Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

Anyone who practices Mohs micrographic surgery is likely to know the name Hugh Greenway, MD, the longtime head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, who was also recently selected as program director for cutaneous oncology at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Diego. He is also a former president of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

After earning his medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, in 1974, Dr. Greenway was fellowship trained in Mohs skin cancer surgery by Frederic E. Mohs, MD, at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He completed his dermatology residency at the Naval Medical Center San Diego and joined Scripps Clinic in 1983, where he launched the institution’s first Mohs surgery program, as well as a popular annual intensive course in superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery that bears his name. He was also the first physician in the world to use interferon as a nonsurgical treatment of basal cell carcinoma.

Courtesy Scripps Clinic

To date, Dr. Greenway has performed more than 41,000 Mohs surgery cases and has trained 61 fellows who practice in academic and clinical settings. In 2017, he received the Frederic E. Mohs Award from the ACMS at the college’s annual meeting. He is also a past CEO of Scripps Clinic. In this Q&A, Dr. Greenway opens up about what it was like to train with Dr. Mohs, what makes a good Mohs surgeon, and why he’s excited about the future of dermatology.
 

I understand that you first became interested in a medical career after meeting Dr. Carl Jones, a friend of your father who was your Scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts in Georgia. What about Dr. Jones inspired you to pursue a career in medicine?

Dr. Jones was an internist/allergist in Atlanta, where I grew up. His three sons and I were friends. My dad had dealt with several medical problems being injured in World War II and subsequently undergoing a couple of kidney transplantations, so I developed an interest in medicine personally. Even though Dr. Jones was a specialist, he started out as a family doctor like I did, so he was interested in the whole person and all of his or her medical problems as opposed to those related to his specialty only. I traveled with the Boy Scouts to camp at places like Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, and Dr. Jones was involved with the medical set-ups of those large events. That also contributed to my interest in medicine.

As part of your 9-year service in the U.S. Navy, you spent 2 years as the flight surgeon at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base. What was your most memorable experience from that assignment?

Dobbins is a large facility with two Lockheed plants, and the Air Force had built the medical clinic, which was staffed by the Navy. Getting to know some of the active-duty members of the Air Force, the Navy, and the National Guard, and their commitment to our country, was memorable. Jimmy Carter was the president in those days. When he would fly in Dobbins, one of my jobs as the flight surgeon was to be on base when Air Force One landed or departed. One night, we had a DC-9 commercial aircraft coming from Huntsville, Ala., to Atlanta that got caught in a thunderstorm a little above 30,000 feet. Both engines went out and the aircraft essentially became a glider. The pilots tried to land on our runway but unfortunately, they ended up 4 miles short. We were heavily involved in responding to the crash, which was a tragic event. I also learned to fly (second seat) different types of aircraft during my assignment at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base, everything from the large C-5s to Navy fighter jets and helicopters. Coincidentally, Dr. Jones was involved with a couple of free health clinics in Atlanta when I was stationed there. Every Tuesday night, my wife (who is a nurse) and I would volunteer at a clinic in Cabbagetown, which was one of the poorer areas of Atlanta. It was a chance to give back to a group of people who didn’t have a whole lot.

In the middle your dermatology residency at Naval Medical Center San Diego, you were selected by Dr. Mohs for fellowship training in Mohs skin cancer surgery at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. What do you remember most about your training with Dr. Mohs?

Dr. Mohs was a kind, humble man who had this great idea about skin cancer. He was not a dermatologist; he was a general surgeon. The technique he developed was originally called chemosurgery because he put a chemical onto the skin. This was known as the fixed-tissue technique. Then we had a fresh-tissue technique, where we did not use the chemical, but we were able to use local anesthesia right away. That developed into the Mohs surgery we know today. Dr. Mohs did not name it that; he was very humble, but he was very proud of his technique. He was also a very hard worker. On the first day of my fellowship, I started at 7 in the morning and ended at 7 at night. It was the same for the last day of my fellowship. He also had an excellent office staff, many of whom had worked with him for many years. Patients with difficult skin cancers traveled to Madison from all over the world because there weren’t that many Mohs surgery clinics in those days. During the latter part of my fellowship, Michael McCall, MD, and I had the opportunity to remove a skin cancer from the nose of Dr. Mohs. We presented the case at a national conference, and I titled the talk “Mohs Surgery for Mohs’ Nose.”

Early in your career Dr. Mohs asked you to take over his practice, but you accepted an offer to establish the first Mohs surgery office at Scripps in San Diego instead. What convinced you to head West?

After my fellowship, I returned to San Diego to complete my residency with the Navy, where we opened a Mohs surgery clinic. Dr. Mohs came out for the ribbon cutting. During that time, I was taking care of several patients that he had treated in Wisconsin. Through that my wife and I ended up going to dinner with Cecil and Ida Green, philanthropists who made several financial gifts to Scripps Clinic – and for whom Scripps Green Hospital is named. Cecil cofounded Texas Instruments and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. During dinner, he suggested that I stay in San Diego for a year and work at Scripps after my residency assignment with the Navy. I agreed and have been here ever since.

What do you find most interesting about Mohs surgery?

In Mohs surgery, you’re able to provide not only surgical care to eliminate the tumor, but also the pathology and the reconstruction. That was interesting to me. Dr. Mohs was not that interested in reconstruction. He was more focused on the tumor, in part because with the original fixed-tissue technique you could not do the reconstruction. You had to wait for an extra layer of tissue to separate. But with the fresh-tissue technique, you were able to provide the reconstruction that day. Mohs surgery deals with a subset of tumors that are challenging to treat. That also spiked my academic and clinical interest.

In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in Mohs surgery to date?

In recent years, immunology has come into play, so now we have teams of clinicians in dermatology, medical oncology, surgery, and other subspecialties providing patients the best of care. In the arena of Mohs surgery itself, in the 1980s, the American College of Mohs Surgery developed a 1-year fellowship program, which enabled us to train many men and women to practice Mohs surgery. Most of them are dermatologists.

Please complete the sentence: “You can tell a good Mohs surgeon by the way he/she ...”

Treats patients, is willing to spend time with them, and shows an interest in them. One of the things we should strive for is to let patients know that they as a person are important; it’s not just the melanoma on their nose. We’re not only dealing with a skin cancer; we’re dealing with a patient who has skin cancer.

For the past 39 years, you have led Hugh Greenway’s Superficial Anatomy and Cutaneous Surgery course, which takes place every January in San Diego. What’s been key to sustaining this training course for nearly 4 decades?

There have been many people involved in its success, so it’s not just me. When I first started my practice, there really was not a focus on anatomy in the general dermatologic community. Dermatologic surgery textbooks contained very little content on surgical anatomy so I developed an interest a putting together a course that would cover some of this material. I met with Terence Davidson, MD, an otolaryngologist who was dean of continuing medical education at the University of California, San Diego. The course includes lectures from experts in many subspecialties and hands-on laboratories using cadavers to work on anatomy and surgical techniques. After about 16 years of doing the course Dr. Davidson told me: “When we started this course, as a group, the head and neck surgeons were the best to do the reconstructions on the face with skin flaps and grafts and layered closures. But now, as a group, the dermatologists are best at doing that.” That’s what we want to hear in medical education.

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint?

I’m fortunate to practice at a place like Scripps, where there are many resources to look at what was happening with COVID-19. Clinically, we had to put a lot of things on hold, but we tried our best to keep our cancer patients in particular in the forefront of care. It has been a challenge, but fortunately we have been able to take care of patients after a brief timeout. Many of us remember the polio vaccine back in the 1950s. Having worked overseas and at missionary hospital where we had children die of measles because they were not vaccinated gave me a larger appreciation for the importance of vaccines. I recommend all young physicians who work with me to read, “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History,” by John M. Barry, which recounts the 1918 flu epidemic.

Who inspires you most in your work today?

I don’t view what I do as work. Dr. Jones and Dr. Mohs continue to inspire me with what they accomplished during their careers. You have to love people and love patients. Every patient who comes to see me has a story, so I try to understand their story. One of the things I really enjoy is training the young fellows. We train three Mohs fellows per year at Scripps, and it’s a great challenge every day.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dermatology will continue to evolve just like all other medical specialties. We’re going to see a large growth in telemedicine, and immunotherapy is playing a key role in dermatologic oncology. What excites me the most in medicine is the young people who enter the field willing to contribute their lives to helping others.

Anyone who practices Mohs micrographic surgery is likely to know the name Hugh Greenway, MD, the longtime head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, who was also recently selected as program director for cutaneous oncology at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Diego. He is also a former president of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

After earning his medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, in 1974, Dr. Greenway was fellowship trained in Mohs skin cancer surgery by Frederic E. Mohs, MD, at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He completed his dermatology residency at the Naval Medical Center San Diego and joined Scripps Clinic in 1983, where he launched the institution’s first Mohs surgery program, as well as a popular annual intensive course in superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery that bears his name. He was also the first physician in the world to use interferon as a nonsurgical treatment of basal cell carcinoma.

Courtesy Scripps Clinic

To date, Dr. Greenway has performed more than 41,000 Mohs surgery cases and has trained 61 fellows who practice in academic and clinical settings. In 2017, he received the Frederic E. Mohs Award from the ACMS at the college’s annual meeting. He is also a past CEO of Scripps Clinic. In this Q&A, Dr. Greenway opens up about what it was like to train with Dr. Mohs, what makes a good Mohs surgeon, and why he’s excited about the future of dermatology.
 

I understand that you first became interested in a medical career after meeting Dr. Carl Jones, a friend of your father who was your Scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts in Georgia. What about Dr. Jones inspired you to pursue a career in medicine?

Dr. Jones was an internist/allergist in Atlanta, where I grew up. His three sons and I were friends. My dad had dealt with several medical problems being injured in World War II and subsequently undergoing a couple of kidney transplantations, so I developed an interest in medicine personally. Even though Dr. Jones was a specialist, he started out as a family doctor like I did, so he was interested in the whole person and all of his or her medical problems as opposed to those related to his specialty only. I traveled with the Boy Scouts to camp at places like Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, and Dr. Jones was involved with the medical set-ups of those large events. That also contributed to my interest in medicine.

As part of your 9-year service in the U.S. Navy, you spent 2 years as the flight surgeon at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base. What was your most memorable experience from that assignment?

Dobbins is a large facility with two Lockheed plants, and the Air Force had built the medical clinic, which was staffed by the Navy. Getting to know some of the active-duty members of the Air Force, the Navy, and the National Guard, and their commitment to our country, was memorable. Jimmy Carter was the president in those days. When he would fly in Dobbins, one of my jobs as the flight surgeon was to be on base when Air Force One landed or departed. One night, we had a DC-9 commercial aircraft coming from Huntsville, Ala., to Atlanta that got caught in a thunderstorm a little above 30,000 feet. Both engines went out and the aircraft essentially became a glider. The pilots tried to land on our runway but unfortunately, they ended up 4 miles short. We were heavily involved in responding to the crash, which was a tragic event. I also learned to fly (second seat) different types of aircraft during my assignment at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base, everything from the large C-5s to Navy fighter jets and helicopters. Coincidentally, Dr. Jones was involved with a couple of free health clinics in Atlanta when I was stationed there. Every Tuesday night, my wife (who is a nurse) and I would volunteer at a clinic in Cabbagetown, which was one of the poorer areas of Atlanta. It was a chance to give back to a group of people who didn’t have a whole lot.

In the middle your dermatology residency at Naval Medical Center San Diego, you were selected by Dr. Mohs for fellowship training in Mohs skin cancer surgery at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. What do you remember most about your training with Dr. Mohs?

Dr. Mohs was a kind, humble man who had this great idea about skin cancer. He was not a dermatologist; he was a general surgeon. The technique he developed was originally called chemosurgery because he put a chemical onto the skin. This was known as the fixed-tissue technique. Then we had a fresh-tissue technique, where we did not use the chemical, but we were able to use local anesthesia right away. That developed into the Mohs surgery we know today. Dr. Mohs did not name it that; he was very humble, but he was very proud of his technique. He was also a very hard worker. On the first day of my fellowship, I started at 7 in the morning and ended at 7 at night. It was the same for the last day of my fellowship. He also had an excellent office staff, many of whom had worked with him for many years. Patients with difficult skin cancers traveled to Madison from all over the world because there weren’t that many Mohs surgery clinics in those days. During the latter part of my fellowship, Michael McCall, MD, and I had the opportunity to remove a skin cancer from the nose of Dr. Mohs. We presented the case at a national conference, and I titled the talk “Mohs Surgery for Mohs’ Nose.”

Early in your career Dr. Mohs asked you to take over his practice, but you accepted an offer to establish the first Mohs surgery office at Scripps in San Diego instead. What convinced you to head West?

After my fellowship, I returned to San Diego to complete my residency with the Navy, where we opened a Mohs surgery clinic. Dr. Mohs came out for the ribbon cutting. During that time, I was taking care of several patients that he had treated in Wisconsin. Through that my wife and I ended up going to dinner with Cecil and Ida Green, philanthropists who made several financial gifts to Scripps Clinic – and for whom Scripps Green Hospital is named. Cecil cofounded Texas Instruments and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. During dinner, he suggested that I stay in San Diego for a year and work at Scripps after my residency assignment with the Navy. I agreed and have been here ever since.

What do you find most interesting about Mohs surgery?

In Mohs surgery, you’re able to provide not only surgical care to eliminate the tumor, but also the pathology and the reconstruction. That was interesting to me. Dr. Mohs was not that interested in reconstruction. He was more focused on the tumor, in part because with the original fixed-tissue technique you could not do the reconstruction. You had to wait for an extra layer of tissue to separate. But with the fresh-tissue technique, you were able to provide the reconstruction that day. Mohs surgery deals with a subset of tumors that are challenging to treat. That also spiked my academic and clinical interest.

In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in Mohs surgery to date?

In recent years, immunology has come into play, so now we have teams of clinicians in dermatology, medical oncology, surgery, and other subspecialties providing patients the best of care. In the arena of Mohs surgery itself, in the 1980s, the American College of Mohs Surgery developed a 1-year fellowship program, which enabled us to train many men and women to practice Mohs surgery. Most of them are dermatologists.

Please complete the sentence: “You can tell a good Mohs surgeon by the way he/she ...”

Treats patients, is willing to spend time with them, and shows an interest in them. One of the things we should strive for is to let patients know that they as a person are important; it’s not just the melanoma on their nose. We’re not only dealing with a skin cancer; we’re dealing with a patient who has skin cancer.

For the past 39 years, you have led Hugh Greenway’s Superficial Anatomy and Cutaneous Surgery course, which takes place every January in San Diego. What’s been key to sustaining this training course for nearly 4 decades?

There have been many people involved in its success, so it’s not just me. When I first started my practice, there really was not a focus on anatomy in the general dermatologic community. Dermatologic surgery textbooks contained very little content on surgical anatomy so I developed an interest a putting together a course that would cover some of this material. I met with Terence Davidson, MD, an otolaryngologist who was dean of continuing medical education at the University of California, San Diego. The course includes lectures from experts in many subspecialties and hands-on laboratories using cadavers to work on anatomy and surgical techniques. After about 16 years of doing the course Dr. Davidson told me: “When we started this course, as a group, the head and neck surgeons were the best to do the reconstructions on the face with skin flaps and grafts and layered closures. But now, as a group, the dermatologists are best at doing that.” That’s what we want to hear in medical education.

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint?

I’m fortunate to practice at a place like Scripps, where there are many resources to look at what was happening with COVID-19. Clinically, we had to put a lot of things on hold, but we tried our best to keep our cancer patients in particular in the forefront of care. It has been a challenge, but fortunately we have been able to take care of patients after a brief timeout. Many of us remember the polio vaccine back in the 1950s. Having worked overseas and at missionary hospital where we had children die of measles because they were not vaccinated gave me a larger appreciation for the importance of vaccines. I recommend all young physicians who work with me to read, “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History,” by John M. Barry, which recounts the 1918 flu epidemic.

Who inspires you most in your work today?

I don’t view what I do as work. Dr. Jones and Dr. Mohs continue to inspire me with what they accomplished during their careers. You have to love people and love patients. Every patient who comes to see me has a story, so I try to understand their story. One of the things I really enjoy is training the young fellows. We train three Mohs fellows per year at Scripps, and it’s a great challenge every day.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dermatology will continue to evolve just like all other medical specialties. We’re going to see a large growth in telemedicine, and immunotherapy is playing a key role in dermatologic oncology. What excites me the most in medicine is the young people who enter the field willing to contribute their lives to helping others.

Anyone who practices Mohs micrographic surgery is likely to know the name Hugh Greenway, MD, the longtime head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, who was also recently selected as program director for cutaneous oncology at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Diego. He is also a former president of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

After earning his medical degree from the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, in 1974, Dr. Greenway was fellowship trained in Mohs skin cancer surgery by Frederic E. Mohs, MD, at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He completed his dermatology residency at the Naval Medical Center San Diego and joined Scripps Clinic in 1983, where he launched the institution’s first Mohs surgery program, as well as a popular annual intensive course in superficial anatomy and cutaneous surgery that bears his name. He was also the first physician in the world to use interferon as a nonsurgical treatment of basal cell carcinoma.

Courtesy Scripps Clinic

To date, Dr. Greenway has performed more than 41,000 Mohs surgery cases and has trained 61 fellows who practice in academic and clinical settings. In 2017, he received the Frederic E. Mohs Award from the ACMS at the college’s annual meeting. He is also a past CEO of Scripps Clinic. In this Q&A, Dr. Greenway opens up about what it was like to train with Dr. Mohs, what makes a good Mohs surgeon, and why he’s excited about the future of dermatology.
 

I understand that you first became interested in a medical career after meeting Dr. Carl Jones, a friend of your father who was your Scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts in Georgia. What about Dr. Jones inspired you to pursue a career in medicine?

Dr. Jones was an internist/allergist in Atlanta, where I grew up. His three sons and I were friends. My dad had dealt with several medical problems being injured in World War II and subsequently undergoing a couple of kidney transplantations, so I developed an interest in medicine personally. Even though Dr. Jones was a specialist, he started out as a family doctor like I did, so he was interested in the whole person and all of his or her medical problems as opposed to those related to his specialty only. I traveled with the Boy Scouts to camp at places like Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, and Dr. Jones was involved with the medical set-ups of those large events. That also contributed to my interest in medicine.

As part of your 9-year service in the U.S. Navy, you spent 2 years as the flight surgeon at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base. What was your most memorable experience from that assignment?

Dobbins is a large facility with two Lockheed plants, and the Air Force had built the medical clinic, which was staffed by the Navy. Getting to know some of the active-duty members of the Air Force, the Navy, and the National Guard, and their commitment to our country, was memorable. Jimmy Carter was the president in those days. When he would fly in Dobbins, one of my jobs as the flight surgeon was to be on base when Air Force One landed or departed. One night, we had a DC-9 commercial aircraft coming from Huntsville, Ala., to Atlanta that got caught in a thunderstorm a little above 30,000 feet. Both engines went out and the aircraft essentially became a glider. The pilots tried to land on our runway but unfortunately, they ended up 4 miles short. We were heavily involved in responding to the crash, which was a tragic event. I also learned to fly (second seat) different types of aircraft during my assignment at NAS Atlanta/Dobbins Air Force Base, everything from the large C-5s to Navy fighter jets and helicopters. Coincidentally, Dr. Jones was involved with a couple of free health clinics in Atlanta when I was stationed there. Every Tuesday night, my wife (who is a nurse) and I would volunteer at a clinic in Cabbagetown, which was one of the poorer areas of Atlanta. It was a chance to give back to a group of people who didn’t have a whole lot.

In the middle your dermatology residency at Naval Medical Center San Diego, you were selected by Dr. Mohs for fellowship training in Mohs skin cancer surgery at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. What do you remember most about your training with Dr. Mohs?

Dr. Mohs was a kind, humble man who had this great idea about skin cancer. He was not a dermatologist; he was a general surgeon. The technique he developed was originally called chemosurgery because he put a chemical onto the skin. This was known as the fixed-tissue technique. Then we had a fresh-tissue technique, where we did not use the chemical, but we were able to use local anesthesia right away. That developed into the Mohs surgery we know today. Dr. Mohs did not name it that; he was very humble, but he was very proud of his technique. He was also a very hard worker. On the first day of my fellowship, I started at 7 in the morning and ended at 7 at night. It was the same for the last day of my fellowship. He also had an excellent office staff, many of whom had worked with him for many years. Patients with difficult skin cancers traveled to Madison from all over the world because there weren’t that many Mohs surgery clinics in those days. During the latter part of my fellowship, Michael McCall, MD, and I had the opportunity to remove a skin cancer from the nose of Dr. Mohs. We presented the case at a national conference, and I titled the talk “Mohs Surgery for Mohs’ Nose.”

Early in your career Dr. Mohs asked you to take over his practice, but you accepted an offer to establish the first Mohs surgery office at Scripps in San Diego instead. What convinced you to head West?

After my fellowship, I returned to San Diego to complete my residency with the Navy, where we opened a Mohs surgery clinic. Dr. Mohs came out for the ribbon cutting. During that time, I was taking care of several patients that he had treated in Wisconsin. Through that my wife and I ended up going to dinner with Cecil and Ida Green, philanthropists who made several financial gifts to Scripps Clinic – and for whom Scripps Green Hospital is named. Cecil cofounded Texas Instruments and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. During dinner, he suggested that I stay in San Diego for a year and work at Scripps after my residency assignment with the Navy. I agreed and have been here ever since.

What do you find most interesting about Mohs surgery?

In Mohs surgery, you’re able to provide not only surgical care to eliminate the tumor, but also the pathology and the reconstruction. That was interesting to me. Dr. Mohs was not that interested in reconstruction. He was more focused on the tumor, in part because with the original fixed-tissue technique you could not do the reconstruction. You had to wait for an extra layer of tissue to separate. But with the fresh-tissue technique, you were able to provide the reconstruction that day. Mohs surgery deals with a subset of tumors that are challenging to treat. That also spiked my academic and clinical interest.

In your opinion, what’s been the most important advance in Mohs surgery to date?

In recent years, immunology has come into play, so now we have teams of clinicians in dermatology, medical oncology, surgery, and other subspecialties providing patients the best of care. In the arena of Mohs surgery itself, in the 1980s, the American College of Mohs Surgery developed a 1-year fellowship program, which enabled us to train many men and women to practice Mohs surgery. Most of them are dermatologists.

Please complete the sentence: “You can tell a good Mohs surgeon by the way he/she ...”

Treats patients, is willing to spend time with them, and shows an interest in them. One of the things we should strive for is to let patients know that they as a person are important; it’s not just the melanoma on their nose. We’re not only dealing with a skin cancer; we’re dealing with a patient who has skin cancer.

For the past 39 years, you have led Hugh Greenway’s Superficial Anatomy and Cutaneous Surgery course, which takes place every January in San Diego. What’s been key to sustaining this training course for nearly 4 decades?

There have been many people involved in its success, so it’s not just me. When I first started my practice, there really was not a focus on anatomy in the general dermatologic community. Dermatologic surgery textbooks contained very little content on surgical anatomy so I developed an interest a putting together a course that would cover some of this material. I met with Terence Davidson, MD, an otolaryngologist who was dean of continuing medical education at the University of California, San Diego. The course includes lectures from experts in many subspecialties and hands-on laboratories using cadavers to work on anatomy and surgical techniques. After about 16 years of doing the course Dr. Davidson told me: “When we started this course, as a group, the head and neck surgeons were the best to do the reconstructions on the face with skin flaps and grafts and layered closures. But now, as a group, the dermatologists are best at doing that.” That’s what we want to hear in medical education.

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, what were your most significant challenges from both a clinical and a personal standpoint?

I’m fortunate to practice at a place like Scripps, where there are many resources to look at what was happening with COVID-19. Clinically, we had to put a lot of things on hold, but we tried our best to keep our cancer patients in particular in the forefront of care. It has been a challenge, but fortunately we have been able to take care of patients after a brief timeout. Many of us remember the polio vaccine back in the 1950s. Having worked overseas and at missionary hospital where we had children die of measles because they were not vaccinated gave me a larger appreciation for the importance of vaccines. I recommend all young physicians who work with me to read, “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History,” by John M. Barry, which recounts the 1918 flu epidemic.

Who inspires you most in your work today?

I don’t view what I do as work. Dr. Jones and Dr. Mohs continue to inspire me with what they accomplished during their careers. You have to love people and love patients. Every patient who comes to see me has a story, so I try to understand their story. One of the things I really enjoy is training the young fellows. We train three Mohs fellows per year at Scripps, and it’s a great challenge every day.

What development in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dermatology will continue to evolve just like all other medical specialties. We’re going to see a large growth in telemedicine, and immunotherapy is playing a key role in dermatologic oncology. What excites me the most in medicine is the young people who enter the field willing to contribute their lives to helping others.

BOSTON – According to the best available data, solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) at highest risk for developing skin cancer are thoracic organ recipients, those aged 50 or older at the time of the transplant, and males.

White patients who meet these criteria should be screening within 2 years after transplant, while Black patients should be screened within 5 years after transplant, Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and the division of cutaneous oncology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, based his remarks on consensus screening guidelines assembled from three rounds of Delphi method surveys with 47 dermatologists and 37 transplant physicians, with the goal of establishing skin cancer screening recommendations for SOTRs. Among the dermatologists surveyed, 45% were Mohs surgeons and 55% were general dermatologists.

The panel recommended that the transplant team should perform risk assessment for SOTRs to risk stratify patients for skin cancer screening (high risk vs. low risk). They also proposed that dermatologists perform skin cancer screening by full-body skin examinations, and that SOTRs with a history of skin cancer should continue with routine skin cancer surveillance as recommended by their dermatologists.

Those at low risk for skin cancer include abdominal organ recipients, SOTR age of younger than 50 at time of transplant, and female gender. The guidelines recommend that White, Asian, and Hispanic patients who meet those criteria should be screened within 5 years after transplant, while no consensus was reached for Black patients who meet those criteria.

Based on posttransplant skin cancer incidence rates, risk is increased among males, Whites, thoracic organ recipients, and being age 50 or older, Dr. Somani said. “At our institution, we make sure there’s a good connection between our transplant teams and dermatologists. We recommend rapid referral for suspicious lesions and we educate patients and screen them within 1 year of transplant, or sooner for high-risk patients. Surveillance is increased to every 3 or 4 months for patients with a history of multiple or high-risk cancers or sooner, followed by routine surveillance as recommended by the patient’s dermatologist.”

To risk stratify patients on the development of their first skin cancer post transplantation, researchers developed the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator (SUNTRAC), a prediction tool with a freely available app. Data for the tool were drawn from the Transplant Skin Cancer Network study, a 5-year analysis of 6,340 adult recipients of a first solid organ transplant at 26 transplant centers in the United States. It generates a risk score for SOTRs (low, medium, high, or very high), which informs transplant care providers of a patient’s risk of skin cancer.

Dr. Somani disclosed that he has received grants and funding from Castle Biosciences. He is an adviser to Cook Biotech and a consultant to Sanara MedTech.

BOSTON – According to the best available data, solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) at highest risk for developing skin cancer are thoracic organ recipients, those aged 50 or older at the time of the transplant, and males.

White patients who meet these criteria should be screening within 2 years after transplant, while Black patients should be screened within 5 years after transplant, Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and the division of cutaneous oncology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, based his remarks on consensus screening guidelines assembled from three rounds of Delphi method surveys with 47 dermatologists and 37 transplant physicians, with the goal of establishing skin cancer screening recommendations for SOTRs. Among the dermatologists surveyed, 45% were Mohs surgeons and 55% were general dermatologists.

The panel recommended that the transplant team should perform risk assessment for SOTRs to risk stratify patients for skin cancer screening (high risk vs. low risk). They also proposed that dermatologists perform skin cancer screening by full-body skin examinations, and that SOTRs with a history of skin cancer should continue with routine skin cancer surveillance as recommended by their dermatologists.

Those at low risk for skin cancer include abdominal organ recipients, SOTR age of younger than 50 at time of transplant, and female gender. The guidelines recommend that White, Asian, and Hispanic patients who meet those criteria should be screened within 5 years after transplant, while no consensus was reached for Black patients who meet those criteria.

Based on posttransplant skin cancer incidence rates, risk is increased among males, Whites, thoracic organ recipients, and being age 50 or older, Dr. Somani said. “At our institution, we make sure there’s a good connection between our transplant teams and dermatologists. We recommend rapid referral for suspicious lesions and we educate patients and screen them within 1 year of transplant, or sooner for high-risk patients. Surveillance is increased to every 3 or 4 months for patients with a history of multiple or high-risk cancers or sooner, followed by routine surveillance as recommended by the patient’s dermatologist.”

To risk stratify patients on the development of their first skin cancer post transplantation, researchers developed the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator (SUNTRAC), a prediction tool with a freely available app. Data for the tool were drawn from the Transplant Skin Cancer Network study, a 5-year analysis of 6,340 adult recipients of a first solid organ transplant at 26 transplant centers in the United States. It generates a risk score for SOTRs (low, medium, high, or very high), which informs transplant care providers of a patient’s risk of skin cancer.

Dr. Somani disclosed that he has received grants and funding from Castle Biosciences. He is an adviser to Cook Biotech and a consultant to Sanara MedTech.

BOSTON – According to the best available data, solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) at highest risk for developing skin cancer are thoracic organ recipients, those aged 50 or older at the time of the transplant, and males.

White patients who meet these criteria should be screening within 2 years after transplant, while Black patients should be screened within 5 years after transplant, Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and the division of cutaneous oncology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, based his remarks on consensus screening guidelines assembled from three rounds of Delphi method surveys with 47 dermatologists and 37 transplant physicians, with the goal of establishing skin cancer screening recommendations for SOTRs. Among the dermatologists surveyed, 45% were Mohs surgeons and 55% were general dermatologists.

The panel recommended that the transplant team should perform risk assessment for SOTRs to risk stratify patients for skin cancer screening (high risk vs. low risk). They also proposed that dermatologists perform skin cancer screening by full-body skin examinations, and that SOTRs with a history of skin cancer should continue with routine skin cancer surveillance as recommended by their dermatologists.

Those at low risk for skin cancer include abdominal organ recipients, SOTR age of younger than 50 at time of transplant, and female gender. The guidelines recommend that White, Asian, and Hispanic patients who meet those criteria should be screened within 5 years after transplant, while no consensus was reached for Black patients who meet those criteria.

Based on posttransplant skin cancer incidence rates, risk is increased among males, Whites, thoracic organ recipients, and being age 50 or older, Dr. Somani said. “At our institution, we make sure there’s a good connection between our transplant teams and dermatologists. We recommend rapid referral for suspicious lesions and we educate patients and screen them within 1 year of transplant, or sooner for high-risk patients. Surveillance is increased to every 3 or 4 months for patients with a history of multiple or high-risk cancers or sooner, followed by routine surveillance as recommended by the patient’s dermatologist.”

To risk stratify patients on the development of their first skin cancer post transplantation, researchers developed the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator (SUNTRAC), a prediction tool with a freely available app. Data for the tool were drawn from the Transplant Skin Cancer Network study, a 5-year analysis of 6,340 adult recipients of a first solid organ transplant at 26 transplant centers in the United States. It generates a risk score for SOTRs (low, medium, high, or very high), which informs transplant care providers of a patient’s risk of skin cancer.

Dr. Somani disclosed that he has received grants and funding from Castle Biosciences. He is an adviser to Cook Biotech and a consultant to Sanara MedTech.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) frequently is used in surgical removal of cancerous cutaneous lesions on cosmetically sensitive areas and anatomically challenging sites, including the ears. The vascular supply of the ear is complex and includes several watershed regions that are susceptible to injury during surgical resection or operative closure.

Case Reports

Patient 1—An 82-year-old woman with a 100-pack-year smoking history and no known history of diabetes mellitus or coronary artery disease presented with a superficial and micronodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the left postauricular skin of approximately 18 months’ duration. Mohs micrographic surgery was performed for lesion removal. The BCC was noted to be deeply penetrating and by the second stage was to the depth of the deep subcutaneous tissue (Figure 1A [inset]). Frozen section histopathology revealed a micronodular and superficial BCC. A 2.1×2.0-cm postoperative defect including the posterior surface of the ear, postauricular sulcus, and postauricular scalp remained. To minimize the area left to heal via secondary intention, partial layered closure was performed by placing four 4-0 polyglactin sutures from the scalp side of the defect on the postauricular skin to the postauricular sulcus (Figure 1A).

The patient presented to the clinic on postoperative day (POD) 4, noting pain and redness since the evening of the surgery on the anterior surface of the ear, specifically the cavum concha. Physical examination revealed that the incision site appeared to be healing as expected, but the cavum concha demonstrated erosions and ecchymosis (Figure 1B). A fluid culture was collected, and the patient was started on doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 10 days. The patient returned to the clinic at POD 10 with skin sloughing and a small border of dark purple discoloration, consistent with early necrosis.

At the 1-month postsurgery follow-up visit, the wound had persistent anterior sloughing and discoloration with adherent debris suggestive of vascular compromise. At the 5-month wound check, the left conchal bowl had a 1-cm through-and-through defect of the concha cavum (Figure 1B [inset]). The favored etiology was occlusion of the posterior auricular artery during the patient’s MMS and reconstruction. Once healed, options including reconstruction, prosthesis, and no treatment were discussed with the patient. The patient decided to pursue partial closure of the defect.

Patient 2—A 71-year-old man with coronary artery disease and no known smoking or diabetes mellitus history presented with a 0.7×0.6-cm cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the left helix (Figure 2A [inset]). Mohs micrographic surgery was completed, resulting in a 1.1×1.0-cm defect that extended to the perichondrium. Given the location and size, a linear closure was performed with a deep layer of 5-0 polyglactin sutures and a cutaneous layer of 6-0 polypropylene sutures. The final closure length was 2.1 cm (Figure 2A).

On POD 14, the patient presented for suture removal and reported the onset of brown discoloration of the ear on POD 3. Physical examination revealed the left ear appeared dusky around the mid helix with extension onto the antihelix (Figure 2B). Because one of the main concerns was necrosis, a thin layer of nitropaste ointment 2% was prescribed to be applied twice daily to the affected area, in addition to liberal application of petroleum jelly. On POD 21, the left mid helix demonstrated a well-defined area of necrosis on the helical rim extending to the antihelix, and conservative treatment was continued. Four weeks later, the left ear had a prominent eschar, which was debrided. On follow-up 6 weeks later, the area was well healed with an obvious notched defect of the helix and scaphoid fossa (Figure 2B [inset]). The favored etiology was occlusion of the middle helical arcade during the patient’s MMS and reconstruction. Reconstructive options were discussed with the patient; however, he declined any further reconstructive intervention.

Comment

Auricular Vasculature—In our patients, the auricular vascular supply was compromised during routine MMS followed by reconstruction, resulting in tissue necrosis. Given the relative frequency of these procedures and the risk for tissue necrosis, a review of the auricular vasculature with special attention to the conchal bowl and helical rim was warranted (Figure 3).

The auricle is supplied by 2 main arterial sources arising from the external carotid artery: the superficial temporal artery (STA) supplying the anterior auricle and the posterior auricular artery (PAA) supplying the posterior auricle and the concha.¹ Anastomoses between these 2 blood supplies occur through perforating arteries and vascular arcades.

As the STA courses cranially, it moves from a deep position—deep to the parotidomasseteric fascia—to the superficial temporal fascia approximately 1 cm anterior and superior to the tragus. In approximately 80% of patients, 3 perpendicular branches stem from the STA—the upper, middle, and lower anterior branches—which supply the ascending helix, tragus, and lower margin of the earlobe, respectively.² The upper anterior branch of the STA joins other branches to form 2 dominant arcades: the first with the nonperforating branches of the PAA forming the upper third of the helical arcade, and the second with the lower anterior branch of the STA forming the middle portion of the helical arcade.^3,4 In 75% of patients, the middle helical arcade was identified as a single connecting artery, whereas in the remaining 25% of patients, a robust capillary network was formed.² In patient 2, the middle helical arcade was likely disrupted during closure, resulting in the helical necrosis seen postoperatively.

The second main blood supply of the auricle is the PAA, which enters in a more superficial position after traversing superiorly from the meatal cartilage, between the mastoid process and the posterior surface of the concha. From this point, the PAA runs in the deep subcutaneous tissue in the groove formed by the conchal cartilage and the mastoid process. Near the midpoint of the postauricular groove, it passes inferior to the postauricular muscle. The PAA has multiple radial branches that anastomose with helical branches; it also sends perforating branches (there were 2–4 branches in a recent study²) through the cartilage to the anterior surface of the concha. The 2 primary perforating arteries most commonly are located at the level of the antihelix and the antitragus.⁵ These arteries transverse through a vascular foramen located approximately 11 mm from the tragus in the horizontal plane and supply blood to the conchal bowl.⁶ In patient 1, the PAA itself, or the perforating arteries that course anteriorly through the vascular foramen, was likely disrupted, resulting in the conchal defect.

Special Considerations Before Surgery—As evidenced by these cases, special attention is needed during operative planning to account for the external ear vascular arcades. Damage to the helical arcades (patient 2) or the perforating arteries within the conchal bowl (patient 1) can lead to unintended consequences such as postoperative tissue necrosis. Tissue manipulation in these areas should be approached cautiously and with the least invasive treatment and closure options available. In doing so, blood flow and tissue integrity can be maintained, resulting in improved postoperative outcomes. Further research is warranted to identify the best intervention in cases involving these watershed regions.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) frequently is used in surgical removal of cancerous cutaneous lesions on cosmetically sensitive areas and anatomically challenging sites, including the ears. The vascular supply of the ear is complex and includes several watershed regions that are susceptible to injury during surgical resection or operative closure.

Case Reports

Patient 1—An 82-year-old woman with a 100-pack-year smoking history and no known history of diabetes mellitus or coronary artery disease presented with a superficial and micronodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the left postauricular skin of approximately 18 months’ duration. Mohs micrographic surgery was performed for lesion removal. The BCC was noted to be deeply penetrating and by the second stage was to the depth of the deep subcutaneous tissue (Figure 1A [inset]). Frozen section histopathology revealed a micronodular and superficial BCC. A 2.1×2.0-cm postoperative defect including the posterior surface of the ear, postauricular sulcus, and postauricular scalp remained. To minimize the area left to heal via secondary intention, partial layered closure was performed by placing four 4-0 polyglactin sutures from the scalp side of the defect on the postauricular skin to the postauricular sulcus (Figure 1A).

The patient presented to the clinic on postoperative day (POD) 4, noting pain and redness since the evening of the surgery on the anterior surface of the ear, specifically the cavum concha. Physical examination revealed that the incision site appeared to be healing as expected, but the cavum concha demonstrated erosions and ecchymosis (Figure 1B). A fluid culture was collected, and the patient was started on doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 10 days. The patient returned to the clinic at POD 10 with skin sloughing and a small border of dark purple discoloration, consistent with early necrosis.

At the 1-month postsurgery follow-up visit, the wound had persistent anterior sloughing and discoloration with adherent debris suggestive of vascular compromise. At the 5-month wound check, the left conchal bowl had a 1-cm through-and-through defect of the concha cavum (Figure 1B [inset]). The favored etiology was occlusion of the posterior auricular artery during the patient’s MMS and reconstruction. Once healed, options including reconstruction, prosthesis, and no treatment were discussed with the patient. The patient decided to pursue partial closure of the defect.

Patient 2—A 71-year-old man with coronary artery disease and no known smoking or diabetes mellitus history presented with a 0.7×0.6-cm cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the left helix (Figure 2A [inset]). Mohs micrographic surgery was completed, resulting in a 1.1×1.0-cm defect that extended to the perichondrium. Given the location and size, a linear closure was performed with a deep layer of 5-0 polyglactin sutures and a cutaneous layer of 6-0 polypropylene sutures. The final closure length was 2.1 cm (Figure 2A).

On POD 14, the patient presented for suture removal and reported the onset of brown discoloration of the ear on POD 3. Physical examination revealed the left ear appeared dusky around the mid helix with extension onto the antihelix (Figure 2B). Because one of the main concerns was necrosis, a thin layer of nitropaste ointment 2% was prescribed to be applied twice daily to the affected area, in addition to liberal application of petroleum jelly. On POD 21, the left mid helix demonstrated a well-defined area of necrosis on the helical rim extending to the antihelix, and conservative treatment was continued. Four weeks later, the left ear had a prominent eschar, which was debrided. On follow-up 6 weeks later, the area was well healed with an obvious notched defect of the helix and scaphoid fossa (Figure 2B [inset]). The favored etiology was occlusion of the middle helical arcade during the patient’s MMS and reconstruction. Reconstructive options were discussed with the patient; however, he declined any further reconstructive intervention.

Comment

Auricular Vasculature—In our patients, the auricular vascular supply was compromised during routine MMS followed by reconstruction, resulting in tissue necrosis. Given the relative frequency of these procedures and the risk for tissue necrosis, a review of the auricular vasculature with special attention to the conchal bowl and helical rim was warranted (Figure 3).

The auricle is supplied by 2 main arterial sources arising from the external carotid artery: the superficial temporal artery (STA) supplying the anterior auricle and the posterior auricular artery (PAA) supplying the posterior auricle and the concha.¹ Anastomoses between these 2 blood supplies occur through perforating arteries and vascular arcades.

As the STA courses cranially, it moves from a deep position—deep to the parotidomasseteric fascia—to the superficial temporal fascia approximately 1 cm anterior and superior to the tragus. In approximately 80% of patients, 3 perpendicular branches stem from the STA—the upper, middle, and lower anterior branches—which supply the ascending helix, tragus, and lower margin of the earlobe, respectively.² The upper anterior branch of the STA joins other branches to form 2 dominant arcades: the first with the nonperforating branches of the PAA forming the upper third of the helical arcade, and the second with the lower anterior branch of the STA forming the middle portion of the helical arcade.^3,4 In 75% of patients, the middle helical arcade was identified as a single connecting artery, whereas in the remaining 25% of patients, a robust capillary network was formed.² In patient 2, the middle helical arcade was likely disrupted during closure, resulting in the helical necrosis seen postoperatively.

The second main blood supply of the auricle is the PAA, which enters in a more superficial position after traversing superiorly from the meatal cartilage, between the mastoid process and the posterior surface of the concha. From this point, the PAA runs in the deep subcutaneous tissue in the groove formed by the conchal cartilage and the mastoid process. Near the midpoint of the postauricular groove, it passes inferior to the postauricular muscle. The PAA has multiple radial branches that anastomose with helical branches; it also sends perforating branches (there were 2–4 branches in a recent study²) through the cartilage to the anterior surface of the concha. The 2 primary perforating arteries most commonly are located at the level of the antihelix and the antitragus.⁵ These arteries transverse through a vascular foramen located approximately 11 mm from the tragus in the horizontal plane and supply blood to the conchal bowl.⁶ In patient 1, the PAA itself, or the perforating arteries that course anteriorly through the vascular foramen, was likely disrupted, resulting in the conchal defect.

Special Considerations Before Surgery—As evidenced by these cases, special attention is needed during operative planning to account for the external ear vascular arcades. Damage to the helical arcades (patient 2) or the perforating arteries within the conchal bowl (patient 1) can lead to unintended consequences such as postoperative tissue necrosis. Tissue manipulation in these areas should be approached cautiously and with the least invasive treatment and closure options available. In doing so, blood flow and tissue integrity can be maintained, resulting in improved postoperative outcomes. Further research is warranted to identify the best intervention in cases involving these watershed regions.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) frequently is used in surgical removal of cancerous cutaneous lesions on cosmetically sensitive areas and anatomically challenging sites, including the ears. The vascular supply of the ear is complex and includes several watershed regions that are susceptible to injury during surgical resection or operative closure.

Case Reports

Patient 1—An 82-year-old woman with a 100-pack-year smoking history and no known history of diabetes mellitus or coronary artery disease presented with a superficial and micronodular basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the left postauricular skin of approximately 18 months’ duration. Mohs micrographic surgery was performed for lesion removal. The BCC was noted to be deeply penetrating and by the second stage was to the depth of the deep subcutaneous tissue (Figure 1A [inset]). Frozen section histopathology revealed a micronodular and superficial BCC. A 2.1×2.0-cm postoperative defect including the posterior surface of the ear, postauricular sulcus, and postauricular scalp remained. To minimize the area left to heal via secondary intention, partial layered closure was performed by placing four 4-0 polyglactin sutures from the scalp side of the defect on the postauricular skin to the postauricular sulcus (Figure 1A).

The patient presented to the clinic on postoperative day (POD) 4, noting pain and redness since the evening of the surgery on the anterior surface of the ear, specifically the cavum concha. Physical examination revealed that the incision site appeared to be healing as expected, but the cavum concha demonstrated erosions and ecchymosis (Figure 1B). A fluid culture was collected, and the patient was started on doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 10 days. The patient returned to the clinic at POD 10 with skin sloughing and a small border of dark purple discoloration, consistent with early necrosis.

At the 1-month postsurgery follow-up visit, the wound had persistent anterior sloughing and discoloration with adherent debris suggestive of vascular compromise. At the 5-month wound check, the left conchal bowl had a 1-cm through-and-through defect of the concha cavum (Figure 1B [inset]). The favored etiology was occlusion of the posterior auricular artery during the patient’s MMS and reconstruction. Once healed, options including reconstruction, prosthesis, and no treatment were discussed with the patient. The patient decided to pursue partial closure of the defect.

Patient 2—A 71-year-old man with coronary artery disease and no known smoking or diabetes mellitus history presented with a 0.7×0.6-cm cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the left helix (Figure 2A [inset]). Mohs micrographic surgery was completed, resulting in a 1.1×1.0-cm defect that extended to the perichondrium. Given the location and size, a linear closure was performed with a deep layer of 5-0 polyglactin sutures and a cutaneous layer of 6-0 polypropylene sutures. The final closure length was 2.1 cm (Figure 2A).

On POD 14, the patient presented for suture removal and reported the onset of brown discoloration of the ear on POD 3. Physical examination revealed the left ear appeared dusky around the mid helix with extension onto the antihelix (Figure 2B). Because one of the main concerns was necrosis, a thin layer of nitropaste ointment 2% was prescribed to be applied twice daily to the affected area, in addition to liberal application of petroleum jelly. On POD 21, the left mid helix demonstrated a well-defined area of necrosis on the helical rim extending to the antihelix, and conservative treatment was continued. Four weeks later, the left ear had a prominent eschar, which was debrided. On follow-up 6 weeks later, the area was well healed with an obvious notched defect of the helix and scaphoid fossa (Figure 2B [inset]). The favored etiology was occlusion of the middle helical arcade during the patient’s MMS and reconstruction. Reconstructive options were discussed with the patient; however, he declined any further reconstructive intervention.

Comment

Auricular Vasculature—In our patients, the auricular vascular supply was compromised during routine MMS followed by reconstruction, resulting in tissue necrosis. Given the relative frequency of these procedures and the risk for tissue necrosis, a review of the auricular vasculature with special attention to the conchal bowl and helical rim was warranted (Figure 3).

The auricle is supplied by 2 main arterial sources arising from the external carotid artery: the superficial temporal artery (STA) supplying the anterior auricle and the posterior auricular artery (PAA) supplying the posterior auricle and the concha.¹ Anastomoses between these 2 blood supplies occur through perforating arteries and vascular arcades.

As the STA courses cranially, it moves from a deep position—deep to the parotidomasseteric fascia—to the superficial temporal fascia approximately 1 cm anterior and superior to the tragus. In approximately 80% of patients, 3 perpendicular branches stem from the STA—the upper, middle, and lower anterior branches—which supply the ascending helix, tragus, and lower margin of the earlobe, respectively.² The upper anterior branch of the STA joins other branches to form 2 dominant arcades: the first with the nonperforating branches of the PAA forming the upper third of the helical arcade, and the second with the lower anterior branch of the STA forming the middle portion of the helical arcade.^3,4 In 75% of patients, the middle helical arcade was identified as a single connecting artery, whereas in the remaining 25% of patients, a robust capillary network was formed.² In patient 2, the middle helical arcade was likely disrupted during closure, resulting in the helical necrosis seen postoperatively.

The second main blood supply of the auricle is the PAA, which enters in a more superficial position after traversing superiorly from the meatal cartilage, between the mastoid process and the posterior surface of the concha. From this point, the PAA runs in the deep subcutaneous tissue in the groove formed by the conchal cartilage and the mastoid process. Near the midpoint of the postauricular groove, it passes inferior to the postauricular muscle. The PAA has multiple radial branches that anastomose with helical branches; it also sends perforating branches (there were 2–4 branches in a recent study²) through the cartilage to the anterior surface of the concha. The 2 primary perforating arteries most commonly are located at the level of the antihelix and the antitragus.⁵ These arteries transverse through a vascular foramen located approximately 11 mm from the tragus in the horizontal plane and supply blood to the conchal bowl.⁶ In patient 1, the PAA itself, or the perforating arteries that course anteriorly through the vascular foramen, was likely disrupted, resulting in the conchal defect.

Special Considerations Before Surgery—As evidenced by these cases, special attention is needed during operative planning to account for the external ear vascular arcades. Damage to the helical arcades (patient 2) or the perforating arteries within the conchal bowl (patient 1) can lead to unintended consequences such as postoperative tissue necrosis. Tissue manipulation in these areas should be approached cautiously and with the least invasive treatment and closure options available. In doing so, blood flow and tissue integrity can be maintained, resulting in improved postoperative outcomes. Further research is warranted to identify the best intervention in cases involving these watershed regions.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous B-cell Lymphoma

Shave biopsies of 3 lesions revealed a dense, diffuse, atypical lymphoid infiltrate occupying the entirety of the dermis and obscuring the dermoepidermal junction. The infiltrate consisted predominantly of largesized lymphoid cells with fine chromatin and conspicuous nucleoli (Figure). Immunohistochemistry was positive for CD45 and CD20, indicating B-cell lineage. Bcl-2, multiple myeloma oncogene 1, and forkhead box protein P1 also were expressed in the vast majority of lesional cells, distinguishing the lesion from other forms of cutaneous B-cell lymphomas.¹ These findings were consistent with large B-cell lymphoma with a high proliferation index, consistent with primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, which often presents on the lower leg.² The patient had a negative systemic workup including bone marrow biopsy. He was started on the R-CEOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, vincristine, prednisone) chemotherapy regimen.

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, is an intermediately aggressive and rare form of B-cell lymphoma with a poor prognosis that primarily affects elderly female patients. Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, accounts for only 1% to 3% of cutaneous lymphomas and approximately 10% to 20% of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas.² It typically presents as multiple red-brown or bluish nodules on the lower extremities or trunk. Presentation as a solitary nodule also is possible.^1,2 Histologic analysis of primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, reveals large cells with round nuclei (immunoblasts and centroblasts), and the immunohistochemical profile shows strong Bcl-2 expression often accompanied by the multiple myeloma oncogene 1 protein.³ The 5-year survival rate is approximately 50%, which is lower than other types of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas, and the progression of disease is characterized by frequent relapses and involvement of extracutaneous regions such as the lymph nodes, bone marrow, and central nervous system.^1,2,4 Patients with multiple tumors on the leg have a particularly poor prognosis; in particular, having 1 or more lesions on the leg results in a 43% 3-year survival rate while having multiple lesions has a 36% 3-year survival rate compared with a 77% 3-year survival rate for patients with the non–leg subtype or a single lesion.3 Treatment with rituximab has been shown to be effective in at least short-term control of the disease, and the R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) regimen is the standard of treatment.^3,4

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, can mimic multiple other cutaneous presentations of disease. Myeloid sarcoma (leukemia cutis) is a rare condition that presents as an extramedullary tumor often simultaneously with the onset or relapse of acute myeloid leukemia.⁵ Our patient had no history of leukemia, but myeloid sarcoma may predate acute myeloid leukemia in about a quarter of cases.⁵ It most commonly presents histologically as a diffuse dermal infiltrate that splays between collagen bundles and often is associated with an overlying Grenz zone. A nodular, or perivascular and periadnexal, pattern also may be seen. Upon closer inspection, the infiltrate is composed of immature myeloid cells (blasts) with background inflammation occasionally containing eosinophils. The immunohistochemical profile varies depending on the type of differentiation and degree of maturity of the cells. The histologic findings in our patient were inconsistent with myeloid sarcoma.

Erythema elevatum diutinum (EED) usually presents as dark red, brown, or violaceous papules or plaques and often is found on the extensor surfaces. It often is associated with hematologic abnormalities as well as recurrent bacterial or viral infections.⁶ Histologically, EED initially manifests as leukocytoclastic vasculitis with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate typically featuring an abundance of neutrophils, making this condition unlikely in this case. As the lesion progresses, fibrosis and scarring ensue as inflammation wanes. The fibrosis often is described as having an onion skin–like pattern, which is characteristic of established EED lesions. Our patient had no history of vasculitis, and the histologic findings were inconsistent with EED.

Angiosarcoma can present as a central nodule surrounded by an erythematous plaque. Although potentially clinically similar to primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, angiosarcoma was unlikely in this case because of an absence of lymphedema and no history of radiation to the leg, both of which are key historical features of angiosarcoma.⁷ Additionally, the histology of cutaneous angiosarcoma is marked by vascular proliferation, which was not seen in the lesion biopsied in our patient. The histology of angiosarcoma is that of an atypical vascular proliferation, and a hallmark feature is infiltration between collagen, often referred to as giving the appearance of dissection between collagen bundles. The degree of atypia can vary widely, and epithelioid variants exist, producing a potential diagnostic pitfall. Lesional cells are positive for vascular markers, which can be used for confirmation of the endothelial lineage.

Sarcoidosis is notorious for its mimicry, which can be the case both clinically and histologically. Characteristic pathology of sarcoidosis is that of well-formed epithelioid granulomas with minimal associated inflammation and lack of caseating necrosis. Our patient had no known history of systemic sarcoidosis, and the pathologic features of noncaseating granulomas were not present. As a diagnosis of exclusion, correlation with special stains and culture studies is necessary to exclude an infectious process. The differential diagnosis for sarcoidal granulomatous dermatitis also includes foreign body reaction, inflammatory bowel disease, and granulomatous cheilitis, among others.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous B-cell Lymphoma

Shave biopsies of 3 lesions revealed a dense, diffuse, atypical lymphoid infiltrate occupying the entirety of the dermis and obscuring the dermoepidermal junction. The infiltrate consisted predominantly of largesized lymphoid cells with fine chromatin and conspicuous nucleoli (Figure). Immunohistochemistry was positive for CD45 and CD20, indicating B-cell lineage. Bcl-2, multiple myeloma oncogene 1, and forkhead box protein P1 also were expressed in the vast majority of lesional cells, distinguishing the lesion from other forms of cutaneous B-cell lymphomas.¹ These findings were consistent with large B-cell lymphoma with a high proliferation index, consistent with primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, which often presents on the lower leg.² The patient had a negative systemic workup including bone marrow biopsy. He was started on the R-CEOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, vincristine, prednisone) chemotherapy regimen.

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, is an intermediately aggressive and rare form of B-cell lymphoma with a poor prognosis that primarily affects elderly female patients. Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, accounts for only 1% to 3% of cutaneous lymphomas and approximately 10% to 20% of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas.² It typically presents as multiple red-brown or bluish nodules on the lower extremities or trunk. Presentation as a solitary nodule also is possible.^1,2 Histologic analysis of primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, reveals large cells with round nuclei (immunoblasts and centroblasts), and the immunohistochemical profile shows strong Bcl-2 expression often accompanied by the multiple myeloma oncogene 1 protein.³ The 5-year survival rate is approximately 50%, which is lower than other types of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas, and the progression of disease is characterized by frequent relapses and involvement of extracutaneous regions such as the lymph nodes, bone marrow, and central nervous system.^1,2,4 Patients with multiple tumors on the leg have a particularly poor prognosis; in particular, having 1 or more lesions on the leg results in a 43% 3-year survival rate while having multiple lesions has a 36% 3-year survival rate compared with a 77% 3-year survival rate for patients with the non–leg subtype or a single lesion.3 Treatment with rituximab has been shown to be effective in at least short-term control of the disease, and the R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) regimen is the standard of treatment.^3,4

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, can mimic multiple other cutaneous presentations of disease. Myeloid sarcoma (leukemia cutis) is a rare condition that presents as an extramedullary tumor often simultaneously with the onset or relapse of acute myeloid leukemia.⁵ Our patient had no history of leukemia, but myeloid sarcoma may predate acute myeloid leukemia in about a quarter of cases.⁵ It most commonly presents histologically as a diffuse dermal infiltrate that splays between collagen bundles and often is associated with an overlying Grenz zone. A nodular, or perivascular and periadnexal, pattern also may be seen. Upon closer inspection, the infiltrate is composed of immature myeloid cells (blasts) with background inflammation occasionally containing eosinophils. The immunohistochemical profile varies depending on the type of differentiation and degree of maturity of the cells. The histologic findings in our patient were inconsistent with myeloid sarcoma.

Erythema elevatum diutinum (EED) usually presents as dark red, brown, or violaceous papules or plaques and often is found on the extensor surfaces. It often is associated with hematologic abnormalities as well as recurrent bacterial or viral infections.⁶ Histologically, EED initially manifests as leukocytoclastic vasculitis with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate typically featuring an abundance of neutrophils, making this condition unlikely in this case. As the lesion progresses, fibrosis and scarring ensue as inflammation wanes. The fibrosis often is described as having an onion skin–like pattern, which is characteristic of established EED lesions. Our patient had no history of vasculitis, and the histologic findings were inconsistent with EED.

Angiosarcoma can present as a central nodule surrounded by an erythematous plaque. Although potentially clinically similar to primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, angiosarcoma was unlikely in this case because of an absence of lymphedema and no history of radiation to the leg, both of which are key historical features of angiosarcoma.⁷ Additionally, the histology of cutaneous angiosarcoma is marked by vascular proliferation, which was not seen in the lesion biopsied in our patient. The histology of angiosarcoma is that of an atypical vascular proliferation, and a hallmark feature is infiltration between collagen, often referred to as giving the appearance of dissection between collagen bundles. The degree of atypia can vary widely, and epithelioid variants exist, producing a potential diagnostic pitfall. Lesional cells are positive for vascular markers, which can be used for confirmation of the endothelial lineage.

Sarcoidosis is notorious for its mimicry, which can be the case both clinically and histologically. Characteristic pathology of sarcoidosis is that of well-formed epithelioid granulomas with minimal associated inflammation and lack of caseating necrosis. Our patient had no known history of systemic sarcoidosis, and the pathologic features of noncaseating granulomas were not present. As a diagnosis of exclusion, correlation with special stains and culture studies is necessary to exclude an infectious process. The differential diagnosis for sarcoidal granulomatous dermatitis also includes foreign body reaction, inflammatory bowel disease, and granulomatous cheilitis, among others.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous B-cell Lymphoma

Shave biopsies of 3 lesions revealed a dense, diffuse, atypical lymphoid infiltrate occupying the entirety of the dermis and obscuring the dermoepidermal junction. The infiltrate consisted predominantly of largesized lymphoid cells with fine chromatin and conspicuous nucleoli (Figure). Immunohistochemistry was positive for CD45 and CD20, indicating B-cell lineage. Bcl-2, multiple myeloma oncogene 1, and forkhead box protein P1 also were expressed in the vast majority of lesional cells, distinguishing the lesion from other forms of cutaneous B-cell lymphomas.¹ These findings were consistent with large B-cell lymphoma with a high proliferation index, consistent with primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, which often presents on the lower leg.² The patient had a negative systemic workup including bone marrow biopsy. He was started on the R-CEOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, vincristine, prednisone) chemotherapy regimen.

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, is an intermediately aggressive and rare form of B-cell lymphoma with a poor prognosis that primarily affects elderly female patients. Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, accounts for only 1% to 3% of cutaneous lymphomas and approximately 10% to 20% of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas.² It typically presents as multiple red-brown or bluish nodules on the lower extremities or trunk. Presentation as a solitary nodule also is possible.^1,2 Histologic analysis of primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, reveals large cells with round nuclei (immunoblasts and centroblasts), and the immunohistochemical profile shows strong Bcl-2 expression often accompanied by the multiple myeloma oncogene 1 protein.³ The 5-year survival rate is approximately 50%, which is lower than other types of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas, and the progression of disease is characterized by frequent relapses and involvement of extracutaneous regions such as the lymph nodes, bone marrow, and central nervous system.^1,2,4 Patients with multiple tumors on the leg have a particularly poor prognosis; in particular, having 1 or more lesions on the leg results in a 43% 3-year survival rate while having multiple lesions has a 36% 3-year survival rate compared with a 77% 3-year survival rate for patients with the non–leg subtype or a single lesion.3 Treatment with rituximab has been shown to be effective in at least short-term control of the disease, and the R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) regimen is the standard of treatment.^3,4

Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, can mimic multiple other cutaneous presentations of disease. Myeloid sarcoma (leukemia cutis) is a rare condition that presents as an extramedullary tumor often simultaneously with the onset or relapse of acute myeloid leukemia.⁵ Our patient had no history of leukemia, but myeloid sarcoma may predate acute myeloid leukemia in about a quarter of cases.⁵ It most commonly presents histologically as a diffuse dermal infiltrate that splays between collagen bundles and often is associated with an overlying Grenz zone. A nodular, or perivascular and periadnexal, pattern also may be seen. Upon closer inspection, the infiltrate is composed of immature myeloid cells (blasts) with background inflammation occasionally containing eosinophils. The immunohistochemical profile varies depending on the type of differentiation and degree of maturity of the cells. The histologic findings in our patient were inconsistent with myeloid sarcoma.

Erythema elevatum diutinum (EED) usually presents as dark red, brown, or violaceous papules or plaques and often is found on the extensor surfaces. It often is associated with hematologic abnormalities as well as recurrent bacterial or viral infections.⁶ Histologically, EED initially manifests as leukocytoclastic vasculitis with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate typically featuring an abundance of neutrophils, making this condition unlikely in this case. As the lesion progresses, fibrosis and scarring ensue as inflammation wanes. The fibrosis often is described as having an onion skin–like pattern, which is characteristic of established EED lesions. Our patient had no history of vasculitis, and the histologic findings were inconsistent with EED.

Angiosarcoma can present as a central nodule surrounded by an erythematous plaque. Although potentially clinically similar to primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type, angiosarcoma was unlikely in this case because of an absence of lymphedema and no history of radiation to the leg, both of which are key historical features of angiosarcoma.⁷ Additionally, the histology of cutaneous angiosarcoma is marked by vascular proliferation, which was not seen in the lesion biopsied in our patient. The histology of angiosarcoma is that of an atypical vascular proliferation, and a hallmark feature is infiltration between collagen, often referred to as giving the appearance of dissection between collagen bundles. The degree of atypia can vary widely, and epithelioid variants exist, producing a potential diagnostic pitfall. Lesional cells are positive for vascular markers, which can be used for confirmation of the endothelial lineage.

Sarcoidosis is notorious for its mimicry, which can be the case both clinically and histologically. Characteristic pathology of sarcoidosis is that of well-formed epithelioid granulomas with minimal associated inflammation and lack of caseating necrosis. Our patient had no known history of systemic sarcoidosis, and the pathologic features of noncaseating granulomas were not present. As a diagnosis of exclusion, correlation with special stains and culture studies is necessary to exclude an infectious process. The differential diagnosis for sarcoidal granulomatous dermatitis also includes foreign body reaction, inflammatory bowel disease, and granulomatous cheilitis, among others.

BOSTON – Although skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing early-stage melanoma, advances in genetic expression profiling are helping dermatologists provide a nuanced approach to managing suspicious lesions.

One such test, the Pigmented Lesional Assay (PLA) uses adhesive patches applied to lesions of concern at the bedside to extract RNA from the stratum corneum to help determine the risk for melanoma.

At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of melanoma and pigmented lesion clinics at Newton Wellesley Dermatology, Wellesley Hills, Mass., and Tufts Medical Center, Boston, spoke about the PLA, which uses genetic expression profiling to measure the expression level of specific genes that are associated with melanoma: PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma) and LINC00518 (LINC). There are four possible results of the test: Aberrant expression of both LINC and PRAME (high risk); aberrant expression of a single gene (moderate risk); aberrant expression of neither gene (low risk); or inconclusive.

Validation data have shown a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 69% for the PLA, with a 99% negative predictive value; so a lesion that tested negative by PLA has a less than 1% chance of being melanoma. In addition, a study published in 2020 found that the addition of TERT (telomerase reverse transcriptase) mutation analyses increased the sensitivity of the PLA to 97%.

While the high negative predictive value is helpful to consider in clinical scenarios to rule-out melanoma for borderline lesions, one must consider the positive predictive value as well and how this may impact clinical care, Dr. Kim said. In a study examining outcomes of 381 lesions, 51 were PLA positive (single or double) and were biopsied, of which 19 (37%) revealed a melanoma diagnosis. In a large U.S. registry study of 3,418 lesions, 324 lesions that were PLA double positive were biopsied, with 18.7% revealing a melanoma diagnosis.

“No test is perfect, and this applies to PLA, even if you get a double-positive or double-negative test result,” Dr. Kim said. “You want to make sure that patients are aware of false positives and negatives. However, PLA could be an additional piece of data to inform your decision to proceed with biopsy on select borderline suspicious pigmented lesions. More studies are needed to better understand the approach to single- and double-positive PLA results.”

The PLA kit contains adhesive patches and supplies and a FedEx envelope for return to DermTech, the test’s manufacturer, for processing. The patches can be applied to lesions at least 4 mm in diameter; multiple kits are recommended for those greater than 16 mm in diameter. The test is not validated for lesions located on mucous membranes, palms, soles, nails, or on ulcerated or bleeding lesions, nor for those that have been previously biopsied. It is also not validated for use in pediatric patients or in those with skin types IV or higher. Results are returned in 2-3 days. If insurance does not cover the test, the cost to the patient is approximately $50 per lesion or a maximum of $150, according to Dr. Kim.
 

Use in clinical practice

In Dr. Kim’s clinical experience, the PLA can be considered for suspicious pigmented lesions on cosmetically sensitive areas and for suspicious lesions in areas difficult to biopsy or excise. For example, she discussed the case of a 72-year-old woman with a family history of melanoma, who presented to her clinic with a longstanding pigmented lesion on her right upper and lower eyelids that had previously been treated with laser. She had undergone multiple prior biopsies over 12 years, which caused mild to moderate atypical melanocytic proliferation. The PLA result was double negative for PRAME and LINC in her upper and lower eyelid, “which provided reassurance to the patient,” Dr. Kim said. The patient continues to be followed closely for any clinical changes.

Another patient, a 67-year-old woman, was referred to Dr. Kim from out of state for a teledermatology visit early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The patient had a lesion on her right calf that was hard, raised, and pink, did not resemble other lesions on her body, and had been present for a few weeks. “Her husband had recently passed away from brain cancer and she was very concerned about melanoma,” Dr. Kim recalled. “She lived alone, and the adult son was with her during the teledermatology call to assist. The patient asked about the PLA test, and given her difficulty going to a medical office at the time, we agreed to help her with this test.” The patient and her son arranged another teledermatology visit with Dr. Kim after receiving the kit in the mail from DermTech, and Dr. Kim coached them on how to properly administer the test. The results came back as PRAME negative and LINC positive. A biopsy with a local provider was recommended and the pathology results showed an inflamed seborrheic keratosis.

“This case exemplifies a false-positive result. We should be sure to make patients aware of this possibility,” Dr. Kim said.

Incorporating PLA into clinical practice requires certain workflow considerations, with paperwork to fill out in addition to performing the adhesive test, collection of insurance information, mailing the kit via FedEx, retrieving the results, and following up with the patient, said Dr. Kim. “For select borderline pigmented lesions, I discuss the rationale of the test with patients, the possibility of false-positive and false-negative results and the need to return for a biopsy when there is positive result. Clinical follow-up is recommended for negative results. There is also the possibility of charge to the patient if the test is not covered by their insurance.”
 

Skin biopsy still the gold standard

Despite the availability of the PLA as an assessment tool, Dr. Kim emphasized that skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing melanoma. “Future prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to examine the role of genetic expression profiling in staging and managing patients,” she said.

In 2019, she and her colleagues surveyed 42 pigmented lesion experts in the United States about why they ordered one of three molecular tests on the market or not and how results affected patient treatment. The proportion of clinicians who ordered the tests ranged from 21% to 29%. The top 2 reasons respondents chose for not ordering the PLA test specifically were: “Feel that further validation studies are necessary” (20%) and “do not feel it would be useful in my practice” (18%).

Results of a larger follow-up survey on usage patterns of PLA of both pigmented lesion experts and general clinicians on this topic are expected to be published shortly.

Dr. Kim reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.

BOSTON – Although skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing early-stage melanoma, advances in genetic expression profiling are helping dermatologists provide a nuanced approach to managing suspicious lesions.

One such test, the Pigmented Lesional Assay (PLA) uses adhesive patches applied to lesions of concern at the bedside to extract RNA from the stratum corneum to help determine the risk for melanoma.

At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of melanoma and pigmented lesion clinics at Newton Wellesley Dermatology, Wellesley Hills, Mass., and Tufts Medical Center, Boston, spoke about the PLA, which uses genetic expression profiling to measure the expression level of specific genes that are associated with melanoma: PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma) and LINC00518 (LINC). There are four possible results of the test: Aberrant expression of both LINC and PRAME (high risk); aberrant expression of a single gene (moderate risk); aberrant expression of neither gene (low risk); or inconclusive.

Validation data have shown a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 69% for the PLA, with a 99% negative predictive value; so a lesion that tested negative by PLA has a less than 1% chance of being melanoma. In addition, a study published in 2020 found that the addition of TERT (telomerase reverse transcriptase) mutation analyses increased the sensitivity of the PLA to 97%.

While the high negative predictive value is helpful to consider in clinical scenarios to rule-out melanoma for borderline lesions, one must consider the positive predictive value as well and how this may impact clinical care, Dr. Kim said. In a study examining outcomes of 381 lesions, 51 were PLA positive (single or double) and were biopsied, of which 19 (37%) revealed a melanoma diagnosis. In a large U.S. registry study of 3,418 lesions, 324 lesions that were PLA double positive were biopsied, with 18.7% revealing a melanoma diagnosis.

“No test is perfect, and this applies to PLA, even if you get a double-positive or double-negative test result,” Dr. Kim said. “You want to make sure that patients are aware of false positives and negatives. However, PLA could be an additional piece of data to inform your decision to proceed with biopsy on select borderline suspicious pigmented lesions. More studies are needed to better understand the approach to single- and double-positive PLA results.”

The PLA kit contains adhesive patches and supplies and a FedEx envelope for return to DermTech, the test’s manufacturer, for processing. The patches can be applied to lesions at least 4 mm in diameter; multiple kits are recommended for those greater than 16 mm in diameter. The test is not validated for lesions located on mucous membranes, palms, soles, nails, or on ulcerated or bleeding lesions, nor for those that have been previously biopsied. It is also not validated for use in pediatric patients or in those with skin types IV or higher. Results are returned in 2-3 days. If insurance does not cover the test, the cost to the patient is approximately $50 per lesion or a maximum of $150, according to Dr. Kim.
 

Use in clinical practice

In Dr. Kim’s clinical experience, the PLA can be considered for suspicious pigmented lesions on cosmetically sensitive areas and for suspicious lesions in areas difficult to biopsy or excise. For example, she discussed the case of a 72-year-old woman with a family history of melanoma, who presented to her clinic with a longstanding pigmented lesion on her right upper and lower eyelids that had previously been treated with laser. She had undergone multiple prior biopsies over 12 years, which caused mild to moderate atypical melanocytic proliferation. The PLA result was double negative for PRAME and LINC in her upper and lower eyelid, “which provided reassurance to the patient,” Dr. Kim said. The patient continues to be followed closely for any clinical changes.

Another patient, a 67-year-old woman, was referred to Dr. Kim from out of state for a teledermatology visit early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The patient had a lesion on her right calf that was hard, raised, and pink, did not resemble other lesions on her body, and had been present for a few weeks. “Her husband had recently passed away from brain cancer and she was very concerned about melanoma,” Dr. Kim recalled. “She lived alone, and the adult son was with her during the teledermatology call to assist. The patient asked about the PLA test, and given her difficulty going to a medical office at the time, we agreed to help her with this test.” The patient and her son arranged another teledermatology visit with Dr. Kim after receiving the kit in the mail from DermTech, and Dr. Kim coached them on how to properly administer the test. The results came back as PRAME negative and LINC positive. A biopsy with a local provider was recommended and the pathology results showed an inflamed seborrheic keratosis.

“This case exemplifies a false-positive result. We should be sure to make patients aware of this possibility,” Dr. Kim said.

Incorporating PLA into clinical practice requires certain workflow considerations, with paperwork to fill out in addition to performing the adhesive test, collection of insurance information, mailing the kit via FedEx, retrieving the results, and following up with the patient, said Dr. Kim. “For select borderline pigmented lesions, I discuss the rationale of the test with patients, the possibility of false-positive and false-negative results and the need to return for a biopsy when there is positive result. Clinical follow-up is recommended for negative results. There is also the possibility of charge to the patient if the test is not covered by their insurance.”
 

Skin biopsy still the gold standard

Despite the availability of the PLA as an assessment tool, Dr. Kim emphasized that skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing melanoma. “Future prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to examine the role of genetic expression profiling in staging and managing patients,” she said.

In 2019, she and her colleagues surveyed 42 pigmented lesion experts in the United States about why they ordered one of three molecular tests on the market or not and how results affected patient treatment. The proportion of clinicians who ordered the tests ranged from 21% to 29%. The top 2 reasons respondents chose for not ordering the PLA test specifically were: “Feel that further validation studies are necessary” (20%) and “do not feel it would be useful in my practice” (18%).

Results of a larger follow-up survey on usage patterns of PLA of both pigmented lesion experts and general clinicians on this topic are expected to be published shortly.

Dr. Kim reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.

BOSTON – Although skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing early-stage melanoma, advances in genetic expression profiling are helping dermatologists provide a nuanced approach to managing suspicious lesions.

One such test, the Pigmented Lesional Assay (PLA) uses adhesive patches applied to lesions of concern at the bedside to extract RNA from the stratum corneum to help determine the risk for melanoma.

At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of melanoma and pigmented lesion clinics at Newton Wellesley Dermatology, Wellesley Hills, Mass., and Tufts Medical Center, Boston, spoke about the PLA, which uses genetic expression profiling to measure the expression level of specific genes that are associated with melanoma: PRAME (preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma) and LINC00518 (LINC). There are four possible results of the test: Aberrant expression of both LINC and PRAME (high risk); aberrant expression of a single gene (moderate risk); aberrant expression of neither gene (low risk); or inconclusive.

Validation data have shown a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 69% for the PLA, with a 99% negative predictive value; so a lesion that tested negative by PLA has a less than 1% chance of being melanoma. In addition, a study published in 2020 found that the addition of TERT (telomerase reverse transcriptase) mutation analyses increased the sensitivity of the PLA to 97%.

While the high negative predictive value is helpful to consider in clinical scenarios to rule-out melanoma for borderline lesions, one must consider the positive predictive value as well and how this may impact clinical care, Dr. Kim said. In a study examining outcomes of 381 lesions, 51 were PLA positive (single or double) and were biopsied, of which 19 (37%) revealed a melanoma diagnosis. In a large U.S. registry study of 3,418 lesions, 324 lesions that were PLA double positive were biopsied, with 18.7% revealing a melanoma diagnosis.

“No test is perfect, and this applies to PLA, even if you get a double-positive or double-negative test result,” Dr. Kim said. “You want to make sure that patients are aware of false positives and negatives. However, PLA could be an additional piece of data to inform your decision to proceed with biopsy on select borderline suspicious pigmented lesions. More studies are needed to better understand the approach to single- and double-positive PLA results.”

The PLA kit contains adhesive patches and supplies and a FedEx envelope for return to DermTech, the test’s manufacturer, for processing. The patches can be applied to lesions at least 4 mm in diameter; multiple kits are recommended for those greater than 16 mm in diameter. The test is not validated for lesions located on mucous membranes, palms, soles, nails, or on ulcerated or bleeding lesions, nor for those that have been previously biopsied. It is also not validated for use in pediatric patients or in those with skin types IV or higher. Results are returned in 2-3 days. If insurance does not cover the test, the cost to the patient is approximately $50 per lesion or a maximum of $150, according to Dr. Kim.
 

Use in clinical practice

In Dr. Kim’s clinical experience, the PLA can be considered for suspicious pigmented lesions on cosmetically sensitive areas and for suspicious lesions in areas difficult to biopsy or excise. For example, she discussed the case of a 72-year-old woman with a family history of melanoma, who presented to her clinic with a longstanding pigmented lesion on her right upper and lower eyelids that had previously been treated with laser. She had undergone multiple prior biopsies over 12 years, which caused mild to moderate atypical melanocytic proliferation. The PLA result was double negative for PRAME and LINC in her upper and lower eyelid, “which provided reassurance to the patient,” Dr. Kim said. The patient continues to be followed closely for any clinical changes.

Another patient, a 67-year-old woman, was referred to Dr. Kim from out of state for a teledermatology visit early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The patient had a lesion on her right calf that was hard, raised, and pink, did not resemble other lesions on her body, and had been present for a few weeks. “Her husband had recently passed away from brain cancer and she was very concerned about melanoma,” Dr. Kim recalled. “She lived alone, and the adult son was with her during the teledermatology call to assist. The patient asked about the PLA test, and given her difficulty going to a medical office at the time, we agreed to help her with this test.” The patient and her son arranged another teledermatology visit with Dr. Kim after receiving the kit in the mail from DermTech, and Dr. Kim coached them on how to properly administer the test. The results came back as PRAME negative and LINC positive. A biopsy with a local provider was recommended and the pathology results showed an inflamed seborrheic keratosis.

“This case exemplifies a false-positive result. We should be sure to make patients aware of this possibility,” Dr. Kim said.

Incorporating PLA into clinical practice requires certain workflow considerations, with paperwork to fill out in addition to performing the adhesive test, collection of insurance information, mailing the kit via FedEx, retrieving the results, and following up with the patient, said Dr. Kim. “For select borderline pigmented lesions, I discuss the rationale of the test with patients, the possibility of false-positive and false-negative results and the need to return for a biopsy when there is positive result. Clinical follow-up is recommended for negative results. There is also the possibility of charge to the patient if the test is not covered by their insurance.”
 

Skin biopsy still the gold standard

Despite the availability of the PLA as an assessment tool, Dr. Kim emphasized that skin biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing melanoma. “Future prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to examine the role of genetic expression profiling in staging and managing patients,” she said.

In 2019, she and her colleagues surveyed 42 pigmented lesion experts in the United States about why they ordered one of three molecular tests on the market or not and how results affected patient treatment. The proportion of clinicians who ordered the tests ranged from 21% to 29%. The top 2 reasons respondents chose for not ordering the PLA test specifically were: “Feel that further validation studies are necessary” (20%) and “do not feel it would be useful in my practice” (18%).

Results of a larger follow-up survey on usage patterns of PLA of both pigmented lesion experts and general clinicians on this topic are expected to be published shortly.

Dr. Kim reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.

BOSTON – Among dermatology residents and attending dermatologists, rates of diagnostic accuracy and appropriate biopsy recommendations were significantly lower for patients with skin of color, compared with White patients, new research shows.

“Our findings suggest diagnostic biases based on skin color exist in dermatology practice,” lead author Loren Krueger, MD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, said at the Annual Skin of Color Society Scientific Symposium. “A lower likelihood of biopsy of malignancy in darker skin types could contribute to disparities in cutaneous malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Loren Krueger

The findings underscore that “for skin of color patients, you’re more likely to have a benign neoplasm biopsied, you’re less likely to have a malignant neoplasm biopsied, and more often, your etiology may be missed,” Dr. Krueger said at the meeting.

Of note, while 45% of respondents were dermatology residents or fellows, 20.4% had 1-5 years of experience, and about 28% had 10 to more than 25 years of experience.

And while 75% of the dermatology residents, fellows, and attendings were White, there was no difference in the probability of correctly identifying the underlying etiology in dark or light skin types based on the provider’s self-identified race.

Importantly, the patterns in the study of diagnostic discrepancies are reflected in broader dermatologic outcomes. The 5-year melanoma survival rate is 74.1% among Black patients and 92.9% among White patients. Dr. Krueger referred to data showing that only 52.6% of Black patients have stage I melanoma at diagnosis, whereas among White patients, the rate is much higher, at 75.9%.

“We know skin malignancy can be more aggressive and late-stage in skin of color populations, leading to increased morbidity and later stage at initial diagnosis,” Dr. Krueger told this news organization. “We routinely attribute this to limited access to care and lack of awareness on skin malignancy. However, we have no evidence on how we, as dermatologists, may be playing a role.”

Furthermore, the decision to perform biopsy or not can affect the size and stage at diagnosis of a cutaneous malignancy, she noted.

Key changes needed to prevent the disparities – and their implications – should start at the training level, she emphasized. “I would love to see increased photo representation in training materials – this is a great place to start,” Dr. Krueger said.

In addition, “encouraging medical students, residents, and dermatologists to learn from skin of color experts is vital,” she said. “We should also provide hands-on experience and training with diverse patient populations.”

The first step to addressing biases “is to acknowledge they exist,” Dr. Krueger added. “I am hopeful this inspires others to continue to investigate these biases, as well as how we can eliminate them.”

The study was funded by the Rudin Resident Research Award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – Among dermatology residents and attending dermatologists, rates of diagnostic accuracy and appropriate biopsy recommendations were significantly lower for patients with skin of color, compared with White patients, new research shows.

“Our findings suggest diagnostic biases based on skin color exist in dermatology practice,” lead author Loren Krueger, MD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, said at the Annual Skin of Color Society Scientific Symposium. “A lower likelihood of biopsy of malignancy in darker skin types could contribute to disparities in cutaneous malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Loren Krueger

The findings underscore that “for skin of color patients, you’re more likely to have a benign neoplasm biopsied, you’re less likely to have a malignant neoplasm biopsied, and more often, your etiology may be missed,” Dr. Krueger said at the meeting.

Of note, while 45% of respondents were dermatology residents or fellows, 20.4% had 1-5 years of experience, and about 28% had 10 to more than 25 years of experience.

And while 75% of the dermatology residents, fellows, and attendings were White, there was no difference in the probability of correctly identifying the underlying etiology in dark or light skin types based on the provider’s self-identified race.

Importantly, the patterns in the study of diagnostic discrepancies are reflected in broader dermatologic outcomes. The 5-year melanoma survival rate is 74.1% among Black patients and 92.9% among White patients. Dr. Krueger referred to data showing that only 52.6% of Black patients have stage I melanoma at diagnosis, whereas among White patients, the rate is much higher, at 75.9%.

“We know skin malignancy can be more aggressive and late-stage in skin of color populations, leading to increased morbidity and later stage at initial diagnosis,” Dr. Krueger told this news organization. “We routinely attribute this to limited access to care and lack of awareness on skin malignancy. However, we have no evidence on how we, as dermatologists, may be playing a role.”

Furthermore, the decision to perform biopsy or not can affect the size and stage at diagnosis of a cutaneous malignancy, she noted.

Key changes needed to prevent the disparities – and their implications – should start at the training level, she emphasized. “I would love to see increased photo representation in training materials – this is a great place to start,” Dr. Krueger said.

In addition, “encouraging medical students, residents, and dermatologists to learn from skin of color experts is vital,” she said. “We should also provide hands-on experience and training with diverse patient populations.”

The first step to addressing biases “is to acknowledge they exist,” Dr. Krueger added. “I am hopeful this inspires others to continue to investigate these biases, as well as how we can eliminate them.”

The study was funded by the Rudin Resident Research Award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – Among dermatology residents and attending dermatologists, rates of diagnostic accuracy and appropriate biopsy recommendations were significantly lower for patients with skin of color, compared with White patients, new research shows.

“Our findings suggest diagnostic biases based on skin color exist in dermatology practice,” lead author Loren Krueger, MD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, said at the Annual Skin of Color Society Scientific Symposium. “A lower likelihood of biopsy of malignancy in darker skin types could contribute to disparities in cutaneous malignancies,” she added.

Dr. Loren Krueger

The findings underscore that “for skin of color patients, you’re more likely to have a benign neoplasm biopsied, you’re less likely to have a malignant neoplasm biopsied, and more often, your etiology may be missed,” Dr. Krueger said at the meeting.

Of note, while 45% of respondents were dermatology residents or fellows, 20.4% had 1-5 years of experience, and about 28% had 10 to more than 25 years of experience.

And while 75% of the dermatology residents, fellows, and attendings were White, there was no difference in the probability of correctly identifying the underlying etiology in dark or light skin types based on the provider’s self-identified race.

Importantly, the patterns in the study of diagnostic discrepancies are reflected in broader dermatologic outcomes. The 5-year melanoma survival rate is 74.1% among Black patients and 92.9% among White patients. Dr. Krueger referred to data showing that only 52.6% of Black patients have stage I melanoma at diagnosis, whereas among White patients, the rate is much higher, at 75.9%.

“We know skin malignancy can be more aggressive and late-stage in skin of color populations, leading to increased morbidity and later stage at initial diagnosis,” Dr. Krueger told this news organization. “We routinely attribute this to limited access to care and lack of awareness on skin malignancy. However, we have no evidence on how we, as dermatologists, may be playing a role.”

Furthermore, the decision to perform biopsy or not can affect the size and stage at diagnosis of a cutaneous malignancy, she noted.

Key changes needed to prevent the disparities – and their implications – should start at the training level, she emphasized. “I would love to see increased photo representation in training materials – this is a great place to start,” Dr. Krueger said.

In addition, “encouraging medical students, residents, and dermatologists to learn from skin of color experts is vital,” she said. “We should also provide hands-on experience and training with diverse patient populations.”

The first step to addressing biases “is to acknowledge they exist,” Dr. Krueger added. “I am hopeful this inspires others to continue to investigate these biases, as well as how we can eliminate them.”

The study was funded by the Rudin Resident Research Award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Verrucous carcinoma is a rare cancer with the greatest predilection for the foot. Multiple case reports with only a few large case series have been published. ^1-3 Plantar verrucous carcinoma is characterized as a slowly but relentlessly enlarging warty tumor with low metastatic potential and high risk for local invasion. The tumor occurs most frequently in patients aged 60 to 70 years, predominantly in White males. ¹ It often is misdiagnosed for years as an ulcer or wart that is highly resistant to therapy. Size typically ranges from 1 to 12 cm in greatest dimension. ¹

The pathogenesis of plantar verrucous carcinoma remains unclear, but some contributing factors have been proposed, including trauma, chronic irritation, infection, and poor local hygiene.² This tumor has been reported to occur in chronic foot ulcerations, particularly in the diabetic population.⁴ It has been proposed that abnormal expression of the p53 tumor suppressor protein and several types of human papillomavirus (HPV) may have a role in the pathogenesis of verrucous carcinoma.⁵

The pathologic hallmarks of this tumor include a verrucous/hyperkeratotic surface with a deeply endophytic, broad, pushing base. Tumor cells are well differentiated, and atypia is either absent or confined to 1 or 2 layers at the base of the tumor. Overt invasion at the base is lacking, except in cases with a component of conventional invasive squamous cell carcinoma. Human papillomavirus viropathic changes are classically absent.^1,3 Studies of the histopathology of verrucous carcinoma have been complicated by similar entities, nomenclatural uncertainty, and variable diagnostic criteria. For example, epithelioma cuniculatum variously has been defined as being synonymous with verrucous carcinoma, a distinct clinical verrucous carcinoma subtype occurring on the soles, a histologic subtype (characterized by prominent burrowing sinuses), or a separate entity entirely.^1,2,6,7 Furthermore, in the genital area, several different types of carcinomas have verruciform features but display distinct microscopic findings and outcomes from verrucous carcinoma.⁸

Verrucous carcinoma represents an unusual variant of squamous cell carcinoma and is treated as such. Treatments have included laser surgery; immunotherapy; retinoid therapy; and chemotherapy by oral, intralesional, or iontophoretic routes in select patients.⁹ Radiotherapy presents another option, though reports have described progression to aggressive squamous cell carcinoma in some cases.⁹ Surgery is the best course of treatment, and as more case reports have been published, a transition from radical resection to wide excision with tumor-free margins is the treatment of choice.^2,3,10,11 To minimize soft-tissue deficits, Mohs micrographic surgery has been discussed as a treatment option for verrucous carcinoma.^11-13

Few studies have described verrucous carcinoma recurrence, and none have systematically examined recurrence rate, risk factors, or prognosis.^3,9,14 In our retrospective review of 19 new cases of verrucous carcinoma of the foot, we examined 5 recurrent tumors despite negative margin surgical resection and report risk factors and surgical management of these lesions.

Methods

Patient cases were identified through the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) pathology database from 1995 to 2019 based on the primary diagnosis of verrucous carcinoma located on the foot. Nineteen cases were identified and were included in demographic and clinical presentation analyses. Medical records were reviewed to abstract selected clinical data and outcomes of analysis.

Of the 19 cases, 16 were treated at the University of Michigan and are included in the treatment analyses. Specific attention was then paid to the cases with a clinical recurrence despite negative surgical margins. We compared the clinical and surgical differences between recurrent cases and nonrecurrent cases.

Pathology was rereviewed for selected cases, including 2 cases with recurrence and matched primary, 2 cases with recurrence (for which the matched primary was unavailable for review), and 5 representative primary cases that were not complicated by recurrence. Pathology review was conducted in a blinded manner by one of the authors (P.W.H) who is a board-certified dermatopathologist for approximate depth of invasion from the granular layer, perineural invasion, bone invasion, infiltrative growth, presence of conventional squamous cell carcinoma, and margin status.

Statistical analysis was performed when appropriate using an N1 χ² test or Student t test.

Results

Demographics and Comorbidities—The median age of the patients at the time of diagnosis was 55 years (range, 34–77 years). There were 12 males and 7 females (Table 1). Two patients were Black and 17 were White. Almost all patients had additional comorbidities including tobacco use (68%), alcohol use (47%), and diabetes (47%). Only 1 patient had an autoimmune disease and was on chronic steroids. No significant difference was found between the demographics of patients with recurrent lesions and those without recurrence.

Tumor Location and Clinical Presentation—The most common clinical presentation included a nonhealing ulceration with warty edges, pain, bleeding, and lowered mobility. In most cases, there was history of prior treatment over a duration ranging from 1 to 8 years, with a median of 5 years prior to biopsy-based diagnosis (Table 1). Six patients had a history of osteomyelitis, diagnosed by imaging or biopsy, within a year before tumor diagnosis. The size of the primary tumor ranged from 2.4 to 6 cm, with a mean of 4 cm (P=.20). The clinical presentation, time before diagnosis, and size of the tumors did not differ significantly between recurrent and nonrecurrent cases.

The tumor location for the recurrent cases differed significantly compared to nonrecurrent cases. All 5 of the patients with a recurrence presented with a tumor on the nonglabrous part of the foot. Four patients (80%) had lesions on the dorsal or lateral aspect of the great toe (P=.002), and 1 patient (20%) had a lesion on the low ankle (P=.09)(Table 1). Of the nonrecurrent cases, 1 patient (7%) presented with a tumor on the plantar surface of the great toe (P=.002), 13 patients (93%) presented with tumors on the distal plantar surface of the foot (P=.0002), and 1 patient with a plantar foot tumor (Figure 1) also had verrucous carcinoma on the thumb (Table 1 and Figure 2).

Histopathology—Available pathology slides for recurrent cases of verrucous carcinoma were reviewed alongside representative cases of verrucous carcinomas that did not progress to recurrence. The diagnosis of verrucous carcinoma was confirmed in all cases, with no evidence of conventional squamous cell carcinoma, perineural invasion, extension beyond the dermis, or bone invasion in any case. The median size of the tumors was 4.2 cm and 4 cm for nonrecurrent and recurrent specimens, respectively. Recurrences displayed a trend toward increased depth compared to primary tumors without recurrence (average depth, 5.5 mm vs 3.7 mm); however, this did not reach statistical significance (P=.24). Primary tumors that progressed to recurrence (n=2) displayed similar findings to the other cases, with invasive depths of 3.5 and 5.5 mm, and there was no evidence of conventional squamous cell carcinoma, perineural invasion, or extension beyond the dermis.

Treatment of Nonrecurrent Cases—Of the 16 total cases treated at the University of Michigan, surgery was the primary mode of therapy in every case (Tables 2 and 3). Of the 11 nonrecurrent cases, 7 patients had wide local excision with a dermal regeneration template, and delayed split-thickness graft reconstruction. Three cases had wide local excision with metatarsal resection, dermal regeneration template, and delayed skin grafting. One case had a great toe amputation. Surgical margins were not reported in all the cases but ranged from 0.5 to 2 cm (8/11 [73%] reported). Three cases had positive margins at the time of primary resection; 2 were treated with further resection, and 1 had a below the knee amputation (BKA). Follow-up on average was 12 months, with a range of 3 to 36 months.

Treatment of Recurrent Cases—For the 5 patients with recurrence, surgical margins were not reported in all the cases but ranged from 0.5 to 2 cm (4/5 [80%] reported). On average, follow-up for this group of patients was 29 months, with a range of 12 to 60 months (Table 3).

Another patient with recurrence (patient 13) presented with a chronic great toe ulcer of 5 years’ duration that formed on the dorsal aspect of the great toe after a previously excised wart (Figure 4A). This patient underwent mid-proximal metatarsal amputation with 2-cm margins and subsequent skin graft. Pathologic margins were negative. Within 6 months, there was hyperkeratosis and a draining wound (Figure 4B). Biopsy results confirmed recurrent disease that was treated with re-resection, including complete metatarsal amputation with negative margins and skin graft placement. Verrucous carcinoma recurred at the edges of the graft within 8 months, and the patient elected for a BKA. In addition, this patient also presented with a verrucous carcinoma of the contralateral great toe. The tumor presented as a warty ulcer of 4 months’ duration in the setting of osteomyelitis and was resected by great toe amputation that was performed concurrently with the opposite leg BKA; there has been no recurrence. Of note, this was the only patient to have right inguinal sentinel lymph node tissue sampled and HPV testing conducted, which were negative for verrucous carcinoma and high or low strains of HPV.

Another recurrent case (patient 14) presented with a large warty lesion on the dorsal great toe positive for verrucous carcinoma. He underwent a complete great toe amputation with skin graft placement. Verrucous carcinoma recurred on the edges of the graft within 6 months, and the patient was lost to follow-up when a BKA was suggested.

The fourth recurrent case (patient 15) initially had been treated for 1 year as a viral verruca of the dorsal aspect of the great toe. He had an exophytic mass positive for verrucous carcinoma growing on the dorsal aspect of the great toe around the prior excision site. After primary wide excision with negative 1-cm margins and graft placement, the tumor was re-excised twice within the next 2 years with pathologic negative margins. The patient underwent a foot amputation due to a severe osteomyelitis infection at the reconstruction site.

The final recurrent case (patient 16) presented with a mass on the lateral great toe that initially was treated as a viral verruca (for unknown duration) that had begun to ulcerate. The patient underwent wide excision with 1-cm margins and graft placement. Final pathology was consistent with verrucous carcinoma with negative margins. Recurrence occurred within 11 months on the edge of the graft, and a great toe amputation through the metatarsal phalangeal joint was performed.

Comment

Our series of 19 cases of verrucous carcinoma adds to the limited number of reported cases in the literature. We sought to evaluate the potential risk factors for early recurrence. Consistent with prior studies, our series found verrucous carcinoma of the foot to occur most frequently in patients aged 50 to 70 years, predominantly in White men.¹ These tumors grew in the setting of chronic inflammation, tissue regeneration, multiple comorbidities, and poor wound hygiene. Misdiagnosis of verrucous carcinoma often leads to ineffective treatments and local invasion of nerves, muscle, and bone tissue.^9,15,16 Our case series also clearly demonstrated the diagnostic challenge verrucous carcinoma presents, with an average delay in diagnosis of 5 years; correct diagnosis often did not occur until the tumor was 4 cm in size (average) and more than 50% had chronic ulceration. Tissue collection of the raised ulcer borders and the deep dermis layer of warty lesions is imperative for diagnosis. Clinicians should have a high suspicion for verrucous carcinoma in the setting of a chronic ulceration or warty lesion that is resistant to traditional treatment.

The histologic features of the tumors showed striking uniformity. Within the literature, there is confusion regarding the use of the terms verrucous carcinoma and carcinoma (epithelioma) cuniculatum and the possible pathologic differences between the two. The World Health Organization’s classification of skin tumors describes epithelioma cuniculatum as verrucous carcinoma located on the sole of the foot.⁷ Kubik and Rhatigan⁶ pointed out that carcinoma cuniculatum does not have a warty or verrucous surface, which is a defining feature of verrucous carcinoma. Multiple authors have further surmised that the deep burrowing sinus tracts of epithelioma cuniculatum are different than those seen in verrucous carcinoma formed by the undulations extending from the papillomatous and verrucous surface.^1,6 We did not observe these notable pathologic differences in recurrent or nonrecurrent primary tumors or differences between primary and recurrent cases. Although our cohort was small, the findings suggest that standard histologic features do not predict aggressive behavior in verrucous carcinomas. Furthermore, our observations support a model wherein recurrence is an inherent property of certain verrucous carcinomas rather than a consequence of histologic progression to conventional squamous cell carcinoma. The lack of overt malignant features in such cases underscores the need for distinction of verrucous carcinoma from benign mimics such as viral verruca or reactive epidermal hyperplasia.

Our recurrent cases showed a greater predilection for nonplantar surfaces and the great toe (P=.002). Five of 6 cases on the nonplantar surface—1 on the ankle and 5 on the great toe—recurred despite negative pathologic margins. There was no significant difference in demographics, pathogenesis, tumor size, chronicity, phenotype, or metastatic spread in recurrent and nonrecurrent cases in our cohort.

The tumor has only been described in rare instances at extrapedal cutaneous sites including the hand, scalp, and abdomen.^14,17,18 Our series did include a case of synchronous presentation with a verrucous carcinoma on the thumb. Given the rarity of this presentation, thus far there are no data supporting any atypical locations of verrucous carcinoma having greater instances of recurrence. Our recurrent cases displaying atypical location on nonglabrous skin could suggest an underlying pathologic mechanism distinct from tumors on glabrous skin and relevant to increased recurrence risk. Such a mechanism might relate to distinct genetic insults, tumor-microenvironment interactions, or field effects. There are few studies regarding physiologic differences between the plantar surface and the nonglabrous surface and how that influences cancer genesis. Within acral melanoma studies, nonglabrous skin of more sun-exposed surfaces has a higher burden of genetic insults including BRAF mutations.¹⁹ Genetic testing of verrucous carcinoma is highly limited, with abnormal expression of the p53 tumor suppressor protein and possible association with several types of HPV. Verrucous carcinoma in general has been found to contain HPV types 6 and 11, nononcogenic forms, and higher risk from HPV types 16 and 18.^9,20 However, only a few cases of HPV type 16 as well as 1 case each of HPV type 2 and type 11 have been found within verrucous carcinoma of the foot.^21,22 In squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, HPV-positive tumors have shown better response to treatment. Further investigation of HPV and genetic contributors in verrucous carcinoma is warranted.

There is notable evidence that surgical resection is the best mode of treatment of verrucous carcinoma.^2,3,10,11 Our case series was treated with wide local excision, with partial metatarsal amputation or great toe amputation, in cases with bone invasion or osteomyelitis. Surgical margins were not reported in all the cases but ranged from 0.5 to 2 cm with no significant differences between the recurrent and nonrecurrent groups. After excision, closure was conducted by incorporating primary, secondary, and delayed closure techniques, along with skin grafts for larger defects. Lymph node biopsy traditionally has not been recommended due to reported low metastatic potential. In all 5 recurrent cases, the tumors recurred after multiple attempts at wide excision and greater resection of bone and tissue, with negative margins. The tumors regrew quickly, within months, on the edges of the new graft or in the middle of the graft. The sites of recurrent tumor growth would suggest regrowth in the areas of greatest tissue stress and proliferation. We recommend a low threshold for biopsy and aggressive retreatment in the setting of exophytic growth at reconstruction sites.

Recurrence is uncommon in the setting of verrucous carcinoma, with our series being the first to analyze prognostic factors.^3,9,14 Our findings indicate that tumors of the nonglabrous surface of the foot should have a higher suspicion for possible local recurrence. Recurrence occurs within months of treatment, deserves early biopsy, and and warrants aggressive treatment. Our series and review highlight the continual diagnostic challenge of this tumor and the pathologic ambiguity that exists. We encourage earlier detection of verrucous carcinoma by appropriate deep tissue biopsy. Future directions should include more comprehensive examination of pathologic features and genetic markers to improve prognostication and management of recurrent and nonrecurrent verrucous carcinoma of the foot.

Verrucous carcinoma is a rare cancer with the greatest predilection for the foot. Multiple case reports with only a few large case series have been published. ^1-3 Plantar verrucous carcinoma is characterized as a slowly but relentlessly enlarging warty tumor with low metastatic potential and high risk for local invasion. The tumor occurs most frequently in patients aged 60 to 70 years, predominantly in White males. ¹ It often is misdiagnosed for years as an ulcer or wart that is highly resistant to therapy. Size typically ranges from 1 to 12 cm in greatest dimension. ¹

The pathogenesis of plantar verrucous carcinoma remains unclear, but some contributing factors have been proposed, including trauma, chronic irritation, infection, and poor local hygiene.² This tumor has been reported to occur in chronic foot ulcerations, particularly in the diabetic population.⁴ It has been proposed that abnormal expression of the p53 tumor suppressor protein and several types of human papillomavirus (HPV) may have a role in the pathogenesis of verrucous carcinoma.⁵

The pathologic hallmarks of this tumor include a verrucous/hyperkeratotic surface with a deeply endophytic, broad, pushing base. Tumor cells are well differentiated, and atypia is either absent or confined to 1 or 2 layers at the base of the tumor. Overt invasion at the base is lacking, except in cases with a component of conventional invasive squamous cell carcinoma. Human papillomavirus viropathic changes are classically absent.^1,3 Studies of the histopathology of verrucous carcinoma have been complicated by similar entities, nomenclatural uncertainty, and variable diagnostic criteria. For example, epithelioma cuniculatum variously has been defined as being synonymous with verrucous carcinoma, a distinct clinical verrucous carcinoma subtype occurring on the soles, a histologic subtype (characterized by prominent burrowing sinuses), or a separate entity entirely.^1,2,6,7 Furthermore, in the genital area, several different types of carcinomas have verruciform features but display distinct microscopic findings and outcomes from verrucous carcinoma.⁸

Verrucous carcinoma represents an unusual variant of squamous cell carcinoma and is treated as such. Treatments have included laser surgery; immunotherapy; retinoid therapy; and chemotherapy by oral, intralesional, or iontophoretic routes in select patients.⁹ Radiotherapy presents another option, though reports have described progression to aggressive squamous cell carcinoma in some cases.⁹ Surgery is the best course of treatment, and as more case reports have been published, a transition from radical resection to wide excision with tumor-free margins is the treatment of choice.^2,3,10,11 To minimize soft-tissue deficits, Mohs micrographic surgery has been discussed as a treatment option for verrucous carcinoma.^11-13

Few studies have described verrucous carcinoma recurrence, and none have systematically examined recurrence rate, risk factors, or prognosis.^3,9,14 In our retrospective review of 19 new cases of verrucous carcinoma of the foot, we examined 5 recurrent tumors despite negative margin surgical resection and report risk factors and surgical management of these lesions.

Methods

Patient cases were identified through the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) pathology database from 1995 to 2019 based on the primary diagnosis of verrucous carcinoma located on the foot. Nineteen cases were identified and were included in demographic and clinical presentation analyses. Medical records were reviewed to abstract selected clinical data and outcomes of analysis.

Of the 19 cases, 16 were treated at the University of Michigan and are included in the treatment analyses. Specific attention was then paid to the cases with a clinical recurrence despite negative surgical margins. We compared the clinical and surgical differences between recurrent cases and nonrecurrent cases.

Pathology was rereviewed for selected cases, including 2 cases with recurrence and matched primary, 2 cases with recurrence (for which the matched primary was unavailable for review), and 5 representative primary cases that were not complicated by recurrence. Pathology review was conducted in a blinded manner by one of the authors (P.W.H) who is a board-certified dermatopathologist for approximate depth of invasion from the granular layer, perineural invasion, bone invasion, infiltrative growth, presence of conventional squamous cell carcinoma, and margin status.

Statistical analysis was performed when appropriate using an N1 χ² test or Student t test.

Results

Demographics and Comorbidities—The median age of the patients at the time of diagnosis was 55 years (range, 34–77 years). There were 12 males and 7 females (Table 1). Two patients were Black and 17 were White. Almost all patients had additional comorbidities including tobacco use (68%), alcohol use (47%), and diabetes (47%). Only 1 patient had an autoimmune disease and was on chronic steroids. No significant difference was found between the demographics of patients with recurrent lesions and those without recurrence.

Tumor Location and Clinical Presentation—The most common clinical presentation included a nonhealing ulceration with warty edges, pain, bleeding, and lowered mobility. In most cases, there was history of prior treatment over a duration ranging from 1 to 8 years, with a median of 5 years prior to biopsy-based diagnosis (Table 1). Six patients had a history of osteomyelitis, diagnosed by imaging or biopsy, within a year before tumor diagnosis. The size of the primary tumor ranged from 2.4 to 6 cm, with a mean of 4 cm (P=.20). The clinical presentation, time before diagnosis, and size of the tumors did not differ significantly between recurrent and nonrecurrent cases.

The tumor location for the recurrent cases differed significantly compared to nonrecurrent cases. All 5 of the patients with a recurrence presented with a tumor on the nonglabrous part of the foot. Four patients (80%) had lesions on the dorsal or lateral aspect of the great toe (P=.002), and 1 patient (20%) had a lesion on the low ankle (P=.09)(Table 1). Of the nonrecurrent cases, 1 patient (7%) presented with a tumor on the plantar surface of the great toe (P=.002), 13 patients (93%) presented with tumors on the distal plantar surface of the foot (P=.0002), and 1 patient with a plantar foot tumor (Figure 1) also had verrucous carcinoma on the thumb (Table 1 and Figure 2).

Histopathology—Available pathology slides for recurrent cases of verrucous carcinoma were reviewed alongside representative cases of verrucous carcinomas that did not progress to recurrence. The diagnosis of verrucous carcinoma was confirmed in all cases, with no evidence of conventional squamous cell carcinoma, perineural invasion, extension beyond the dermis, or bone invasion in any case. The median size of the tumors was 4.2 cm and 4 cm for nonrecurrent and recurrent specimens, respectively. Recurrences displayed a trend toward increased depth compared to primary tumors without recurrence (average depth, 5.5 mm vs 3.7 mm); however, this did not reach statistical significance (P=.24). Primary tumors that progressed to recurrence (n=2) displayed similar findings to the other cases, with invasive depths of 3.5 and 5.5 mm, and there was no evidence of conventional squamous cell carcinoma, perineural invasion, or extension beyond the dermis.

Treatment of Nonrecurrent Cases—Of the 16 total cases treated at the University of Michigan, surgery was the primary mode of therapy in every case (Tables 2 and 3). Of the 11 nonrecurrent cases, 7 patients had wide local excision with a dermal regeneration template, and delayed split-thickness graft reconstruction. Three cases had wide local excision with metatarsal resection, dermal regeneration template, and delayed skin grafting. One case had a great toe amputation. Surgical margins were not reported in all the cases but ranged from 0.5 to 2 cm (8/11 [73%] reported). Three cases had positive margins at the time of primary resection; 2 were treated with further resection, and 1 had a below the knee amputation (BKA). Follow-up on average was 12 months, with a range of 3 to 36 months.

Treatment of Recurrent Cases—For the 5 patients with recurrence, surgical margins were not reported in all the cases but ranged from 0.5 to 2 cm (4/5 [80%] reported). On average, follow-up for this group of patients was 29 months, with a range of 12 to 60 months (Table 3).

Another patient with recurrence (patient 13) presented with a chronic great toe ulcer of 5 years’ duration that formed on the dorsal aspect of the great toe after a previously excised wart (Figure 4A). This patient underwent mid-proximal metatarsal amputation with 2-cm margins and subsequent skin graft. Pathologic margins were negative. Within 6 months, there was hyperkeratosis and a draining wound (Figure 4B). Biopsy results confirmed recurrent disease that was treated with re-resection, including complete metatarsal amputation with negative margins and skin graft placement. Verrucous carcinoma recurred at the edges of the graft within 8 months, and the patient elected for a BKA. In addition, this patient also presented with a verrucous carcinoma of the contralateral great toe. The tumor presented as a warty ulcer of 4 months’ duration in the setting of osteomyelitis and was resected by great toe amputation that was performed concurrently with the opposite leg BKA; there has been no recurrence. Of note, this was the only patient to have right inguinal sentinel lymph node tissue sampled and HPV testing conducted, which were negative for verrucous carcinoma and high or low strains of HPV.

Another recurrent case (patient 14) presented with a large warty lesion on the dorsal great toe positive for verrucous carcinoma. He underwent a complete great toe amputation with skin graft placement. Verrucous carcinoma recurred on the edges of the graft within 6 months, and the patient was lost to follow-up when a BKA was suggested.

The fourth recurrent case (patient 15) initially had been treated for 1 year as a viral verruca of the dorsal aspect of the great toe. He had an exophytic mass positive for verrucous carcinoma growing on the dorsal aspect of the great toe around the prior excision site. After primary wide excision with negative 1-cm margins and graft placement, the tumor was re-excised twice within the next 2 years with pathologic negative margins. The patient underwent a foot amputation due to a severe osteomyelitis infection at the reconstruction site.

The final recurrent case (patient 16) presented with a mass on the lateral great toe that initially was treated as a viral verruca (for unknown duration) that had begun to ulcerate. The patient underwent wide excision with 1-cm margins and graft placement. Final pathology was consistent with verrucous carcinoma with negative margins. Recurrence occurred within 11 months on the edge of the graft, and a great toe amputation through the metatarsal phalangeal joint was performed.

Comment

Our series of 19 cases of verrucous carcinoma adds to the limited number of reported cases in the literature. We sought to evaluate the potential risk factors for early recurrence. Consistent with prior studies, our series found verrucous carcinoma of the foot to occur most frequently in patients aged 50 to 70 years, predominantly in White men.¹ These tumors grew in the setting of chronic inflammation, tissue regeneration, multiple comorbidities, and poor wound hygiene. Misdiagnosis of verrucous carcinoma often leads to ineffective treatments and local invasion of nerves, muscle, and bone tissue.^9,15,16 Our case series also clearly demonstrated the diagnostic challenge verrucous carcinoma presents, with an average delay in diagnosis of 5 years; correct diagnosis often did not occur until the tumor was 4 cm in size (average) and more than 50% had chronic ulceration. Tissue collection of the raised ulcer borders and the deep dermis layer of warty lesions is imperative for diagnosis. Clinicians should have a high suspicion for verrucous carcinoma in the setting of a chronic ulceration or warty lesion that is resistant to traditional treatment.

The histologic features of the tumors showed striking uniformity. Within the literature, there is confusion regarding the use of the terms verrucous carcinoma and carcinoma (epithelioma) cuniculatum and the possible pathologic differences between the two. The World Health Organization’s classification of skin tumors describes epithelioma cuniculatum as verrucous carcinoma located on the sole of the foot.⁷ Kubik and Rhatigan⁶ pointed out that carcinoma cuniculatum does not have a warty or verrucous surface, which is a defining feature of verrucous carcinoma. Multiple authors have further surmised that the deep burrowing sinus tracts of epithelioma cuniculatum are different than those seen in verrucous carcinoma formed by the undulations extending from the papillomatous and verrucous surface.^1,6 We did not observe these notable pathologic differences in recurrent or nonrecurrent primary tumors or differences between primary and recurrent cases. Although our cohort was small, the findings suggest that standard histologic features do not predict aggressive behavior in verrucous carcinomas. Furthermore, our observations support a model wherein recurrence is an inherent property of certain verrucous carcinomas rather than a consequence of histologic progression to conventional squamous cell carcinoma. The lack of overt malignant features in such cases underscores the need for distinction of verrucous carcinoma from benign mimics such as viral verruca or reactive epidermal hyperplasia.

Our recurrent cases showed a greater predilection for nonplantar surfaces and the great toe (P=.002). Five of 6 cases on the nonplantar surface—1 on the ankle and 5 on the great toe—recurred despite negative pathologic margins. There was no significant difference in demographics, pathogenesis, tumor size, chronicity, phenotype, or metastatic spread in recurrent and nonrecurrent cases in our cohort.

The tumor has only been described in rare instances at extrapedal cutaneous sites including the hand, scalp, and abdomen.^14,17,18 Our series did include a case of synchronous presentation with a verrucous carcinoma on the thumb. Given the rarity of this presentation, thus far there are no data supporting any atypical locations of verrucous carcinoma having greater instances of recurrence. Our recurrent cases displaying atypical location on nonglabrous skin could suggest an underlying pathologic mechanism distinct from tumors on glabrous skin and relevant to increased recurrence risk. Such a mechanism might relate to distinct genetic insults, tumor-microenvironment interactions, or field effects. There are few studies regarding physiologic differences between the plantar surface and the nonglabrous surface and how that influences cancer genesis. Within acral melanoma studies, nonglabrous skin of more sun-exposed surfaces has a higher burden of genetic insults including BRAF mutations.¹⁹ Genetic testing of verrucous carcinoma is highly limited, with abnormal expression of the p53 tumor suppressor protein and possible association with several types of HPV. Verrucous carcinoma in general has been found to contain HPV types 6 and 11, nononcogenic forms, and higher risk from HPV types 16 and 18.^9,20 However, only a few cases of HPV type 16 as well as 1 case each of HPV type 2 and type 11 have been found within verrucous carcinoma of the foot.^21,22 In squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, HPV-positive tumors have shown better response to treatment. Further investigation of HPV and genetic contributors in verrucous carcinoma is warranted.

There is notable evidence that surgical resection is the best mode of treatment of verrucous carcinoma.^2,3,10,11 Our case series was treated with wide local excision, with partial metatarsal amputation or great toe amputation, in cases with bone invasion or osteomyelitis. Surgical margins were not reported in all the cases but ranged from 0.5 to 2 cm with no significant differences between the recurrent and nonrecurrent groups. After excision, closure was conducted by incorporating primary, secondary, and delayed closure techniques, along with skin grafts for larger defects. Lymph node biopsy traditionally has not been recommended due to reported low metastatic potential. In all 5 recurrent cases, the tumors recurred after multiple attempts at wide excision and greater resection of bone and tissue, with negative margins. The tumors regrew quickly, within months, on the edges of the new graft or in the middle of the graft. The sites of recurrent tumor growth would suggest regrowth in the areas of greatest tissue stress and proliferation. We recommend a low threshold for biopsy and aggressive retreatment in the setting of exophytic growth at reconstruction sites.

Recurrence is uncommon in the setting of verrucous carcinoma, with our series being the first to analyze prognostic factors.^3,9,14 Our findings indicate that tumors of the nonglabrous surface of the foot should have a higher suspicion for possible local recurrence. Recurrence occurs within months of treatment, deserves early biopsy, and and warrants aggressive treatment. Our series and review highlight the continual diagnostic challenge of this tumor and the pathologic ambiguity that exists. We encourage earlier detection of verrucous carcinoma by appropriate deep tissue biopsy. Future directions should include more comprehensive examination of pathologic features and genetic markers to improve prognostication and management of recurrent and nonrecurrent verrucous carcinoma of the foot.

Verrucous carcinoma is a rare cancer with the greatest predilection for the foot. Multiple case reports with only a few large case series have been published. ^1-3 Plantar verrucous carcinoma is characterized as a slowly but relentlessly enlarging warty tumor with low metastatic potential and high risk for local invasion. The tumor occurs most frequently in patients aged 60 to 70 years, predominantly in White males. ¹ It often is misdiagnosed for years as an ulcer or wart that is highly resistant to therapy. Size typically ranges from 1 to 12 cm in greatest dimension. ¹

The pathogenesis of plantar verrucous carcinoma remains unclear, but some contributing factors have been proposed, including trauma, chronic irritation, infection, and poor local hygiene.² This tumor has been reported to occur in chronic foot ulcerations, particularly in the diabetic population.⁴ It has been proposed that abnormal expression of the p53 tumor suppressor protein and several types of human papillomavirus (HPV) may have a role in the pathogenesis of verrucous carcinoma.⁵

The pathologic hallmarks of this tumor include a verrucous/hyperkeratotic surface with a deeply endophytic, broad, pushing base. Tumor cells are well differentiated, and atypia is either absent or confined to 1 or 2 layers at the base of the tumor. Overt invasion at the base is lacking, except in cases with a component of conventional invasive squamous cell carcinoma. Human papillomavirus viropathic changes are classically absent.^1,3 Studies of the histopathology of verrucous carcinoma have been complicated by similar entities, nomenclatural uncertainty, and variable diagnostic criteria. For example, epithelioma cuniculatum variously has been defined as being synonymous with verrucous carcinoma, a distinct clinical verrucous carcinoma subtype occurring on the soles, a histologic subtype (characterized by prominent burrowing sinuses), or a separate entity entirely.^1,2,6,7 Furthermore, in the genital area, several different types of carcinomas have verruciform features but display distinct microscopic findings and outcomes from verrucous carcinoma.⁸

Verrucous carcinoma represents an unusual variant of squamous cell carcinoma and is treated as such. Treatments have included laser surgery; immunotherapy; retinoid therapy; and chemotherapy by oral, intralesional, or iontophoretic routes in select patients.⁹ Radiotherapy presents another option, though reports have described progression to aggressive squamous cell carcinoma in some cases.⁹ Surgery is the best course of treatment, and as more case reports have been published, a transition from radical resection to wide excision with tumor-free margins is the treatment of choice.^2,3,10,11 To minimize soft-tissue deficits, Mohs micrographic surgery has been discussed as a treatment option for verrucous carcinoma.^11-13

Few studies have described verrucous carcinoma recurrence, and none have systematically examined recurrence rate, risk factors, or prognosis.^3,9,14 In our retrospective review of 19 new cases of verrucous carcinoma of the foot, we examined 5 recurrent tumors despite negative margin surgical resection and report risk factors and surgical management of these lesions.

Methods

Patient cases were identified through the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) pathology database from 1995 to 2019 based on the primary diagnosis of verrucous carcinoma located on the foot. Nineteen cases were identified and were included in demographic and clinical presentation analyses. Medical records were reviewed to abstract selected clinical data and outcomes of analysis.

Of the 19 cases, 16 were treated at the University of Michigan and are included in the treatment analyses. Specific attention was then paid to the cases with a clinical recurrence despite negative surgical margins. We compared the clinical and surgical differences between recurrent cases and nonrecurrent cases.

Pathology was rereviewed for selected cases, including 2 cases with recurrence and matched primary, 2 cases with recurrence (for which the matched primary was unavailable for review), and 5 representative primary cases that were not complicated by recurrence. Pathology review was conducted in a blinded manner by one of the authors (P.W.H) who is a board-certified dermatopathologist for approximate depth of invasion from the granular layer, perineural invasion, bone invasion, infiltrative growth, presence of conventional squamous cell carcinoma, and margin status.

Statistical analysis was performed when appropriate using an N1 χ² test or Student t test.

Results

Demographics and Comorbidities—The median age of the patients at the time of diagnosis was 55 years (range, 34–77 years). There were 12 males and 7 females (Table 1). Two patients were Black and 17 were White. Almost all patients had additional comorbidities including tobacco use (68%), alcohol use (47%), and diabetes (47%). Only 1 patient had an autoimmune disease and was on chronic steroids. No significant difference was found between the demographics of patients with recurrent lesions and those without recurrence.

Tumor Location and Clinical Presentation—The most common clinical presentation included a nonhealing ulceration with warty edges, pain, bleeding, and lowered mobility. In most cases, there was history of prior treatment over a duration ranging from 1 to 8 years, with a median of 5 years prior to biopsy-based diagnosis (Table 1). Six patients had a history of osteomyelitis, diagnosed by imaging or biopsy, within a year before tumor diagnosis. The size of the primary tumor ranged from 2.4 to 6 cm, with a mean of 4 cm (P=.20). The clinical presentation, time before diagnosis, and size of the tumors did not differ significantly between recurrent and nonrecurrent cases.

The tumor location for the recurrent cases differed significantly compared to nonrecurrent cases. All 5 of the patients with a recurrence presented with a tumor on the nonglabrous part of the foot. Four patients (80%) had lesions on the dorsal or lateral aspect of the great toe (P=.002), and 1 patient (20%) had a lesion on the low ankle (P=.09)(Table 1). Of the nonrecurrent cases, 1 patient (7%) presented with a tumor on the plantar surface of the great toe (P=.002), 13 patients (93%) presented with tumors on the distal plantar surface of the foot (P=.0002), and 1 patient with a plantar foot tumor (Figure 1) also had verrucous carcinoma on the thumb (Table 1 and Figure 2).

Histopathology—Available pathology slides for recurrent cases of verrucous carcinoma were reviewed alongside representative cases of verrucous carcinomas that did not progress to recurrence. The diagnosis of verrucous carcinoma was confirmed in all cases, with no evidence of conventional squamous cell carcinoma, perineural invasion, extension beyond the dermis, or bone invasion in any case. The median size of the tumors was 4.2 cm and 4 cm for nonrecurrent and recurrent specimens, respectively. Recurrences displayed a trend toward increased depth compared to primary tumors without recurrence (average depth, 5.5 mm vs 3.7 mm); however, this did not reach statistical significance (P=.24). Primary tumors that progressed to recurrence (n=2) displayed similar findings to the other cases, with invasive depths of 3.5 and 5.5 mm, and there was no evidence of conventional squamous cell carcinoma, perineural invasion, or extension beyond the dermis.

Treatment of Nonrecurrent Cases—Of the 16 total cases treated at the University of Michigan, surgery was the primary mode of therapy in every case (Tables 2 and 3). Of the 11 nonrecurrent cases, 7 patients had wide local excision with a dermal regeneration template, and delayed split-thickness graft reconstruction. Three cases had wide local excision with metatarsal resection, dermal regeneration template, and delayed skin grafting. One case had a great toe amputation. Surgical margins were not reported in all the cases but ranged from 0.5 to 2 cm (8/11 [73%] reported). Three cases had positive margins at the time of primary resection; 2 were treated with further resection, and 1 had a below the knee amputation (BKA). Follow-up on average was 12 months, with a range of 3 to 36 months.

Treatment of Recurrent Cases—For the 5 patients with recurrence, surgical margins were not reported in all the cases but ranged from 0.5 to 2 cm (4/5 [80%] reported). On average, follow-up for this group of patients was 29 months, with a range of 12 to 60 months (Table 3).

Another patient with recurrence (patient 13) presented with a chronic great toe ulcer of 5 years’ duration that formed on the dorsal aspect of the great toe after a previously excised wart (Figure 4A). This patient underwent mid-proximal metatarsal amputation with 2-cm margins and subsequent skin graft. Pathologic margins were negative. Within 6 months, there was hyperkeratosis and a draining wound (Figure 4B). Biopsy results confirmed recurrent disease that was treated with re-resection, including complete metatarsal amputation with negative margins and skin graft placement. Verrucous carcinoma recurred at the edges of the graft within 8 months, and the patient elected for a BKA. In addition, this patient also presented with a verrucous carcinoma of the contralateral great toe. The tumor presented as a warty ulcer of 4 months’ duration in the setting of osteomyelitis and was resected by great toe amputation that was performed concurrently with the opposite leg BKA; there has been no recurrence. Of note, this was the only patient to have right inguinal sentinel lymph node tissue sampled and HPV testing conducted, which were negative for verrucous carcinoma and high or low strains of HPV.

Another recurrent case (patient 14) presented with a large warty lesion on the dorsal great toe positive for verrucous carcinoma. He underwent a complete great toe amputation with skin graft placement. Verrucous carcinoma recurred on the edges of the graft within 6 months, and the patient was lost to follow-up when a BKA was suggested.

The fourth recurrent case (patient 15) initially had been treated for 1 year as a viral verruca of the dorsal aspect of the great toe. He had an exophytic mass positive for verrucous carcinoma growing on the dorsal aspect of the great toe around the prior excision site. After primary wide excision with negative 1-cm margins and graft placement, the tumor was re-excised twice within the next 2 years with pathologic negative margins. The patient underwent a foot amputation due to a severe osteomyelitis infection at the reconstruction site.

The final recurrent case (patient 16) presented with a mass on the lateral great toe that initially was treated as a viral verruca (for unknown duration) that had begun to ulcerate. The patient underwent wide excision with 1-cm margins and graft placement. Final pathology was consistent with verrucous carcinoma with negative margins. Recurrence occurred within 11 months on the edge of the graft, and a great toe amputation through the metatarsal phalangeal joint was performed.

Comment

Our series of 19 cases of verrucous carcinoma adds to the limited number of reported cases in the literature. We sought to evaluate the potential risk factors for early recurrence. Consistent with prior studies, our series found verrucous carcinoma of the foot to occur most frequently in patients aged 50 to 70 years, predominantly in White men.¹ These tumors grew in the setting of chronic inflammation, tissue regeneration, multiple comorbidities, and poor wound hygiene. Misdiagnosis of verrucous carcinoma often leads to ineffective treatments and local invasion of nerves, muscle, and bone tissue.^9,15,16 Our case series also clearly demonstrated the diagnostic challenge verrucous carcinoma presents, with an average delay in diagnosis of 5 years; correct diagnosis often did not occur until the tumor was 4 cm in size (average) and more than 50% had chronic ulceration. Tissue collection of the raised ulcer borders and the deep dermis layer of warty lesions is imperative for diagnosis. Clinicians should have a high suspicion for verrucous carcinoma in the setting of a chronic ulceration or warty lesion that is resistant to traditional treatment.

The histologic features of the tumors showed striking uniformity. Within the literature, there is confusion regarding the use of the terms verrucous carcinoma and carcinoma (epithelioma) cuniculatum and the possible pathologic differences between the two. The World Health Organization’s classification of skin tumors describes epithelioma cuniculatum as verrucous carcinoma located on the sole of the foot.⁷ Kubik and Rhatigan⁶ pointed out that carcinoma cuniculatum does not have a warty or verrucous surface, which is a defining feature of verrucous carcinoma. Multiple authors have further surmised that the deep burrowing sinus tracts of epithelioma cuniculatum are different than those seen in verrucous carcinoma formed by the undulations extending from the papillomatous and verrucous surface.^1,6 We did not observe these notable pathologic differences in recurrent or nonrecurrent primary tumors or differences between primary and recurrent cases. Although our cohort was small, the findings suggest that standard histologic features do not predict aggressive behavior in verrucous carcinomas. Furthermore, our observations support a model wherein recurrence is an inherent property of certain verrucous carcinomas rather than a consequence of histologic progression to conventional squamous cell carcinoma. The lack of overt malignant features in such cases underscores the need for distinction of verrucous carcinoma from benign mimics such as viral verruca or reactive epidermal hyperplasia.

Our recurrent cases showed a greater predilection for nonplantar surfaces and the great toe (P=.002). Five of 6 cases on the nonplantar surface—1 on the ankle and 5 on the great toe—recurred despite negative pathologic margins. There was no significant difference in demographics, pathogenesis, tumor size, chronicity, phenotype, or metastatic spread in recurrent and nonrecurrent cases in our cohort.

The tumor has only been described in rare instances at extrapedal cutaneous sites including the hand, scalp, and abdomen.^14,17,18 Our series did include a case of synchronous presentation with a verrucous carcinoma on the thumb. Given the rarity of this presentation, thus far there are no data supporting any atypical locations of verrucous carcinoma having greater instances of recurrence. Our recurrent cases displaying atypical location on nonglabrous skin could suggest an underlying pathologic mechanism distinct from tumors on glabrous skin and relevant to increased recurrence risk. Such a mechanism might relate to distinct genetic insults, tumor-microenvironment interactions, or field effects. There are few studies regarding physiologic differences between the plantar surface and the nonglabrous surface and how that influences cancer genesis. Within acral melanoma studies, nonglabrous skin of more sun-exposed surfaces has a higher burden of genetic insults including BRAF mutations.¹⁹ Genetic testing of verrucous carcinoma is highly limited, with abnormal expression of the p53 tumor suppressor protein and possible association with several types of HPV. Verrucous carcinoma in general has been found to contain HPV types 6 and 11, nononcogenic forms, and higher risk from HPV types 16 and 18.^9,20 However, only a few cases of HPV type 16 as well as 1 case each of HPV type 2 and type 11 have been found within verrucous carcinoma of the foot.^21,22 In squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, HPV-positive tumors have shown better response to treatment. Further investigation of HPV and genetic contributors in verrucous carcinoma is warranted.

There is notable evidence that surgical resection is the best mode of treatment of verrucous carcinoma.^2,3,10,11 Our case series was treated with wide local excision, with partial metatarsal amputation or great toe amputation, in cases with bone invasion or osteomyelitis. Surgical margins were not reported in all the cases but ranged from 0.5 to 2 cm with no significant differences between the recurrent and nonrecurrent groups. After excision, closure was conducted by incorporating primary, secondary, and delayed closure techniques, along with skin grafts for larger defects. Lymph node biopsy traditionally has not been recommended due to reported low metastatic potential. In all 5 recurrent cases, the tumors recurred after multiple attempts at wide excision and greater resection of bone and tissue, with negative margins. The tumors regrew quickly, within months, on the edges of the new graft or in the middle of the graft. The sites of recurrent tumor growth would suggest regrowth in the areas of greatest tissue stress and proliferation. We recommend a low threshold for biopsy and aggressive retreatment in the setting of exophytic growth at reconstruction sites.

Recurrence is uncommon in the setting of verrucous carcinoma, with our series being the first to analyze prognostic factors.^3,9,14 Our findings indicate that tumors of the nonglabrous surface of the foot should have a higher suspicion for possible local recurrence. Recurrence occurs within months of treatment, deserves early biopsy, and and warrants aggressive treatment. Our series and review highlight the continual diagnostic challenge of this tumor and the pathologic ambiguity that exists. We encourage earlier detection of verrucous carcinoma by appropriate deep tissue biopsy. Future directions should include more comprehensive examination of pathologic features and genetic markers to improve prognostication and management of recurrent and nonrecurrent verrucous carcinoma of the foot.

To the Editor:

Dermatologists sometimes are consulted in the inpatient setting to rule out possible skin cancer. This scenario provides an opportunity to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of cutaneous malignancy, often in patients who might not have sought regular outpatient dermatology care. Few studies have described the outcomes of inpatient biopsies to identify skin cancer.^1,2

Seeking to better understand the nature of these patient encounters, we reviewed all consultations at a medical center for which the referring physician suspected skin cancer rather than only those lesions that were biopsied by the dermatologist. We also collected data about subsequent treatment to better understand the outcomes of these patient encounters.

We conducted a retrospective review of inpatient dermatology referrals at an academic-affiliated tertiary medical center. We identified all patients who were provided with an inpatient dermatology consultation for suspected skin cancer or what was identified as a “skin lesion” between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2019. We collected information on each patient’s sex, age at time of consultation, and race, as well as the specialty of the referring provider, lesion location, maximum diameter of the lesion, whether a biopsy was performed, where the biopsy was performed (inpatient or outpatient setting), clinical diagnosis, histopathologic diagnosis, and subsequent treatment.

The institutional review board at Eastern Virginia Medical School (Norfolk, Virginia) approved this study, and all protocol conformed to the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Thirty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria. Their characteristics are listed in the Table. Consultations for possible skin cancer accounted for 4% (38/950) of all inpatient dermatology consultations over the study period. Outcomes of the referrals are shown in the Figure. Consultations were received from 12 different physician specialties.

In the 38 patients, 47 lesions were identified; most (66% [31/47]) were on the head and neck. Twenty of 38 patients were found to have at least 1 biopsy-confirmed cutaneous malignancy (23 total tumors). Of those 23 identified malignancies, 10 were basal cell carcinoma, 11 squamous cell carcinoma, 1 malignant melanoma, and 1 anaplastic T-cell lymphoma. Of note, 17 of 23 (74%) identified cutaneous malignancies were 2.0 cm in diameter at biopsy or larger. Subsequently performed treatments for these patients included wide local excision (n=3), Mohs micrographic surgery (n=5), radiation therapy (n=3), topical fluorouracil (n=1), electrodesiccation and curettage (n=4), and chemotherapy or immunotherapy (n=2). Two patients who were diagnosed with skin cancer died of unrelated causes before treatment was completed.

In 10 of 38 patients, only nonmalignant entities were diagnosed, including seborrheic keratosis (n=6), benign melanocytic nevus (n=1), epidermal inclusion cyst (n=1), actinic keratosis (n=1), and radiation-induced necrosis (n=1). Of the 8 remaining patients, 4 were ultimately lost to follow-up before planned outpatient biopsy could be completed; 1 opted to follow up for biopsy at an unaffiliated outpatient dermatology provider. For 2 patients, the decision was made to forgo biopsy despite clinical suspicion of skin cancer because of overall poor health status, and 1 additional patient died before a planned outpatient biopsy could be performed.

In summary, approximately half of the inpatient dermatology consultations for suspected cutaneous malignancy resulted in a diagnosis of skin cancer. The patients in this population were admitted for a range of diagnoses, most unrelated to their cutaneous malignancy, suggesting that the inpatient setting offers the opportunity for physicians in a variety of specialties to help identify skin cancer that might otherwise be unaddressed and then facilitate management, whether ultimately in an inpatient or outpatient setting.

In many of these cases, it might be most appropriate to arrange subsequent outpatient dermatology follow-up after hospitalization, rather than making an inpatient consultation, as these situations usually are nonurgent and not directly related to hospitalization. However, in cases in which the lesion is directly related to admission, the lesion is advanced, there is concern for metastatic disease, or extenuating circumstances make outpatient follow-up difficult, inpatient dermatology consultation may be reasonable. There sometimes can be compelling reasons to expedite diagnosis and treatment as an inpatient.

In hospitalized, medically complex patients, in whom a new cutaneous malignancy is identified, dermatologists should discuss the situation thoughtfully with the patient, the patient’s family (when appropriate), and other physicians on the treatment team to determine the most appropriate course of action. In some cases, the most appropriate course might be to delay biopsy or treatment until the outpatient setting or to even defer further action completely when the prognosis is very limited. Consulting dermatologists must be mindful of patients’ overall medical situation in planning care for a cutaneous malignancy in these inpatient situations.

This study also highlights the surprising number of large-diameter, high-risk tumors identified in these scenarios. Limitations of this study include a relatively small sample size from a single facility that might not be representative of other practice settings and locations. Future multicenter studies could further explore the impact of inpatient dermatologic consultation on the diagnosis and management of skin cancer.

To the Editor:

Dermatologists sometimes are consulted in the inpatient setting to rule out possible skin cancer. This scenario provides an opportunity to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of cutaneous malignancy, often in patients who might not have sought regular outpatient dermatology care. Few studies have described the outcomes of inpatient biopsies to identify skin cancer.^1,2

Seeking to better understand the nature of these patient encounters, we reviewed all consultations at a medical center for which the referring physician suspected skin cancer rather than only those lesions that were biopsied by the dermatologist. We also collected data about subsequent treatment to better understand the outcomes of these patient encounters.

We conducted a retrospective review of inpatient dermatology referrals at an academic-affiliated tertiary medical center. We identified all patients who were provided with an inpatient dermatology consultation for suspected skin cancer or what was identified as a “skin lesion” between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2019. We collected information on each patient’s sex, age at time of consultation, and race, as well as the specialty of the referring provider, lesion location, maximum diameter of the lesion, whether a biopsy was performed, where the biopsy was performed (inpatient or outpatient setting), clinical diagnosis, histopathologic diagnosis, and subsequent treatment.

The institutional review board at Eastern Virginia Medical School (Norfolk, Virginia) approved this study, and all protocol conformed to the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Thirty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria. Their characteristics are listed in the Table. Consultations for possible skin cancer accounted for 4% (38/950) of all inpatient dermatology consultations over the study period. Outcomes of the referrals are shown in the Figure. Consultations were received from 12 different physician specialties.

In the 38 patients, 47 lesions were identified; most (66% [31/47]) were on the head and neck. Twenty of 38 patients were found to have at least 1 biopsy-confirmed cutaneous malignancy (23 total tumors). Of those 23 identified malignancies, 10 were basal cell carcinoma, 11 squamous cell carcinoma, 1 malignant melanoma, and 1 anaplastic T-cell lymphoma. Of note, 17 of 23 (74%) identified cutaneous malignancies were 2.0 cm in diameter at biopsy or larger. Subsequently performed treatments for these patients included wide local excision (n=3), Mohs micrographic surgery (n=5), radiation therapy (n=3), topical fluorouracil (n=1), electrodesiccation and curettage (n=4), and chemotherapy or immunotherapy (n=2). Two patients who were diagnosed with skin cancer died of unrelated causes before treatment was completed.

In 10 of 38 patients, only nonmalignant entities were diagnosed, including seborrheic keratosis (n=6), benign melanocytic nevus (n=1), epidermal inclusion cyst (n=1), actinic keratosis (n=1), and radiation-induced necrosis (n=1). Of the 8 remaining patients, 4 were ultimately lost to follow-up before planned outpatient biopsy could be completed; 1 opted to follow up for biopsy at an unaffiliated outpatient dermatology provider. For 2 patients, the decision was made to forgo biopsy despite clinical suspicion of skin cancer because of overall poor health status, and 1 additional patient died before a planned outpatient biopsy could be performed.

In summary, approximately half of the inpatient dermatology consultations for suspected cutaneous malignancy resulted in a diagnosis of skin cancer. The patients in this population were admitted for a range of diagnoses, most unrelated to their cutaneous malignancy, suggesting that the inpatient setting offers the opportunity for physicians in a variety of specialties to help identify skin cancer that might otherwise be unaddressed and then facilitate management, whether ultimately in an inpatient or outpatient setting.

In many of these cases, it might be most appropriate to arrange subsequent outpatient dermatology follow-up after hospitalization, rather than making an inpatient consultation, as these situations usually are nonurgent and not directly related to hospitalization. However, in cases in which the lesion is directly related to admission, the lesion is advanced, there is concern for metastatic disease, or extenuating circumstances make outpatient follow-up difficult, inpatient dermatology consultation may be reasonable. There sometimes can be compelling reasons to expedite diagnosis and treatment as an inpatient.

In hospitalized, medically complex patients, in whom a new cutaneous malignancy is identified, dermatologists should discuss the situation thoughtfully with the patient, the patient’s family (when appropriate), and other physicians on the treatment team to determine the most appropriate course of action. In some cases, the most appropriate course might be to delay biopsy or treatment until the outpatient setting or to even defer further action completely when the prognosis is very limited. Consulting dermatologists must be mindful of patients’ overall medical situation in planning care for a cutaneous malignancy in these inpatient situations.

This study also highlights the surprising number of large-diameter, high-risk tumors identified in these scenarios. Limitations of this study include a relatively small sample size from a single facility that might not be representative of other practice settings and locations. Future multicenter studies could further explore the impact of inpatient dermatologic consultation on the diagnosis and management of skin cancer.

To the Editor:

Dermatologists sometimes are consulted in the inpatient setting to rule out possible skin cancer. This scenario provides an opportunity to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of cutaneous malignancy, often in patients who might not have sought regular outpatient dermatology care. Few studies have described the outcomes of inpatient biopsies to identify skin cancer.^1,2

Seeking to better understand the nature of these patient encounters, we reviewed all consultations at a medical center for which the referring physician suspected skin cancer rather than only those lesions that were biopsied by the dermatologist. We also collected data about subsequent treatment to better understand the outcomes of these patient encounters.

We conducted a retrospective review of inpatient dermatology referrals at an academic-affiliated tertiary medical center. We identified all patients who were provided with an inpatient dermatology consultation for suspected skin cancer or what was identified as a “skin lesion” between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2019. We collected information on each patient’s sex, age at time of consultation, and race, as well as the specialty of the referring provider, lesion location, maximum diameter of the lesion, whether a biopsy was performed, where the biopsy was performed (inpatient or outpatient setting), clinical diagnosis, histopathologic diagnosis, and subsequent treatment.

The institutional review board at Eastern Virginia Medical School (Norfolk, Virginia) approved this study, and all protocol conformed to the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Thirty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria. Their characteristics are listed in the Table. Consultations for possible skin cancer accounted for 4% (38/950) of all inpatient dermatology consultations over the study period. Outcomes of the referrals are shown in the Figure. Consultations were received from 12 different physician specialties.

In the 38 patients, 47 lesions were identified; most (66% [31/47]) were on the head and neck. Twenty of 38 patients were found to have at least 1 biopsy-confirmed cutaneous malignancy (23 total tumors). Of those 23 identified malignancies, 10 were basal cell carcinoma, 11 squamous cell carcinoma, 1 malignant melanoma, and 1 anaplastic T-cell lymphoma. Of note, 17 of 23 (74%) identified cutaneous malignancies were 2.0 cm in diameter at biopsy or larger. Subsequently performed treatments for these patients included wide local excision (n=3), Mohs micrographic surgery (n=5), radiation therapy (n=3), topical fluorouracil (n=1), electrodesiccation and curettage (n=4), and chemotherapy or immunotherapy (n=2). Two patients who were diagnosed with skin cancer died of unrelated causes before treatment was completed.

In 10 of 38 patients, only nonmalignant entities were diagnosed, including seborrheic keratosis (n=6), benign melanocytic nevus (n=1), epidermal inclusion cyst (n=1), actinic keratosis (n=1), and radiation-induced necrosis (n=1). Of the 8 remaining patients, 4 were ultimately lost to follow-up before planned outpatient biopsy could be completed; 1 opted to follow up for biopsy at an unaffiliated outpatient dermatology provider. For 2 patients, the decision was made to forgo biopsy despite clinical suspicion of skin cancer because of overall poor health status, and 1 additional patient died before a planned outpatient biopsy could be performed.

In summary, approximately half of the inpatient dermatology consultations for suspected cutaneous malignancy resulted in a diagnosis of skin cancer. The patients in this population were admitted for a range of diagnoses, most unrelated to their cutaneous malignancy, suggesting that the inpatient setting offers the opportunity for physicians in a variety of specialties to help identify skin cancer that might otherwise be unaddressed and then facilitate management, whether ultimately in an inpatient or outpatient setting.

In many of these cases, it might be most appropriate to arrange subsequent outpatient dermatology follow-up after hospitalization, rather than making an inpatient consultation, as these situations usually are nonurgent and not directly related to hospitalization. However, in cases in which the lesion is directly related to admission, the lesion is advanced, there is concern for metastatic disease, or extenuating circumstances make outpatient follow-up difficult, inpatient dermatology consultation may be reasonable. There sometimes can be compelling reasons to expedite diagnosis and treatment as an inpatient.

In hospitalized, medically complex patients, in whom a new cutaneous malignancy is identified, dermatologists should discuss the situation thoughtfully with the patient, the patient’s family (when appropriate), and other physicians on the treatment team to determine the most appropriate course of action. In some cases, the most appropriate course might be to delay biopsy or treatment until the outpatient setting or to even defer further action completely when the prognosis is very limited. Consulting dermatologists must be mindful of patients’ overall medical situation in planning care for a cutaneous malignancy in these inpatient situations.

This study also highlights the surprising number of large-diameter, high-risk tumors identified in these scenarios. Limitations of this study include a relatively small sample size from a single facility that might not be representative of other practice settings and locations. Future multicenter studies could further explore the impact of inpatient dermatologic consultation on the diagnosis and management of skin cancer.

To the Editor:

Several mole and skin tag removal products are available online and over the counter (OTC).¹ Patients concerned with the cosmetic appearance of nevi may use these products as a do-it-yourself alternative to surgical removal. However, these products have the potential to cause harm.² Beyond the cosmetic adverse effects of skin necrosis and scar formation, these products can mask premalignant and malignant skin lesions.² Herein, we describe a patient with a family history of melanoma who developed facial and chest ulcerations with necrosis after applying an OTC mole and skin tag removal product.

A 45-year-old woman with fair skin presented to a clinic with multiple superficial ulcerations measuring approximately 1 cm in diameter with necrotic black bases and erythematous rims on the face, right side of the upper chest, and left earlobe after using the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set, an OTC mole and skin tag removal product. The patient reported using the product 24 hours prior for the cosmetic removal of multiple nevi. After applying the product, she observed that it “immediately melted [her] skin” and the areas where the product was applied “turned black.” She reported that the product was applied to the skin for no longer than 30 seconds, after which she developed the necrotic lesions (Figure). After removing the product, she applied an OTC ointment containing bacitracin, neomycin, and polymyxin B to the lesions.

The patient had no history of nonmelanoma skin cancers or atypical nevi. She had a family history of melanoma in her mother and maternal uncle. The treatment plan was aimed primarily at reducing scar formation. We advised frequent application of petroleum-based ointments for moisture and overlying silicone scar tape to protect the area from photodamage and promote wound healing. We further advocated for sun protection and the use of a physical sunscreen on the lesions as they healed. We discussed potential laser-based scar revision options in the future.

With more than 180 reviews on Amazon and almost 70% of these reviews made within the month prior to compiling this manuscript, the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set appeared to be popular; however, the product currently is unavailable on Amazon. Testimonials and before-and-after pictures advertising the product show an all-natural, safe, and effective method as an alternative to surgical removal of skin tags and nevi. The product website claims that skin tags and moles will “fall off naturally within 7 to 10 days” and the product can be used for “almost all skin types.” Users are instructed to apply the removal product and wipe it off when the skin surrounding the mole becomes swollen. The product kit also includes a repair lotion, which claims to help heal the skin after scab formation and scar development.

The ingredients listed on the product packaging are salicylic acid 25%, Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) leaf oil, propylene glycol, hydroxyethylcellulose, and alcohol. Salicylic acid 25% is a superficial peeling agent that penetrates the epidermis to the dermoepidermal junction. The potential side effects are mild and include superficial desquamation and epidermolysis.³ The Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set is not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration and may contain variable concentrations of salicylic acid and other unknown compounds. Higher concentrations of salicylic acid can penetrate the full thickness of the epidermis into the papillary dermis, which can result in postinflammatory pigmentation, superficial infection, scarring, and deeper desquamation and epidermolysis.³ The product website advertises the use of only natural ingredients and an “advanced blend of concentrated natural ingredients contributing a broad spectrum of healing properties” in the formula. Although these claims are attractive to patients seeking alternatives to surgical approaches to nevi removal, the unfounded claims and unregulated ingredients may pose a threat to unsuspecting consumers.

Other OTC and “all-natural” mole removal products previously have been reported to cause harm.²Sanguinaria canadensis, also known as bloodroot, contains an alkaloid compound (sanguinarine) that has been shown to induce mitochondrial apoptosis and activation of Bcl-2 proteins in keratinocytes.⁴ Some products, such as Wart & Mole Vanish cream, may claim not to contain bloodroot specifically. However, sanguinarine can be extracted from other plants and may be listed as Argemone mexicana, Chelidonium majus, or Macleaya cordata in the ingredients list.⁵ The use of alternative medicine products such as black or yellow salve for the removal of suspected skin cancers also is not recommended because these escharotic treatments have not been proven safe or effective, and the manufacturing process for these compounds is unregulated.^6,7 Self-treatment with alternative remedies for nevi or suspected skin cancers has been associated with progression of disease and even death due to metastatic spread.²

Self-removal of moles is concerning because the nevi are masked by necrotic lesions and can no longer be assessed by dermoscopy or histopathology. Furthermore, the compounds in the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set may have unknown effects on the transformation of premalignant cells. They also may mask an underlying process for which clinically proven and effective treatments such as cryotherapy, prescription topical agents, and surgical excision are warranted. Awareness of this product and similar products is important to educate patients on the harmful effects they may cause.

To the Editor:

Several mole and skin tag removal products are available online and over the counter (OTC).¹ Patients concerned with the cosmetic appearance of nevi may use these products as a do-it-yourself alternative to surgical removal. However, these products have the potential to cause harm.² Beyond the cosmetic adverse effects of skin necrosis and scar formation, these products can mask premalignant and malignant skin lesions.² Herein, we describe a patient with a family history of melanoma who developed facial and chest ulcerations with necrosis after applying an OTC mole and skin tag removal product.

A 45-year-old woman with fair skin presented to a clinic with multiple superficial ulcerations measuring approximately 1 cm in diameter with necrotic black bases and erythematous rims on the face, right side of the upper chest, and left earlobe after using the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set, an OTC mole and skin tag removal product. The patient reported using the product 24 hours prior for the cosmetic removal of multiple nevi. After applying the product, she observed that it “immediately melted [her] skin” and the areas where the product was applied “turned black.” She reported that the product was applied to the skin for no longer than 30 seconds, after which she developed the necrotic lesions (Figure). After removing the product, she applied an OTC ointment containing bacitracin, neomycin, and polymyxin B to the lesions.

The patient had no history of nonmelanoma skin cancers or atypical nevi. She had a family history of melanoma in her mother and maternal uncle. The treatment plan was aimed primarily at reducing scar formation. We advised frequent application of petroleum-based ointments for moisture and overlying silicone scar tape to protect the area from photodamage and promote wound healing. We further advocated for sun protection and the use of a physical sunscreen on the lesions as they healed. We discussed potential laser-based scar revision options in the future.

With more than 180 reviews on Amazon and almost 70% of these reviews made within the month prior to compiling this manuscript, the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set appeared to be popular; however, the product currently is unavailable on Amazon. Testimonials and before-and-after pictures advertising the product show an all-natural, safe, and effective method as an alternative to surgical removal of skin tags and nevi. The product website claims that skin tags and moles will “fall off naturally within 7 to 10 days” and the product can be used for “almost all skin types.” Users are instructed to apply the removal product and wipe it off when the skin surrounding the mole becomes swollen. The product kit also includes a repair lotion, which claims to help heal the skin after scab formation and scar development.

The ingredients listed on the product packaging are salicylic acid 25%, Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) leaf oil, propylene glycol, hydroxyethylcellulose, and alcohol. Salicylic acid 25% is a superficial peeling agent that penetrates the epidermis to the dermoepidermal junction. The potential side effects are mild and include superficial desquamation and epidermolysis.³ The Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set is not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration and may contain variable concentrations of salicylic acid and other unknown compounds. Higher concentrations of salicylic acid can penetrate the full thickness of the epidermis into the papillary dermis, which can result in postinflammatory pigmentation, superficial infection, scarring, and deeper desquamation and epidermolysis.³ The product website advertises the use of only natural ingredients and an “advanced blend of concentrated natural ingredients contributing a broad spectrum of healing properties” in the formula. Although these claims are attractive to patients seeking alternatives to surgical approaches to nevi removal, the unfounded claims and unregulated ingredients may pose a threat to unsuspecting consumers.

Other OTC and “all-natural” mole removal products previously have been reported to cause harm.²Sanguinaria canadensis, also known as bloodroot, contains an alkaloid compound (sanguinarine) that has been shown to induce mitochondrial apoptosis and activation of Bcl-2 proteins in keratinocytes.⁴ Some products, such as Wart & Mole Vanish cream, may claim not to contain bloodroot specifically. However, sanguinarine can be extracted from other plants and may be listed as Argemone mexicana, Chelidonium majus, or Macleaya cordata in the ingredients list.⁵ The use of alternative medicine products such as black or yellow salve for the removal of suspected skin cancers also is not recommended because these escharotic treatments have not been proven safe or effective, and the manufacturing process for these compounds is unregulated.^6,7 Self-treatment with alternative remedies for nevi or suspected skin cancers has been associated with progression of disease and even death due to metastatic spread.²

Self-removal of moles is concerning because the nevi are masked by necrotic lesions and can no longer be assessed by dermoscopy or histopathology. Furthermore, the compounds in the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set may have unknown effects on the transformation of premalignant cells. They also may mask an underlying process for which clinically proven and effective treatments such as cryotherapy, prescription topical agents, and surgical excision are warranted. Awareness of this product and similar products is important to educate patients on the harmful effects they may cause.

To the Editor:

Several mole and skin tag removal products are available online and over the counter (OTC).¹ Patients concerned with the cosmetic appearance of nevi may use these products as a do-it-yourself alternative to surgical removal. However, these products have the potential to cause harm.² Beyond the cosmetic adverse effects of skin necrosis and scar formation, these products can mask premalignant and malignant skin lesions.² Herein, we describe a patient with a family history of melanoma who developed facial and chest ulcerations with necrosis after applying an OTC mole and skin tag removal product.

A 45-year-old woman with fair skin presented to a clinic with multiple superficial ulcerations measuring approximately 1 cm in diameter with necrotic black bases and erythematous rims on the face, right side of the upper chest, and left earlobe after using the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set, an OTC mole and skin tag removal product. The patient reported using the product 24 hours prior for the cosmetic removal of multiple nevi. After applying the product, she observed that it “immediately melted [her] skin” and the areas where the product was applied “turned black.” She reported that the product was applied to the skin for no longer than 30 seconds, after which she developed the necrotic lesions (Figure). After removing the product, she applied an OTC ointment containing bacitracin, neomycin, and polymyxin B to the lesions.

The patient had no history of nonmelanoma skin cancers or atypical nevi. She had a family history of melanoma in her mother and maternal uncle. The treatment plan was aimed primarily at reducing scar formation. We advised frequent application of petroleum-based ointments for moisture and overlying silicone scar tape to protect the area from photodamage and promote wound healing. We further advocated for sun protection and the use of a physical sunscreen on the lesions as they healed. We discussed potential laser-based scar revision options in the future.

With more than 180 reviews on Amazon and almost 70% of these reviews made within the month prior to compiling this manuscript, the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set appeared to be popular; however, the product currently is unavailable on Amazon. Testimonials and before-and-after pictures advertising the product show an all-natural, safe, and effective method as an alternative to surgical removal of skin tags and nevi. The product website claims that skin tags and moles will “fall off naturally within 7 to 10 days” and the product can be used for “almost all skin types.” Users are instructed to apply the removal product and wipe it off when the skin surrounding the mole becomes swollen. The product kit also includes a repair lotion, which claims to help heal the skin after scab formation and scar development.

The ingredients listed on the product packaging are salicylic acid 25%, Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) leaf oil, propylene glycol, hydroxyethylcellulose, and alcohol. Salicylic acid 25% is a superficial peeling agent that penetrates the epidermis to the dermoepidermal junction. The potential side effects are mild and include superficial desquamation and epidermolysis.³ The Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set is not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration and may contain variable concentrations of salicylic acid and other unknown compounds. Higher concentrations of salicylic acid can penetrate the full thickness of the epidermis into the papillary dermis, which can result in postinflammatory pigmentation, superficial infection, scarring, and deeper desquamation and epidermolysis.³ The product website advertises the use of only natural ingredients and an “advanced blend of concentrated natural ingredients contributing a broad spectrum of healing properties” in the formula. Although these claims are attractive to patients seeking alternatives to surgical approaches to nevi removal, the unfounded claims and unregulated ingredients may pose a threat to unsuspecting consumers.

Other OTC and “all-natural” mole removal products previously have been reported to cause harm.²Sanguinaria canadensis, also known as bloodroot, contains an alkaloid compound (sanguinarine) that has been shown to induce mitochondrial apoptosis and activation of Bcl-2 proteins in keratinocytes.⁴ Some products, such as Wart & Mole Vanish cream, may claim not to contain bloodroot specifically. However, sanguinarine can be extracted from other plants and may be listed as Argemone mexicana, Chelidonium majus, or Macleaya cordata in the ingredients list.⁵ The use of alternative medicine products such as black or yellow salve for the removal of suspected skin cancers also is not recommended because these escharotic treatments have not been proven safe or effective, and the manufacturing process for these compounds is unregulated.^6,7 Self-treatment with alternative remedies for nevi or suspected skin cancers has been associated with progression of disease and even death due to metastatic spread.²

Self-removal of moles is concerning because the nevi are masked by necrotic lesions and can no longer be assessed by dermoscopy or histopathology. Furthermore, the compounds in the Ariella Mole Corrector and Skin Tag Remover and Repair Lotion Set may have unknown effects on the transformation of premalignant cells. They also may mask an underlying process for which clinically proven and effective treatments such as cryotherapy, prescription topical agents, and surgical excision are warranted. Awareness of this product and similar products is important to educate patients on the harmful effects they may cause.

To the Editor:

Zinc chloride originally was used by Dr. Frederic Mohs as an in vivo tissue fixative during the early phases of Mohs micrographic surgery.¹ Although this technique has since been replaced with fresh frozen tissue fixation, zinc chloride still is found in topical preparations that are readily available to patients. Specifically, black salve describes variably composed topical preparations that share the common ingredients zinc chloride and Sanguinaria canadensis (bloodroot).² Patients self-treat with these unregulated compounds, but the majority do not have their lesions evaluated by a clinician prior to use and are unaware of the potential risks.^3-5 Products containing zinc chloride and S canadensis that are not marketed as black salve present a new problem for the dermatology community.

A 73-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for the focused evaluation of scaly lesions on the face and nose. At this visit, it was recommended he undergo a total-body skin examination for skin cancer screening given his age and substantial photodamage.

Physical examination revealed more than 20 superficial, 3- to 10-mm scars predominantly over the trunk. One scar over the left mid-back had a large, 1.2-cm peripheral rim of dark brown pigment that was clinically concerning for a melanocytic neoplasm. Shave removal of this lesion was performed. Histologic examination showed melanoma in situ with a central scar. The central scar spanned the depth of the dermis, and the melanocytic component was absent in this area, raising the question if prior biopsy or treatment had been performed on this lesion. During a discussion of the results with the patient, he was questioned about prior biopsy or treatment of this lesion. He reported prior use of a topical all-natural cream containing zinc chloride and S canadensis that he purchased online, which he had used to treat this lesion as well as numerous presumed moles.

The trend of at-home mole removal products containing the traditional ingredients in black salve seems to be one of rapidly shifting product availability as well as a departure from marketing items as black salve. Many prior black salve products are no longer available.⁴ The product that our patient used is a topical cream marketed as a treatment for moles and skin tags.⁶ Despite not being marketed as black salve, it does contain zinc chloride and S canadensis. The product’s website highlights these ingredients as being a safe and effective treatment for mole removal, with claims that the product will remove the mole or skin tag without irritating the surrounding skin and can be safely used anywhere on the body without scarring.⁶ A Google search at the time this article was written using the term skin tag remover revealed similar products marketed as all-natural “skin tag remover and mole corrector creams.” These similar products containing zinc chloride and S canadensis were available in the United States at the time of our initial research but have since been removed and only are available outside of the United States.⁷

Prior reports of melanoma masked by zinc chloride and S canadensis described the use of topical agents marketed as black salve. This new wave of products marketed as all-natural creams makes continued education on the available products and their associated risks necessary for clinicians. The lack of US Food and Drug Administration oversight for these products and their frequent introduction and discontinuation in the market makes keeping updated even more challenging. Because many patients self-treat without prior evaluation by a health care provider, treatment with these products can lead to a delay in diagnosis or inaccurate staging due to scars from the chemical destruction, both of which may have occurred in our patient.⁵ Until these products become regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration, it is imperative that clinicians continue to educate their patients on the lack of documented benefit and clear risks of their use as well as remain up-to-date on product trends.

To the Editor:

Zinc chloride originally was used by Dr. Frederic Mohs as an in vivo tissue fixative during the early phases of Mohs micrographic surgery.¹ Although this technique has since been replaced with fresh frozen tissue fixation, zinc chloride still is found in topical preparations that are readily available to patients. Specifically, black salve describes variably composed topical preparations that share the common ingredients zinc chloride and Sanguinaria canadensis (bloodroot).² Patients self-treat with these unregulated compounds, but the majority do not have their lesions evaluated by a clinician prior to use and are unaware of the potential risks.^3-5 Products containing zinc chloride and S canadensis that are not marketed as black salve present a new problem for the dermatology community.

A 73-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for the focused evaluation of scaly lesions on the face and nose. At this visit, it was recommended he undergo a total-body skin examination for skin cancer screening given his age and substantial photodamage.

Physical examination revealed more than 20 superficial, 3- to 10-mm scars predominantly over the trunk. One scar over the left mid-back had a large, 1.2-cm peripheral rim of dark brown pigment that was clinically concerning for a melanocytic neoplasm. Shave removal of this lesion was performed. Histologic examination showed melanoma in situ with a central scar. The central scar spanned the depth of the dermis, and the melanocytic component was absent in this area, raising the question if prior biopsy or treatment had been performed on this lesion. During a discussion of the results with the patient, he was questioned about prior biopsy or treatment of this lesion. He reported prior use of a topical all-natural cream containing zinc chloride and S canadensis that he purchased online, which he had used to treat this lesion as well as numerous presumed moles.

The trend of at-home mole removal products containing the traditional ingredients in black salve seems to be one of rapidly shifting product availability as well as a departure from marketing items as black salve. Many prior black salve products are no longer available.⁴ The product that our patient used is a topical cream marketed as a treatment for moles and skin tags.⁶ Despite not being marketed as black salve, it does contain zinc chloride and S canadensis. The product’s website highlights these ingredients as being a safe and effective treatment for mole removal, with claims that the product will remove the mole or skin tag without irritating the surrounding skin and can be safely used anywhere on the body without scarring.⁶ A Google search at the time this article was written using the term skin tag remover revealed similar products marketed as all-natural “skin tag remover and mole corrector creams.” These similar products containing zinc chloride and S canadensis were available in the United States at the time of our initial research but have since been removed and only are available outside of the United States.⁷

Prior reports of melanoma masked by zinc chloride and S canadensis described the use of topical agents marketed as black salve. This new wave of products marketed as all-natural creams makes continued education on the available products and their associated risks necessary for clinicians. The lack of US Food and Drug Administration oversight for these products and their frequent introduction and discontinuation in the market makes keeping updated even more challenging. Because many patients self-treat without prior evaluation by a health care provider, treatment with these products can lead to a delay in diagnosis or inaccurate staging due to scars from the chemical destruction, both of which may have occurred in our patient.⁵ Until these products become regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration, it is imperative that clinicians continue to educate their patients on the lack of documented benefit and clear risks of their use as well as remain up-to-date on product trends.

To the Editor:

Zinc chloride originally was used by Dr. Frederic Mohs as an in vivo tissue fixative during the early phases of Mohs micrographic surgery.¹ Although this technique has since been replaced with fresh frozen tissue fixation, zinc chloride still is found in topical preparations that are readily available to patients. Specifically, black salve describes variably composed topical preparations that share the common ingredients zinc chloride and Sanguinaria canadensis (bloodroot).² Patients self-treat with these unregulated compounds, but the majority do not have their lesions evaluated by a clinician prior to use and are unaware of the potential risks.^3-5 Products containing zinc chloride and S canadensis that are not marketed as black salve present a new problem for the dermatology community.

A 73-year-old man presented to our dermatology clinic for the focused evaluation of scaly lesions on the face and nose. At this visit, it was recommended he undergo a total-body skin examination for skin cancer screening given his age and substantial photodamage.

Physical examination revealed more than 20 superficial, 3- to 10-mm scars predominantly over the trunk. One scar over the left mid-back had a large, 1.2-cm peripheral rim of dark brown pigment that was clinically concerning for a melanocytic neoplasm. Shave removal of this lesion was performed. Histologic examination showed melanoma in situ with a central scar. The central scar spanned the depth of the dermis, and the melanocytic component was absent in this area, raising the question if prior biopsy or treatment had been performed on this lesion. During a discussion of the results with the patient, he was questioned about prior biopsy or treatment of this lesion. He reported prior use of a topical all-natural cream containing zinc chloride and S canadensis that he purchased online, which he had used to treat this lesion as well as numerous presumed moles.

The trend of at-home mole removal products containing the traditional ingredients in black salve seems to be one of rapidly shifting product availability as well as a departure from marketing items as black salve. Many prior black salve products are no longer available.⁴ The product that our patient used is a topical cream marketed as a treatment for moles and skin tags.⁶ Despite not being marketed as black salve, it does contain zinc chloride and S canadensis. The product’s website highlights these ingredients as being a safe and effective treatment for mole removal, with claims that the product will remove the mole or skin tag without irritating the surrounding skin and can be safely used anywhere on the body without scarring.⁶ A Google search at the time this article was written using the term skin tag remover revealed similar products marketed as all-natural “skin tag remover and mole corrector creams.” These similar products containing zinc chloride and S canadensis were available in the United States at the time of our initial research but have since been removed and only are available outside of the United States.⁷

Prior reports of melanoma masked by zinc chloride and S canadensis described the use of topical agents marketed as black salve. This new wave of products marketed as all-natural creams makes continued education on the available products and their associated risks necessary for clinicians. The lack of US Food and Drug Administration oversight for these products and their frequent introduction and discontinuation in the market makes keeping updated even more challenging. Because many patients self-treat without prior evaluation by a health care provider, treatment with these products can lead to a delay in diagnosis or inaccurate staging due to scars from the chemical destruction, both of which may have occurred in our patient.⁵ Until these products become regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration, it is imperative that clinicians continue to educate their patients on the lack of documented benefit and clear risks of their use as well as remain up-to-date on product trends.