clearance rate remained similar among facial BCCs with 3 or fewer treatments (59/61 [96.72%]), but there was a slightly decreased clearance rate for facial BCCs with more than 3 treatments (15/16 [93.75%]), which may be explained by the need for more laser treatments for larger BCCs (eTable 3). The relationship between facial BCC size and number of laser treatments was found to correlate positively (Pearson r=0.319). The largest lesion (24 mm) was successfully treated with 5 treatments (Figure). The number of nonfacial lesions was limited in this study and was not statistically significant.

• The third was a BCC on the nose of a nonadherent patient, which may have contributed to the lack of clearance. We defined nonadherent patients as those who did not follow-up within the appropriate periods and who therefore ran the risk for tumor growth in between treatments.

The nonfacial BCC that did not clear had histologic features of focal sclerosing BCC, a more aggressive subtype of basal cell skin cancer.

Tumor Recurrence
Only 4 of 89 BCCs (4.49%) recurred, with a 5.41% (4/74) recurrence rate among facial BCCs. All recurrences lacked clinical and dermoscopic evidence of BCC but were found on follow-up OCT scan and confirmed with RCM. All recurrences were found 1.5 to 3.9 years posttreatment.

Recurrent tumors following MMS required, on average, more laser treatments than primary tumors to achieve successful tumor clearance, which we attribute to scar tissue from prior therapy obscuring recurrence, resulting in delayed diagnosis, and to inflammation and fibrosis masking residual tumors (eFigure 1). An added benefit of laser treatment is that all 4 recurrent tumors demonstrated improved cosmetic appearance of the original MMS scar.

The benefit of using OCT scans to check for recurrences is that OCT can find residual skin cancers despite the area looking clinically clear, which is especially important during clinical evaluation of a healed postsurgical scar for recurrence because OCT imaging allows us to look as deep as 2 mm under the skin. Nonsurgical treatments also enable us to leave skin intact and avoid creating scar tissue, which makes it easier to detect and manage recurrence.

Limitations
There were several important limitations of this retrospective study:

• Patients were treated by 1 of 5 medically trained fellows. Although the fellows worked under the supervision of the PI, variation in their work from one to another might have led to different end points.

• All patients who appeared clinically clear were offered biopsy to confirm clearance on histology. Some patients agreed to biopsy, but many did not because they were pleased with the cosmetic outcome, which is similar to other studies exhibiting only clinical clearance rates without providing histologic clearance following nonsurgical therapy.⁶ We believe that imaging with OCT circumvents this problem and offers more accurate confirmation than clinical or dermoscopic correlation alone, or the combination of the 2 modalities.

• Lack of treatment standardization and short length of follow-up can result in underestimation of the recurrence rate. In particular, most patients were followed up with OCT in less than 6 months. These are unavoidable features in a retrospective study and we are currently addressing this problem in a new prospective study.

Extended Follow-up
Although this study is not a prospective design, it does provide recurrence data over extended follow-up for the nonablative laser management of BCCs (eTables 4 and 5). Studies have demonstrated that MMS has a 5-year cure rate as high as 99% for BCC.³² Given the limited follow-up period of prior nonablative laser management studies, recurrences might not have been fully evaluated. Our study had a 4.49% recurrence rate for all BCCs and a 5.41% recurrence rate for facial BCCs but was not detectable by clinical examination combined with dermoscopic findings alone. All recurrences required the utilization of OCT or RCM or a combination of these modalities to be diagnosed. In 1 patient with recurrence, we were able to see residual tumor on both OCT and RCM without any inflammation obscuring the scan, given that 3 years had passed. Although 2 months is an optimal follow-up time for OCT, we have not found an optimal follow-up time for RCM, which is another reason why OCT might be preferable to other imaging modalities, such as RCM and high-definition OCT, that have higher resolution but provide less depth on imaging. Although only 40 of 89 patients (4.49%) had follow-up ranging from 3 years to greater than 5 years, long-term follow-up to date has been limited in prior studies.

We believe the high clearance rates and limited recurrence are secondary to the utilization of noninvasive imaging, as the majority of these recurrences would not have been diagnosed based on clinical and/or dermoscopic information alone. Additionally, the 4 biopsy-proven post-MMS recurrence patients that were treated in this study also may not have been diagnosed this early without the use of additional noninvasive imaging. In our opinion, although laser management can be used without noninvasive imaging guidance—dermoscopy, OCT, and/or RCM—this technology is critical not only for early detection but also for proper management of patients.

Conclusion

This study showed a 95.70% clearance rate for all BCCs and a 96.10% clearance rate for facial BCCs. Although we had a zero clinical recurrence rate, 4.49% of all BCCs and 5.41% of facial BCCs had recurred on subsequent monitoring with noninvasive imaging. Given the large size of the study and extended follow-up, we found nonablative laser management to be a reliable treatment alternative with improved cosmetic outcome (Figure) and minimal short-term adverse effects compared to surgery.

Tailored care for the individual patient is based on a variety of options and patient preference, including ease of compliance, number of follow-up visits, invasive vs noninvasive diagnosis and monitoring, and downtime for healing. The use of noninvasive imaging also allowed us to find a more standardized treatment regimen using this nonablative laser combination. We found that 3 or fewer and more than 3 treatments had similar efficacy in tumor clearance. We recommend a standard laser protocol of 3 treatments every 4 to 6 weeks with follow-up 2 months after the final treatment to assess for clearance with OCT.

Larger BCCs might require additional treatments; therefore, we caution against laser therapy without concomitant use of OCT imaging to visualize residual tumor. Utilizing other noninvasive modalities, such as dermoscopy, in combination with thorough skin examination also is critical in the early detection of skin cancers to improve the efficacy of this less-aggressive, nonablative, and cosmetically optimal treatment protocol.

Acknowledgement—We would like to acknowledge Dimitrios Karponis, BSc, from the Impirial College London, England, for his assistance with a portion of the statistical analysis.

Nonablative laser therapy is emerging as an effective noninvasive treatment option for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) with reduced adverse effects and good cosmetic outcomes compared to surgery. Vascular lasers, such as the pulsed dye laser (PDL), are thought to work by selectively targeting the tumor’s vascular network while preserving normal surrounding tissue.^1,2 Although high energy and multiple passes might be required, adjunctive use of dynamic cooling reduces the risk for nonselective thermal injury vs ablative lasers, which destroy the tumor itself through vaporization of tissue water.²

With no established laser management guidelines for the treatment of BCC, earlier studies using a 595-nm PDL varied highly in their protocol.^3-8 Pulsed dye laser parameters ranged from a spot size of 7 to 10 mm, fluence of 7.5 to 15 J/cm², and pulse duration of 0.5 to 3 milliseconds. Follow-up ranged from 12 days to 25 months after the final laser treatment. The number of lesions in prior studies ranged from 7 to 100 BCCs, with the clinical clearance rate ranging from 71.4% to 75% for facial BCC and 78.6% to 95% for nonfacial BCC.^3-8 Studies with histologic confirmation had a clearance rate of 66.6% for facial BCC and 25% to 92.3% for nonfacial BCC.^3-5,7,8 Most studies examined BCCs on the trunk and extremities with few investigating facial BCC,^3-8 which is especially important given that the head and neck are the most common and cosmetically sensitive anatomic locations.^9-13

Noninvasive imaging devices, such as reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) can assist with the diagnosis and treatment monitoring of BCC. These devices enable in vivo visualization of tissue in both cross-sectional and en face views and therefore can reduce the need for diagnostic biopsy. Reflectance confocal microscopy enables near-histologic visualization of the epidermis and superficial dermis with a resolution of 0.5 to 1 μm.¹⁴ Optical coherence tomography uses an infrared broadband light source that allows users to view skin architecture as deep as 1.5 to 2 mm with a resolution of 5 μm.¹⁵

When used synergistically, both devices can enhance the efficacy of nonablative laser treatment. With its increased depth and wider field of view, OCT is an optimal tool for repetitive evaluation of the same site over time and for following biopsy-confirmed tumors undergoing management.¹⁶ In addition to delineating tumor margins before treatment, imaging improves the detection of residual skin cancers, despite clearance on clinical and dermoscopic examination. Noninvasive imaging and nonsurgical management with laser therapy allow the physician to leave the skin intact and avoid scar tissue that might otherwise make it more difficult to detect and manage recurrence. The ability of OCT and RCM to monitor the efficacy of nonsurgical therapies for skin cancer has been demonstrated with imiquimod, photodynamic therapy, vismodegib, and ablative laser therapy.^17-20

With limited data on nonablative laser management of BCC, several gaps in the literature exist. First, in previously published studies the number of treatments was either determined to be an arbitrary set number or based on clinical clearance, which has the potential to miss residual tumor. Second, many follow-ups were limited to shortly after the final treatment, which limits the accuracy of the clearance rate, given that inflammation and scars can hide residual tumor.^21-23 Third, because many studies excised the treated area, long-term follow-up for recurrence was obscured. Last, only a few studies involved facial BCC, which is the most common and cosmetically concerning anatomic location.¹³

Our study attempted to address these gaps by evaluating the use of noninvasive imaging to guide management of primarily facial BCC. The objective was to perform a retrospective chart review on a subgroup of patients with BCC who were treated with combined nonablative PDL and fractional laser treatment with an extended follow-up period.

Methods

Study Design
We performed a retrospective chart review of 68 patients with 93 BCCs who had been treated with nonablative laser therapy as an alternative to surgery at the Mount Sinai Faculty Practice Associates between February 2011 and December 2018. Patients were followed throughout this period for assessment of clinical and subclinical recurrence. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Program for the Protection of Human Subjects provided institutional review board approval.

Patients
Inclusion criteria included the following: (1) BCC diagnosed by biopsy (see eTable 1 for subtypes) and (2) treated with a nonablative laser due to patient preference and eligibility by the principal investigator (PI). As a retrospective study, lesions were included irrespective of tumor subtype or size. Although the risk for perineural invasion (PNI) is extremely low with BCC (<0.2%), none of the cases demonstrated PNI on diagnostic biopsy and none exhibited clinical evidence of PNI, such as paresthesia, pain, facial paralysis, or diplopia.²⁴

Eligibility determined by the PI included limited clinical ulceration or bleeding, or both, and a safe distance from the eye when wearing an external eye shield (ie, outside the orbital rim). Patients who had Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) or excision (or both) with recurrence at the treatment site were included. Detailed and thorough clinical and dermoscopic skin examination was critical in early detection of these cancers, allowing for treatment of less advanced tumors. The PI’s diagnostic approach utilized the published diagnostic color wheel algorithm,²⁵ which encompasses both clinical and dermoscopic colors and patterns for early diagnosis (ie, ulceration, pink-white to white shiny areas, absence of pigmented network, leaflike structures, large blue-gray ovoid nests or globular structures, spoke wheel structures, a crystalline pattern, a singular vascular pattern of arborizing vessels), combined with OCT or RCM, when necessary.²⁶ All lesions were imaged with OCT prior to laser treatment to confirm residual tumor following biopsy.

Although postsurgical patients were included, lesions receiving concurrent or prior nonsurgical therapy, such as a topical immunomodulator or oral hedgehog inhibitor (eg, vismodegib), were excluded.

Treatment Protocol
All patients received thorough information about the treatment, treatment alternatives, and potential adverse effects and complications. Lesions were selected based on clinical and dermoscopic findings and were biopsy confirmed. Clinical and dermoscopic photographs were taken at every visit. A camera was used for clinical photographs and a dermatoscope was attached for all contact polarized dermoscopic images. All lesions were imaged with OCT prior to laser therapy to delineate tumor margins and to confirm residual disease following biopsy to preclude biopsy-mediated regression.

Laser treatment consisted of a 595-nm PDL followed by fractional laser treatment with the 1927-nm setting. The range of PDL settings was similar to published studies of PDL for BCC (spot size, 7–10 mm; fluence, 6–15 J/cm²; pulse duration, 0.45–3 milliseconds).^3-8 The fractional laser also was used at settings similar to earlier studies for actinic keratosis (fluence, 5–20 mJ; treatment density, 40%–70%).²⁷ Laser treatment was performed by 1 of 5 medically trained providers who were fellows supervised by the PI.

All tumors received 1 to 7 treatments (average, 2.89) at 1- to 2-month intervals. Treatment end point (complete clearance) was judged on the absence of skin cancer clinically, dermoscopically on OCT, or histologically by biopsy, or a combination of these modalities. Recurrence was defined as a new histologically confirmed BCC occurring in an area that was previously documented as clear. Patients returned for follow-up 1 to 2 months after the final treatment to monitor tumor clearance and subsequently every 6 to 12 months for tumor recurrence. Posttreatment care included application of a thick emollient, such as a petrolatum-based product, until the area completely healed.

Data Collection
Clinical photographs, dermoscopic photographs, OCT scans, RCM scans, and biopsy reports were reviewed for each patient, as applicable. All patients were given an unidentifiable number; no protected health information was recorded. Data recorded for each patient included age, tumor subtype and location, tumor size, classification of the tumor as primary or a recurrence, number of treatments, treatment duration, lesion clearance, and length of follow-up.

Results

Patient and Lesion Characteristics
Sixty-eight patients with 93 BCCs (77 facial; 16 nonfacial) were included. The median age of patients was 70 years (range, 31–91 years). All 93 BCCs demonstrated residual tumor on OCT after diagnostic biopsy. Four BCCs had been treated earlier with MMS and were biopsy-proven recurrences. Most BCCs were of the nodular subtype; however, sclerosing, superficial, pigmented, morpheaform, and infiltrative subtypes also were included (eTable 1). Eight BCCs were obtained at outside institutions with no subtype provided. Facial BCCs had a mean (SD) clinical and dermoscopic diameter of 6.75 (4.71) mm (range, 2–24 mm). Patients were followed for 2.53 months to 6.03 years (mean follow-up, 2.43 years) and assessed for clinical and subclinical recurrence.

Tumor Clearance
Most lesions were effectively treated, with 89 of 93 BCCs (95.70%) demonstrating complete tumor clearance. Complete tumor clearance following laser therapy was reported in 74 of 77 facial BCCs (96.10%) and 15 of 16 nonfacial BCCs (93.75%)(eTable 2). Successfully treated BCCs underwent an average of 2.88 laser treatments over a mean duration of 3.54 months (range, 1 week to 1.92 years). Four incomplete responders underwent an average of 3.25 laser treatments over a mean duration of 3.44 months (range, 1.13–6.87 months). Of the 4 lesions that did not clear, 2 were nodular, 1 was pigmented, and 1 was sclerosing.

• Lesions receiving 3 or fewer treatments had a clearance rate of 96.05% (73/76) for all BCCs, 96.72% (59/61) for facial BCCs, and 93.33% (14/15) for nonfacial BCCs.

• Lesions receiving more than 3 laser treatments had a clearance rate of 94.12% (16/17) for all BCCs, 93.75% (15/16) for facial BCCs, and 100% (1/1) for nonfacial BCCs.

The relationship between facial BCC tumor diameter and number of treatments required for clearance had a positive correlation coefficient (Pearson r=0.319), indicating that larger BCCs required more laser treatments (eTable 3).

Comment

High Tumor Clearance Rates With OCT
This study yielded a clearance rate of 95.70% for all BCCs, 96.10% for facial BCCs, and 93.75% for nonfacial BCCs. This rate is higher than the clinical or histologic clearance rate (or both) of earlier studies on facial and nonfacial BCCs, which ranged from 25% to 95%.^8-11 In this study, we were able to utilize OCT and histology to confirm clearance. Optical coherence tomography, which has been shown to have a high sensitivity ranging from 86% to 95.7%, is therefore optimally used in treatment monitoring.^19,26,28 Optical coherence tomography has a broader specificity range of 75.3% to 98% and was not utilized for diagnostic purposes in this study. Combining OCT with a color wheel dermoscopic approach was helpful in confirming treatment efficacy of nonsurgical therapies and is significantly more accurate than clinical analysis alone (P<.01).^19,26,28

We suspect that the higher clearance rates observed in our study were due to the OCT-guided treatment protocol. Optical coherence tomography was used for margination while providing a modality for tailored treatment through visualization of residual tumor on clinically and dermoscopically clear follow-ups, given that several studies found residual tumor at the lateral edge of the tumor margin on histopathologic analysis.⁵ Utilizing noninvasive imaging technology to delineate tumor margins before treatment can improve efficacy and limit unnecessary treatment to the surrounding normal skin (eFigure 2).²⁹

After grouping lesions by number of laser treatments, the clearance rate remained similar among facial BCCs with 3 or fewer treatments (59/61 [96.72%]), but there was a slightly decreased clearance rate for facial BCCs with more than 3 treatments (15/16 [93.75%]), which may be explained by the need for more laser treatments for larger BCCs (eTable 3). The relationship between facial BCC size and number of laser treatments was found to correlate positively (Pearson r=0.319). The largest lesion (24 mm) was successfully treated with 5 treatments (Figure). The number of nonfacial lesions was limited in this study and was not statistically significant.

• The third was a BCC on the nose of a nonadherent patient, which may have contributed to the lack of clearance. We defined nonadherent patients as those who did not follow-up within the appropriate periods and who therefore ran the risk for tumor growth in between treatments.

The nonfacial BCC that did not clear had histologic features of focal sclerosing BCC, a more aggressive subtype of basal cell skin cancer.

Tumor Recurrence
Only 4 of 89 BCCs (4.49%) recurred, with a 5.41% (4/74) recurrence rate among facial BCCs. All recurrences lacked clinical and dermoscopic evidence of BCC but were found on follow-up OCT scan and confirmed with RCM. All recurrences were found 1.5 to 3.9 years posttreatment.

Recurrent tumors following MMS required, on average, more laser treatments than primary tumors to achieve successful tumor clearance, which we attribute to scar tissue from prior therapy obscuring recurrence, resulting in delayed diagnosis, and to inflammation and fibrosis masking residual tumors (eFigure 1). An added benefit of laser treatment is that all 4 recurrent tumors demonstrated improved cosmetic appearance of the original MMS scar.

The benefit of using OCT scans to check for recurrences is that OCT can find residual skin cancers despite the area looking clinically clear, which is especially important during clinical evaluation of a healed postsurgical scar for recurrence because OCT imaging allows us to look as deep as 2 mm under the skin. Nonsurgical treatments also enable us to leave skin intact and avoid creating scar tissue, which makes it easier to detect and manage recurrence.

Limitations
There were several important limitations of this retrospective study:

• Patients were treated by 1 of 5 medically trained fellows. Although the fellows worked under the supervision of the PI, variation in their work from one to another might have led to different end points.

• All patients who appeared clinically clear were offered biopsy to confirm clearance on histology. Some patients agreed to biopsy, but many did not because they were pleased with the cosmetic outcome, which is similar to other studies exhibiting only clinical clearance rates without providing histologic clearance following nonsurgical therapy.⁶ We believe that imaging with OCT circumvents this problem and offers more accurate confirmation than clinical or dermoscopic correlation alone, or the combination of the 2 modalities.

• Lack of treatment standardization and short length of follow-up can result in underestimation of the recurrence rate. In particular, most patients were followed up with OCT in less than 6 months. These are unavoidable features in a retrospective study and we are currently addressing this problem in a new prospective study.

Extended Follow-up
Although this study is not a prospective design, it does provide recurrence data over extended follow-up for the nonablative laser management of BCCs (eTables 4 and 5). Studies have demonstrated that MMS has a 5-year cure rate as high as 99% for BCC.³² Given the limited follow-up period of prior nonablative laser management studies, recurrences might not have been fully evaluated. Our study had a 4.49% recurrence rate for all BCCs and a 5.41% recurrence rate for facial BCCs but was not detectable by clinical examination combined with dermoscopic findings alone. All recurrences required the utilization of OCT or RCM or a combination of these modalities to be diagnosed. In 1 patient with recurrence, we were able to see residual tumor on both OCT and RCM without any inflammation obscuring the scan, given that 3 years had passed. Although 2 months is an optimal follow-up time for OCT, we have not found an optimal follow-up time for RCM, which is another reason why OCT might be preferable to other imaging modalities, such as RCM and high-definition OCT, that have higher resolution but provide less depth on imaging. Although only 40 of 89 patients (4.49%) had follow-up ranging from 3 years to greater than 5 years, long-term follow-up to date has been limited in prior studies.

We believe the high clearance rates and limited recurrence are secondary to the utilization of noninvasive imaging, as the majority of these recurrences would not have been diagnosed based on clinical and/or dermoscopic information alone. Additionally, the 4 biopsy-proven post-MMS recurrence patients that were treated in this study also may not have been diagnosed this early without the use of additional noninvasive imaging. In our opinion, although laser management can be used without noninvasive imaging guidance—dermoscopy, OCT, and/or RCM—this technology is critical not only for early detection but also for proper management of patients.

Conclusion

This study showed a 95.70% clearance rate for all BCCs and a 96.10% clearance rate for facial BCCs. Although we had a zero clinical recurrence rate, 4.49% of all BCCs and 5.41% of facial BCCs had recurred on subsequent monitoring with noninvasive imaging. Given the large size of the study and extended follow-up, we found nonablative laser management to be a reliable treatment alternative with improved cosmetic outcome (Figure) and minimal short-term adverse effects compared to surgery.

Tailored care for the individual patient is based on a variety of options and patient preference, including ease of compliance, number of follow-up visits, invasive vs noninvasive diagnosis and monitoring, and downtime for healing. The use of noninvasive imaging also allowed us to find a more standardized treatment regimen using this nonablative laser combination. We found that 3 or fewer and more than 3 treatments had similar efficacy in tumor clearance. We recommend a standard laser protocol of 3 treatments every 4 to 6 weeks with follow-up 2 months after the final treatment to assess for clearance with OCT.

Larger BCCs might require additional treatments; therefore, we caution against laser therapy without concomitant use of OCT imaging to visualize residual tumor. Utilizing other noninvasive modalities, such as dermoscopy, in combination with thorough skin examination also is critical in the early detection of skin cancers to improve the efficacy of this less-aggressive, nonablative, and cosmetically optimal treatment protocol.

Acknowledgement—We would like to acknowledge Dimitrios Karponis, BSc, from the Impirial College London, England, for his assistance with a portion of the statistical analysis.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most frequently diagnosed skin cancer in the United States. It develops most often on sun-exposed skin, including the face and neck. Although BCCs are slow-growing tumors that rarely metastasize, they can cause notable local destruction with disfigurement if neglected or inadequately treated. Basal cell carcinoma arising on the legs is relatively uncommon.^1,2 We present an interesting case of delayed diagnosis of BCC on the left knee due to earlier misdiagnoses of a dermoid cyst and bursitis.

Case Report

A 67-year-old man with no history of skin cancer presented with a painful growing tumor on the left knee of approximately 2 years’ duration. The patient’s primary care physician as well as a general surgeon initially diagnosed it as a dermoid cyst and bursitis. The nodule failed to respond to conservative therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and continued to grow until it began to ulcerate. Concerned about the possibility of septic arthritis, the patient’s primary care physician referred him to the emergency department. He was subsequently sent to the dermatology clinic.

On examination by dermatology, a 6.3×4.4-cm, tender, mobile, ulcerated nodule was noted on the left knee (Figure 1A). No popliteal or inguinal lymph nodes were palpable. Basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, or atypical infection (eg, Leishmania, deep fungal, mycobacterial) was suspected clinically. The patient underwent a diagnostic skin biopsy; hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections revealed lobular proliferation of basaloid cells with peripheral palisading and central tumoral necrosis, consistent with primary BCC (Figure 2).

Comment

Exposure to UV radiation is the primary causative agent of most BCCs, accounting for the preferential distribution of these tumors on sun-exposed areas of the body. Approximately 80% of BCCs are located on the head and neck, 10% occur on the trunk, and only 8% are found on the lower extremities.¹

Giant BCC, the finding in this case, is defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer as a tumor larger than 5 cm in diameter. Fewer than 1% of all BCCs achieve this size; they appear more commonly on the back where they can go unnoticed.² Neglect and inadequate treatment of the primary tumor are the most important contributing factors to the size of giant BCCs. Giant BCCs also have more aggressive biologic behavior, with an increased risk for local invasion and metastasis.³ In this case, the lesion was larger than 5 cm in diameter and occurred on the lower extremity rather than on the trunk.

This case is unusual because delayed diagnosis of BCC was the result of misdiagnoses of a dermoid cyst and bursitis, with a diagnostic skin biopsy demonstrating BCC almost 2 years later. It should be emphasized that early diagnosis and treatment could prevent tumor expansion. Physicians should have a high degree of suspicion for BCC, especially when a dermoid cyst and knee bursitis fail to respond to conservative management.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most frequently diagnosed skin cancer in the United States. It develops most often on sun-exposed skin, including the face and neck. Although BCCs are slow-growing tumors that rarely metastasize, they can cause notable local destruction with disfigurement if neglected or inadequately treated. Basal cell carcinoma arising on the legs is relatively uncommon.^1,2 We present an interesting case of delayed diagnosis of BCC on the left knee due to earlier misdiagnoses of a dermoid cyst and bursitis.

Case Report

A 67-year-old man with no history of skin cancer presented with a painful growing tumor on the left knee of approximately 2 years’ duration. The patient’s primary care physician as well as a general surgeon initially diagnosed it as a dermoid cyst and bursitis. The nodule failed to respond to conservative therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and continued to grow until it began to ulcerate. Concerned about the possibility of septic arthritis, the patient’s primary care physician referred him to the emergency department. He was subsequently sent to the dermatology clinic.

On examination by dermatology, a 6.3×4.4-cm, tender, mobile, ulcerated nodule was noted on the left knee (Figure 1A). No popliteal or inguinal lymph nodes were palpable. Basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, or atypical infection (eg, Leishmania, deep fungal, mycobacterial) was suspected clinically. The patient underwent a diagnostic skin biopsy; hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections revealed lobular proliferation of basaloid cells with peripheral palisading and central tumoral necrosis, consistent with primary BCC (Figure 2).

Comment

Exposure to UV radiation is the primary causative agent of most BCCs, accounting for the preferential distribution of these tumors on sun-exposed areas of the body. Approximately 80% of BCCs are located on the head and neck, 10% occur on the trunk, and only 8% are found on the lower extremities.¹

Giant BCC, the finding in this case, is defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer as a tumor larger than 5 cm in diameter. Fewer than 1% of all BCCs achieve this size; they appear more commonly on the back where they can go unnoticed.² Neglect and inadequate treatment of the primary tumor are the most important contributing factors to the size of giant BCCs. Giant BCCs also have more aggressive biologic behavior, with an increased risk for local invasion and metastasis.³ In this case, the lesion was larger than 5 cm in diameter and occurred on the lower extremity rather than on the trunk.

This case is unusual because delayed diagnosis of BCC was the result of misdiagnoses of a dermoid cyst and bursitis, with a diagnostic skin biopsy demonstrating BCC almost 2 years later. It should be emphasized that early diagnosis and treatment could prevent tumor expansion. Physicians should have a high degree of suspicion for BCC, especially when a dermoid cyst and knee bursitis fail to respond to conservative management.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most frequently diagnosed skin cancer in the United States. It develops most often on sun-exposed skin, including the face and neck. Although BCCs are slow-growing tumors that rarely metastasize, they can cause notable local destruction with disfigurement if neglected or inadequately treated. Basal cell carcinoma arising on the legs is relatively uncommon.^1,2 We present an interesting case of delayed diagnosis of BCC on the left knee due to earlier misdiagnoses of a dermoid cyst and bursitis.

Case Report

A 67-year-old man with no history of skin cancer presented with a painful growing tumor on the left knee of approximately 2 years’ duration. The patient’s primary care physician as well as a general surgeon initially diagnosed it as a dermoid cyst and bursitis. The nodule failed to respond to conservative therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and continued to grow until it began to ulcerate. Concerned about the possibility of septic arthritis, the patient’s primary care physician referred him to the emergency department. He was subsequently sent to the dermatology clinic.

On examination by dermatology, a 6.3×4.4-cm, tender, mobile, ulcerated nodule was noted on the left knee (Figure 1A). No popliteal or inguinal lymph nodes were palpable. Basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, or atypical infection (eg, Leishmania, deep fungal, mycobacterial) was suspected clinically. The patient underwent a diagnostic skin biopsy; hematoxylin and eosin–stained sections revealed lobular proliferation of basaloid cells with peripheral palisading and central tumoral necrosis, consistent with primary BCC (Figure 2).

Comment

Exposure to UV radiation is the primary causative agent of most BCCs, accounting for the preferential distribution of these tumors on sun-exposed areas of the body. Approximately 80% of BCCs are located on the head and neck, 10% occur on the trunk, and only 8% are found on the lower extremities.¹

Giant BCC, the finding in this case, is defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer as a tumor larger than 5 cm in diameter. Fewer than 1% of all BCCs achieve this size; they appear more commonly on the back where they can go unnoticed.² Neglect and inadequate treatment of the primary tumor are the most important contributing factors to the size of giant BCCs. Giant BCCs also have more aggressive biologic behavior, with an increased risk for local invasion and metastasis.³ In this case, the lesion was larger than 5 cm in diameter and occurred on the lower extremity rather than on the trunk.

This case is unusual because delayed diagnosis of BCC was the result of misdiagnoses of a dermoid cyst and bursitis, with a diagnostic skin biopsy demonstrating BCC almost 2 years later. It should be emphasized that early diagnosis and treatment could prevent tumor expansion. Physicians should have a high degree of suspicion for BCC, especially when a dermoid cyst and knee bursitis fail to respond to conservative management.

The incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is steadily increasing, and it accounts for more annual cancer diagnoses than all other malignancies combined.^1,2 For NMSCs of the head and neck, Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has become a preferred technique because of its high cure rates, intraprocedural margin control, and improved tissue preservation in cosmetically sensitive areas.³ The nose and ears are especially sensitive anatomic locations given their prominent positions and relative lack of skin reservoir and laxity compared to other areas of the head and neck. For the nose and ears, both patients and referring providers may question who is best suited to surgically remove a malignancy and repair the defect with positive functional and cosmetic results, as a large portion of the defects following tumor extirpation will require a flap or graft for repair.

The notion of plastic surgery is strongly associated with supreme cosmesis for many patients and providers, as the specialty trains in several surgical and nonsurgical elective techniques to preserve and improve appearance. Consequently, patients commonly ask dermatologists if they should be referred to a plastic surgeon for skin cancer removal in cosmetically sensitive areas, especially areas that may require more complex surgical repairs. However, recent Medicare data indicate that dermatologists perform the vast majority of reconstructive skin surgeries, with more than 15 times the number of intermediate and complex closures and more than 4 times the number of flaps and grafts as the next closest specialty.⁴ Earlier studies using Medicare data revealed similar findings, with dermatologic surgeons performing more reconstructions of head and neck skin than both plastic surgeons and otorhinolaryngologists.⁵ However, these studies did not address the characteristics of the tumor, defects, or repairs performed by the specialties for comparison.

We sought to compare the quantity and characteristics of flaps or grafts performed for skin cancer on the nose or ears by fellowship-trained Mohs surgeons and plastic surgeons at 1 academic institution.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of all skin cancer surgeries requiring a flap or graft on the nose or ears at Baylor Scott & White Health (Temple, Texas) from October 1, 2016, to October 1, 2017. This study was approved by the Baylor Scott & White Health institutional review board.

Data Collection
The analysis included full-time, fellowship-trained Mohs surgeons and all full-time plastic surgeons who accepted skin cancer surgery patient referrals as part of their practice and performed all procedures within our hospital system. We reviewed individual provider schedules for both outpatient consultation and operating room notes to capture each procedure performed. To ensure we captured all procedures for both Mohs and plastic surgeons, we used billing codes for any flap or graft repair done on the nose or ears to cross-reference and confirm the cases found by chart review. The total number of flaps or grafts on the nose or ears were collected. Data also were collected regarding the anatomic location of the skin cancer, final defect size prior to the repair, skin tumor type, repair type (flap or graft), and flap (transposition vs advancement) or graft (full thickness vs partial thickness) type. All surgical data were collected from operative notes. Demographic data, including age, race, and sex, also were collected. We also collected data on the specialty of the physicians who referred patients for surgical management of biopsy-proven skin malignancy.

Statistical Analysis
Sample characteristics were described using descriptive statistics. Frequencies and percentages were used to describe categorical variables. Medians and ranges were used to describe continuous variables due to nonsymmetrically distributed data. χ² tests (or Fisher exact tests when low cell counts were present) for categorical variables and Wilcoxon signed rank tests for continuous variables were used to test for associations in bivariate comparisons between MMS and plastic surgery.

Results

A total of 7 physicians (1 fellowship-trained Mohs surgeon and 6 plastic surgeons) at our institution met the inclusion criteria. The Mohs surgeon performed a significantly higher number of flaps and grafts (n=276) than the plastic surgeons (n=17 combined; average per plastic surgeon, 2.83) on the nose or ears in a 12-month period (P<.05)(Table). The median final defect size was not significantly different between MMS (1.5 cm) and plastic surgery (1.8 cm)(P=.306). Flap repairs were more common in patients undergoing MMS (80%) vs plastic surgery (53%)(P=.022)(Figure). For flap repair, advancement flaps were used more commonly (MMS, 53%; plastic surgery, 35%) than transposition flaps (MMS, 27%; plastic surgery, 12%) by both specialties.

Patient age was similar between MMS (median, 74 years) and plastic surgery (median, 73 years) patients (P=.382), but a greater percentage of women were treated by plastic surgeons (53%) compared with Mohs surgeons (33%). The predominant skin tumor type for both specialties was basal cell carcinoma (MMS, 85%; plastic surgery, 76%). Dermatology was the largest referring specialty to both MMS (98%) and plastic surgery (53%). Family medicine referrals comprised a much larger percentage of cases for plastic surgery (24%) compared to MMS (1%).

Comment

This study supports and adds to recent studies and data regarding the utilization of MMS for the treatment of NMSCs. Although the percentage of all skin cancer surgery is increasing for dermatology, little has been reported on more complex repairs. This study highlights the volume and complexity of skin surgery performed by Mohs surgeons compared to our colleagues in plastic surgery.

Defect Size
The defect sizes prior to repair were not statistically different between the 2 types of surgeries, though the median size was slightly larger for plastic surgery (1.8 cm) compared to MMS (1.5 cm). These non–statistically significant differences may be explained by potentially larger tumors requiring repair by plastic surgeons in an operating room. Plastic surgeons, however, may be more likely to take a larger margin of clinically unaffected tissue as part of the initial layer. Plastic surgeons also may be less likely to curette the lesion prior to excision to obtain more clear tumor margins, possibly leading to more stages and a subsequently larger defect. Knowing the clinical sizes of these NMSCs prior to biopsy would have been beneficial to our study, but these data often were not available from the referring providers.

Repair Type
Most patients who underwent MMS had surgical defects repaired with a flap vs a graft, and a much higher percentage of patients who had undergone MMS vs surgical excision with plastic surgery had their defects repaired with flaps. Using a visual analog scale score and Hollander Wound Evaluation Scale, Jacobs et al⁶ found flaps to be cosmetically superior to grafts following tumor extirpation on the nose. The more frequent use of grafts by plastic surgeons could be at least partially explained by larger defect size or by a few outlier larger lesions among an otherwise small sample size. Larger studies may be needed to see if a true discrepancy in repair preferences exists between the specialties.

Referring Specialty
Primary care physician referral comprised a much larger percentage of cases sent for treatment with plastic surgery (24%) compared to MMS (1%). This statistic may represent a practice gap in the perception of MMS and its benefits among our primary care colleagues, particularly among female patients, as a much higher percentage of women were treated with plastic surgery. Important potential benefits of MMS, particularly tissue conservation, cure rates for skin cancer, and the volume of repairs performed by Mohs surgeons, may need to be emphasized.

Scope of Practice
Our colleagues in plastic surgery are extremely gifted and perform numerous repairs outside the scope of most Mohs surgeons. They are vital to multidisciplinary approaches to patients with skin cancer. Although Mohs surgeons focus on treating skin cancers that arise in a narrower range of anatomic locations, the breadth and variety of surgical procedures performed by plastic surgeons is more diverse. Skin cancer surgery may account for a smaller portion of procedures in a plastic surgery practice.

Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. We did not compare cosmesis or wound healing in patients treated by MMS or plastic surgery. The sample size, particularly with plastic surgery, was small and did not allow for a larger, more powerful comparison of data between the 2 specialties. Finally, our study only represents 1 institution over the course of 1 year.

Conclusion

To provide the best care possible, it is imperative for referring physicians to possess an accurate understanding of the volume of cases and the types of repairs that treating specialties perform on a regular basis for NMSCs. This knowledge is particularly important when there is a treatment overlap among specialties. Our data show Mohs surgeons are performing more complex repairs and reconstructions on even the most cosmetically sensitive areas; therefore, primary care physicians and other specialists may be more likely to involve dermatology in the care of skin cancer.

The incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is steadily increasing, and it accounts for more annual cancer diagnoses than all other malignancies combined.^1,2 For NMSCs of the head and neck, Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has become a preferred technique because of its high cure rates, intraprocedural margin control, and improved tissue preservation in cosmetically sensitive areas.³ The nose and ears are especially sensitive anatomic locations given their prominent positions and relative lack of skin reservoir and laxity compared to other areas of the head and neck. For the nose and ears, both patients and referring providers may question who is best suited to surgically remove a malignancy and repair the defect with positive functional and cosmetic results, as a large portion of the defects following tumor extirpation will require a flap or graft for repair.

The notion of plastic surgery is strongly associated with supreme cosmesis for many patients and providers, as the specialty trains in several surgical and nonsurgical elective techniques to preserve and improve appearance. Consequently, patients commonly ask dermatologists if they should be referred to a plastic surgeon for skin cancer removal in cosmetically sensitive areas, especially areas that may require more complex surgical repairs. However, recent Medicare data indicate that dermatologists perform the vast majority of reconstructive skin surgeries, with more than 15 times the number of intermediate and complex closures and more than 4 times the number of flaps and grafts as the next closest specialty.⁴ Earlier studies using Medicare data revealed similar findings, with dermatologic surgeons performing more reconstructions of head and neck skin than both plastic surgeons and otorhinolaryngologists.⁵ However, these studies did not address the characteristics of the tumor, defects, or repairs performed by the specialties for comparison.

We sought to compare the quantity and characteristics of flaps or grafts performed for skin cancer on the nose or ears by fellowship-trained Mohs surgeons and plastic surgeons at 1 academic institution.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of all skin cancer surgeries requiring a flap or graft on the nose or ears at Baylor Scott & White Health (Temple, Texas) from October 1, 2016, to October 1, 2017. This study was approved by the Baylor Scott & White Health institutional review board.

Data Collection
The analysis included full-time, fellowship-trained Mohs surgeons and all full-time plastic surgeons who accepted skin cancer surgery patient referrals as part of their practice and performed all procedures within our hospital system. We reviewed individual provider schedules for both outpatient consultation and operating room notes to capture each procedure performed. To ensure we captured all procedures for both Mohs and plastic surgeons, we used billing codes for any flap or graft repair done on the nose or ears to cross-reference and confirm the cases found by chart review. The total number of flaps or grafts on the nose or ears were collected. Data also were collected regarding the anatomic location of the skin cancer, final defect size prior to the repair, skin tumor type, repair type (flap or graft), and flap (transposition vs advancement) or graft (full thickness vs partial thickness) type. All surgical data were collected from operative notes. Demographic data, including age, race, and sex, also were collected. We also collected data on the specialty of the physicians who referred patients for surgical management of biopsy-proven skin malignancy.

Statistical Analysis
Sample characteristics were described using descriptive statistics. Frequencies and percentages were used to describe categorical variables. Medians and ranges were used to describe continuous variables due to nonsymmetrically distributed data. χ² tests (or Fisher exact tests when low cell counts were present) for categorical variables and Wilcoxon signed rank tests for continuous variables were used to test for associations in bivariate comparisons between MMS and plastic surgery.

Results

A total of 7 physicians (1 fellowship-trained Mohs surgeon and 6 plastic surgeons) at our institution met the inclusion criteria. The Mohs surgeon performed a significantly higher number of flaps and grafts (n=276) than the plastic surgeons (n=17 combined; average per plastic surgeon, 2.83) on the nose or ears in a 12-month period (P<.05)(Table). The median final defect size was not significantly different between MMS (1.5 cm) and plastic surgery (1.8 cm)(P=.306). Flap repairs were more common in patients undergoing MMS (80%) vs plastic surgery (53%)(P=.022)(Figure). For flap repair, advancement flaps were used more commonly (MMS, 53%; plastic surgery, 35%) than transposition flaps (MMS, 27%; plastic surgery, 12%) by both specialties.

Patient age was similar between MMS (median, 74 years) and plastic surgery (median, 73 years) patients (P=.382), but a greater percentage of women were treated by plastic surgeons (53%) compared with Mohs surgeons (33%). The predominant skin tumor type for both specialties was basal cell carcinoma (MMS, 85%; plastic surgery, 76%). Dermatology was the largest referring specialty to both MMS (98%) and plastic surgery (53%). Family medicine referrals comprised a much larger percentage of cases for plastic surgery (24%) compared to MMS (1%).

Comment

This study supports and adds to recent studies and data regarding the utilization of MMS for the treatment of NMSCs. Although the percentage of all skin cancer surgery is increasing for dermatology, little has been reported on more complex repairs. This study highlights the volume and complexity of skin surgery performed by Mohs surgeons compared to our colleagues in plastic surgery.

Defect Size
The defect sizes prior to repair were not statistically different between the 2 types of surgeries, though the median size was slightly larger for plastic surgery (1.8 cm) compared to MMS (1.5 cm). These non–statistically significant differences may be explained by potentially larger tumors requiring repair by plastic surgeons in an operating room. Plastic surgeons, however, may be more likely to take a larger margin of clinically unaffected tissue as part of the initial layer. Plastic surgeons also may be less likely to curette the lesion prior to excision to obtain more clear tumor margins, possibly leading to more stages and a subsequently larger defect. Knowing the clinical sizes of these NMSCs prior to biopsy would have been beneficial to our study, but these data often were not available from the referring providers.

Repair Type
Most patients who underwent MMS had surgical defects repaired with a flap vs a graft, and a much higher percentage of patients who had undergone MMS vs surgical excision with plastic surgery had their defects repaired with flaps. Using a visual analog scale score and Hollander Wound Evaluation Scale, Jacobs et al⁶ found flaps to be cosmetically superior to grafts following tumor extirpation on the nose. The more frequent use of grafts by plastic surgeons could be at least partially explained by larger defect size or by a few outlier larger lesions among an otherwise small sample size. Larger studies may be needed to see if a true discrepancy in repair preferences exists between the specialties.

Referring Specialty
Primary care physician referral comprised a much larger percentage of cases sent for treatment with plastic surgery (24%) compared to MMS (1%). This statistic may represent a practice gap in the perception of MMS and its benefits among our primary care colleagues, particularly among female patients, as a much higher percentage of women were treated with plastic surgery. Important potential benefits of MMS, particularly tissue conservation, cure rates for skin cancer, and the volume of repairs performed by Mohs surgeons, may need to be emphasized.

Scope of Practice
Our colleagues in plastic surgery are extremely gifted and perform numerous repairs outside the scope of most Mohs surgeons. They are vital to multidisciplinary approaches to patients with skin cancer. Although Mohs surgeons focus on treating skin cancers that arise in a narrower range of anatomic locations, the breadth and variety of surgical procedures performed by plastic surgeons is more diverse. Skin cancer surgery may account for a smaller portion of procedures in a plastic surgery practice.

Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. We did not compare cosmesis or wound healing in patients treated by MMS or plastic surgery. The sample size, particularly with plastic surgery, was small and did not allow for a larger, more powerful comparison of data between the 2 specialties. Finally, our study only represents 1 institution over the course of 1 year.

Conclusion

To provide the best care possible, it is imperative for referring physicians to possess an accurate understanding of the volume of cases and the types of repairs that treating specialties perform on a regular basis for NMSCs. This knowledge is particularly important when there is a treatment overlap among specialties. Our data show Mohs surgeons are performing more complex repairs and reconstructions on even the most cosmetically sensitive areas; therefore, primary care physicians and other specialists may be more likely to involve dermatology in the care of skin cancer.

The incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is steadily increasing, and it accounts for more annual cancer diagnoses than all other malignancies combined.^1,2 For NMSCs of the head and neck, Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has become a preferred technique because of its high cure rates, intraprocedural margin control, and improved tissue preservation in cosmetically sensitive areas.³ The nose and ears are especially sensitive anatomic locations given their prominent positions and relative lack of skin reservoir and laxity compared to other areas of the head and neck. For the nose and ears, both patients and referring providers may question who is best suited to surgically remove a malignancy and repair the defect with positive functional and cosmetic results, as a large portion of the defects following tumor extirpation will require a flap or graft for repair.

The notion of plastic surgery is strongly associated with supreme cosmesis for many patients and providers, as the specialty trains in several surgical and nonsurgical elective techniques to preserve and improve appearance. Consequently, patients commonly ask dermatologists if they should be referred to a plastic surgeon for skin cancer removal in cosmetically sensitive areas, especially areas that may require more complex surgical repairs. However, recent Medicare data indicate that dermatologists perform the vast majority of reconstructive skin surgeries, with more than 15 times the number of intermediate and complex closures and more than 4 times the number of flaps and grafts as the next closest specialty.⁴ Earlier studies using Medicare data revealed similar findings, with dermatologic surgeons performing more reconstructions of head and neck skin than both plastic surgeons and otorhinolaryngologists.⁵ However, these studies did not address the characteristics of the tumor, defects, or repairs performed by the specialties for comparison.

We sought to compare the quantity and characteristics of flaps or grafts performed for skin cancer on the nose or ears by fellowship-trained Mohs surgeons and plastic surgeons at 1 academic institution.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of all skin cancer surgeries requiring a flap or graft on the nose or ears at Baylor Scott & White Health (Temple, Texas) from October 1, 2016, to October 1, 2017. This study was approved by the Baylor Scott & White Health institutional review board.

Data Collection
The analysis included full-time, fellowship-trained Mohs surgeons and all full-time plastic surgeons who accepted skin cancer surgery patient referrals as part of their practice and performed all procedures within our hospital system. We reviewed individual provider schedules for both outpatient consultation and operating room notes to capture each procedure performed. To ensure we captured all procedures for both Mohs and plastic surgeons, we used billing codes for any flap or graft repair done on the nose or ears to cross-reference and confirm the cases found by chart review. The total number of flaps or grafts on the nose or ears were collected. Data also were collected regarding the anatomic location of the skin cancer, final defect size prior to the repair, skin tumor type, repair type (flap or graft), and flap (transposition vs advancement) or graft (full thickness vs partial thickness) type. All surgical data were collected from operative notes. Demographic data, including age, race, and sex, also were collected. We also collected data on the specialty of the physicians who referred patients for surgical management of biopsy-proven skin malignancy.

Statistical Analysis
Sample characteristics were described using descriptive statistics. Frequencies and percentages were used to describe categorical variables. Medians and ranges were used to describe continuous variables due to nonsymmetrically distributed data. χ² tests (or Fisher exact tests when low cell counts were present) for categorical variables and Wilcoxon signed rank tests for continuous variables were used to test for associations in bivariate comparisons between MMS and plastic surgery.

Results

A total of 7 physicians (1 fellowship-trained Mohs surgeon and 6 plastic surgeons) at our institution met the inclusion criteria. The Mohs surgeon performed a significantly higher number of flaps and grafts (n=276) than the plastic surgeons (n=17 combined; average per plastic surgeon, 2.83) on the nose or ears in a 12-month period (P<.05)(Table). The median final defect size was not significantly different between MMS (1.5 cm) and plastic surgery (1.8 cm)(P=.306). Flap repairs were more common in patients undergoing MMS (80%) vs plastic surgery (53%)(P=.022)(Figure). For flap repair, advancement flaps were used more commonly (MMS, 53%; plastic surgery, 35%) than transposition flaps (MMS, 27%; plastic surgery, 12%) by both specialties.

Patient age was similar between MMS (median, 74 years) and plastic surgery (median, 73 years) patients (P=.382), but a greater percentage of women were treated by plastic surgeons (53%) compared with Mohs surgeons (33%). The predominant skin tumor type for both specialties was basal cell carcinoma (MMS, 85%; plastic surgery, 76%). Dermatology was the largest referring specialty to both MMS (98%) and plastic surgery (53%). Family medicine referrals comprised a much larger percentage of cases for plastic surgery (24%) compared to MMS (1%).

Comment

This study supports and adds to recent studies and data regarding the utilization of MMS for the treatment of NMSCs. Although the percentage of all skin cancer surgery is increasing for dermatology, little has been reported on more complex repairs. This study highlights the volume and complexity of skin surgery performed by Mohs surgeons compared to our colleagues in plastic surgery.

Defect Size
The defect sizes prior to repair were not statistically different between the 2 types of surgeries, though the median size was slightly larger for plastic surgery (1.8 cm) compared to MMS (1.5 cm). These non–statistically significant differences may be explained by potentially larger tumors requiring repair by plastic surgeons in an operating room. Plastic surgeons, however, may be more likely to take a larger margin of clinically unaffected tissue as part of the initial layer. Plastic surgeons also may be less likely to curette the lesion prior to excision to obtain more clear tumor margins, possibly leading to more stages and a subsequently larger defect. Knowing the clinical sizes of these NMSCs prior to biopsy would have been beneficial to our study, but these data often were not available from the referring providers.

Repair Type
Most patients who underwent MMS had surgical defects repaired with a flap vs a graft, and a much higher percentage of patients who had undergone MMS vs surgical excision with plastic surgery had their defects repaired with flaps. Using a visual analog scale score and Hollander Wound Evaluation Scale, Jacobs et al⁶ found flaps to be cosmetically superior to grafts following tumor extirpation on the nose. The more frequent use of grafts by plastic surgeons could be at least partially explained by larger defect size or by a few outlier larger lesions among an otherwise small sample size. Larger studies may be needed to see if a true discrepancy in repair preferences exists between the specialties.

Referring Specialty
Primary care physician referral comprised a much larger percentage of cases sent for treatment with plastic surgery (24%) compared to MMS (1%). This statistic may represent a practice gap in the perception of MMS and its benefits among our primary care colleagues, particularly among female patients, as a much higher percentage of women were treated with plastic surgery. Important potential benefits of MMS, particularly tissue conservation, cure rates for skin cancer, and the volume of repairs performed by Mohs surgeons, may need to be emphasized.

Scope of Practice
Our colleagues in plastic surgery are extremely gifted and perform numerous repairs outside the scope of most Mohs surgeons. They are vital to multidisciplinary approaches to patients with skin cancer. Although Mohs surgeons focus on treating skin cancers that arise in a narrower range of anatomic locations, the breadth and variety of surgical procedures performed by plastic surgeons is more diverse. Skin cancer surgery may account for a smaller portion of procedures in a plastic surgery practice.

Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. We did not compare cosmesis or wound healing in patients treated by MMS or plastic surgery. The sample size, particularly with plastic surgery, was small and did not allow for a larger, more powerful comparison of data between the 2 specialties. Finally, our study only represents 1 institution over the course of 1 year.

Conclusion

To provide the best care possible, it is imperative for referring physicians to possess an accurate understanding of the volume of cases and the types of repairs that treating specialties perform on a regular basis for NMSCs. This knowledge is particularly important when there is a treatment overlap among specialties. Our data show Mohs surgeons are performing more complex repairs and reconstructions on even the most cosmetically sensitive areas; therefore, primary care physicians and other specialists may be more likely to involve dermatology in the care of skin cancer.

Acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM) is a rare subtype of melanoma that occurs on the palms, soles, and nail apparatus. Unlike more common types of melanoma, ALM occurs on sun-protected areas of the skin and has distinct clinical, histologic, and genetic features. Acral lentiginous melanoma accounts for a larger proportion of melanomas in individuals with skin of color and has a worse prognosis and recurrence rate than other forms of melanoma.

Population Trends in Skin of Color

Much of the literature on malignant melanoma historically has involved non-Hispanic white patients, but the incidence in lighter-skinned populations has been increasing steadily over the last few decades.¹ Although ALM can occur in any race, it disproportionately affects skin of color populations; ALM accounts for only 0.8% to 1% of all melanomas in white populations, but it constitutes 4% to 58% of melanomas in ethnic populations and is the most common melanoma subtype among black Americans.^2-5 Acral lentiginous melanoma also is associated with a worse prognosis compared to other subtypes, which may indicate a more aggressive biological nature⁶ but also may point toward socioeconomic and cultural barriers (eg, low income or education levels, lack of insurance, lower health literacy), leading to disparities in access to care and diagnosis at advanced stages.⁵

Similarly, the distribution of acral melanocytic nevi appears to demonstrate an association with ethnicity and skin pigmentation. Although skin of color patients have fewer nevi than non-Hispanic whites, the proportion of acral melanocytic nevi tends to be greater.^6,7 Given its grim prognosis, accurately differentiating ALM from acral nevi is of utmost importance.

Diagnostic Challenges of Acral Lesions

Due to the unique nature of the surfaces of acral sites, melanocytic lesions on the palms, soles, and nail apparatus present many diagnostic challenges. It can be difficult to distinguish acral melanoma from benign lesions using the naked eye alone. Volar surfaces are characterized by the presence of dermatoglyphics, and pigment deposition along ridges and furrows create particular dermoscopic patterns exclusive to these sites.⁸ Thus, dermoscopy can be useful on acral surfaces, but the dermoscopic features are different from those on the rest of the body and must be learned separately.

In addition, nearly half of patients are unaware of their acral lesions.⁶ Acral surfaces may not always be examined by clinicians during total-body skin examinations, leading to further possibility of overlooking a lesion. Obtaining biopsies on glabrous skin or nails also is challenging because they can be more painful and hemostasis can be more difficult, especially in the nail. Acral melanomas also may be amelanotic, including those at subungual sites. Although the overall incidence of amelanotic ALM is low, approximately 20% to 28% of amelanotic melanomas in Asian patients are located on acral sites.⁹ Due to these challenges, acral lesions may be overlooked or misdiagnosed as warts,¹⁰ tinea pedis,¹¹ or traumatic ulcers.¹²

Dermoscopic Patterns of Acral Volar Skin

Dermoscopy is a useful noninvasive tool for distinguishing between benign and malignant acral melanocytic lesions, and its efficacy in improving diagnostic accuracy and decreasing unnecessary biopsies is well-established in the literature.^13,14 Acral dermoscopy allows for visualization of pigment along the dermatoglyphics that constitute the characteristic dermoscopic patterns.

Acral Lentiginous Melanoma
The hallmark dermoscopic pattern and most important finding of ALM is the parallel ridge pattern, characterized by parallel linear pigmentation along the ridges of dermatoglyphics. In the early phases of malignancy, the pattern appears light brown and involves most of the lesion; as the tumor develops, increasing melanin production results in focal areas of the parallel ridge pattern with darker bands.^15,16 The sensitivity and specificity of a parallel ridge pattern for diagnosing early ALM has been shown to be 86% and 99%, respectively.^15,16

A pattern of irregular diffuse pigmentation also can be observed in more advanced ALM. Dermoscopy may reveal a structureless pattern (ie, lack of identifiable structures or patterns) in a background of tan-black coloration due to more exuberant melanocyte proliferation along the epidermis.¹⁵ Sensitivity and specificity of this dermoscopic finding for invasive lesions is high at 94% and 97%, respectively.^16,17 Interestingly, once ALM lesions have advanced even further, conventional melanoma-associated structures (ie, blue-white veil, polymorphous blood vessels, ulceration, irregular dots/globules or streaks) or atypical forms of typically benign acral dermoscopic patterns may be observed.¹⁵

Per a 3-step diagnostic algorithm created by Koga and Saida,¹⁸ a suspected acral lesion should first be evaluated for a parallel ridge pattern to determine the need for biopsy, as it is seen in approximately two-thirds of ALMs.¹⁹ If no parallel ridge pattern is observed, the lesion should then be checked for any of the typical dermoscopic patterns seen in benign acral nevi (eg, parallel furrow, latticelike, or fibrillar patterns).¹⁸ The maximum diameter should be measured only if the lesion does not exhibit any of the typical dermoscopic patterns. If the lesion’s diameter is greater than 7 mm in diameter, it should be biopsied; if the diameter is less than 7 mm, it should have regular clinical and dermoscopic follow-up.¹⁸

In 2015, Lallas et al²⁰ developed the BRAAFF checklist, a scoring system of 6 variables: blotches, ridge pattern, asymmetry of structures, asymmetry of colors, parallel furrow pattern, and fibrillar pattern. The checklist also was shown to substantially improve diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy for ALM, with sensitivity and specificity at 93.1% and 86.7%, respectively.²⁰

Acquired Acral Nevi
Three classic dermoscopic patterns are associated with acquired acral nevi: parallel furrow pattern, latticelike pattern, and fibrillar pattern.^15,21 Approximately three-quarters of all acquired acral nevi exhibit one of these patterns, roughly half exhibiting parallel furrow with tan-brown bandlike pigmentation along dermatoglyphic grooves.^16,17

Latticelike patterns also are characterized by brown parallel lines along the sulci of dermatoglyphics but additionally have multiple intersecting lines. Thus, this pattern can be considered a variant of the parallel furrow pattern.¹⁵ The crisscross markings can be predominantly found in the plantar arch.²² This dermoscopic pattern comprises 15% to 25% of all acral nevi.²¹

Fibrillar pattern accounts for 10% to 20% of all acral melanocytic nevi.²¹ Dermoscopically, these lesions demonstrate parallel filamentous streaks that cross dermatoglyphics obliquely. The fibrillar pattern is predominantly found on weight-bearing areas of the sole,²² which likely is explained by pressure causing slanting of melanin columns in the horny layer.²³ The fibrillar pattern has been shown to be the benign acral dermoscopic pattern that is most commonly misdiagnosed, with higher reported rates of biopsy.²⁴

Acral Congenital Melanocytic Nevi
Congenital melanocytic nevi (CMN) present at birth or appear during the first few weeks of life. Congenital melanocytic nevi can vary widely in size, shape, and color, and they are occasionally biopsied in cases of larger diameter or dermoscopic atypia to differentiate from melanoma.²⁵ Congenital melanocytic nevi also can occur on acral volar surfaces. Possible dermoscopic patterns include parallel furrow or fibrillar patterns as well as a crista dotted pattern, defined as evenly spaced dots/globules on the ridges near the openings of eccrine ducts.²⁶ A more commonly observed dermoscopic pattern in acral CMN is a combination of the crista dotted and parallel furrow patterns, known as the peas-in-a-pod pattern. Changes in the clinical appearance and dermoscopic features of an acral CMN are possible over time; some lesions also may fade with age.²⁶

Final Thoughts

Acral lentiginous melanoma is a rare but potentially aggressive melanoma subtype that accounts for a larger proportion of melanomas in patients with skin of color than in white patients. Dermoscopy of acral volar skin provides invaluable diagnostic information and allows for better management of acral melanocytic lesions. Dermoscopic patterns such as the parallel ridge, parallel furrow, latticelike, fibrillar, and peas-in-a-pod patterns are unique to acral sites and can be used to differentiate between ALMs, acquired nevi, or CMNs.

Acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM) is a rare subtype of melanoma that occurs on the palms, soles, and nail apparatus. Unlike more common types of melanoma, ALM occurs on sun-protected areas of the skin and has distinct clinical, histologic, and genetic features. Acral lentiginous melanoma accounts for a larger proportion of melanomas in individuals with skin of color and has a worse prognosis and recurrence rate than other forms of melanoma.

Population Trends in Skin of Color

Much of the literature on malignant melanoma historically has involved non-Hispanic white patients, but the incidence in lighter-skinned populations has been increasing steadily over the last few decades.¹ Although ALM can occur in any race, it disproportionately affects skin of color populations; ALM accounts for only 0.8% to 1% of all melanomas in white populations, but it constitutes 4% to 58% of melanomas in ethnic populations and is the most common melanoma subtype among black Americans.^2-5 Acral lentiginous melanoma also is associated with a worse prognosis compared to other subtypes, which may indicate a more aggressive biological nature⁶ but also may point toward socioeconomic and cultural barriers (eg, low income or education levels, lack of insurance, lower health literacy), leading to disparities in access to care and diagnosis at advanced stages.⁵

Similarly, the distribution of acral melanocytic nevi appears to demonstrate an association with ethnicity and skin pigmentation. Although skin of color patients have fewer nevi than non-Hispanic whites, the proportion of acral melanocytic nevi tends to be greater.^6,7 Given its grim prognosis, accurately differentiating ALM from acral nevi is of utmost importance.

Diagnostic Challenges of Acral Lesions

Due to the unique nature of the surfaces of acral sites, melanocytic lesions on the palms, soles, and nail apparatus present many diagnostic challenges. It can be difficult to distinguish acral melanoma from benign lesions using the naked eye alone. Volar surfaces are characterized by the presence of dermatoglyphics, and pigment deposition along ridges and furrows create particular dermoscopic patterns exclusive to these sites.⁸ Thus, dermoscopy can be useful on acral surfaces, but the dermoscopic features are different from those on the rest of the body and must be learned separately.

In addition, nearly half of patients are unaware of their acral lesions.⁶ Acral surfaces may not always be examined by clinicians during total-body skin examinations, leading to further possibility of overlooking a lesion. Obtaining biopsies on glabrous skin or nails also is challenging because they can be more painful and hemostasis can be more difficult, especially in the nail. Acral melanomas also may be amelanotic, including those at subungual sites. Although the overall incidence of amelanotic ALM is low, approximately 20% to 28% of amelanotic melanomas in Asian patients are located on acral sites.⁹ Due to these challenges, acral lesions may be overlooked or misdiagnosed as warts,¹⁰ tinea pedis,¹¹ or traumatic ulcers.¹²

Dermoscopic Patterns of Acral Volar Skin

Dermoscopy is a useful noninvasive tool for distinguishing between benign and malignant acral melanocytic lesions, and its efficacy in improving diagnostic accuracy and decreasing unnecessary biopsies is well-established in the literature.^13,14 Acral dermoscopy allows for visualization of pigment along the dermatoglyphics that constitute the characteristic dermoscopic patterns.

Acral Lentiginous Melanoma
The hallmark dermoscopic pattern and most important finding of ALM is the parallel ridge pattern, characterized by parallel linear pigmentation along the ridges of dermatoglyphics. In the early phases of malignancy, the pattern appears light brown and involves most of the lesion; as the tumor develops, increasing melanin production results in focal areas of the parallel ridge pattern with darker bands.^15,16 The sensitivity and specificity of a parallel ridge pattern for diagnosing early ALM has been shown to be 86% and 99%, respectively.^15,16

A pattern of irregular diffuse pigmentation also can be observed in more advanced ALM. Dermoscopy may reveal a structureless pattern (ie, lack of identifiable structures or patterns) in a background of tan-black coloration due to more exuberant melanocyte proliferation along the epidermis.¹⁵ Sensitivity and specificity of this dermoscopic finding for invasive lesions is high at 94% and 97%, respectively.^16,17 Interestingly, once ALM lesions have advanced even further, conventional melanoma-associated structures (ie, blue-white veil, polymorphous blood vessels, ulceration, irregular dots/globules or streaks) or atypical forms of typically benign acral dermoscopic patterns may be observed.¹⁵

Per a 3-step diagnostic algorithm created by Koga and Saida,¹⁸ a suspected acral lesion should first be evaluated for a parallel ridge pattern to determine the need for biopsy, as it is seen in approximately two-thirds of ALMs.¹⁹ If no parallel ridge pattern is observed, the lesion should then be checked for any of the typical dermoscopic patterns seen in benign acral nevi (eg, parallel furrow, latticelike, or fibrillar patterns).¹⁸ The maximum diameter should be measured only if the lesion does not exhibit any of the typical dermoscopic patterns. If the lesion’s diameter is greater than 7 mm in diameter, it should be biopsied; if the diameter is less than 7 mm, it should have regular clinical and dermoscopic follow-up.¹⁸

In 2015, Lallas et al²⁰ developed the BRAAFF checklist, a scoring system of 6 variables: blotches, ridge pattern, asymmetry of structures, asymmetry of colors, parallel furrow pattern, and fibrillar pattern. The checklist also was shown to substantially improve diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy for ALM, with sensitivity and specificity at 93.1% and 86.7%, respectively.²⁰

Acquired Acral Nevi
Three classic dermoscopic patterns are associated with acquired acral nevi: parallel furrow pattern, latticelike pattern, and fibrillar pattern.^15,21 Approximately three-quarters of all acquired acral nevi exhibit one of these patterns, roughly half exhibiting parallel furrow with tan-brown bandlike pigmentation along dermatoglyphic grooves.^16,17

Latticelike patterns also are characterized by brown parallel lines along the sulci of dermatoglyphics but additionally have multiple intersecting lines. Thus, this pattern can be considered a variant of the parallel furrow pattern.¹⁵ The crisscross markings can be predominantly found in the plantar arch.²² This dermoscopic pattern comprises 15% to 25% of all acral nevi.²¹

Fibrillar pattern accounts for 10% to 20% of all acral melanocytic nevi.²¹ Dermoscopically, these lesions demonstrate parallel filamentous streaks that cross dermatoglyphics obliquely. The fibrillar pattern is predominantly found on weight-bearing areas of the sole,²² which likely is explained by pressure causing slanting of melanin columns in the horny layer.²³ The fibrillar pattern has been shown to be the benign acral dermoscopic pattern that is most commonly misdiagnosed, with higher reported rates of biopsy.²⁴

Acral Congenital Melanocytic Nevi
Congenital melanocytic nevi (CMN) present at birth or appear during the first few weeks of life. Congenital melanocytic nevi can vary widely in size, shape, and color, and they are occasionally biopsied in cases of larger diameter or dermoscopic atypia to differentiate from melanoma.²⁵ Congenital melanocytic nevi also can occur on acral volar surfaces. Possible dermoscopic patterns include parallel furrow or fibrillar patterns as well as a crista dotted pattern, defined as evenly spaced dots/globules on the ridges near the openings of eccrine ducts.²⁶ A more commonly observed dermoscopic pattern in acral CMN is a combination of the crista dotted and parallel furrow patterns, known as the peas-in-a-pod pattern. Changes in the clinical appearance and dermoscopic features of an acral CMN are possible over time; some lesions also may fade with age.²⁶

Final Thoughts

Acral lentiginous melanoma is a rare but potentially aggressive melanoma subtype that accounts for a larger proportion of melanomas in patients with skin of color than in white patients. Dermoscopy of acral volar skin provides invaluable diagnostic information and allows for better management of acral melanocytic lesions. Dermoscopic patterns such as the parallel ridge, parallel furrow, latticelike, fibrillar, and peas-in-a-pod patterns are unique to acral sites and can be used to differentiate between ALMs, acquired nevi, or CMNs.

Acral lentiginous melanoma (ALM) is a rare subtype of melanoma that occurs on the palms, soles, and nail apparatus. Unlike more common types of melanoma, ALM occurs on sun-protected areas of the skin and has distinct clinical, histologic, and genetic features. Acral lentiginous melanoma accounts for a larger proportion of melanomas in individuals with skin of color and has a worse prognosis and recurrence rate than other forms of melanoma.

Population Trends in Skin of Color

Much of the literature on malignant melanoma historically has involved non-Hispanic white patients, but the incidence in lighter-skinned populations has been increasing steadily over the last few decades.¹ Although ALM can occur in any race, it disproportionately affects skin of color populations; ALM accounts for only 0.8% to 1% of all melanomas in white populations, but it constitutes 4% to 58% of melanomas in ethnic populations and is the most common melanoma subtype among black Americans.^2-5 Acral lentiginous melanoma also is associated with a worse prognosis compared to other subtypes, which may indicate a more aggressive biological nature⁶ but also may point toward socioeconomic and cultural barriers (eg, low income or education levels, lack of insurance, lower health literacy), leading to disparities in access to care and diagnosis at advanced stages.⁵

Similarly, the distribution of acral melanocytic nevi appears to demonstrate an association with ethnicity and skin pigmentation. Although skin of color patients have fewer nevi than non-Hispanic whites, the proportion of acral melanocytic nevi tends to be greater.^6,7 Given its grim prognosis, accurately differentiating ALM from acral nevi is of utmost importance.

Diagnostic Challenges of Acral Lesions

Due to the unique nature of the surfaces of acral sites, melanocytic lesions on the palms, soles, and nail apparatus present many diagnostic challenges. It can be difficult to distinguish acral melanoma from benign lesions using the naked eye alone. Volar surfaces are characterized by the presence of dermatoglyphics, and pigment deposition along ridges and furrows create particular dermoscopic patterns exclusive to these sites.⁸ Thus, dermoscopy can be useful on acral surfaces, but the dermoscopic features are different from those on the rest of the body and must be learned separately.

In addition, nearly half of patients are unaware of their acral lesions.⁶ Acral surfaces may not always be examined by clinicians during total-body skin examinations, leading to further possibility of overlooking a lesion. Obtaining biopsies on glabrous skin or nails also is challenging because they can be more painful and hemostasis can be more difficult, especially in the nail. Acral melanomas also may be amelanotic, including those at subungual sites. Although the overall incidence of amelanotic ALM is low, approximately 20% to 28% of amelanotic melanomas in Asian patients are located on acral sites.⁹ Due to these challenges, acral lesions may be overlooked or misdiagnosed as warts,¹⁰ tinea pedis,¹¹ or traumatic ulcers.¹²

Dermoscopic Patterns of Acral Volar Skin

Dermoscopy is a useful noninvasive tool for distinguishing between benign and malignant acral melanocytic lesions, and its efficacy in improving diagnostic accuracy and decreasing unnecessary biopsies is well-established in the literature.^13,14 Acral dermoscopy allows for visualization of pigment along the dermatoglyphics that constitute the characteristic dermoscopic patterns.

Acral Lentiginous Melanoma
The hallmark dermoscopic pattern and most important finding of ALM is the parallel ridge pattern, characterized by parallel linear pigmentation along the ridges of dermatoglyphics. In the early phases of malignancy, the pattern appears light brown and involves most of the lesion; as the tumor develops, increasing melanin production results in focal areas of the parallel ridge pattern with darker bands.^15,16 The sensitivity and specificity of a parallel ridge pattern for diagnosing early ALM has been shown to be 86% and 99%, respectively.^15,16

A pattern of irregular diffuse pigmentation also can be observed in more advanced ALM. Dermoscopy may reveal a structureless pattern (ie, lack of identifiable structures or patterns) in a background of tan-black coloration due to more exuberant melanocyte proliferation along the epidermis.¹⁵ Sensitivity and specificity of this dermoscopic finding for invasive lesions is high at 94% and 97%, respectively.^16,17 Interestingly, once ALM lesions have advanced even further, conventional melanoma-associated structures (ie, blue-white veil, polymorphous blood vessels, ulceration, irregular dots/globules or streaks) or atypical forms of typically benign acral dermoscopic patterns may be observed.¹⁵

Per a 3-step diagnostic algorithm created by Koga and Saida,¹⁸ a suspected acral lesion should first be evaluated for a parallel ridge pattern to determine the need for biopsy, as it is seen in approximately two-thirds of ALMs.¹⁹ If no parallel ridge pattern is observed, the lesion should then be checked for any of the typical dermoscopic patterns seen in benign acral nevi (eg, parallel furrow, latticelike, or fibrillar patterns).¹⁸ The maximum diameter should be measured only if the lesion does not exhibit any of the typical dermoscopic patterns. If the lesion’s diameter is greater than 7 mm in diameter, it should be biopsied; if the diameter is less than 7 mm, it should have regular clinical and dermoscopic follow-up.¹⁸

In 2015, Lallas et al²⁰ developed the BRAAFF checklist, a scoring system of 6 variables: blotches, ridge pattern, asymmetry of structures, asymmetry of colors, parallel furrow pattern, and fibrillar pattern. The checklist also was shown to substantially improve diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy for ALM, with sensitivity and specificity at 93.1% and 86.7%, respectively.²⁰

Acquired Acral Nevi
Three classic dermoscopic patterns are associated with acquired acral nevi: parallel furrow pattern, latticelike pattern, and fibrillar pattern.^15,21 Approximately three-quarters of all acquired acral nevi exhibit one of these patterns, roughly half exhibiting parallel furrow with tan-brown bandlike pigmentation along dermatoglyphic grooves.^16,17

Latticelike patterns also are characterized by brown parallel lines along the sulci of dermatoglyphics but additionally have multiple intersecting lines. Thus, this pattern can be considered a variant of the parallel furrow pattern.¹⁵ The crisscross markings can be predominantly found in the plantar arch.²² This dermoscopic pattern comprises 15% to 25% of all acral nevi.²¹

Fibrillar pattern accounts for 10% to 20% of all acral melanocytic nevi.²¹ Dermoscopically, these lesions demonstrate parallel filamentous streaks that cross dermatoglyphics obliquely. The fibrillar pattern is predominantly found on weight-bearing areas of the sole,²² which likely is explained by pressure causing slanting of melanin columns in the horny layer.²³ The fibrillar pattern has been shown to be the benign acral dermoscopic pattern that is most commonly misdiagnosed, with higher reported rates of biopsy.²⁴

Acral Congenital Melanocytic Nevi
Congenital melanocytic nevi (CMN) present at birth or appear during the first few weeks of life. Congenital melanocytic nevi can vary widely in size, shape, and color, and they are occasionally biopsied in cases of larger diameter or dermoscopic atypia to differentiate from melanoma.²⁵ Congenital melanocytic nevi also can occur on acral volar surfaces. Possible dermoscopic patterns include parallel furrow or fibrillar patterns as well as a crista dotted pattern, defined as evenly spaced dots/globules on the ridges near the openings of eccrine ducts.²⁶ A more commonly observed dermoscopic pattern in acral CMN is a combination of the crista dotted and parallel furrow patterns, known as the peas-in-a-pod pattern. Changes in the clinical appearance and dermoscopic features of an acral CMN are possible over time; some lesions also may fade with age.²⁶

Final Thoughts

Acral lentiginous melanoma is a rare but potentially aggressive melanoma subtype that accounts for a larger proportion of melanomas in patients with skin of color than in white patients. Dermoscopy of acral volar skin provides invaluable diagnostic information and allows for better management of acral melanocytic lesions. Dermoscopic patterns such as the parallel ridge, parallel furrow, latticelike, fibrillar, and peas-in-a-pod patterns are unique to acral sites and can be used to differentiate between ALMs, acquired nevi, or CMNs.

In February 2019, Dayanara Torres announced that she had been diagnosed with metastatic melanoma. Ms. Torres, a Puerto Rican–born former Miss Universe who has more than 1 million followers on Instagram (@dayanarapr), seemed an unlikely candidate for skin cancer, which often is associated with fair-skinned and light-eyed individuals. She shared the news of her diagnosis in an Instagram video that has now received more than 850,000 views. In the video, Ms. Torres described a new mole with uneven surface that had developed on her leg and noted that she had ignored it, even though it had been growing for years. Ultimately, she was diagnosed with melanoma that had already metastasized to regional lymph nodes in her leg. Ms. Torres concluded the video by urging fans and viewers to be mindful of new or changing skin lesions and to be aware of the seriousness of skin cancer. In March 2019, Ms. Torres posted a follow-up educational video on Instagram highlighting the features of melanoma that has now received more than 300,000 views.

Since her announcement, we have noticed that more Hispanic patients with concerns about skin cancer are presenting to our dermatology clinic, which is located in a highly diverse city (New Brunswick, New Jersey) with approximately 50% of residents identifying as Hispanic.¹ Most Hispanic patients typically present to our dermatology clinic for non–skin cancer–related concerns, such as acne, rash, and dyschromia; however, following Ms. Torres’ announcement, many have cited her diagnosis of metastatic melanoma as a cause for concern and a motivating factor in having their skin examined. The diagnosis in a prominent celebrity and Hispanic woman has given a new face to metastatic melanoma.

Although melanoma most commonly occurs in white patients, Hispanic patients experience disproportionately greater morbidity and mortality when diagnosed with melanoma.² Poor prognosis in patients with skin of color is multifactorial and may be due to poor use of sun protection, misconceptions about melanoma risk, atypical clinical presentation, impaired access to care, and delay in diagnosis. The Hispanic community encompasses a wide variety of individuals with varying levels of skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity.³ However, Hispanics report low levels of sun-protective behaviors. They also may have misconceptions that sunscreen is ineffective in preventing skin cancer and that little can be done to decrease the risk for developing skin cancer.^4,5 Additionally, Hispanic patients often have lower perceptions of their personal risk for melanoma and report low rates of clinical and self-examinations compared to non-Hispanic white patients.^6-8 Many Hispanic patients have reported that they were not instructed to perform self-examinations of their skin regularly by dermatologists or other providers and did not know the signs of skin cancer.⁷ Furthermore, a language barrier also may impede communication and education regarding melanoma risk.⁹

Similar to white patients, superficial spreading melanoma is the most common histologic subtype in Hispanic patients, followed by acral lentiginous melanoma, which is the most common subtype in black and Asian patients.^2,4 Compared to non-Hispanic white patients, who most commonly present with truncal melanomas, Hispanic patients (particularly those from Puerto Rico, such as Ms. Torres) are more likely to present with melanoma on the lower extremities.^4,10 Additionally, Hispanic patients have high rates of head, neck, and mucosal melanomas compared to all other racial and ethnic groups.²

Hispanic patients diagnosed with melanoma are more likely to present with thicker primary tumors, later stages of disease, and distant metastases compared to non-Hispanic white patients, all of which are associated with poor prognosis.^2,4,11 Five-year survival rates for melanoma are lower in Hispanic patients compared to non-Hispanic white patients.¹² Although the Hispanic community is diverse in socioeconomic and immigration status as well as occupation, lack of insurance also may contribute to decreased access to care, delayed diagnosis, and ultimately worse survival.

These disparities have spurred suggestions for increased education about skin cancer and the signs and symptoms of melanoma, encouragement of self-examinations, and routine clinical skin examinations for Hispanic patients by dermatologists and other providers.⁸ There is evidence that knowledge-based interventions, especially when presented in Spanish, produce statistically significant improvements in knowledge of skin cancer risk and sun-protective behavior among Hispanic patients.¹² Similarly, we have observed that the videos shared by Ms. Torres regarding her melanoma diagnosis and the features of melanoma, in which she spoke in Spanish, have compelled many Hispanic patients to examine their own skin and have led to increased concern for skin cancer in this patient population. In our practice, we refer to the increase in spot checks and skin examinations requested by Hispanic patients as “The Dayanara Effect,” and we hypothesize that this same effect may be taking place throughout the dermatology community.

In February 2019, Dayanara Torres announced that she had been diagnosed with metastatic melanoma. Ms. Torres, a Puerto Rican–born former Miss Universe who has more than 1 million followers on Instagram (@dayanarapr), seemed an unlikely candidate for skin cancer, which often is associated with fair-skinned and light-eyed individuals. She shared the news of her diagnosis in an Instagram video that has now received more than 850,000 views. In the video, Ms. Torres described a new mole with uneven surface that had developed on her leg and noted that she had ignored it, even though it had been growing for years. Ultimately, she was diagnosed with melanoma that had already metastasized to regional lymph nodes in her leg. Ms. Torres concluded the video by urging fans and viewers to be mindful of new or changing skin lesions and to be aware of the seriousness of skin cancer. In March 2019, Ms. Torres posted a follow-up educational video on Instagram highlighting the features of melanoma that has now received more than 300,000 views.

Since her announcement, we have noticed that more Hispanic patients with concerns about skin cancer are presenting to our dermatology clinic, which is located in a highly diverse city (New Brunswick, New Jersey) with approximately 50% of residents identifying as Hispanic.¹ Most Hispanic patients typically present to our dermatology clinic for non–skin cancer–related concerns, such as acne, rash, and dyschromia; however, following Ms. Torres’ announcement, many have cited her diagnosis of metastatic melanoma as a cause for concern and a motivating factor in having their skin examined. The diagnosis in a prominent celebrity and Hispanic woman has given a new face to metastatic melanoma.

Although melanoma most commonly occurs in white patients, Hispanic patients experience disproportionately greater morbidity and mortality when diagnosed with melanoma.² Poor prognosis in patients with skin of color is multifactorial and may be due to poor use of sun protection, misconceptions about melanoma risk, atypical clinical presentation, impaired access to care, and delay in diagnosis. The Hispanic community encompasses a wide variety of individuals with varying levels of skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity.³ However, Hispanics report low levels of sun-protective behaviors. They also may have misconceptions that sunscreen is ineffective in preventing skin cancer and that little can be done to decrease the risk for developing skin cancer.^4,5 Additionally, Hispanic patients often have lower perceptions of their personal risk for melanoma and report low rates of clinical and self-examinations compared to non-Hispanic white patients.^6-8 Many Hispanic patients have reported that they were not instructed to perform self-examinations of their skin regularly by dermatologists or other providers and did not know the signs of skin cancer.⁷ Furthermore, a language barrier also may impede communication and education regarding melanoma risk.⁹

Similar to white patients, superficial spreading melanoma is the most common histologic subtype in Hispanic patients, followed by acral lentiginous melanoma, which is the most common subtype in black and Asian patients.^2,4 Compared to non-Hispanic white patients, who most commonly present with truncal melanomas, Hispanic patients (particularly those from Puerto Rico, such as Ms. Torres) are more likely to present with melanoma on the lower extremities.^4,10 Additionally, Hispanic patients have high rates of head, neck, and mucosal melanomas compared to all other racial and ethnic groups.²

Hispanic patients diagnosed with melanoma are more likely to present with thicker primary tumors, later stages of disease, and distant metastases compared to non-Hispanic white patients, all of which are associated with poor prognosis.^2,4,11 Five-year survival rates for melanoma are lower in Hispanic patients compared to non-Hispanic white patients.¹² Although the Hispanic community is diverse in socioeconomic and immigration status as well as occupation, lack of insurance also may contribute to decreased access to care, delayed diagnosis, and ultimately worse survival.

These disparities have spurred suggestions for increased education about skin cancer and the signs and symptoms of melanoma, encouragement of self-examinations, and routine clinical skin examinations for Hispanic patients by dermatologists and other providers.⁸ There is evidence that knowledge-based interventions, especially when presented in Spanish, produce statistically significant improvements in knowledge of skin cancer risk and sun-protective behavior among Hispanic patients.¹² Similarly, we have observed that the videos shared by Ms. Torres regarding her melanoma diagnosis and the features of melanoma, in which she spoke in Spanish, have compelled many Hispanic patients to examine their own skin and have led to increased concern for skin cancer in this patient population. In our practice, we refer to the increase in spot checks and skin examinations requested by Hispanic patients as “The Dayanara Effect,” and we hypothesize that this same effect may be taking place throughout the dermatology community.

In February 2019, Dayanara Torres announced that she had been diagnosed with metastatic melanoma. Ms. Torres, a Puerto Rican–born former Miss Universe who has more than 1 million followers on Instagram (@dayanarapr), seemed an unlikely candidate for skin cancer, which often is associated with fair-skinned and light-eyed individuals. She shared the news of her diagnosis in an Instagram video that has now received more than 850,000 views. In the video, Ms. Torres described a new mole with uneven surface that had developed on her leg and noted that she had ignored it, even though it had been growing for years. Ultimately, she was diagnosed with melanoma that had already metastasized to regional lymph nodes in her leg. Ms. Torres concluded the video by urging fans and viewers to be mindful of new or changing skin lesions and to be aware of the seriousness of skin cancer. In March 2019, Ms. Torres posted a follow-up educational video on Instagram highlighting the features of melanoma that has now received more than 300,000 views.

Since her announcement, we have noticed that more Hispanic patients with concerns about skin cancer are presenting to our dermatology clinic, which is located in a highly diverse city (New Brunswick, New Jersey) with approximately 50% of residents identifying as Hispanic.¹ Most Hispanic patients typically present to our dermatology clinic for non–skin cancer–related concerns, such as acne, rash, and dyschromia; however, following Ms. Torres’ announcement, many have cited her diagnosis of metastatic melanoma as a cause for concern and a motivating factor in having their skin examined. The diagnosis in a prominent celebrity and Hispanic woman has given a new face to metastatic melanoma.

Although melanoma most commonly occurs in white patients, Hispanic patients experience disproportionately greater morbidity and mortality when diagnosed with melanoma.² Poor prognosis in patients with skin of color is multifactorial and may be due to poor use of sun protection, misconceptions about melanoma risk, atypical clinical presentation, impaired access to care, and delay in diagnosis. The Hispanic community encompasses a wide variety of individuals with varying levels of skin pigmentation and sun sensitivity.³ However, Hispanics report low levels of sun-protective behaviors. They also may have misconceptions that sunscreen is ineffective in preventing skin cancer and that little can be done to decrease the risk for developing skin cancer.^4,5 Additionally, Hispanic patients often have lower perceptions of their personal risk for melanoma and report low rates of clinical and self-examinations compared to non-Hispanic white patients.^6-8 Many Hispanic patients have reported that they were not instructed to perform self-examinations of their skin regularly by dermatologists or other providers and did not know the signs of skin cancer.⁷ Furthermore, a language barrier also may impede communication and education regarding melanoma risk.⁹

Similar to white patients, superficial spreading melanoma is the most common histologic subtype in Hispanic patients, followed by acral lentiginous melanoma, which is the most common subtype in black and Asian patients.^2,4 Compared to non-Hispanic white patients, who most commonly present with truncal melanomas, Hispanic patients (particularly those from Puerto Rico, such as Ms. Torres) are more likely to present with melanoma on the lower extremities.^4,10 Additionally, Hispanic patients have high rates of head, neck, and mucosal melanomas compared to all other racial and ethnic groups.²

Hispanic patients diagnosed with melanoma are more likely to present with thicker primary tumors, later stages of disease, and distant metastases compared to non-Hispanic white patients, all of which are associated with poor prognosis.^2,4,11 Five-year survival rates for melanoma are lower in Hispanic patients compared to non-Hispanic white patients.¹² Although the Hispanic community is diverse in socioeconomic and immigration status as well as occupation, lack of insurance also may contribute to decreased access to care, delayed diagnosis, and ultimately worse survival.

These disparities have spurred suggestions for increased education about skin cancer and the signs and symptoms of melanoma, encouragement of self-examinations, and routine clinical skin examinations for Hispanic patients by dermatologists and other providers.⁸ There is evidence that knowledge-based interventions, especially when presented in Spanish, produce statistically significant improvements in knowledge of skin cancer risk and sun-protective behavior among Hispanic patients.¹² Similarly, we have observed that the videos shared by Ms. Torres regarding her melanoma diagnosis and the features of melanoma, in which she spoke in Spanish, have compelled many Hispanic patients to examine their own skin and have led to increased concern for skin cancer in this patient population. In our practice, we refer to the increase in spot checks and skin examinations requested by Hispanic patients as “The Dayanara Effect,” and we hypothesize that this same effect may be taking place throughout the dermatology community.

It has been estimated that 2 million serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occur annually in the United States, resulting in 100,000 deaths.¹ Although the acute morbidity and mortality of these ADRs are readily apparent, postdischarge sequalae are critical aspects of a patient’s care. Herein, we present an approach to outpatient dermatologic follow-up of 3 ADRs: acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). For these ADRs, the first step is prompt diagnosis and discontinuation of any potentially causative medications.

ACUTE GENERALIZED EXANTHEMATOUS PUSTULOSIS

Ninety percent of the time, AGEP is caused by medications, most commonly antibiotics, and less often it is caused by viruses.^2-4 It presents as a cutaneous eruption with nonfollicular sterile pustules, fever, and leukocytosis, usually within 5 days after starting a causative medication.⁵ After stopping the medication, cutaneous findings generally improve within 1 week, and leukocytosis often resolves within 1 week.³

Notable Sequelae

Although AGEP typically is considered benign,² there have been reports of severe sequelae including death from a systemic inflammatory response and complications such as bacterial superinfection and sepsis.^6,7 Visceral involvement can be seen in up to 20% of AGEP patients, with systemic symptoms similar  to those seen in DRESS syndrome. Mortality has been reported in up to 5% of cases, mainly in patients with comorbidities and notable mucosal involvement.⁸ More severe disease can be seen in patients with known dermatologic disease, as AGEP can provoke an isomorphic phenomenon.⁹ Laboratory alterations typically seen in AGEP include neutrophilia, eosinophilia, and elevated liver enzymes.²

Follow-up Recommendations

Patients should be informed of the expected timeline for resolution and should be counseled on the possibility of rare systemic symptoms. Laboratory abnormalities should be monitored every 2 to 4 weeks until normalized.

DRESS SYNDROME

DRESS syndrome is characterized by a morbilliform eruption that can be accompanied by fever; eosinophilia; purpura; facial edema; lymphadenopathy; and liver, renal, or other organ dysfunction. DRESS syndrome most often presents within 8 weeks of exposure to a causative drug.^10,11 The most common causative agents are anticonvulsants, antimicrobials, and allopurinol.¹² Treatment includes topical corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids for internal organ involvement.¹⁰

Short-term Sequelae

Several potential sequelae may occur within 6 months of resolution of DRESS syndrome, resulting from both the ADR itself and/or systemic corticosteroids that often are required for treatment.¹³ Complications secondary to herpesviruses have been reported.¹⁴ Cases of cytomegalovirus-induced gastric ulcers can lead to gastrointestinal tract bleeds.¹⁵

Infections including Cryptococcus species and herpes zoster also have been reported.¹⁶ Patients, particularly those treated with systemic corticosteroids, should be monitored with close follow-up for infectious complications and treatment-related adverse effects.¹³

Long-term Sequelae

Endocrine
Thyroid gland abnormalities secondary to DRESS syndrome include Graves disease and Hashimoto disease as well as variations in biomarkers including elevated free thyroxine and low and elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone levels.^16,17 Type 1 diabetes mellitus also has been seen after DRESS syndrome, developing within the first 10 months after onset with unknown pathogenesis.¹⁸

Autoimmune
Other reported sequelae of DRESS syndrome include elevated antinuclear antibodies with possible development into systemic lupus erythematosus, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, vitiligo, and rheumatoid arthritis.^11,16 Symptoms may be exacerbated in patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis, and patients with preexisting renal disease are at an increased risk for requiring lifelong hemodialysis after DRESS syndrome.¹⁶

Other
Studies have demonstrated that pneumonia, thrombosis, and alopecia can be complications of DRESS syndrome.^11,16 Psychiatric disturbances including fear of taking new medications, anxiety, and depression also have been reported.¹⁹ Children with DRESS syndrome may develop vitiligo, alopecia, sclerodermatous lesions, photophobia, uveitis, and Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease.¹⁷

Follow-up Recommendations

It is important to inform patients of both the potential short-term and long-term sequelae of DRESS syndrome, including those associated with treatment. A thorough review of systems should be performed at each visit, along with laboratory evaluation including a complete blood cell count with differential and liver function testing every 1 to 2 weeks after discharge until normalized, with monthly monitoring of glucose, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and free thyroxine levels for 3 months after discharge.

STEVENS-JOHNSON SYNDROME/TOXIC EPIDERMAL NECROLYSIS

Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis are severe ADRs that present with dusky violaceous macules. Inciting medications include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, allopurinol, antibiotics, and anticonvulsants, and symptoms begin 1 to 3 weeks after medication exposure.¹² Initially, the lesions often begin on the trunk and can progress to full-body erythema and exfoliation with a necrotic epidermis and mucosal involvement.^12,20

Notable Sequelae

Cutaneous
Chronic eczema can present at any time and can vary in severity in SJS/TEN patients.²¹ Xerosis and pruritus can be treated with emollients.¹¹ Dyschromia is common. Hypertrophic and keloidal scarring can result from surgical debridement and are best prevented with the use of nonadherent dressings.²² Nail changes such as anonychia, dystrophy, longitudinal ridges, and pterygium also are seen, and topical steroids can be helpful. Other reported dermatologic sequelae include dyschromia and eruption of ectopic sebaceous glands.^21,22

Ocular
Ocular sequelae include dry eyes, photophobia, symblepharon, corneal scarring, corneal neovascularization, corneal xerosis, trichiasis, reduced visual acuity, blindness, and subconjunctival fibrosis. The most common sequelae are bilateral conjunctivitis and corneal ulcerations.^22,23 Early and regular ophthalmologic follow-up is recommended, as SJS/TEN-induced blindness can result from delayed therapy, destroying corneal stem cells.²¹ Amniotic membrane transplantation replaces the damaged corneal membrane, which may reduce corneal inflammation.²⁴

Chronic dry eye syndrome can recur for years after SJS/TEN resolves and progresses over time.²² Frequent use of nonpreserved artificial tears and salivary gland transplantation can be helpful.²⁴ Unfortunately, ocular disease may develop months after discharge; therefore, it is recommended that dermatologists ask all SJS/TEN patients about ocular symptoms in follow-up visits. If ocular involvement was present initially, patients should be followed by ophthalmology for at least 1 year after discharge.²³

Genitourinary
Genitourinary sequelae in SJS/TEN include adhesions, particularly in the female urethra and vaginal opening; vaginal adenosis; vulvovaginal endometriosis; and persistent genital ulcerations most commonly reported in females.²² Prompt inpatient gynecologic or urologic consultation is critical to reduce these potentially permanent outcomes. Topical corticosteroid therapy is recommended in the acute phase.²²

Psychologic
Posttraumatic stress disorder may occur in patients with SJS/TEN. One study showed that 23% (7/30) of patients had posttraumatic stress disorder 6 months after hospitalization for SJS/TEN. The investigators recommended routine psychiatric assessment in the acute disease period and for at least 1 year after discharge.²⁵

Pulmonary, Gastrointestinal, and Renal
Interstitial pneumonia and obliterative bronchitis/bronchiolitis can be caused by SJS/TEN. Interstitial pneumonia tends to occur during the acute course, while obliterative airway disease manifests after resolution of SJS/TEN.^21,22 Abnormal pulmonary function testing can be seen in more than half of SJS/TEN patients 2 months after the ADR.²² Gastrointestinal sequelae include esophageal strictures, intestinal ulceration, and cholestasis.²² Renal sequelae include acute kidney injury and glomerulonephritis, which may be secondary to the volume loss seen in SJS/TEN but may be irreversible.²¹

Special Populations
A correlation with infertility in women has been documented in patients with SJS/TEN; thus, follow-up with obstetrics and gynecology is recommended in women of child-bearing potential. The most considerable risk in pregnant women with SJS/TEN is premature birth, and mucosal necrosis of SJS/TEN can impair vaginal delivery.²⁶ Antiretrovirals can be a cause of SJS/TEN in the human immunodeficiency virus–positive population.²⁷ In those cases, it is best to discontinue the medication and find an alternative.

Risk factors for children can be different and can include viral and febrile illnesses as well as mycoplasma infection.²⁸ Children also can be at an increased risk for poor ocular outcomes, such as permanent deficiency in visual acuity and blindness.²⁹

Follow-up Recommendations

Patients should be counseled regarding sequelae and the multisystem nature of SJS/TEN. Inpatient referrals should be given as needed. It is important to watch for ocular symptoms for 1 year after SJS/TEN resolution. When ocular involvement is present, follow-up with ophthalmology is recommended within 1 month of discharge and then at the discretion of the ophthalmologist. Pulmonary function should be monitored for 1 year after SJS/TEN, starting 1 month after discharge and then at the discretion of the pulmonologist. Patients also should be screened for psychologic sequelae for at least 1 year after discharge.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Adverse drug reactions are notable causes of inpatient hospitalization and may lead to considerable sequelae. These ADRs range in severity from more common and benign maculopapular exanthems to severe multiorgan ADRs such as DRESS syndrome and SJS/TEN.

In AGEP, it is important to monitor patients with preexisting dermatologic diseases and to screen for visceral involvement. DRESS syndrome has the potential to cause immune dysregulation and variable long-term adverse sequelae, both from the disease itself and from corticosteroid therapy. Mucocutaneous sequelae of SJS/TEN can potentially affect a patient’s cutaneous, ocular, genitourinary, mental, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal health.

The baseline recommendations provided here warrant more frequent monitoring if the findings and symptoms are severe. In all of these cases, if a causative medication is identified, it should be added to the patient’s allergy list and the patient should be counseled extensively to avoid this medication and other medications in the same class. If a single agent cannot be identified, referrals for patch testing may be of some utility, particularly in AGEP and DRESS syndrome.^30,31

It has been estimated that 2 million serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occur annually in the United States, resulting in 100,000 deaths.¹ Although the acute morbidity and mortality of these ADRs are readily apparent, postdischarge sequalae are critical aspects of a patient’s care. Herein, we present an approach to outpatient dermatologic follow-up of 3 ADRs: acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). For these ADRs, the first step is prompt diagnosis and discontinuation of any potentially causative medications.

ACUTE GENERALIZED EXANTHEMATOUS PUSTULOSIS

Ninety percent of the time, AGEP is caused by medications, most commonly antibiotics, and less often it is caused by viruses.^2-4 It presents as a cutaneous eruption with nonfollicular sterile pustules, fever, and leukocytosis, usually within 5 days after starting a causative medication.⁵ After stopping the medication, cutaneous findings generally improve within 1 week, and leukocytosis often resolves within 1 week.³

Notable Sequelae

Although AGEP typically is considered benign,² there have been reports of severe sequelae including death from a systemic inflammatory response and complications such as bacterial superinfection and sepsis.^6,7 Visceral involvement can be seen in up to 20% of AGEP patients, with systemic symptoms similar  to those seen in DRESS syndrome. Mortality has been reported in up to 5% of cases, mainly in patients with comorbidities and notable mucosal involvement.⁸ More severe disease can be seen in patients with known dermatologic disease, as AGEP can provoke an isomorphic phenomenon.⁹ Laboratory alterations typically seen in AGEP include neutrophilia, eosinophilia, and elevated liver enzymes.²

Follow-up Recommendations

Patients should be informed of the expected timeline for resolution and should be counseled on the possibility of rare systemic symptoms. Laboratory abnormalities should be monitored every 2 to 4 weeks until normalized.

DRESS SYNDROME

DRESS syndrome is characterized by a morbilliform eruption that can be accompanied by fever; eosinophilia; purpura; facial edema; lymphadenopathy; and liver, renal, or other organ dysfunction. DRESS syndrome most often presents within 8 weeks of exposure to a causative drug.^10,11 The most common causative agents are anticonvulsants, antimicrobials, and allopurinol.¹² Treatment includes topical corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids for internal organ involvement.¹⁰

Short-term Sequelae

Several potential sequelae may occur within 6 months of resolution of DRESS syndrome, resulting from both the ADR itself and/or systemic corticosteroids that often are required for treatment.¹³ Complications secondary to herpesviruses have been reported.¹⁴ Cases of cytomegalovirus-induced gastric ulcers can lead to gastrointestinal tract bleeds.¹⁵

Infections including Cryptococcus species and herpes zoster also have been reported.¹⁶ Patients, particularly those treated with systemic corticosteroids, should be monitored with close follow-up for infectious complications and treatment-related adverse effects.¹³

Long-term Sequelae

Endocrine
Thyroid gland abnormalities secondary to DRESS syndrome include Graves disease and Hashimoto disease as well as variations in biomarkers including elevated free thyroxine and low and elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone levels.^16,17 Type 1 diabetes mellitus also has been seen after DRESS syndrome, developing within the first 10 months after onset with unknown pathogenesis.¹⁸

Autoimmune
Other reported sequelae of DRESS syndrome include elevated antinuclear antibodies with possible development into systemic lupus erythematosus, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, vitiligo, and rheumatoid arthritis.^11,16 Symptoms may be exacerbated in patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis, and patients with preexisting renal disease are at an increased risk for requiring lifelong hemodialysis after DRESS syndrome.¹⁶

Other
Studies have demonstrated that pneumonia, thrombosis, and alopecia can be complications of DRESS syndrome.^11,16 Psychiatric disturbances including fear of taking new medications, anxiety, and depression also have been reported.¹⁹ Children with DRESS syndrome may develop vitiligo, alopecia, sclerodermatous lesions, photophobia, uveitis, and Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease.¹⁷

Follow-up Recommendations

It is important to inform patients of both the potential short-term and long-term sequelae of DRESS syndrome, including those associated with treatment. A thorough review of systems should be performed at each visit, along with laboratory evaluation including a complete blood cell count with differential and liver function testing every 1 to 2 weeks after discharge until normalized, with monthly monitoring of glucose, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and free thyroxine levels for 3 months after discharge.

STEVENS-JOHNSON SYNDROME/TOXIC EPIDERMAL NECROLYSIS

Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis are severe ADRs that present with dusky violaceous macules. Inciting medications include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, allopurinol, antibiotics, and anticonvulsants, and symptoms begin 1 to 3 weeks after medication exposure.¹² Initially, the lesions often begin on the trunk and can progress to full-body erythema and exfoliation with a necrotic epidermis and mucosal involvement.^12,20

Notable Sequelae

Cutaneous
Chronic eczema can present at any time and can vary in severity in SJS/TEN patients.²¹ Xerosis and pruritus can be treated with emollients.¹¹ Dyschromia is common. Hypertrophic and keloidal scarring can result from surgical debridement and are best prevented with the use of nonadherent dressings.²² Nail changes such as anonychia, dystrophy, longitudinal ridges, and pterygium also are seen, and topical steroids can be helpful. Other reported dermatologic sequelae include dyschromia and eruption of ectopic sebaceous glands.^21,22

Ocular
Ocular sequelae include dry eyes, photophobia, symblepharon, corneal scarring, corneal neovascularization, corneal xerosis, trichiasis, reduced visual acuity, blindness, and subconjunctival fibrosis. The most common sequelae are bilateral conjunctivitis and corneal ulcerations.^22,23 Early and regular ophthalmologic follow-up is recommended, as SJS/TEN-induced blindness can result from delayed therapy, destroying corneal stem cells.²¹ Amniotic membrane transplantation replaces the damaged corneal membrane, which may reduce corneal inflammation.²⁴

Chronic dry eye syndrome can recur for years after SJS/TEN resolves and progresses over time.²² Frequent use of nonpreserved artificial tears and salivary gland transplantation can be helpful.²⁴ Unfortunately, ocular disease may develop months after discharge; therefore, it is recommended that dermatologists ask all SJS/TEN patients about ocular symptoms in follow-up visits. If ocular involvement was present initially, patients should be followed by ophthalmology for at least 1 year after discharge.²³

Genitourinary
Genitourinary sequelae in SJS/TEN include adhesions, particularly in the female urethra and vaginal opening; vaginal adenosis; vulvovaginal endometriosis; and persistent genital ulcerations most commonly reported in females.²² Prompt inpatient gynecologic or urologic consultation is critical to reduce these potentially permanent outcomes. Topical corticosteroid therapy is recommended in the acute phase.²²

Psychologic
Posttraumatic stress disorder may occur in patients with SJS/TEN. One study showed that 23% (7/30) of patients had posttraumatic stress disorder 6 months after hospitalization for SJS/TEN. The investigators recommended routine psychiatric assessment in the acute disease period and for at least 1 year after discharge.²⁵

Pulmonary, Gastrointestinal, and Renal
Interstitial pneumonia and obliterative bronchitis/bronchiolitis can be caused by SJS/TEN. Interstitial pneumonia tends to occur during the acute course, while obliterative airway disease manifests after resolution of SJS/TEN.^21,22 Abnormal pulmonary function testing can be seen in more than half of SJS/TEN patients 2 months after the ADR.²² Gastrointestinal sequelae include esophageal strictures, intestinal ulceration, and cholestasis.²² Renal sequelae include acute kidney injury and glomerulonephritis, which may be secondary to the volume loss seen in SJS/TEN but may be irreversible.²¹

Special Populations
A correlation with infertility in women has been documented in patients with SJS/TEN; thus, follow-up with obstetrics and gynecology is recommended in women of child-bearing potential. The most considerable risk in pregnant women with SJS/TEN is premature birth, and mucosal necrosis of SJS/TEN can impair vaginal delivery.²⁶ Antiretrovirals can be a cause of SJS/TEN in the human immunodeficiency virus–positive population.²⁷ In those cases, it is best to discontinue the medication and find an alternative.

Risk factors for children can be different and can include viral and febrile illnesses as well as mycoplasma infection.²⁸ Children also can be at an increased risk for poor ocular outcomes, such as permanent deficiency in visual acuity and blindness.²⁹

Follow-up Recommendations

Patients should be counseled regarding sequelae and the multisystem nature of SJS/TEN. Inpatient referrals should be given as needed. It is important to watch for ocular symptoms for 1 year after SJS/TEN resolution. When ocular involvement is present, follow-up with ophthalmology is recommended within 1 month of discharge and then at the discretion of the ophthalmologist. Pulmonary function should be monitored for 1 year after SJS/TEN, starting 1 month after discharge and then at the discretion of the pulmonologist. Patients also should be screened for psychologic sequelae for at least 1 year after discharge.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Adverse drug reactions are notable causes of inpatient hospitalization and may lead to considerable sequelae. These ADRs range in severity from more common and benign maculopapular exanthems to severe multiorgan ADRs such as DRESS syndrome and SJS/TEN.

In AGEP, it is important to monitor patients with preexisting dermatologic diseases and to screen for visceral involvement. DRESS syndrome has the potential to cause immune dysregulation and variable long-term adverse sequelae, both from the disease itself and from corticosteroid therapy. Mucocutaneous sequelae of SJS/TEN can potentially affect a patient’s cutaneous, ocular, genitourinary, mental, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal health.

The baseline recommendations provided here warrant more frequent monitoring if the findings and symptoms are severe. In all of these cases, if a causative medication is identified, it should be added to the patient’s allergy list and the patient should be counseled extensively to avoid this medication and other medications in the same class. If a single agent cannot be identified, referrals for patch testing may be of some utility, particularly in AGEP and DRESS syndrome.^30,31

It has been estimated that 2 million serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occur annually in the United States, resulting in 100,000 deaths.¹ Although the acute morbidity and mortality of these ADRs are readily apparent, postdischarge sequalae are critical aspects of a patient’s care. Herein, we present an approach to outpatient dermatologic follow-up of 3 ADRs: acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)/toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). For these ADRs, the first step is prompt diagnosis and discontinuation of any potentially causative medications.

ACUTE GENERALIZED EXANTHEMATOUS PUSTULOSIS

Ninety percent of the time, AGEP is caused by medications, most commonly antibiotics, and less often it is caused by viruses.^2-4 It presents as a cutaneous eruption with nonfollicular sterile pustules, fever, and leukocytosis, usually within 5 days after starting a causative medication.⁵ After stopping the medication, cutaneous findings generally improve within 1 week, and leukocytosis often resolves within 1 week.³

Notable Sequelae

Although AGEP typically is considered benign,² there have been reports of severe sequelae including death from a systemic inflammatory response and complications such as bacterial superinfection and sepsis.^6,7 Visceral involvement can be seen in up to 20% of AGEP patients, with systemic symptoms similar  to those seen in DRESS syndrome. Mortality has been reported in up to 5% of cases, mainly in patients with comorbidities and notable mucosal involvement.⁸ More severe disease can be seen in patients with known dermatologic disease, as AGEP can provoke an isomorphic phenomenon.⁹ Laboratory alterations typically seen in AGEP include neutrophilia, eosinophilia, and elevated liver enzymes.²

Follow-up Recommendations

Patients should be informed of the expected timeline for resolution and should be counseled on the possibility of rare systemic symptoms. Laboratory abnormalities should be monitored every 2 to 4 weeks until normalized.

DRESS SYNDROME

DRESS syndrome is characterized by a morbilliform eruption that can be accompanied by fever; eosinophilia; purpura; facial edema; lymphadenopathy; and liver, renal, or other organ dysfunction. DRESS syndrome most often presents within 8 weeks of exposure to a causative drug.^10,11 The most common causative agents are anticonvulsants, antimicrobials, and allopurinol.¹² Treatment includes topical corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids for internal organ involvement.¹⁰

Short-term Sequelae

Several potential sequelae may occur within 6 months of resolution of DRESS syndrome, resulting from both the ADR itself and/or systemic corticosteroids that often are required for treatment.¹³ Complications secondary to herpesviruses have been reported.¹⁴ Cases of cytomegalovirus-induced gastric ulcers can lead to gastrointestinal tract bleeds.¹⁵

Infections including Cryptococcus species and herpes zoster also have been reported.¹⁶ Patients, particularly those treated with systemic corticosteroids, should be monitored with close follow-up for infectious complications and treatment-related adverse effects.¹³

Long-term Sequelae

Endocrine
Thyroid gland abnormalities secondary to DRESS syndrome include Graves disease and Hashimoto disease as well as variations in biomarkers including elevated free thyroxine and low and elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone levels.^16,17 Type 1 diabetes mellitus also has been seen after DRESS syndrome, developing within the first 10 months after onset with unknown pathogenesis.¹⁸

Autoimmune
Other reported sequelae of DRESS syndrome include elevated antinuclear antibodies with possible development into systemic lupus erythematosus, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, vitiligo, and rheumatoid arthritis.^11,16 Symptoms may be exacerbated in patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis, and patients with preexisting renal disease are at an increased risk for requiring lifelong hemodialysis after DRESS syndrome.¹⁶

Other
Studies have demonstrated that pneumonia, thrombosis, and alopecia can be complications of DRESS syndrome.^11,16 Psychiatric disturbances including fear of taking new medications, anxiety, and depression also have been reported.¹⁹ Children with DRESS syndrome may develop vitiligo, alopecia, sclerodermatous lesions, photophobia, uveitis, and Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease.¹⁷

Follow-up Recommendations

It is important to inform patients of both the potential short-term and long-term sequelae of DRESS syndrome, including those associated with treatment. A thorough review of systems should be performed at each visit, along with laboratory evaluation including a complete blood cell count with differential and liver function testing every 1 to 2 weeks after discharge until normalized, with monthly monitoring of glucose, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and free thyroxine levels for 3 months after discharge.

STEVENS-JOHNSON SYNDROME/TOXIC EPIDERMAL NECROLYSIS

Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis are severe ADRs that present with dusky violaceous macules. Inciting medications include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, allopurinol, antibiotics, and anticonvulsants, and symptoms begin 1 to 3 weeks after medication exposure.¹² Initially, the lesions often begin on the trunk and can progress to full-body erythema and exfoliation with a necrotic epidermis and mucosal involvement.^12,20

Notable Sequelae

Cutaneous
Chronic eczema can present at any time and can vary in severity in SJS/TEN patients.²¹ Xerosis and pruritus can be treated with emollients.¹¹ Dyschromia is common. Hypertrophic and keloidal scarring can result from surgical debridement and are best prevented with the use of nonadherent dressings.²² Nail changes such as anonychia, dystrophy, longitudinal ridges, and pterygium also are seen, and topical steroids can be helpful. Other reported dermatologic sequelae include dyschromia and eruption of ectopic sebaceous glands.^21,22

Ocular
Ocular sequelae include dry eyes, photophobia, symblepharon, corneal scarring, corneal neovascularization, corneal xerosis, trichiasis, reduced visual acuity, blindness, and subconjunctival fibrosis. The most common sequelae are bilateral conjunctivitis and corneal ulcerations.^22,23 Early and regular ophthalmologic follow-up is recommended, as SJS/TEN-induced blindness can result from delayed therapy, destroying corneal stem cells.²¹ Amniotic membrane transplantation replaces the damaged corneal membrane, which may reduce corneal inflammation.²⁴

Chronic dry eye syndrome can recur for years after SJS/TEN resolves and progresses over time.²² Frequent use of nonpreserved artificial tears and salivary gland transplantation can be helpful.²⁴ Unfortunately, ocular disease may develop months after discharge; therefore, it is recommended that dermatologists ask all SJS/TEN patients about ocular symptoms in follow-up visits. If ocular involvement was present initially, patients should be followed by ophthalmology for at least 1 year after discharge.²³

Genitourinary
Genitourinary sequelae in SJS/TEN include adhesions, particularly in the female urethra and vaginal opening; vaginal adenosis; vulvovaginal endometriosis; and persistent genital ulcerations most commonly reported in females.²² Prompt inpatient gynecologic or urologic consultation is critical to reduce these potentially permanent outcomes. Topical corticosteroid therapy is recommended in the acute phase.²²

Psychologic
Posttraumatic stress disorder may occur in patients with SJS/TEN. One study showed that 23% (7/30) of patients had posttraumatic stress disorder 6 months after hospitalization for SJS/TEN. The investigators recommended routine psychiatric assessment in the acute disease period and for at least 1 year after discharge.²⁵

Pulmonary, Gastrointestinal, and Renal
Interstitial pneumonia and obliterative bronchitis/bronchiolitis can be caused by SJS/TEN. Interstitial pneumonia tends to occur during the acute course, while obliterative airway disease manifests after resolution of SJS/TEN.^21,22 Abnormal pulmonary function testing can be seen in more than half of SJS/TEN patients 2 months after the ADR.²² Gastrointestinal sequelae include esophageal strictures, intestinal ulceration, and cholestasis.²² Renal sequelae include acute kidney injury and glomerulonephritis, which may be secondary to the volume loss seen in SJS/TEN but may be irreversible.²¹

Special Populations
A correlation with infertility in women has been documented in patients with SJS/TEN; thus, follow-up with obstetrics and gynecology is recommended in women of child-bearing potential. The most considerable risk in pregnant women with SJS/TEN is premature birth, and mucosal necrosis of SJS/TEN can impair vaginal delivery.²⁶ Antiretrovirals can be a cause of SJS/TEN in the human immunodeficiency virus–positive population.²⁷ In those cases, it is best to discontinue the medication and find an alternative.

Risk factors for children can be different and can include viral and febrile illnesses as well as mycoplasma infection.²⁸ Children also can be at an increased risk for poor ocular outcomes, such as permanent deficiency in visual acuity and blindness.²⁹

Follow-up Recommendations

Patients should be counseled regarding sequelae and the multisystem nature of SJS/TEN. Inpatient referrals should be given as needed. It is important to watch for ocular symptoms for 1 year after SJS/TEN resolution. When ocular involvement is present, follow-up with ophthalmology is recommended within 1 month of discharge and then at the discretion of the ophthalmologist. Pulmonary function should be monitored for 1 year after SJS/TEN, starting 1 month after discharge and then at the discretion of the pulmonologist. Patients also should be screened for psychologic sequelae for at least 1 year after discharge.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Adverse drug reactions are notable causes of inpatient hospitalization and may lead to considerable sequelae. These ADRs range in severity from more common and benign maculopapular exanthems to severe multiorgan ADRs such as DRESS syndrome and SJS/TEN.

In AGEP, it is important to monitor patients with preexisting dermatologic diseases and to screen for visceral involvement. DRESS syndrome has the potential to cause immune dysregulation and variable long-term adverse sequelae, both from the disease itself and from corticosteroid therapy. Mucocutaneous sequelae of SJS/TEN can potentially affect a patient’s cutaneous, ocular, genitourinary, mental, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal health.

The baseline recommendations provided here warrant more frequent monitoring if the findings and symptoms are severe. In all of these cases, if a causative medication is identified, it should be added to the patient’s allergy list and the patient should be counseled extensively to avoid this medication and other medications in the same class. If a single agent cannot be identified, referrals for patch testing may be of some utility, particularly in AGEP and DRESS syndrome.^30,31

As systemic therapies for advanced melanoma increase, some historical prognostic factors continue to hold true while refined and novel risk factors are emerging, according to the results of three studies published in JAMA Dermatology.

Among the most prominent findings of those studies are that ulceration, mitotic index, and head and neck location in localized disease were predictive of early recurrence; time to recurrence was not associated with survival in unresectable stage IV melanoma; and certain gene markers may be linked with particular types of metastasis.

The first study, conducted by Lena A. von Schuckmann, MBBS, of the University of Queensland School of Public Health in Australia, and colleagues, evaluated the risk of early melanoma recurrence in patients with localized disease.

“With the introduction of targeted and immune therapies for treatment of metastatic melanoma, including possible adjuvant therapy, a detailed understanding of the risk of melanoma recurrence may assist clinicians to advise patients with a primary tumor at high risk of disease metastasis,” the researchers wrote (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0440).

They conducted a prospective cohort study of 700 patients with high-risk, category T1b to T4b cutaneous melanoma, refined from an initial recruitment population of 1,254 individuals. Using self-administered patient questionnaires in conjunction with histologic, imaging, and clinical data over the course of 2 years, the investigators looked for factors that predicted recurrence.

Of 700 patients, 94 (13.4%) had disease recurrence, most often (70.2%) locoregional recurrence. Independent predictors of recurrence included mitotic rate greater than 3/mm², thickness, ulceration, and primary tumor location on the head or neck.

Patients with negative single lymph node biopsy (SLNB) were less likely to have recurrence than were those who did not undergo SLNB. Among 64 patients whose locoregional disease was excised, 37 (57.8%) were disease free at 2 years, whereas 7 patients (10.9%) had new locoregional disease and 20 patients (31.3%) developed a new distant recurrence.

“[O]ur data appear to support the recommendation for careful scar and regional skin and lymph node examination during patient follow-up,” the investigators concluded, alluding to the relatively high rate of locoregional recurrence. “Subsequent recurrences occurring at distant sites were more likely to involve multiple organs, which is consistent with other studies.”

The second melanoma article, investigating associations between time to relapse and survival, was authored by Anaïs Vallet, MD, of Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, and colleagues.

“Although the kinetics of metastatic disease seem to be correlated with patient survival, the first relapse is not predictable, and data from the literature on the topic are controversial,” they wrote (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0425). “We hypothesized that the progression of the metastatic disease would be associated with the time from primary excision to the first distant recurrence of melanoma.”

To test this hypothesis, the investigators analyzed data from 638 patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Inclusion required first-line treatment with chemotherapy, targeted therapies, or immunotherapies. The interval between primary excision and distant disease recurrence, measured as a categorical and continuous variable, was compared with overall survival and progression-free survival. The analysis revealed no associations between time to recurrence and either survival measure, even when stratified by treatment.

“Now that immunotherapies and targeted therapies have been approved in the adjuvant setting for patients with stage III disease, it would be interesting to analyze recurrence-free survival and [progression-free survival] in relapsing patients who previously received adjuvant therapies,” the investigators wrote.

The third study was conducted by Laura Calomarde-Rees, MD, of Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, València, Spain, and colleagues.

“Our aim was to identify risk factors associated with lymphatic (locoregional metastasis) or hematogenous (distant metastasis) progression because these have not been studied separately to date in patients with localized melanoma,” they wrote (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0069).

The retrospective study involved 1,177 patients with stage I to II melanoma. Multiple disease variables were evaluated in the context of each type of metastasis, including age, sex, tumor location, and others.

The investigators found locoregional spread was most often associated with vascular invasion (hazard ratio [HR], 3.2), greater Breslow thickness (HR, 5.4; thickness greater than 4 mm), acral location (HR, 2.4), head/neck location (HR, 1.7), and age greater than 55 years (HR, 1.9).

Distant metastasis was most often associated with greater Breslow thickness (HR, 10.4; thickness greater than 4 mm), TERT promoter mutations (HR, 2.9), BRAF mutations (HR, 1.9), and absence of regression (HR, 0.1).

“Risk factors for lymphatic and hematogenous metastasis differ,” the investigators concluded. “A greater understanding of the clinical, histopathologic, and molecular factors involved could help to identify patients with an increased risk of recurrence and guide the design of individualized follow-up programs and adjuvant targeted therapies.”

Dr. von Schuckmann and colleagues disclosed study funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and other relationships with the Norwegian Cancer Society project. Dr. Vallet and colleagues reported study support from French National Cancer Institute, MSD, BMS, Roche, and Novartis; and additional relationships with Incyte, Amgen, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Calomarde-Rees and colleagues disclosed no conflicts of interest.

As systemic therapies for advanced melanoma increase, some historical prognostic factors continue to hold true while refined and novel risk factors are emerging, according to the results of three studies published in JAMA Dermatology.

Among the most prominent findings of those studies are that ulceration, mitotic index, and head and neck location in localized disease were predictive of early recurrence; time to recurrence was not associated with survival in unresectable stage IV melanoma; and certain gene markers may be linked with particular types of metastasis.

The first study, conducted by Lena A. von Schuckmann, MBBS, of the University of Queensland School of Public Health in Australia, and colleagues, evaluated the risk of early melanoma recurrence in patients with localized disease.

“With the introduction of targeted and immune therapies for treatment of metastatic melanoma, including possible adjuvant therapy, a detailed understanding of the risk of melanoma recurrence may assist clinicians to advise patients with a primary tumor at high risk of disease metastasis,” the researchers wrote (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0440).

They conducted a prospective cohort study of 700 patients with high-risk, category T1b to T4b cutaneous melanoma, refined from an initial recruitment population of 1,254 individuals. Using self-administered patient questionnaires in conjunction with histologic, imaging, and clinical data over the course of 2 years, the investigators looked for factors that predicted recurrence.

Of 700 patients, 94 (13.4%) had disease recurrence, most often (70.2%) locoregional recurrence. Independent predictors of recurrence included mitotic rate greater than 3/mm², thickness, ulceration, and primary tumor location on the head or neck.

Patients with negative single lymph node biopsy (SLNB) were less likely to have recurrence than were those who did not undergo SLNB. Among 64 patients whose locoregional disease was excised, 37 (57.8%) were disease free at 2 years, whereas 7 patients (10.9%) had new locoregional disease and 20 patients (31.3%) developed a new distant recurrence.

“[O]ur data appear to support the recommendation for careful scar and regional skin and lymph node examination during patient follow-up,” the investigators concluded, alluding to the relatively high rate of locoregional recurrence. “Subsequent recurrences occurring at distant sites were more likely to involve multiple organs, which is consistent with other studies.”

The second melanoma article, investigating associations between time to relapse and survival, was authored by Anaïs Vallet, MD, of Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, and colleagues.

“Although the kinetics of metastatic disease seem to be correlated with patient survival, the first relapse is not predictable, and data from the literature on the topic are controversial,” they wrote (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0425). “We hypothesized that the progression of the metastatic disease would be associated with the time from primary excision to the first distant recurrence of melanoma.”

To test this hypothesis, the investigators analyzed data from 638 patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Inclusion required first-line treatment with chemotherapy, targeted therapies, or immunotherapies. The interval between primary excision and distant disease recurrence, measured as a categorical and continuous variable, was compared with overall survival and progression-free survival. The analysis revealed no associations between time to recurrence and either survival measure, even when stratified by treatment.

“Now that immunotherapies and targeted therapies have been approved in the adjuvant setting for patients with stage III disease, it would be interesting to analyze recurrence-free survival and [progression-free survival] in relapsing patients who previously received adjuvant therapies,” the investigators wrote.

The third study was conducted by Laura Calomarde-Rees, MD, of Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, València, Spain, and colleagues.

“Our aim was to identify risk factors associated with lymphatic (locoregional metastasis) or hematogenous (distant metastasis) progression because these have not been studied separately to date in patients with localized melanoma,” they wrote (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0069).

The retrospective study involved 1,177 patients with stage I to II melanoma. Multiple disease variables were evaluated in the context of each type of metastasis, including age, sex, tumor location, and others.

The investigators found locoregional spread was most often associated with vascular invasion (hazard ratio [HR], 3.2), greater Breslow thickness (HR, 5.4; thickness greater than 4 mm), acral location (HR, 2.4), head/neck location (HR, 1.7), and age greater than 55 years (HR, 1.9).

Distant metastasis was most often associated with greater Breslow thickness (HR, 10.4; thickness greater than 4 mm), TERT promoter mutations (HR, 2.9), BRAF mutations (HR, 1.9), and absence of regression (HR, 0.1).

“Risk factors for lymphatic and hematogenous metastasis differ,” the investigators concluded. “A greater understanding of the clinical, histopathologic, and molecular factors involved could help to identify patients with an increased risk of recurrence and guide the design of individualized follow-up programs and adjuvant targeted therapies.”

Dr. von Schuckmann and colleagues disclosed study funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and other relationships with the Norwegian Cancer Society project. Dr. Vallet and colleagues reported study support from French National Cancer Institute, MSD, BMS, Roche, and Novartis; and additional relationships with Incyte, Amgen, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Calomarde-Rees and colleagues disclosed no conflicts of interest.

As systemic therapies for advanced melanoma increase, some historical prognostic factors continue to hold true while refined and novel risk factors are emerging, according to the results of three studies published in JAMA Dermatology.

Among the most prominent findings of those studies are that ulceration, mitotic index, and head and neck location in localized disease were predictive of early recurrence; time to recurrence was not associated with survival in unresectable stage IV melanoma; and certain gene markers may be linked with particular types of metastasis.

The first study, conducted by Lena A. von Schuckmann, MBBS, of the University of Queensland School of Public Health in Australia, and colleagues, evaluated the risk of early melanoma recurrence in patients with localized disease.

“With the introduction of targeted and immune therapies for treatment of metastatic melanoma, including possible adjuvant therapy, a detailed understanding of the risk of melanoma recurrence may assist clinicians to advise patients with a primary tumor at high risk of disease metastasis,” the researchers wrote (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0440).

They conducted a prospective cohort study of 700 patients with high-risk, category T1b to T4b cutaneous melanoma, refined from an initial recruitment population of 1,254 individuals. Using self-administered patient questionnaires in conjunction with histologic, imaging, and clinical data over the course of 2 years, the investigators looked for factors that predicted recurrence.

Of 700 patients, 94 (13.4%) had disease recurrence, most often (70.2%) locoregional recurrence. Independent predictors of recurrence included mitotic rate greater than 3/mm², thickness, ulceration, and primary tumor location on the head or neck.

Patients with negative single lymph node biopsy (SLNB) were less likely to have recurrence than were those who did not undergo SLNB. Among 64 patients whose locoregional disease was excised, 37 (57.8%) were disease free at 2 years, whereas 7 patients (10.9%) had new locoregional disease and 20 patients (31.3%) developed a new distant recurrence.

“[O]ur data appear to support the recommendation for careful scar and regional skin and lymph node examination during patient follow-up,” the investigators concluded, alluding to the relatively high rate of locoregional recurrence. “Subsequent recurrences occurring at distant sites were more likely to involve multiple organs, which is consistent with other studies.”

The second melanoma article, investigating associations between time to relapse and survival, was authored by Anaïs Vallet, MD, of Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, and colleagues.

“Although the kinetics of metastatic disease seem to be correlated with patient survival, the first relapse is not predictable, and data from the literature on the topic are controversial,” they wrote (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0425). “We hypothesized that the progression of the metastatic disease would be associated with the time from primary excision to the first distant recurrence of melanoma.”

To test this hypothesis, the investigators analyzed data from 638 patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma. Inclusion required first-line treatment with chemotherapy, targeted therapies, or immunotherapies. The interval between primary excision and distant disease recurrence, measured as a categorical and continuous variable, was compared with overall survival and progression-free survival. The analysis revealed no associations between time to recurrence and either survival measure, even when stratified by treatment.

“Now that immunotherapies and targeted therapies have been approved in the adjuvant setting for patients with stage III disease, it would be interesting to analyze recurrence-free survival and [progression-free survival] in relapsing patients who previously received adjuvant therapies,” the investigators wrote.

The third study was conducted by Laura Calomarde-Rees, MD, of Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, València, Spain, and colleagues.

“Our aim was to identify risk factors associated with lymphatic (locoregional metastasis) or hematogenous (distant metastasis) progression because these have not been studied separately to date in patients with localized melanoma,” they wrote (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 May 1. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0069).

The retrospective study involved 1,177 patients with stage I to II melanoma. Multiple disease variables were evaluated in the context of each type of metastasis, including age, sex, tumor location, and others.

The investigators found locoregional spread was most often associated with vascular invasion (hazard ratio [HR], 3.2), greater Breslow thickness (HR, 5.4; thickness greater than 4 mm), acral location (HR, 2.4), head/neck location (HR, 1.7), and age greater than 55 years (HR, 1.9).

Distant metastasis was most often associated with greater Breslow thickness (HR, 10.4; thickness greater than 4 mm), TERT promoter mutations (HR, 2.9), BRAF mutations (HR, 1.9), and absence of regression (HR, 0.1).

“Risk factors for lymphatic and hematogenous metastasis differ,” the investigators concluded. “A greater understanding of the clinical, histopathologic, and molecular factors involved could help to identify patients with an increased risk of recurrence and guide the design of individualized follow-up programs and adjuvant targeted therapies.”

Dr. von Schuckmann and colleagues disclosed study funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and other relationships with the Norwegian Cancer Society project. Dr. Vallet and colleagues reported study support from French National Cancer Institute, MSD, BMS, Roche, and Novartis; and additional relationships with Incyte, Amgen, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Calomarde-Rees and colleagues disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Hospitals could get a payment bump for administering chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies under a proposed rule issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Penn Medicine

The proposal calls for raising the new technology add-on payment (NTAP) associated with the therapies from 50% of the technology to 65%, an increase from $186,500 to $242,450.

Beginning with discharges on Oct. 1, 2019, if discharge costs involving a new medical service or technology exceed the full Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) payment, Medicare would make an add-on payment of either 65% of the cost of the new medical service or technology, or 65% of the amount by which the costs of the case exceed the standard DRG payment, whichever is less.

Roy Silverstein, MD, president of the American Society of Hematology, said the group was pleased that the CMS is examining its existing payment policies to identify more realistic ways to account for the costs of administering CAR T-cell therapies.

“While ASH had originally suggested a higher [new technology] payment, any increase is an improvement,” Dr. Silverstein said in a statement. “While the proposal from CMS is promising, it is not a one-stop solution for making CAR T more accessible to patients. Just as these therapies are innovative, it is going to take some innovation on the part of CMS to develop a plan that equitably compensates providers and institutions so that offering the therapy is sustainable.”

The agency’s proposal follows an August 2018 final rule by the CMS that set a new payment scheme for inpatient administration of two CAR T-cell therapies. The rule categorized CAR T-cell therapies under the umbrella of the renamed Medicare Severity–Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRG) 016 – Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant with CC/MCC or T-cell Immunotherapy – and assigned ICD-10 PCS procedure codes XW033C3 and XW043C3 to the use of axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) and tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) in the inpatient setting for fiscal year 2019, which began in October 2018.

In April 2018, the CMS announced payment rates for outpatient administration of the two drugs, settling on $395,380 for axicabtagene ciloleucel and $500,839 for tisagenlecleucel. The two medications have list prices of $373,000 and $475,000, respectively.

In February 2019, the CMS also proposed to cover CAR T-cell therapy for cancer patients participating in clinical trials that study the treatment’s effectiveness. A final decision on the proposal is expected in May 2019.

In the current proposal, the CMS acknowledged requests calling for the agency to create a new MS-DRG for procedures involving CAR T-cell therapies to improve payment in the inpatient setting. However, the agency declined to create a new MS-DRG for CAR T-cell cases, writing that the move is premature given the relative newness of CAR T-cell therapy and the agency’s proposal to continue new technology add-on payments for fiscal 2020 for Kymriah and Yescarta.

However, the agency is requesting public comments on whether, in light of additional experience with billing and payment for cases involving CAR T-cell therapies to Medicare patients, the CMS should consider using a specific cost-to-charge ratio for ICD-10-PCS procedure codes used to report the performance of procedures involving CAR T-cell therapies.

Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted until June 24.

[email protected]

Hospitals could get a payment bump for administering chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies under a proposed rule issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Penn Medicine

The proposal calls for raising the new technology add-on payment (NTAP) associated with the therapies from 50% of the technology to 65%, an increase from $186,500 to $242,450.

Beginning with discharges on Oct. 1, 2019, if discharge costs involving a new medical service or technology exceed the full Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) payment, Medicare would make an add-on payment of either 65% of the cost of the new medical service or technology, or 65% of the amount by which the costs of the case exceed the standard DRG payment, whichever is less.

Roy Silverstein, MD, president of the American Society of Hematology, said the group was pleased that the CMS is examining its existing payment policies to identify more realistic ways to account for the costs of administering CAR T-cell therapies.

“While ASH had originally suggested a higher [new technology] payment, any increase is an improvement,” Dr. Silverstein said in a statement. “While the proposal from CMS is promising, it is not a one-stop solution for making CAR T more accessible to patients. Just as these therapies are innovative, it is going to take some innovation on the part of CMS to develop a plan that equitably compensates providers and institutions so that offering the therapy is sustainable.”

The agency’s proposal follows an August 2018 final rule by the CMS that set a new payment scheme for inpatient administration of two CAR T-cell therapies. The rule categorized CAR T-cell therapies under the umbrella of the renamed Medicare Severity–Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRG) 016 – Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant with CC/MCC or T-cell Immunotherapy – and assigned ICD-10 PCS procedure codes XW033C3 and XW043C3 to the use of axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) and tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) in the inpatient setting for fiscal year 2019, which began in October 2018.

In April 2018, the CMS announced payment rates for outpatient administration of the two drugs, settling on $395,380 for axicabtagene ciloleucel and $500,839 for tisagenlecleucel. The two medications have list prices of $373,000 and $475,000, respectively.

In February 2019, the CMS also proposed to cover CAR T-cell therapy for cancer patients participating in clinical trials that study the treatment’s effectiveness. A final decision on the proposal is expected in May 2019.

In the current proposal, the CMS acknowledged requests calling for the agency to create a new MS-DRG for procedures involving CAR T-cell therapies to improve payment in the inpatient setting. However, the agency declined to create a new MS-DRG for CAR T-cell cases, writing that the move is premature given the relative newness of CAR T-cell therapy and the agency’s proposal to continue new technology add-on payments for fiscal 2020 for Kymriah and Yescarta.

However, the agency is requesting public comments on whether, in light of additional experience with billing and payment for cases involving CAR T-cell therapies to Medicare patients, the CMS should consider using a specific cost-to-charge ratio for ICD-10-PCS procedure codes used to report the performance of procedures involving CAR T-cell therapies.

Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted until June 24.

[email protected]

Hospitals could get a payment bump for administering chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies under a proposed rule issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Penn Medicine

The proposal calls for raising the new technology add-on payment (NTAP) associated with the therapies from 50% of the technology to 65%, an increase from $186,500 to $242,450.

Beginning with discharges on Oct. 1, 2019, if discharge costs involving a new medical service or technology exceed the full Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) payment, Medicare would make an add-on payment of either 65% of the cost of the new medical service or technology, or 65% of the amount by which the costs of the case exceed the standard DRG payment, whichever is less.

Roy Silverstein, MD, president of the American Society of Hematology, said the group was pleased that the CMS is examining its existing payment policies to identify more realistic ways to account for the costs of administering CAR T-cell therapies.

“While ASH had originally suggested a higher [new technology] payment, any increase is an improvement,” Dr. Silverstein said in a statement. “While the proposal from CMS is promising, it is not a one-stop solution for making CAR T more accessible to patients. Just as these therapies are innovative, it is going to take some innovation on the part of CMS to develop a plan that equitably compensates providers and institutions so that offering the therapy is sustainable.”

The agency’s proposal follows an August 2018 final rule by the CMS that set a new payment scheme for inpatient administration of two CAR T-cell therapies. The rule categorized CAR T-cell therapies under the umbrella of the renamed Medicare Severity–Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRG) 016 – Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant with CC/MCC or T-cell Immunotherapy – and assigned ICD-10 PCS procedure codes XW033C3 and XW043C3 to the use of axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) and tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) in the inpatient setting for fiscal year 2019, which began in October 2018.

In April 2018, the CMS announced payment rates for outpatient administration of the two drugs, settling on $395,380 for axicabtagene ciloleucel and $500,839 for tisagenlecleucel. The two medications have list prices of $373,000 and $475,000, respectively.

In February 2019, the CMS also proposed to cover CAR T-cell therapy for cancer patients participating in clinical trials that study the treatment’s effectiveness. A final decision on the proposal is expected in May 2019.

In the current proposal, the CMS acknowledged requests calling for the agency to create a new MS-DRG for procedures involving CAR T-cell therapies to improve payment in the inpatient setting. However, the agency declined to create a new MS-DRG for CAR T-cell cases, writing that the move is premature given the relative newness of CAR T-cell therapy and the agency’s proposal to continue new technology add-on payments for fiscal 2020 for Kymriah and Yescarta.

However, the agency is requesting public comments on whether, in light of additional experience with billing and payment for cases involving CAR T-cell therapies to Medicare patients, the CMS should consider using a specific cost-to-charge ratio for ICD-10-PCS procedure codes used to report the performance of procedures involving CAR T-cell therapies.

Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted until June 24.

[email protected]

The Trump administration is asking an appeals court to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA), a shift from the administration’s earlier stance that had supported some elements of the law in a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

jsmith/iStockphoto

In a brief issued May 1 to the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals, Justice Department attorneys wrote that provisions of the health care law cannot be severed from the whole and thus, the entire ACA should be ruled invalid. The Justice Department did not specify why it changed its position in Texas v. United States, except to say the new opinion came upon further consideration and review of the lower court’s opinion.

Texas v. United States, filed by a group of 18 Republican state attorneys general and two individuals in 2018, centers on whether the ACA should stand if provisions of the law are no longer valid. The plaintiffs argue that, because budget legislation in 2017 zeroed out the penalties associated with the ACA’s individual mandate, the mandate is invalid. If the mandate is severed, the entire ACA should be struck down, the plaintiffs said. The Justice Department declined to fully defend the law and so 16 Democratic state attorneys general intervened to defend the ACA in the case.

In an initial brief, the Trump administration agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional and should be parsed. Attorneys for the administration wrote that, if the mandate is found unconstitutional, the court should also consider finding two other provisions – the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements – of the ACA invalid. Guaranteed issue refers to insurers in the individual market offering coverage to all citizens, regardless of preexisting conditions, while community rating refers to charging equal premiums to every patient, no matter their past health status. At the time however, the Trump administration said the remainder of the ACA can stand without the three linked provisions.

In December 2018, a district court declared the entire ACA to be invalid, a decision immediately appealed to the 5th Circuit by the Democratic attorneys general. The circuit court froze the case in light of the federal government’s partial shutdown at the time. The case remains on hold.

The Trump administration’s new stance that the entire ACA should be declared unconstitutional was widely condemned by Democratic legislators.

“If President Trump wins against health care, families lose,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) tweeted May 1. “They’ll lose their health care, lose protections for preexisting conditions, and lose to insurance companies who will have free rein to deny coverage and leave patients to shoulder high costs.”

The White House had not issued a statement about its new position in the case at press time.

In a separate brief filed with the appeals court on May 1, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican plaintiff in the case, reiterated his side’s opposition to the ACA and called for the court to uphold the lower court’s ruling striking down the law.

“Congress meant for the individual mandate to be the centerpiece of Obamacare,” Attorney General Paxton said in a statement. “Without the constitutional justification for the centerpiece, the law must go down. Obamacare is a failed social experiment. The sooner it is invalidated, the better, so each state can decide what type of health care system it wants and how best to provide for those with preexisting conditions, which is federalism that the founders intended.”

Timothy Jost, a health law professor at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va., said that administration’s revised position in Texas v. U.S. won’t have much impact on the case.

“The Department of Justice brief doesn’t change anything,” Mr. Jost said in an interview. “They basically make the same arguments that the individual plaintiffs and the state plaintiffs do as to the major issues in the case.

However, Mr. Jost said that the administration’s brief sounds confused and reads almost like two separate briefs. On one hand, the Justice Department argues that the entire ACA should be invalid because the mandate cannot be severed. On the other hand, the agency argues that court relief should be “limited only to those provisions that actually injure the individual plaintiffs.” Specifically, Justice Department attorneys indicate that health care fraud and abuse protections in the ACA should be preserved.

“It looks like they kind of want to have their cake and eat it, too,” Mr. Jost said. “They want to preserve the provisions of the ACA they like, but not the sections that they don’t like. That could serve to confuse the issue for the appellate court.”

Oral arguments in the case are slated for July with a possible decision expected by the end of 2019. Legal analysts expect the losing side to appeal to the Supreme Court.

[email protected]

The Trump administration is asking an appeals court to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA), a shift from the administration’s earlier stance that had supported some elements of the law in a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

jsmith/iStockphoto

In a brief issued May 1 to the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals, Justice Department attorneys wrote that provisions of the health care law cannot be severed from the whole and thus, the entire ACA should be ruled invalid. The Justice Department did not specify why it changed its position in Texas v. United States, except to say the new opinion came upon further consideration and review of the lower court’s opinion.

Texas v. United States, filed by a group of 18 Republican state attorneys general and two individuals in 2018, centers on whether the ACA should stand if provisions of the law are no longer valid. The plaintiffs argue that, because budget legislation in 2017 zeroed out the penalties associated with the ACA’s individual mandate, the mandate is invalid. If the mandate is severed, the entire ACA should be struck down, the plaintiffs said. The Justice Department declined to fully defend the law and so 16 Democratic state attorneys general intervened to defend the ACA in the case.

In an initial brief, the Trump administration agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional and should be parsed. Attorneys for the administration wrote that, if the mandate is found unconstitutional, the court should also consider finding two other provisions – the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements – of the ACA invalid. Guaranteed issue refers to insurers in the individual market offering coverage to all citizens, regardless of preexisting conditions, while community rating refers to charging equal premiums to every patient, no matter their past health status. At the time however, the Trump administration said the remainder of the ACA can stand without the three linked provisions.

In December 2018, a district court declared the entire ACA to be invalid, a decision immediately appealed to the 5th Circuit by the Democratic attorneys general. The circuit court froze the case in light of the federal government’s partial shutdown at the time. The case remains on hold.

The Trump administration’s new stance that the entire ACA should be declared unconstitutional was widely condemned by Democratic legislators.

“If President Trump wins against health care, families lose,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) tweeted May 1. “They’ll lose their health care, lose protections for preexisting conditions, and lose to insurance companies who will have free rein to deny coverage and leave patients to shoulder high costs.”

The White House had not issued a statement about its new position in the case at press time.

In a separate brief filed with the appeals court on May 1, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican plaintiff in the case, reiterated his side’s opposition to the ACA and called for the court to uphold the lower court’s ruling striking down the law.

“Congress meant for the individual mandate to be the centerpiece of Obamacare,” Attorney General Paxton said in a statement. “Without the constitutional justification for the centerpiece, the law must go down. Obamacare is a failed social experiment. The sooner it is invalidated, the better, so each state can decide what type of health care system it wants and how best to provide for those with preexisting conditions, which is federalism that the founders intended.”

Timothy Jost, a health law professor at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va., said that administration’s revised position in Texas v. U.S. won’t have much impact on the case.

“The Department of Justice brief doesn’t change anything,” Mr. Jost said in an interview. “They basically make the same arguments that the individual plaintiffs and the state plaintiffs do as to the major issues in the case.

However, Mr. Jost said that the administration’s brief sounds confused and reads almost like two separate briefs. On one hand, the Justice Department argues that the entire ACA should be invalid because the mandate cannot be severed. On the other hand, the agency argues that court relief should be “limited only to those provisions that actually injure the individual plaintiffs.” Specifically, Justice Department attorneys indicate that health care fraud and abuse protections in the ACA should be preserved.

“It looks like they kind of want to have their cake and eat it, too,” Mr. Jost said. “They want to preserve the provisions of the ACA they like, but not the sections that they don’t like. That could serve to confuse the issue for the appellate court.”

Oral arguments in the case are slated for July with a possible decision expected by the end of 2019. Legal analysts expect the losing side to appeal to the Supreme Court.

[email protected]

The Trump administration is asking an appeals court to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA), a shift from the administration’s earlier stance that had supported some elements of the law in a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

jsmith/iStockphoto

In a brief issued May 1 to the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals, Justice Department attorneys wrote that provisions of the health care law cannot be severed from the whole and thus, the entire ACA should be ruled invalid. The Justice Department did not specify why it changed its position in Texas v. United States, except to say the new opinion came upon further consideration and review of the lower court’s opinion.

Texas v. United States, filed by a group of 18 Republican state attorneys general and two individuals in 2018, centers on whether the ACA should stand if provisions of the law are no longer valid. The plaintiffs argue that, because budget legislation in 2017 zeroed out the penalties associated with the ACA’s individual mandate, the mandate is invalid. If the mandate is severed, the entire ACA should be struck down, the plaintiffs said. The Justice Department declined to fully defend the law and so 16 Democratic state attorneys general intervened to defend the ACA in the case.

In an initial brief, the Trump administration agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional and should be parsed. Attorneys for the administration wrote that, if the mandate is found unconstitutional, the court should also consider finding two other provisions – the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements – of the ACA invalid. Guaranteed issue refers to insurers in the individual market offering coverage to all citizens, regardless of preexisting conditions, while community rating refers to charging equal premiums to every patient, no matter their past health status. At the time however, the Trump administration said the remainder of the ACA can stand without the three linked provisions.

In December 2018, a district court declared the entire ACA to be invalid, a decision immediately appealed to the 5th Circuit by the Democratic attorneys general. The circuit court froze the case in light of the federal government’s partial shutdown at the time. The case remains on hold.

The Trump administration’s new stance that the entire ACA should be declared unconstitutional was widely condemned by Democratic legislators.

“If President Trump wins against health care, families lose,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) tweeted May 1. “They’ll lose their health care, lose protections for preexisting conditions, and lose to insurance companies who will have free rein to deny coverage and leave patients to shoulder high costs.”

The White House had not issued a statement about its new position in the case at press time.

In a separate brief filed with the appeals court on May 1, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican plaintiff in the case, reiterated his side’s opposition to the ACA and called for the court to uphold the lower court’s ruling striking down the law.

“Congress meant for the individual mandate to be the centerpiece of Obamacare,” Attorney General Paxton said in a statement. “Without the constitutional justification for the centerpiece, the law must go down. Obamacare is a failed social experiment. The sooner it is invalidated, the better, so each state can decide what type of health care system it wants and how best to provide for those with preexisting conditions, which is federalism that the founders intended.”

Timothy Jost, a health law professor at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va., said that administration’s revised position in Texas v. U.S. won’t have much impact on the case.

“The Department of Justice brief doesn’t change anything,” Mr. Jost said in an interview. “They basically make the same arguments that the individual plaintiffs and the state plaintiffs do as to the major issues in the case.

However, Mr. Jost said that the administration’s brief sounds confused and reads almost like two separate briefs. On one hand, the Justice Department argues that the entire ACA should be invalid because the mandate cannot be severed. On the other hand, the agency argues that court relief should be “limited only to those provisions that actually injure the individual plaintiffs.” Specifically, Justice Department attorneys indicate that health care fraud and abuse protections in the ACA should be preserved.

“It looks like they kind of want to have their cake and eat it, too,” Mr. Jost said. “They want to preserve the provisions of the ACA they like, but not the sections that they don’t like. That could serve to confuse the issue for the appellate court.”

Oral arguments in the case are slated for July with a possible decision expected by the end of 2019. Legal analysts expect the losing side to appeal to the Supreme Court.

[email protected]

An opioid prescription management program implemented at the Cleveland Clinic has led to a reduction in the number of narcotics prescribed to patients after breast surgery, according to research presented in a recent webcast from the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

“The opioid epidemic has become a critical issue, and narcotic abuse has continued to rise,” Stephanie Valente, DO, FACS, from the Cleveland Clinic, said in her presentation. “Excess narcotic prescriptions may be contributing to this opioid epidemic,” and there are no current narcotic prescribing guidelines for patients after breast surgery, she said. In addition, studies have shown surgeons can overestimate the number of opioid pills a patient needs after surgery for pain control, and any excess pills are at risk of being stolen or inappropriately used, she added.

Dr. Valente and colleagues performed a baseline evaluation of narcotic pills prescribed by surgeons at the Cleveland Clinic for patients who have undergone excisional biopsy or lumpectomy, mastectomy, and mastectomy with reconstruction. They found the median number of narcotics prescribed were 15 pills for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients, 20 pills for mastectomy patients and 28 pills for mastectomy with reconstruction patients.

The researchers sought to lower those numbers, and created a departmental change in which they decreased the median number of pills prescribed at discharge from 15 pills to 10 pills for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients and from 28 pills to 25 pills for patients who undergo mastectomy with reconstruction. They then examined 100 consecutive patients after a 3-month implementation period to determine whether prescribing numbers had changed and found the surgeons adhered to the prescribing guidelines, which resulted in a statistically significant reduction in median opioid pills prescribed for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy (P less than .01) and mastectomy with reconstruction patients (P less than .01).

“After their departmental plan change, we observed that, as planned, a statistically significant decrease in prescribing practices amongst surgeons was able to be performed, showing that surgeons were able to adhere to these new prescribing practices,” said Dr. Valente.

When they examined the number of pills patients reported they used after surgery, they found excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients took an average of 1 pill, mastectomy patients took an average of 3 pills, and mastectomy with reconstruction patients took an average of 18 pills. “These were all statistically much less than what was being prescribed even after our purposeful reduction,” said Dr. Valente.

In the study, 40% of patients who underwent breast surgery overall reported that they did not have any postoperative narcotic use at all, with the least narcotic use seen among patients who underwent excisional biopsy or lumpectomy.

“Further directions for opiate reduction can include evaluation of the impact of type and amount of local anesthetic given intraoperatively, and the amount of narcotics used postoperatively … to identify patient factors that contribute to the low narcotic usage postoperatively, and finally, to figure out how to maximize the benefit of adding a formal ERAS [enhanced recovery after surgery] protocol to further reduce patient needs for as many narcotic pills,” said Dr. Valente.

Dr. Valente had no disclosures.

An opioid prescription management program implemented at the Cleveland Clinic has led to a reduction in the number of narcotics prescribed to patients after breast surgery, according to research presented in a recent webcast from the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

“The opioid epidemic has become a critical issue, and narcotic abuse has continued to rise,” Stephanie Valente, DO, FACS, from the Cleveland Clinic, said in her presentation. “Excess narcotic prescriptions may be contributing to this opioid epidemic,” and there are no current narcotic prescribing guidelines for patients after breast surgery, she said. In addition, studies have shown surgeons can overestimate the number of opioid pills a patient needs after surgery for pain control, and any excess pills are at risk of being stolen or inappropriately used, she added.

Dr. Valente and colleagues performed a baseline evaluation of narcotic pills prescribed by surgeons at the Cleveland Clinic for patients who have undergone excisional biopsy or lumpectomy, mastectomy, and mastectomy with reconstruction. They found the median number of narcotics prescribed were 15 pills for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients, 20 pills for mastectomy patients and 28 pills for mastectomy with reconstruction patients.

The researchers sought to lower those numbers, and created a departmental change in which they decreased the median number of pills prescribed at discharge from 15 pills to 10 pills for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients and from 28 pills to 25 pills for patients who undergo mastectomy with reconstruction. They then examined 100 consecutive patients after a 3-month implementation period to determine whether prescribing numbers had changed and found the surgeons adhered to the prescribing guidelines, which resulted in a statistically significant reduction in median opioid pills prescribed for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy (P less than .01) and mastectomy with reconstruction patients (P less than .01).

“After their departmental plan change, we observed that, as planned, a statistically significant decrease in prescribing practices amongst surgeons was able to be performed, showing that surgeons were able to adhere to these new prescribing practices,” said Dr. Valente.

When they examined the number of pills patients reported they used after surgery, they found excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients took an average of 1 pill, mastectomy patients took an average of 3 pills, and mastectomy with reconstruction patients took an average of 18 pills. “These were all statistically much less than what was being prescribed even after our purposeful reduction,” said Dr. Valente.

In the study, 40% of patients who underwent breast surgery overall reported that they did not have any postoperative narcotic use at all, with the least narcotic use seen among patients who underwent excisional biopsy or lumpectomy.

“Further directions for opiate reduction can include evaluation of the impact of type and amount of local anesthetic given intraoperatively, and the amount of narcotics used postoperatively … to identify patient factors that contribute to the low narcotic usage postoperatively, and finally, to figure out how to maximize the benefit of adding a formal ERAS [enhanced recovery after surgery] protocol to further reduce patient needs for as many narcotic pills,” said Dr. Valente.

Dr. Valente had no disclosures.

An opioid prescription management program implemented at the Cleveland Clinic has led to a reduction in the number of narcotics prescribed to patients after breast surgery, according to research presented in a recent webcast from the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

“The opioid epidemic has become a critical issue, and narcotic abuse has continued to rise,” Stephanie Valente, DO, FACS, from the Cleveland Clinic, said in her presentation. “Excess narcotic prescriptions may be contributing to this opioid epidemic,” and there are no current narcotic prescribing guidelines for patients after breast surgery, she said. In addition, studies have shown surgeons can overestimate the number of opioid pills a patient needs after surgery for pain control, and any excess pills are at risk of being stolen or inappropriately used, she added.

Dr. Valente and colleagues performed a baseline evaluation of narcotic pills prescribed by surgeons at the Cleveland Clinic for patients who have undergone excisional biopsy or lumpectomy, mastectomy, and mastectomy with reconstruction. They found the median number of narcotics prescribed were 15 pills for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients, 20 pills for mastectomy patients and 28 pills for mastectomy with reconstruction patients.

The researchers sought to lower those numbers, and created a departmental change in which they decreased the median number of pills prescribed at discharge from 15 pills to 10 pills for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients and from 28 pills to 25 pills for patients who undergo mastectomy with reconstruction. They then examined 100 consecutive patients after a 3-month implementation period to determine whether prescribing numbers had changed and found the surgeons adhered to the prescribing guidelines, which resulted in a statistically significant reduction in median opioid pills prescribed for excisional biopsy or lumpectomy (P less than .01) and mastectomy with reconstruction patients (P less than .01).

“After their departmental plan change, we observed that, as planned, a statistically significant decrease in prescribing practices amongst surgeons was able to be performed, showing that surgeons were able to adhere to these new prescribing practices,” said Dr. Valente.

When they examined the number of pills patients reported they used after surgery, they found excisional biopsy or lumpectomy patients took an average of 1 pill, mastectomy patients took an average of 3 pills, and mastectomy with reconstruction patients took an average of 18 pills. “These were all statistically much less than what was being prescribed even after our purposeful reduction,” said Dr. Valente.

In the study, 40% of patients who underwent breast surgery overall reported that they did not have any postoperative narcotic use at all, with the least narcotic use seen among patients who underwent excisional biopsy or lumpectomy.

“Further directions for opiate reduction can include evaluation of the impact of type and amount of local anesthetic given intraoperatively, and the amount of narcotics used postoperatively … to identify patient factors that contribute to the low narcotic usage postoperatively, and finally, to figure out how to maximize the benefit of adding a formal ERAS [enhanced recovery after surgery] protocol to further reduce patient needs for as many narcotic pills,” said Dr. Valente.

Dr. Valente had no disclosures.