LayerRx Mapping ID
453
Slot System
Featured Buckets
Featured Buckets Admin
Reverse Chronological Sort
Allow Teaser Image
Medscape Lead Concept
65

Clinical Pearl: Mohs Cantaloupe Analogy for the Dermatology Resident

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Clinical Pearl: Mohs Cantaloupe Analogy for the Dermatology Resident

Practice Gap

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a highly curative tissue-sparing skin cancer treatment1 and is a required component of dermatology residency training. According to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, residents must have exposure “either through direct observation or as an assistant in Mohs micrographic surgery, and reconstruction of these defects, to include flaps and grafts.”2 The MMS technique allows for complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment of excised specimens; however, the conformation of a 3-dimensional gross tissue specimen into a 2-dimensional specimen as represented on a microscope slide is challenging to conceptualize.

Behavioral science research has shown that analogies and metaphors help integrate topics into a memorable format and produce deeper comprehension.3 As such, analogies can aid in the visualization of these complex spatial concepts. The MMS tissue-processing technique has been compared to flattening a pie pan.4 More recently, a peanut butter cup analogy was described as a visualization tool for explaining the various steps of MMS to patients.5 Although these analogies may help elucidate certain aspects of the MMS technique, none adequately account for the multilayered anatomy of the skin.

The Technique

To address this need, we developed the cantaloupe analogy, which provides visual representation of the 3 basic skin layers: (1) the rind represents the epidermis; (2) the flesh represents the dermis, and (3) the seed cavity represents the subcutaneous layer (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure1
Image courtesy of Janna M. Vassantachart, MD.
Figure 1. Cross-section of a typical Mohs micrographic surgery tissue specimen illustrating a skin cancer (black), as well as the epidermal, dermal, and subcutaneous layers.

Figure2
Image courtesy of Janna M. Vassantachart, MD.
Figure 2. Cross-section of a cantaloupe slice illustrating a relaxed Mohs micrographic specimen with skin cancer and 3 analogous skin layers: rind (epidermis), flesh (dermis), and seed cavity (subcutaneous layer). The location of the first 2 histologic slices is demonstrated.

In MMS tissue processing, the peripheral margin of the ovoid excised skin specimen is pressed down into the same plane as the deepest layer through a process called relaxation.4 The cantaloupe represents the dome shape of the relaxed tissue, which is then serially sectioned in horizontal layers from deep to superficial (Figure 2). The first slice represents the deepest subcutaneous layer and most peripheral dermal and epidermal layers of the specimen (Figure 3). Using the cantaloupe analogy, subsequent stages (if warranted) would be guided by the location of the residual skin cancer. If the skin cancer is in the epidermis (rind) or dermis (flesh), then a skin specimen from the perimeter of the defect would be indicated. Residual skin cancer extending into the subcutaneous layer (seed cavity) would require a deeper resection.

Figure3
Image courtesy of Janna M. Vassantachart, MD.
Figure 3. Illustration showing the first histologic slice of the cantaloupe for complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment. Skin cancer is present in the flesh, which is analogous to the dermal layer.

Practice Implications

The cantaloupe provides a simple analogy to conceptualize the transition from the multilayered 3-dimensional skin tissue specimen to the 2-dimensional histologic slide specimen. Use of this cantaloupe analogy will aid dermatology residents and others interested in gaining a clearer understanding of MMS.

References
  1. Semkova K, Mallipeddi R, Robson A, et al. Mohs micrographic surgery concordance between Mohs surgeons and dermatopathologists. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39:1648-1652.
  2. ACGME program requirements for graduate medical education in dermatology. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education website. https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/080_dermatology_2017-07-01.pdf. Updated July 1, 2017. Accessed June 6, 2018.
  3. Wolfe CR. Plant a tree in cyberspace: metaphor and analogy as design elements in Web-based learning environments. CyberPsychol Behav. 2001;4:67-76.
  4. Beck B, Peters SR. Frozen section techniques used in Mohs micrographic surgery. In: Peters SR, ed. A Practical Guide to Frozen Section Technique. New York, NY: Springer; 2010:151-170.
  5. Lee E, Wolverton JE, Somani AK. A simple, effective analogy to elucidate the Mohs micrographic surgery procedure—the peanut butter cup. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153:743-744.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

From Loma Linda University, California. Drs. Vassantachart and Seeburger are from the Department of Dermatology, and Mr. Guccione is from the School of Medicine.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Janna M. Vassantachart, MD, Loma Linda University, Department of Dermatology, 11370 Anderson St, Ste 2600, Loma Linda, CA 92354 (jvassantachart@llu.edu).

Issue
Cutis - 102(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
65-66
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

From Loma Linda University, California. Drs. Vassantachart and Seeburger are from the Department of Dermatology, and Mr. Guccione is from the School of Medicine.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Janna M. Vassantachart, MD, Loma Linda University, Department of Dermatology, 11370 Anderson St, Ste 2600, Loma Linda, CA 92354 (jvassantachart@llu.edu).

Author and Disclosure Information

From Loma Linda University, California. Drs. Vassantachart and Seeburger are from the Department of Dermatology, and Mr. Guccione is from the School of Medicine.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Janna M. Vassantachart, MD, Loma Linda University, Department of Dermatology, 11370 Anderson St, Ste 2600, Loma Linda, CA 92354 (jvassantachart@llu.edu).

Article PDF
Article PDF

Practice Gap

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a highly curative tissue-sparing skin cancer treatment1 and is a required component of dermatology residency training. According to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, residents must have exposure “either through direct observation or as an assistant in Mohs micrographic surgery, and reconstruction of these defects, to include flaps and grafts.”2 The MMS technique allows for complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment of excised specimens; however, the conformation of a 3-dimensional gross tissue specimen into a 2-dimensional specimen as represented on a microscope slide is challenging to conceptualize.

Behavioral science research has shown that analogies and metaphors help integrate topics into a memorable format and produce deeper comprehension.3 As such, analogies can aid in the visualization of these complex spatial concepts. The MMS tissue-processing technique has been compared to flattening a pie pan.4 More recently, a peanut butter cup analogy was described as a visualization tool for explaining the various steps of MMS to patients.5 Although these analogies may help elucidate certain aspects of the MMS technique, none adequately account for the multilayered anatomy of the skin.

The Technique

To address this need, we developed the cantaloupe analogy, which provides visual representation of the 3 basic skin layers: (1) the rind represents the epidermis; (2) the flesh represents the dermis, and (3) the seed cavity represents the subcutaneous layer (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure1
Image courtesy of Janna M. Vassantachart, MD.
Figure 1. Cross-section of a typical Mohs micrographic surgery tissue specimen illustrating a skin cancer (black), as well as the epidermal, dermal, and subcutaneous layers.

Figure2
Image courtesy of Janna M. Vassantachart, MD.
Figure 2. Cross-section of a cantaloupe slice illustrating a relaxed Mohs micrographic specimen with skin cancer and 3 analogous skin layers: rind (epidermis), flesh (dermis), and seed cavity (subcutaneous layer). The location of the first 2 histologic slices is demonstrated.

In MMS tissue processing, the peripheral margin of the ovoid excised skin specimen is pressed down into the same plane as the deepest layer through a process called relaxation.4 The cantaloupe represents the dome shape of the relaxed tissue, which is then serially sectioned in horizontal layers from deep to superficial (Figure 2). The first slice represents the deepest subcutaneous layer and most peripheral dermal and epidermal layers of the specimen (Figure 3). Using the cantaloupe analogy, subsequent stages (if warranted) would be guided by the location of the residual skin cancer. If the skin cancer is in the epidermis (rind) or dermis (flesh), then a skin specimen from the perimeter of the defect would be indicated. Residual skin cancer extending into the subcutaneous layer (seed cavity) would require a deeper resection.

Figure3
Image courtesy of Janna M. Vassantachart, MD.
Figure 3. Illustration showing the first histologic slice of the cantaloupe for complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment. Skin cancer is present in the flesh, which is analogous to the dermal layer.

Practice Implications

The cantaloupe provides a simple analogy to conceptualize the transition from the multilayered 3-dimensional skin tissue specimen to the 2-dimensional histologic slide specimen. Use of this cantaloupe analogy will aid dermatology residents and others interested in gaining a clearer understanding of MMS.

Practice Gap

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a highly curative tissue-sparing skin cancer treatment1 and is a required component of dermatology residency training. According to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, residents must have exposure “either through direct observation or as an assistant in Mohs micrographic surgery, and reconstruction of these defects, to include flaps and grafts.”2 The MMS technique allows for complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment of excised specimens; however, the conformation of a 3-dimensional gross tissue specimen into a 2-dimensional specimen as represented on a microscope slide is challenging to conceptualize.

Behavioral science research has shown that analogies and metaphors help integrate topics into a memorable format and produce deeper comprehension.3 As such, analogies can aid in the visualization of these complex spatial concepts. The MMS tissue-processing technique has been compared to flattening a pie pan.4 More recently, a peanut butter cup analogy was described as a visualization tool for explaining the various steps of MMS to patients.5 Although these analogies may help elucidate certain aspects of the MMS technique, none adequately account for the multilayered anatomy of the skin.

The Technique

To address this need, we developed the cantaloupe analogy, which provides visual representation of the 3 basic skin layers: (1) the rind represents the epidermis; (2) the flesh represents the dermis, and (3) the seed cavity represents the subcutaneous layer (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure1
Image courtesy of Janna M. Vassantachart, MD.
Figure 1. Cross-section of a typical Mohs micrographic surgery tissue specimen illustrating a skin cancer (black), as well as the epidermal, dermal, and subcutaneous layers.

Figure2
Image courtesy of Janna M. Vassantachart, MD.
Figure 2. Cross-section of a cantaloupe slice illustrating a relaxed Mohs micrographic specimen with skin cancer and 3 analogous skin layers: rind (epidermis), flesh (dermis), and seed cavity (subcutaneous layer). The location of the first 2 histologic slices is demonstrated.

In MMS tissue processing, the peripheral margin of the ovoid excised skin specimen is pressed down into the same plane as the deepest layer through a process called relaxation.4 The cantaloupe represents the dome shape of the relaxed tissue, which is then serially sectioned in horizontal layers from deep to superficial (Figure 2). The first slice represents the deepest subcutaneous layer and most peripheral dermal and epidermal layers of the specimen (Figure 3). Using the cantaloupe analogy, subsequent stages (if warranted) would be guided by the location of the residual skin cancer. If the skin cancer is in the epidermis (rind) or dermis (flesh), then a skin specimen from the perimeter of the defect would be indicated. Residual skin cancer extending into the subcutaneous layer (seed cavity) would require a deeper resection.

Figure3
Image courtesy of Janna M. Vassantachart, MD.
Figure 3. Illustration showing the first histologic slice of the cantaloupe for complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment. Skin cancer is present in the flesh, which is analogous to the dermal layer.

Practice Implications

The cantaloupe provides a simple analogy to conceptualize the transition from the multilayered 3-dimensional skin tissue specimen to the 2-dimensional histologic slide specimen. Use of this cantaloupe analogy will aid dermatology residents and others interested in gaining a clearer understanding of MMS.

References
  1. Semkova K, Mallipeddi R, Robson A, et al. Mohs micrographic surgery concordance between Mohs surgeons and dermatopathologists. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39:1648-1652.
  2. ACGME program requirements for graduate medical education in dermatology. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education website. https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/080_dermatology_2017-07-01.pdf. Updated July 1, 2017. Accessed June 6, 2018.
  3. Wolfe CR. Plant a tree in cyberspace: metaphor and analogy as design elements in Web-based learning environments. CyberPsychol Behav. 2001;4:67-76.
  4. Beck B, Peters SR. Frozen section techniques used in Mohs micrographic surgery. In: Peters SR, ed. A Practical Guide to Frozen Section Technique. New York, NY: Springer; 2010:151-170.
  5. Lee E, Wolverton JE, Somani AK. A simple, effective analogy to elucidate the Mohs micrographic surgery procedure—the peanut butter cup. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153:743-744.
References
  1. Semkova K, Mallipeddi R, Robson A, et al. Mohs micrographic surgery concordance between Mohs surgeons and dermatopathologists. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39:1648-1652.
  2. ACGME program requirements for graduate medical education in dermatology. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education website. https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/080_dermatology_2017-07-01.pdf. Updated July 1, 2017. Accessed June 6, 2018.
  3. Wolfe CR. Plant a tree in cyberspace: metaphor and analogy as design elements in Web-based learning environments. CyberPsychol Behav. 2001;4:67-76.
  4. Beck B, Peters SR. Frozen section techniques used in Mohs micrographic surgery. In: Peters SR, ed. A Practical Guide to Frozen Section Technique. New York, NY: Springer; 2010:151-170.
  5. Lee E, Wolverton JE, Somani AK. A simple, effective analogy to elucidate the Mohs micrographic surgery procedure—the peanut butter cup. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153:743-744.
Issue
Cutis - 102(1)
Issue
Cutis - 102(1)
Page Number
65-66
Page Number
65-66
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Clinical Pearl: Mohs Cantaloupe Analogy for the Dermatology Resident
Display Headline
Clinical Pearl: Mohs Cantaloupe Analogy for the Dermatology Resident
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

FDA approves encorafenib/binimetinib for advanced melanoma with BRAF mutations

Article Type
Changed

 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved combination therapy of encorafenib (Braftovi) and binimetinib (Mektovi) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations; the FDA also has approved the THxID BRAF Kit as a companion diagnostic for this combination therapy.

The approval was based on results from the randomized, active-controlled, open-label, multicenter COLUMBUS trial, which included 517 patients. Progression-free survival, according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, was the major efficacy measure; the median progression-free survival was 14.9 months in the encorafenib/binimetinib combination arm versus 7.3 months in the vemurafenib (Zelboraf) monotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.71; P less than .0001).

Fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and arthralgia were the most common adverse reactions. Discontinuation of therapy from adverse reactions occurred in 5% of patients receiving the combination, the FDA said in a press statement.

The full prescribing information for encorafenib and binimetinib can be found on the FDA website.






 

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved combination therapy of encorafenib (Braftovi) and binimetinib (Mektovi) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations; the FDA also has approved the THxID BRAF Kit as a companion diagnostic for this combination therapy.

The approval was based on results from the randomized, active-controlled, open-label, multicenter COLUMBUS trial, which included 517 patients. Progression-free survival, according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, was the major efficacy measure; the median progression-free survival was 14.9 months in the encorafenib/binimetinib combination arm versus 7.3 months in the vemurafenib (Zelboraf) monotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.71; P less than .0001).

Fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and arthralgia were the most common adverse reactions. Discontinuation of therapy from adverse reactions occurred in 5% of patients receiving the combination, the FDA said in a press statement.

The full prescribing information for encorafenib and binimetinib can be found on the FDA website.






 

 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved combination therapy of encorafenib (Braftovi) and binimetinib (Mektovi) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or BRAF V600K mutations; the FDA also has approved the THxID BRAF Kit as a companion diagnostic for this combination therapy.

The approval was based on results from the randomized, active-controlled, open-label, multicenter COLUMBUS trial, which included 517 patients. Progression-free survival, according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, was the major efficacy measure; the median progression-free survival was 14.9 months in the encorafenib/binimetinib combination arm versus 7.3 months in the vemurafenib (Zelboraf) monotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.71; P less than .0001).

Fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and arthralgia were the most common adverse reactions. Discontinuation of therapy from adverse reactions occurred in 5% of patients receiving the combination, the FDA said in a press statement.

The full prescribing information for encorafenib and binimetinib can be found on the FDA website.






 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Registry data provide evidence that Mohs surgery remains underutilized

Article Type
Changed

 

– Analysis of U.S. national cancer registry data shows that, contrary to expectation, the use of Mohs micrographic surgery for treatment of melanoma in situ did not increase following adoption of the Affordable Care Act, Sean Condon, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Ditto for the use of Mohs in patients with the rare cutaneous malignancies for which published evidence clearly demonstrates Mohs outperforms wide local excision, which is employed seven times more frequently than Mohs in such situations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News
Dr. Sean Condon


“Mohs utilization did not increase after the Affordable Care Act [ACA], despite new health insurance coverage for 20 million previously uninsured adults,” Dr. Condon said. “Surprisingly, after the ACA we actually saw a decrease in Mohs use for melanoma in situ.”

Indeed, his retrospective study of more than 25,000 patients in the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registries showed that the proportion of patients with melanoma in situ treated with Mohs declined from 13.9% during 2008-2009 – prior to ACA implementation – to 12.3% in 2011-2013, after the ACA took effect. That’s a statistically significant 13% drop, even though numerous published studies have shown outcomes in melanoma in situ are better with Mohs, said the dermatologist, who conducted the study while completing a Mohs surgery fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. He is now in private practice in Thousand Oaks, Calif.

His analysis included 19,013 patients treated in 2008-2014 for melanoma in situ and 6,309 others treated for rare cutaneous malignancies deemed appropriate for Mohs according to the criteria formally developed jointly by the American Academy of Dermatology, the American College of Mohs Surgery, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Oct;67[4]:531-50). These rare malignancies include adnexal carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, dermatofibrosarcoma, extramammary Paget disease, sebaceous adenocarcinoma, and leiomyosarcoma.



“These rare cutaneous malignancies were historically treated with wide local excision. However, numerous studies have lately shown that lower recurrence rates were found with Mohs compared with wide local excision,” Dr. Condon noted.

Nonetheless, the proportion of the rare cutaneous malignancies treated using Mohs was unaffected by implementation of the ACA. Nor was it influenced one way or the other by publication of the joint Mohs appropriate use criteria in 2012: The Mohs-treated proportion of such cases was 15.25% in 2010-2011 and 14.6% in 2013-2014.

Similarly, even though the appropriate use criteria identified melanoma in situ as Mohs appropriate, the proportion of those malignancies treated via Mohs was the same before and after the 2012 release of the criteria.

“It’s commonly thought that Mohs is overused. However, our study and our data clearly identify that Mohs is being underutilized for melanoma in situ and for rare cutaneous malignancies. This represents a knowledge gap for other specialties regarding best-practice therapy,” Dr. Condon said.

He and his coinvestigators searched for socioeconomic predictors of Mohs utilization by matching the nationally representative SEER data with U.S. census data. They examined the impact of three metrics: insurance status, income, and poverty. They found that low-income patients and those in the highest quartile of poverty were significantly less likely to have Mohs surgery for their melanoma in situ and rare cutaneous malignancies throughout the study years. Lack of health insurance had no impact on Mohs utilization for melanoma in situ but was independently associated with decreased likelihood of Mohs for the rare cutaneous malignancies. White patients were 2-fold to 2.4-fold more likely to have Mohs surgery for their rare cutaneous malignancies than were black patients.

“One can conclude that Mohs micrographic surgery may be skewed toward more affluent patients, and lower socioeconomic status areas have less Mohs access. So our data from this study support a role for targeted education and improved patient access to Mohs,” Dr. Condon said.

He noted that because the SEER registries don’t track squamous or basal cell carcinomas, it’s unknown whether Mohs is also underutilized for the higher-risk forms of these most common of all skin cancers.

Dr. Condon reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– Analysis of U.S. national cancer registry data shows that, contrary to expectation, the use of Mohs micrographic surgery for treatment of melanoma in situ did not increase following adoption of the Affordable Care Act, Sean Condon, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Ditto for the use of Mohs in patients with the rare cutaneous malignancies for which published evidence clearly demonstrates Mohs outperforms wide local excision, which is employed seven times more frequently than Mohs in such situations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News
Dr. Sean Condon


“Mohs utilization did not increase after the Affordable Care Act [ACA], despite new health insurance coverage for 20 million previously uninsured adults,” Dr. Condon said. “Surprisingly, after the ACA we actually saw a decrease in Mohs use for melanoma in situ.”

Indeed, his retrospective study of more than 25,000 patients in the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registries showed that the proportion of patients with melanoma in situ treated with Mohs declined from 13.9% during 2008-2009 – prior to ACA implementation – to 12.3% in 2011-2013, after the ACA took effect. That’s a statistically significant 13% drop, even though numerous published studies have shown outcomes in melanoma in situ are better with Mohs, said the dermatologist, who conducted the study while completing a Mohs surgery fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. He is now in private practice in Thousand Oaks, Calif.

His analysis included 19,013 patients treated in 2008-2014 for melanoma in situ and 6,309 others treated for rare cutaneous malignancies deemed appropriate for Mohs according to the criteria formally developed jointly by the American Academy of Dermatology, the American College of Mohs Surgery, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Oct;67[4]:531-50). These rare malignancies include adnexal carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, dermatofibrosarcoma, extramammary Paget disease, sebaceous adenocarcinoma, and leiomyosarcoma.



“These rare cutaneous malignancies were historically treated with wide local excision. However, numerous studies have lately shown that lower recurrence rates were found with Mohs compared with wide local excision,” Dr. Condon noted.

Nonetheless, the proportion of the rare cutaneous malignancies treated using Mohs was unaffected by implementation of the ACA. Nor was it influenced one way or the other by publication of the joint Mohs appropriate use criteria in 2012: The Mohs-treated proportion of such cases was 15.25% in 2010-2011 and 14.6% in 2013-2014.

Similarly, even though the appropriate use criteria identified melanoma in situ as Mohs appropriate, the proportion of those malignancies treated via Mohs was the same before and after the 2012 release of the criteria.

“It’s commonly thought that Mohs is overused. However, our study and our data clearly identify that Mohs is being underutilized for melanoma in situ and for rare cutaneous malignancies. This represents a knowledge gap for other specialties regarding best-practice therapy,” Dr. Condon said.

He and his coinvestigators searched for socioeconomic predictors of Mohs utilization by matching the nationally representative SEER data with U.S. census data. They examined the impact of three metrics: insurance status, income, and poverty. They found that low-income patients and those in the highest quartile of poverty were significantly less likely to have Mohs surgery for their melanoma in situ and rare cutaneous malignancies throughout the study years. Lack of health insurance had no impact on Mohs utilization for melanoma in situ but was independently associated with decreased likelihood of Mohs for the rare cutaneous malignancies. White patients were 2-fold to 2.4-fold more likely to have Mohs surgery for their rare cutaneous malignancies than were black patients.

“One can conclude that Mohs micrographic surgery may be skewed toward more affluent patients, and lower socioeconomic status areas have less Mohs access. So our data from this study support a role for targeted education and improved patient access to Mohs,” Dr. Condon said.

He noted that because the SEER registries don’t track squamous or basal cell carcinomas, it’s unknown whether Mohs is also underutilized for the higher-risk forms of these most common of all skin cancers.

Dr. Condon reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.

 

– Analysis of U.S. national cancer registry data shows that, contrary to expectation, the use of Mohs micrographic surgery for treatment of melanoma in situ did not increase following adoption of the Affordable Care Act, Sean Condon, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Ditto for the use of Mohs in patients with the rare cutaneous malignancies for which published evidence clearly demonstrates Mohs outperforms wide local excision, which is employed seven times more frequently than Mohs in such situations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News
Dr. Sean Condon


“Mohs utilization did not increase after the Affordable Care Act [ACA], despite new health insurance coverage for 20 million previously uninsured adults,” Dr. Condon said. “Surprisingly, after the ACA we actually saw a decrease in Mohs use for melanoma in situ.”

Indeed, his retrospective study of more than 25,000 patients in the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registries showed that the proportion of patients with melanoma in situ treated with Mohs declined from 13.9% during 2008-2009 – prior to ACA implementation – to 12.3% in 2011-2013, after the ACA took effect. That’s a statistically significant 13% drop, even though numerous published studies have shown outcomes in melanoma in situ are better with Mohs, said the dermatologist, who conducted the study while completing a Mohs surgery fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. He is now in private practice in Thousand Oaks, Calif.

His analysis included 19,013 patients treated in 2008-2014 for melanoma in situ and 6,309 others treated for rare cutaneous malignancies deemed appropriate for Mohs according to the criteria formally developed jointly by the American Academy of Dermatology, the American College of Mohs Surgery, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Oct;67[4]:531-50). These rare malignancies include adnexal carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, dermatofibrosarcoma, extramammary Paget disease, sebaceous adenocarcinoma, and leiomyosarcoma.



“These rare cutaneous malignancies were historically treated with wide local excision. However, numerous studies have lately shown that lower recurrence rates were found with Mohs compared with wide local excision,” Dr. Condon noted.

Nonetheless, the proportion of the rare cutaneous malignancies treated using Mohs was unaffected by implementation of the ACA. Nor was it influenced one way or the other by publication of the joint Mohs appropriate use criteria in 2012: The Mohs-treated proportion of such cases was 15.25% in 2010-2011 and 14.6% in 2013-2014.

Similarly, even though the appropriate use criteria identified melanoma in situ as Mohs appropriate, the proportion of those malignancies treated via Mohs was the same before and after the 2012 release of the criteria.

“It’s commonly thought that Mohs is overused. However, our study and our data clearly identify that Mohs is being underutilized for melanoma in situ and for rare cutaneous malignancies. This represents a knowledge gap for other specialties regarding best-practice therapy,” Dr. Condon said.

He and his coinvestigators searched for socioeconomic predictors of Mohs utilization by matching the nationally representative SEER data with U.S. census data. They examined the impact of three metrics: insurance status, income, and poverty. They found that low-income patients and those in the highest quartile of poverty were significantly less likely to have Mohs surgery for their melanoma in situ and rare cutaneous malignancies throughout the study years. Lack of health insurance had no impact on Mohs utilization for melanoma in situ but was independently associated with decreased likelihood of Mohs for the rare cutaneous malignancies. White patients were 2-fold to 2.4-fold more likely to have Mohs surgery for their rare cutaneous malignancies than were black patients.

“One can conclude that Mohs micrographic surgery may be skewed toward more affluent patients, and lower socioeconomic status areas have less Mohs access. So our data from this study support a role for targeted education and improved patient access to Mohs,” Dr. Condon said.

He noted that because the SEER registries don’t track squamous or basal cell carcinomas, it’s unknown whether Mohs is also underutilized for the higher-risk forms of these most common of all skin cancers.

Dr. Condon reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM THE ACMS 50TH ANNUAL MEETING

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Mohs micrographic surgery remains seriously underutilized for the skin cancers for which it is most advantageous.

Major finding: The use of Mohs micrographic surgery to treat melanoma in situ declined significantly after passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Study details: This was a retrospective study of national SEER data on more than 25,000 patients treated for melanoma in situ or rare cutaneous malignancies during 2008-2014.

Disclosures: The presenter reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

New Guidelines for Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer: What You Need to Know

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
New Guidelines for Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer: What You Need to Know

 
 
 
Publications
Topics
Sections

 
 
 

 
 
 
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
New Guidelines for Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer: What You Need to Know
Display Headline
New Guidelines for Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer: What You Need to Know
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status

Polypoid Melanoma: An Aggressive Variant of Nodular Melanoma

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Polypoid Melanoma: An Aggressive Variant of Nodular Melanoma

To the Editor:

An 81-year-old man presented with a nodular polypoid lesion that developed on a flat lesion on the back of 2 years’ duration. The lesion grew progressively over the course of 3 months prior to presentation. The patient had a history of melanoma in situ on the forehead that was treated with conventional surgery with clear surgical margins 6 years prior to the current presentation.

On physical examination the patient had a 4×2-cm ulcerated polypoid lesion on the back. The lesion was pink with a pigmented base. Additionally, 2 pink papules with superficial telangiectases were observed around the main lesion (Figure 1).

The gross section showed an exophytic tumor largely growing above the skin surface (Figure 2). Histopathologic analysis revealed an ulcerated lesion consisting of confluent nest and sheets of epithelioid and spindle atypical cells with numerous mitotic figures and necrotic foci (Figure 3). The thickness of the lesion was 2200 µm, and the mitotic count was 28 mitoses/mm2. There also was peritumoral vascular invasion and satellite metastasis within the perilesional hypodermis measuring 0.4 mm. Immunohistochemistry staining for S-100, human melanoma black 45 (HMB-45)(Figure 4), and Melan-A was positive in neoplastic cells.

Figure1
Figure 1. Polypoid melanoma with a 4 × 2-cm ulcerated nodular lesion with crusts on the surface and 2 satellite pink lesions around the main lesion.

Figure2
Figure 2. A longitudinal section of the polypoid tumor.

Figure3
Figure 3. Histopathology showed neoplastic proliferation with atypical epithelioid and spindle-shaped melanocytes arranged in nests with superficial ulcer (H&E, original magnification ×100).

Figure4
Figure 4. Tumor cells were diffusely positive with human melanoma black 45 (HMB-45) immunostain (original magnification ×200).

The dissemination study revealed multiple mediastinal and axillary lymphadenopathies and lesions with metastatic appearance in the brain, liver, pancreas, and muscle, together with peritoneal carcinomatosis. The patient was lost to follow-up and did not follow coadjuvant therapy with interferon alfa.

Polypoid melanoma initially was described as a type of melanoma characterized by an exophytic growth in which most of the tumor is located on the cutaneous surface, together with ulceration.1 It usually occurs in patients aged 20 to 39 years,2 and the reported incidence ranges from 1.9% to 43.3%.1 It more commonly affects mucosae, including the upper respiratory tract, esophagus, and vagina. Polypoid melanoma has a rapid progression and a poor prognosis.3 Polypoid melanoma involving the skin primarily affects the back and has a 5-year survival rate of 32% to 42%.4 Poor prognosis has been attributed to the high risk for vascular embolization under the lesion.5 Histologically, there is marked cell atypia with nuclear and cellular pleomorphism and a high mitotic count. The tumor rarely involves the reticular dermis.1,2

Polypoid melanomas are rare; however, reported frequency rates cover a wide range. These frequency rates may be due to the definition of polypoid melanoma used by the pathologist issuing the report. One of the most accepted definitions at present is a pigmented macule that progresses in months with a rapid vertical growth, invading the epidermis and the papillary dermis.2 The differential diagnosis includes pyogenic granuloma, squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, soft tissue sarcomas, and hemangioma.

Although our patient had a history of melanoma and the polypoid lesion developed from a flat lesion, he was late to seek medical care. The diagnosis of melanoma is made on increasingly smaller lesions with better prognosis, but there still are reports of larger melanomas. This case highlights the role dermatologists serve in the education of patients on their diagnoses and risk factors so that we may be able to diagnose non–life-threatening small lesions. It is important to remember this morphologic variety of melanoma and highlight its rapid progression and poor prognosis.

References
  1. Knezević F, Duancić V, Sitić S, et al. Histological types of polypoid cutaneous melanoma II. Coll Antropol. 2007;31:1049-1053.
  2. Dini M, Quercioli F, Caldarella V, et al. Head and neck polypoid melanoma. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:E23-E25.
  3. Plotnick H, Rachmaninoff N, VandenBerg HJ Jr. Polypoid melanoma: a virulent variant of nodular melanoma. report of three cases and literature review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1990;23(5, pt 1):880-884.
  4. Manci EA, Balch CM, Murad TM, et al. Polypoid melanoma, a virulent variant of the nodular growth pattern. Am J Clin Pathol. 1981;75:810-815.
  5. De Giorgi V, Massi D, Gerlini G, et al. Immediate local and regional recurrence after the excision of a polypoid melanoma: tumor dormancy or tumor activation? Dermatol Surg. 2003;29:664-667.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Drs. Pérez-Wilson and Castro are from Clínica Alemana de Santiago, Chile. Dr. Pérez-Wilson is from the Dermatology Department and Dr. Castro is from the Pathology Department. Dr. Arellano is from the Department of Dermatology, Universidad de Chile, Santiago.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Jaime Pérez-Wilson, MD, Vitacura 5951, Santiago, Chile (jjperezw@yahoo.es).

Issue
Cutis - 101(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E6-E7
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Drs. Pérez-Wilson and Castro are from Clínica Alemana de Santiago, Chile. Dr. Pérez-Wilson is from the Dermatology Department and Dr. Castro is from the Pathology Department. Dr. Arellano is from the Department of Dermatology, Universidad de Chile, Santiago.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Jaime Pérez-Wilson, MD, Vitacura 5951, Santiago, Chile (jjperezw@yahoo.es).

Author and Disclosure Information

Drs. Pérez-Wilson and Castro are from Clínica Alemana de Santiago, Chile. Dr. Pérez-Wilson is from the Dermatology Department and Dr. Castro is from the Pathology Department. Dr. Arellano is from the Department of Dermatology, Universidad de Chile, Santiago.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Jaime Pérez-Wilson, MD, Vitacura 5951, Santiago, Chile (jjperezw@yahoo.es).

Article PDF
Article PDF

To the Editor:

An 81-year-old man presented with a nodular polypoid lesion that developed on a flat lesion on the back of 2 years’ duration. The lesion grew progressively over the course of 3 months prior to presentation. The patient had a history of melanoma in situ on the forehead that was treated with conventional surgery with clear surgical margins 6 years prior to the current presentation.

On physical examination the patient had a 4×2-cm ulcerated polypoid lesion on the back. The lesion was pink with a pigmented base. Additionally, 2 pink papules with superficial telangiectases were observed around the main lesion (Figure 1).

The gross section showed an exophytic tumor largely growing above the skin surface (Figure 2). Histopathologic analysis revealed an ulcerated lesion consisting of confluent nest and sheets of epithelioid and spindle atypical cells with numerous mitotic figures and necrotic foci (Figure 3). The thickness of the lesion was 2200 µm, and the mitotic count was 28 mitoses/mm2. There also was peritumoral vascular invasion and satellite metastasis within the perilesional hypodermis measuring 0.4 mm. Immunohistochemistry staining for S-100, human melanoma black 45 (HMB-45)(Figure 4), and Melan-A was positive in neoplastic cells.

Figure1
Figure 1. Polypoid melanoma with a 4 × 2-cm ulcerated nodular lesion with crusts on the surface and 2 satellite pink lesions around the main lesion.

Figure2
Figure 2. A longitudinal section of the polypoid tumor.

Figure3
Figure 3. Histopathology showed neoplastic proliferation with atypical epithelioid and spindle-shaped melanocytes arranged in nests with superficial ulcer (H&E, original magnification ×100).

Figure4
Figure 4. Tumor cells were diffusely positive with human melanoma black 45 (HMB-45) immunostain (original magnification ×200).

The dissemination study revealed multiple mediastinal and axillary lymphadenopathies and lesions with metastatic appearance in the brain, liver, pancreas, and muscle, together with peritoneal carcinomatosis. The patient was lost to follow-up and did not follow coadjuvant therapy with interferon alfa.

Polypoid melanoma initially was described as a type of melanoma characterized by an exophytic growth in which most of the tumor is located on the cutaneous surface, together with ulceration.1 It usually occurs in patients aged 20 to 39 years,2 and the reported incidence ranges from 1.9% to 43.3%.1 It more commonly affects mucosae, including the upper respiratory tract, esophagus, and vagina. Polypoid melanoma has a rapid progression and a poor prognosis.3 Polypoid melanoma involving the skin primarily affects the back and has a 5-year survival rate of 32% to 42%.4 Poor prognosis has been attributed to the high risk for vascular embolization under the lesion.5 Histologically, there is marked cell atypia with nuclear and cellular pleomorphism and a high mitotic count. The tumor rarely involves the reticular dermis.1,2

Polypoid melanomas are rare; however, reported frequency rates cover a wide range. These frequency rates may be due to the definition of polypoid melanoma used by the pathologist issuing the report. One of the most accepted definitions at present is a pigmented macule that progresses in months with a rapid vertical growth, invading the epidermis and the papillary dermis.2 The differential diagnosis includes pyogenic granuloma, squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, soft tissue sarcomas, and hemangioma.

Although our patient had a history of melanoma and the polypoid lesion developed from a flat lesion, he was late to seek medical care. The diagnosis of melanoma is made on increasingly smaller lesions with better prognosis, but there still are reports of larger melanomas. This case highlights the role dermatologists serve in the education of patients on their diagnoses and risk factors so that we may be able to diagnose non–life-threatening small lesions. It is important to remember this morphologic variety of melanoma and highlight its rapid progression and poor prognosis.

To the Editor:

An 81-year-old man presented with a nodular polypoid lesion that developed on a flat lesion on the back of 2 years’ duration. The lesion grew progressively over the course of 3 months prior to presentation. The patient had a history of melanoma in situ on the forehead that was treated with conventional surgery with clear surgical margins 6 years prior to the current presentation.

On physical examination the patient had a 4×2-cm ulcerated polypoid lesion on the back. The lesion was pink with a pigmented base. Additionally, 2 pink papules with superficial telangiectases were observed around the main lesion (Figure 1).

The gross section showed an exophytic tumor largely growing above the skin surface (Figure 2). Histopathologic analysis revealed an ulcerated lesion consisting of confluent nest and sheets of epithelioid and spindle atypical cells with numerous mitotic figures and necrotic foci (Figure 3). The thickness of the lesion was 2200 µm, and the mitotic count was 28 mitoses/mm2. There also was peritumoral vascular invasion and satellite metastasis within the perilesional hypodermis measuring 0.4 mm. Immunohistochemistry staining for S-100, human melanoma black 45 (HMB-45)(Figure 4), and Melan-A was positive in neoplastic cells.

Figure1
Figure 1. Polypoid melanoma with a 4 × 2-cm ulcerated nodular lesion with crusts on the surface and 2 satellite pink lesions around the main lesion.

Figure2
Figure 2. A longitudinal section of the polypoid tumor.

Figure3
Figure 3. Histopathology showed neoplastic proliferation with atypical epithelioid and spindle-shaped melanocytes arranged in nests with superficial ulcer (H&E, original magnification ×100).

Figure4
Figure 4. Tumor cells were diffusely positive with human melanoma black 45 (HMB-45) immunostain (original magnification ×200).

The dissemination study revealed multiple mediastinal and axillary lymphadenopathies and lesions with metastatic appearance in the brain, liver, pancreas, and muscle, together with peritoneal carcinomatosis. The patient was lost to follow-up and did not follow coadjuvant therapy with interferon alfa.

Polypoid melanoma initially was described as a type of melanoma characterized by an exophytic growth in which most of the tumor is located on the cutaneous surface, together with ulceration.1 It usually occurs in patients aged 20 to 39 years,2 and the reported incidence ranges from 1.9% to 43.3%.1 It more commonly affects mucosae, including the upper respiratory tract, esophagus, and vagina. Polypoid melanoma has a rapid progression and a poor prognosis.3 Polypoid melanoma involving the skin primarily affects the back and has a 5-year survival rate of 32% to 42%.4 Poor prognosis has been attributed to the high risk for vascular embolization under the lesion.5 Histologically, there is marked cell atypia with nuclear and cellular pleomorphism and a high mitotic count. The tumor rarely involves the reticular dermis.1,2

Polypoid melanomas are rare; however, reported frequency rates cover a wide range. These frequency rates may be due to the definition of polypoid melanoma used by the pathologist issuing the report. One of the most accepted definitions at present is a pigmented macule that progresses in months with a rapid vertical growth, invading the epidermis and the papillary dermis.2 The differential diagnosis includes pyogenic granuloma, squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, soft tissue sarcomas, and hemangioma.

Although our patient had a history of melanoma and the polypoid lesion developed from a flat lesion, he was late to seek medical care. The diagnosis of melanoma is made on increasingly smaller lesions with better prognosis, but there still are reports of larger melanomas. This case highlights the role dermatologists serve in the education of patients on their diagnoses and risk factors so that we may be able to diagnose non–life-threatening small lesions. It is important to remember this morphologic variety of melanoma and highlight its rapid progression and poor prognosis.

References
  1. Knezević F, Duancić V, Sitić S, et al. Histological types of polypoid cutaneous melanoma II. Coll Antropol. 2007;31:1049-1053.
  2. Dini M, Quercioli F, Caldarella V, et al. Head and neck polypoid melanoma. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:E23-E25.
  3. Plotnick H, Rachmaninoff N, VandenBerg HJ Jr. Polypoid melanoma: a virulent variant of nodular melanoma. report of three cases and literature review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1990;23(5, pt 1):880-884.
  4. Manci EA, Balch CM, Murad TM, et al. Polypoid melanoma, a virulent variant of the nodular growth pattern. Am J Clin Pathol. 1981;75:810-815.
  5. De Giorgi V, Massi D, Gerlini G, et al. Immediate local and regional recurrence after the excision of a polypoid melanoma: tumor dormancy or tumor activation? Dermatol Surg. 2003;29:664-667.
References
  1. Knezević F, Duancić V, Sitić S, et al. Histological types of polypoid cutaneous melanoma II. Coll Antropol. 2007;31:1049-1053.
  2. Dini M, Quercioli F, Caldarella V, et al. Head and neck polypoid melanoma. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:E23-E25.
  3. Plotnick H, Rachmaninoff N, VandenBerg HJ Jr. Polypoid melanoma: a virulent variant of nodular melanoma. report of three cases and literature review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1990;23(5, pt 1):880-884.
  4. Manci EA, Balch CM, Murad TM, et al. Polypoid melanoma, a virulent variant of the nodular growth pattern. Am J Clin Pathol. 1981;75:810-815.
  5. De Giorgi V, Massi D, Gerlini G, et al. Immediate local and regional recurrence after the excision of a polypoid melanoma: tumor dormancy or tumor activation? Dermatol Surg. 2003;29:664-667.
Issue
Cutis - 101(6)
Issue
Cutis - 101(6)
Page Number
E6-E7
Page Number
E6-E7
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Polypoid Melanoma: An Aggressive Variant of Nodular Melanoma
Display Headline
Polypoid Melanoma: An Aggressive Variant of Nodular Melanoma
Sections
Inside the Article

Practice Points

  • The differential diagnosis of polypoid melanoma includes pyogenic granuloma and squamous cell carcinoma.
  • Polypoid melanoma has a poor prognosis because of its thickness and ulceration at the time of diagnosis and the risk of vascular embolization.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media

IMPACT study: Matched targeted therapy improves survival in advanced cancer

Article Type
Changed

 

Matched targeted therapy improved long-term survival in patients with advanced cancer, according to findings from a retrospective analysis of molecularly profiled patients.

Of 3,743 patients tested as part of IMPACT (Initiative for Molecular Profiling and Advanced Cancer Therapy), 1,307 (34.9%) had at least one targetable molecular alteration. Of those, 711 (54.4%) received either matched targeted therapy that was being tested in a clinical trial or – in a small number of cases – therapy with an approved treatment used off label, and 596 (45.6%) received nonmatched therapy, Apostolia-Maria Tsimberidou, MD, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The objective response rates in 697 evaluable matched therapy patients was 16.2% versus 5.4% in 571 evaluable nonmatched patients, and stable disease for at least 6 months occurred in 18.7% and 14.7% of patients, respectively, for an overall disease control rate of 34.9% versus 20.1%, said Dr. Tsimberidou, a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Median progression-free survival in those who received matched versus nonmatched therapy was 4.0 months and 2.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.67), and median overall survival was 9.3 and 7.3 months, respectively (HR, 0.72), she said.

The 3-year overall survival rate was 15% versus 7%, respectively, and 10-year survival was 6% and 1%, respectively.

Patients included in IMPACT had a mean age of 57 years, and 39% were men. They were heavily pretreated (mean number of prior therapies was 4); only 2.8% of patients had no prior treatment. Cancers included gastrointestinal (24.2%), gynecologic (19.4%), breast (13.5%), melanoma (11.9%) and lung (8.7%).

In this video interview, Dr. Tsimberidou describes the rationale, methodology, and findings of IMPACT, including the use of a prognostic scoring system developed as part of the study to predict overall survival based on baseline characteristics, such as baseline p13K/AKT/mTOR pathway molecular alterations, which were shown on multivariate analysis in IMPACT to predict shorter overall survival versus other alterations. Other predictors of shorter survival included liver metastases, elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, poor functional status, low albumin levels, elevated platelet counts, and age of 60 years or older.

 

 


“We [also] wanted to see if adding the intervention ... would hold significance in this multivariate model, and we found that ... nonmatched therapy was associated with adverse survival; it was an independent factor associated with worse survival,” she said. “Therefore, matched targeted therapy is associated with longer survival.”

In the randomized, phase 2 trial IMPACT 2, progression-free survival will be compared in patients with and without matched targeted therapy, and the prognostic scoring system developed as part of IMPACT to predict overall survival based on baseline characteristics will be further evaluated, she said.

During a discussion of the findings during the press briefing, ASCO Expert Catherine M. Diefenbach, MD, said the type of precision medicine studied in IMPACT is “the wave of the future.

“Large scale efforts such as ASCO’s TAPUR or the NCI-MATCH trial will bring these efforts to many, many more patients, and hopefully usher in a new way of treating advanced cancer patients that will improve overall survival for many more patients,” said Dr. Diefenbach, of New York University.

Dr. Tsimberidou reported a consulting or advisory role with Roche, as well as research funding to her institution from EMD Serono, Baxter, Foundation Medicine, ONYX, Bayer, Boston Biomedical, Placon, IMMATICS, Karus Therapeutics, and StemCells.

SOURCE: Tsimberidou AM et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract LBA 2553.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

Matched targeted therapy improved long-term survival in patients with advanced cancer, according to findings from a retrospective analysis of molecularly profiled patients.

Of 3,743 patients tested as part of IMPACT (Initiative for Molecular Profiling and Advanced Cancer Therapy), 1,307 (34.9%) had at least one targetable molecular alteration. Of those, 711 (54.4%) received either matched targeted therapy that was being tested in a clinical trial or – in a small number of cases – therapy with an approved treatment used off label, and 596 (45.6%) received nonmatched therapy, Apostolia-Maria Tsimberidou, MD, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The objective response rates in 697 evaluable matched therapy patients was 16.2% versus 5.4% in 571 evaluable nonmatched patients, and stable disease for at least 6 months occurred in 18.7% and 14.7% of patients, respectively, for an overall disease control rate of 34.9% versus 20.1%, said Dr. Tsimberidou, a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Median progression-free survival in those who received matched versus nonmatched therapy was 4.0 months and 2.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.67), and median overall survival was 9.3 and 7.3 months, respectively (HR, 0.72), she said.

The 3-year overall survival rate was 15% versus 7%, respectively, and 10-year survival was 6% and 1%, respectively.

Patients included in IMPACT had a mean age of 57 years, and 39% were men. They were heavily pretreated (mean number of prior therapies was 4); only 2.8% of patients had no prior treatment. Cancers included gastrointestinal (24.2%), gynecologic (19.4%), breast (13.5%), melanoma (11.9%) and lung (8.7%).

In this video interview, Dr. Tsimberidou describes the rationale, methodology, and findings of IMPACT, including the use of a prognostic scoring system developed as part of the study to predict overall survival based on baseline characteristics, such as baseline p13K/AKT/mTOR pathway molecular alterations, which were shown on multivariate analysis in IMPACT to predict shorter overall survival versus other alterations. Other predictors of shorter survival included liver metastases, elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, poor functional status, low albumin levels, elevated platelet counts, and age of 60 years or older.

 

 


“We [also] wanted to see if adding the intervention ... would hold significance in this multivariate model, and we found that ... nonmatched therapy was associated with adverse survival; it was an independent factor associated with worse survival,” she said. “Therefore, matched targeted therapy is associated with longer survival.”

In the randomized, phase 2 trial IMPACT 2, progression-free survival will be compared in patients with and without matched targeted therapy, and the prognostic scoring system developed as part of IMPACT to predict overall survival based on baseline characteristics will be further evaluated, she said.

During a discussion of the findings during the press briefing, ASCO Expert Catherine M. Diefenbach, MD, said the type of precision medicine studied in IMPACT is “the wave of the future.

“Large scale efforts such as ASCO’s TAPUR or the NCI-MATCH trial will bring these efforts to many, many more patients, and hopefully usher in a new way of treating advanced cancer patients that will improve overall survival for many more patients,” said Dr. Diefenbach, of New York University.

Dr. Tsimberidou reported a consulting or advisory role with Roche, as well as research funding to her institution from EMD Serono, Baxter, Foundation Medicine, ONYX, Bayer, Boston Biomedical, Placon, IMMATICS, Karus Therapeutics, and StemCells.

SOURCE: Tsimberidou AM et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract LBA 2553.

 

Matched targeted therapy improved long-term survival in patients with advanced cancer, according to findings from a retrospective analysis of molecularly profiled patients.

Of 3,743 patients tested as part of IMPACT (Initiative for Molecular Profiling and Advanced Cancer Therapy), 1,307 (34.9%) had at least one targetable molecular alteration. Of those, 711 (54.4%) received either matched targeted therapy that was being tested in a clinical trial or – in a small number of cases – therapy with an approved treatment used off label, and 596 (45.6%) received nonmatched therapy, Apostolia-Maria Tsimberidou, MD, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The objective response rates in 697 evaluable matched therapy patients was 16.2% versus 5.4% in 571 evaluable nonmatched patients, and stable disease for at least 6 months occurred in 18.7% and 14.7% of patients, respectively, for an overall disease control rate of 34.9% versus 20.1%, said Dr. Tsimberidou, a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Median progression-free survival in those who received matched versus nonmatched therapy was 4.0 months and 2.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.67), and median overall survival was 9.3 and 7.3 months, respectively (HR, 0.72), she said.

The 3-year overall survival rate was 15% versus 7%, respectively, and 10-year survival was 6% and 1%, respectively.

Patients included in IMPACT had a mean age of 57 years, and 39% were men. They were heavily pretreated (mean number of prior therapies was 4); only 2.8% of patients had no prior treatment. Cancers included gastrointestinal (24.2%), gynecologic (19.4%), breast (13.5%), melanoma (11.9%) and lung (8.7%).

In this video interview, Dr. Tsimberidou describes the rationale, methodology, and findings of IMPACT, including the use of a prognostic scoring system developed as part of the study to predict overall survival based on baseline characteristics, such as baseline p13K/AKT/mTOR pathway molecular alterations, which were shown on multivariate analysis in IMPACT to predict shorter overall survival versus other alterations. Other predictors of shorter survival included liver metastases, elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, poor functional status, low albumin levels, elevated platelet counts, and age of 60 years or older.

 

 


“We [also] wanted to see if adding the intervention ... would hold significance in this multivariate model, and we found that ... nonmatched therapy was associated with adverse survival; it was an independent factor associated with worse survival,” she said. “Therefore, matched targeted therapy is associated with longer survival.”

In the randomized, phase 2 trial IMPACT 2, progression-free survival will be compared in patients with and without matched targeted therapy, and the prognostic scoring system developed as part of IMPACT to predict overall survival based on baseline characteristics will be further evaluated, she said.

During a discussion of the findings during the press briefing, ASCO Expert Catherine M. Diefenbach, MD, said the type of precision medicine studied in IMPACT is “the wave of the future.

“Large scale efforts such as ASCO’s TAPUR or the NCI-MATCH trial will bring these efforts to many, many more patients, and hopefully usher in a new way of treating advanced cancer patients that will improve overall survival for many more patients,” said Dr. Diefenbach, of New York University.

Dr. Tsimberidou reported a consulting or advisory role with Roche, as well as research funding to her institution from EMD Serono, Baxter, Foundation Medicine, ONYX, Bayer, Boston Biomedical, Placon, IMMATICS, Karus Therapeutics, and StemCells.

SOURCE: Tsimberidou AM et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract LBA 2553.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ASCO 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Matched targeted therapy improved survival in patients with advanced cancer.

Major finding: The 3-yearoverall survival rate with matched versus nonmatched therapy was 15% and 7%, respectively.

Study details: A retrospective analysis (IMPACT) of 3,743 molecularly profiled advanced cancer patients.

Disclosures: Dr. Tsimberidou reported a consulting or advisory role with Roche, as well as research funding to her institution from EMD Serono, Baxter, Foundation Medicine, ONYX Medical, Bayer, Boston Biomedical, Placon, IMMATICS, Karus Therapeutics, and StemCells.

Source: Tsimberidou AM et al. ASCO 2018, Abstract LBA 2553.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

New criteria slightly improved melanoma staging

Eighth edition yields “modest” progress
Article Type
Changed

 

Use of the recently updated AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition, produced about 10% better accuracy when interpreting T1a invasive melanomas in a national study.

For stage T1b or greater cases, using the AJCC 8 instead of the AJCC 7 yielded about 6% higher concordance between interpretations and consensus reference diagnoses, said Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her associates. “Intraobserver reproducibility of diagnoses also improved,” but “concordance and reproducibility remain low,” the researchers wrote. The report was published in JAMA Open Network.

For the study, 187 pathologists each interpreted one of five glass slide sets of melanocytic skin biopsies. At least 8 months later, they interpreted the same set again, both times recording their interpretations on the online Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx). Researchers then used AJCC 7 and AJCC 8 criteria to group these interpretations into one of five MPATH-Dx classes. The final analysis included only the 116 cases of invasive melanoma, because changes in the AJCC 8 criteria affected only MPATH-Dx classes IV (T1a) and V (T1b and higher), the investigators explained.

For T1a invasive melanomas, overall concordance between interpretations and consensus diagnoses rose from 44% (95% confidence interval, 41%-48%) under the AJCC 7 criteria to 54% (95% CI, 51%-57%) under the AJCC 8 criteria. For stage T1b or higher lesions, concordance rose from 72% to 78%. Intrapathologist reproducibility improved from 59% to 64% for T1a cases and from 74% to 77% for T1b or higher cases. Thus, the AJCC 8 produced “modest” improvements in concordance and reproducibility over the AJCC 7, the researchers said.

One of the most likely explanations is that the AJCC 8 eliminated dermal mitotic activity as a criterion for T1b melanomas, which is “potentially unreliable” in thin lesions, they added. Persistently low concordance and reproducibility “suggest that conventional histopathology has been parsed to a degree that falls below the limits of reliability,” they concluded.

The National Cancer Institute provided funding. Dr. Elmore disclosed ties to Myriad Genetics, SciBase, and the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Elmore JG et al. JAMA Network Open. 2018 May 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0083.

Body

 

Compared with the seventh edition, use of the eighth AJCC Cancer Staging Manual (AJCC 8) produced “modest but significant improvements” in reproducibility and concordance when microstaging cutaneous melanoma, Peter M. Ferguson, MBChB, PhD, FRCPA, Jeffrey E. Gershenwald, MD, and Richard A. Scolyer, MD, FRCPA, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

But the study revealed “significant” shortcomings in reproducibility, they added. Future studies should explore the reproducibility of individual AJCC parameters and how experience and access to relevant case data affects reproducibility, they wrote.

The study used the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis system instead of classifying cases by AJCC tumor categories. Consequently, pathologists collapsed several AJCC tumor subcategories into the Melanoma Pathology Study class V, which limited interpretability of results for T1b melanomas, an important threshold for recommending sentinel node biopsy. “[We] have published higher rates of concordance using AJCC 7 criteria, albeit with access to clinical information and reporting by a small number of pathologists with expertise reporting melanomas at a high-volume referral center,” the editorialists emphasized.

Dr. Ferguson and Dr. Scolyer are with the University of Sydney. Dr. Gershenwald is with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The editorialists disclosed support from the Robert and Lynne Grossman Family Foundation, the Michael and Patricia Booker Melanoma Research Endowment, Melanoma Institute Australia, the Deborah and John McMurtrie Melanoma Institute Australia Pathology Fellowship, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship. Dr. Gershenwald disclosed ties to Merck, Syndax, Castle Biosciences, and the AJCC (JAMA Network Open. 2018 May 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0086 ).

Publications
Topics
Sections
Body

 

Compared with the seventh edition, use of the eighth AJCC Cancer Staging Manual (AJCC 8) produced “modest but significant improvements” in reproducibility and concordance when microstaging cutaneous melanoma, Peter M. Ferguson, MBChB, PhD, FRCPA, Jeffrey E. Gershenwald, MD, and Richard A. Scolyer, MD, FRCPA, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

But the study revealed “significant” shortcomings in reproducibility, they added. Future studies should explore the reproducibility of individual AJCC parameters and how experience and access to relevant case data affects reproducibility, they wrote.

The study used the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis system instead of classifying cases by AJCC tumor categories. Consequently, pathologists collapsed several AJCC tumor subcategories into the Melanoma Pathology Study class V, which limited interpretability of results for T1b melanomas, an important threshold for recommending sentinel node biopsy. “[We] have published higher rates of concordance using AJCC 7 criteria, albeit with access to clinical information and reporting by a small number of pathologists with expertise reporting melanomas at a high-volume referral center,” the editorialists emphasized.

Dr. Ferguson and Dr. Scolyer are with the University of Sydney. Dr. Gershenwald is with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The editorialists disclosed support from the Robert and Lynne Grossman Family Foundation, the Michael and Patricia Booker Melanoma Research Endowment, Melanoma Institute Australia, the Deborah and John McMurtrie Melanoma Institute Australia Pathology Fellowship, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship. Dr. Gershenwald disclosed ties to Merck, Syndax, Castle Biosciences, and the AJCC (JAMA Network Open. 2018 May 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0086 ).

Body

 

Compared with the seventh edition, use of the eighth AJCC Cancer Staging Manual (AJCC 8) produced “modest but significant improvements” in reproducibility and concordance when microstaging cutaneous melanoma, Peter M. Ferguson, MBChB, PhD, FRCPA, Jeffrey E. Gershenwald, MD, and Richard A. Scolyer, MD, FRCPA, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

But the study revealed “significant” shortcomings in reproducibility, they added. Future studies should explore the reproducibility of individual AJCC parameters and how experience and access to relevant case data affects reproducibility, they wrote.

The study used the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis system instead of classifying cases by AJCC tumor categories. Consequently, pathologists collapsed several AJCC tumor subcategories into the Melanoma Pathology Study class V, which limited interpretability of results for T1b melanomas, an important threshold for recommending sentinel node biopsy. “[We] have published higher rates of concordance using AJCC 7 criteria, albeit with access to clinical information and reporting by a small number of pathologists with expertise reporting melanomas at a high-volume referral center,” the editorialists emphasized.

Dr. Ferguson and Dr. Scolyer are with the University of Sydney. Dr. Gershenwald is with the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The editorialists disclosed support from the Robert and Lynne Grossman Family Foundation, the Michael and Patricia Booker Melanoma Research Endowment, Melanoma Institute Australia, the Deborah and John McMurtrie Melanoma Institute Australia Pathology Fellowship, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship. Dr. Gershenwald disclosed ties to Merck, Syndax, Castle Biosciences, and the AJCC (JAMA Network Open. 2018 May 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0086 ).

Title
Eighth edition yields “modest” progress
Eighth edition yields “modest” progress

 

Use of the recently updated AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition, produced about 10% better accuracy when interpreting T1a invasive melanomas in a national study.

For stage T1b or greater cases, using the AJCC 8 instead of the AJCC 7 yielded about 6% higher concordance between interpretations and consensus reference diagnoses, said Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her associates. “Intraobserver reproducibility of diagnoses also improved,” but “concordance and reproducibility remain low,” the researchers wrote. The report was published in JAMA Open Network.

For the study, 187 pathologists each interpreted one of five glass slide sets of melanocytic skin biopsies. At least 8 months later, they interpreted the same set again, both times recording their interpretations on the online Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx). Researchers then used AJCC 7 and AJCC 8 criteria to group these interpretations into one of five MPATH-Dx classes. The final analysis included only the 116 cases of invasive melanoma, because changes in the AJCC 8 criteria affected only MPATH-Dx classes IV (T1a) and V (T1b and higher), the investigators explained.

For T1a invasive melanomas, overall concordance between interpretations and consensus diagnoses rose from 44% (95% confidence interval, 41%-48%) under the AJCC 7 criteria to 54% (95% CI, 51%-57%) under the AJCC 8 criteria. For stage T1b or higher lesions, concordance rose from 72% to 78%. Intrapathologist reproducibility improved from 59% to 64% for T1a cases and from 74% to 77% for T1b or higher cases. Thus, the AJCC 8 produced “modest” improvements in concordance and reproducibility over the AJCC 7, the researchers said.

One of the most likely explanations is that the AJCC 8 eliminated dermal mitotic activity as a criterion for T1b melanomas, which is “potentially unreliable” in thin lesions, they added. Persistently low concordance and reproducibility “suggest that conventional histopathology has been parsed to a degree that falls below the limits of reliability,” they concluded.

The National Cancer Institute provided funding. Dr. Elmore disclosed ties to Myriad Genetics, SciBase, and the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Elmore JG et al. JAMA Network Open. 2018 May 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0083.

 

Use of the recently updated AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition, produced about 10% better accuracy when interpreting T1a invasive melanomas in a national study.

For stage T1b or greater cases, using the AJCC 8 instead of the AJCC 7 yielded about 6% higher concordance between interpretations and consensus reference diagnoses, said Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her associates. “Intraobserver reproducibility of diagnoses also improved,” but “concordance and reproducibility remain low,” the researchers wrote. The report was published in JAMA Open Network.

For the study, 187 pathologists each interpreted one of five glass slide sets of melanocytic skin biopsies. At least 8 months later, they interpreted the same set again, both times recording their interpretations on the online Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx). Researchers then used AJCC 7 and AJCC 8 criteria to group these interpretations into one of five MPATH-Dx classes. The final analysis included only the 116 cases of invasive melanoma, because changes in the AJCC 8 criteria affected only MPATH-Dx classes IV (T1a) and V (T1b and higher), the investigators explained.

For T1a invasive melanomas, overall concordance between interpretations and consensus diagnoses rose from 44% (95% confidence interval, 41%-48%) under the AJCC 7 criteria to 54% (95% CI, 51%-57%) under the AJCC 8 criteria. For stage T1b or higher lesions, concordance rose from 72% to 78%. Intrapathologist reproducibility improved from 59% to 64% for T1a cases and from 74% to 77% for T1b or higher cases. Thus, the AJCC 8 produced “modest” improvements in concordance and reproducibility over the AJCC 7, the researchers said.

One of the most likely explanations is that the AJCC 8 eliminated dermal mitotic activity as a criterion for T1b melanomas, which is “potentially unreliable” in thin lesions, they added. Persistently low concordance and reproducibility “suggest that conventional histopathology has been parsed to a degree that falls below the limits of reliability,” they concluded.

The National Cancer Institute provided funding. Dr. Elmore disclosed ties to Myriad Genetics, SciBase, and the National Institutes of Health.

SOURCE: Elmore JG et al. JAMA Network Open. 2018 May 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0083.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Use of the recently updated AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition, somewhat improved concordance and reproducibility for invasive melanoma, compared with the previous edition.

Major finding: For diagnoses of T1a invasive melanoma, concordance with consensus diagnoses rose from 44% with the AJCC 7 to 54% with the AJCC 8. For T1b, concordance rose from 72% to 78%.

Study details: Interpretations of 116 invasive melanomas by 187 pathologists.

Disclosures: The National Cancer Institute provided funding. Dr. Elmore disclosed ties to Myriad Genetics, SciBase, and the National Institutes of Health.

Source: Elmore JG et al. JAMA Network Open. 2018 May 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0083.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Ropivacaine called top anesthesia for nail surgery

Article Type
Changed

 

– Ropivacaine has a fast onset of action, longer duration than either lidocaine or bupivacaine, and it’s the only one of the three that’s inherently vasoconstrictive. For Brienne Cressey, MD, those features make ropivacaine the local anesthetic of choice in performing nail surgery.

“Local anesthesia is really key for nail surgery. If you don’t have good anesthesia it’s not a good experience for either the surgeon or the patient,” she observed at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News
Dr. Brienne Cressey
However, when she asked for a show of hands at the outset of her talk on nail surgery pearls before a packed hall filled with Mohs surgeons, lidocaine (Xylocaine) was far and away the audience’s number-one choice for local anesthesia in nail surgery, followed by bupivacaine (Marcaine) in a distant second. Only a handful of surgeons favored ropivacaine (Naropin). So Dr. Cressey set about convincing the crowd as to why ropivacaine is worthy of serious consideration. She also explained how she employs the local anesthetic in performing a distal digital block, a procedure not widely used in dermatology, but one she prefers for nail surgery.

Lidocaine has a fast onset – less than 1 minute – but a problematic short duration of 30-120 minutes. Bupivacaine has the disadvantage of a slow onset of up to 5 minutes, albeit with a longer duration of anesthesia at 2-4 hours. Ropivacaine has a fast onset, plus a duration of up to 8 hours. And unlike lidocaine and bupivacaine, which are vasodilatory, ropivacaine is vasoconstrictive.



“With lidocaine, you get a lot of blood right after you take off your tourniquet. With ropivacaine, you get really nice reperfusion, but it’s not too much. You take off the tourniquet, check to see you’ve got reperfusion, then you add a little ropivacaine – about 0.5 mL – on either side of the base of the distal phalanx. It stops the bleeding immediately and you can easily put on a pressure dressing. It’s a nice way to get the patient over the hump of those first hours of pain and lets them drive home in comfort,” explained Dr. Cressey, a dermatologist working in a group practice at Dermatology Professionals in East Greenwich, R.I.

Ropivacaine is less cardiotoxic than bupivacaine. And ropivacaine offers an additional advantage: Its pH is such that no buffering is necessary. “Ropivacaine doesn’t require any compounding. You can just use it at 1% straight out of the bottle. That’s what we do in our office, and we’ve had very good experience with it,” according to the dermatologist.

Achieving smooth sailing with local anesthesia

Dr. Cressey delivers ropivacaine slowly through a 30-gauge needle, which makes for a smaller, less painful puncture. She utilizes a topical cold spray, and places a vibrating machine as a distractant proximal to where she is injecting. She keeps the anesthetic at room temperature or warms it to body temperature in a water bath as another means of reducing the pain of injection.

 

 

The distal digital block

This is a cross between a traditional proximal digital block and a wing block. It works well for the second, third, and fourth digits, which are mostly volar dominant. The block bathes the volar nerve branch in anesthesia at the midline of the finger or toe.

Dr. Cressey begins by injecting ropivacaine proximal and lateral to the junction of the proximal nail fold and lateral nail fold. After creating a dermal wheal, she directs her needle perpendicularly downward toward the finger or toe pad, injecting 1-4 mL of anesthesia, depending upon digit size. Visible blanching will progress digitally. If resistance is encountered, it suggests the needle has penetrated a ligament or other fibrous tissue. Simply withdraw the needle and continue injecting.

“What’s nice about the distal digital block is you get an immediate effect, and there’s good hemostasis during the procedure as well,” she said.

Dr. Cressey reported no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– Ropivacaine has a fast onset of action, longer duration than either lidocaine or bupivacaine, and it’s the only one of the three that’s inherently vasoconstrictive. For Brienne Cressey, MD, those features make ropivacaine the local anesthetic of choice in performing nail surgery.

“Local anesthesia is really key for nail surgery. If you don’t have good anesthesia it’s not a good experience for either the surgeon or the patient,” she observed at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News
Dr. Brienne Cressey
However, when she asked for a show of hands at the outset of her talk on nail surgery pearls before a packed hall filled with Mohs surgeons, lidocaine (Xylocaine) was far and away the audience’s number-one choice for local anesthesia in nail surgery, followed by bupivacaine (Marcaine) in a distant second. Only a handful of surgeons favored ropivacaine (Naropin). So Dr. Cressey set about convincing the crowd as to why ropivacaine is worthy of serious consideration. She also explained how she employs the local anesthetic in performing a distal digital block, a procedure not widely used in dermatology, but one she prefers for nail surgery.

Lidocaine has a fast onset – less than 1 minute – but a problematic short duration of 30-120 minutes. Bupivacaine has the disadvantage of a slow onset of up to 5 minutes, albeit with a longer duration of anesthesia at 2-4 hours. Ropivacaine has a fast onset, plus a duration of up to 8 hours. And unlike lidocaine and bupivacaine, which are vasodilatory, ropivacaine is vasoconstrictive.



“With lidocaine, you get a lot of blood right after you take off your tourniquet. With ropivacaine, you get really nice reperfusion, but it’s not too much. You take off the tourniquet, check to see you’ve got reperfusion, then you add a little ropivacaine – about 0.5 mL – on either side of the base of the distal phalanx. It stops the bleeding immediately and you can easily put on a pressure dressing. It’s a nice way to get the patient over the hump of those first hours of pain and lets them drive home in comfort,” explained Dr. Cressey, a dermatologist working in a group practice at Dermatology Professionals in East Greenwich, R.I.

Ropivacaine is less cardiotoxic than bupivacaine. And ropivacaine offers an additional advantage: Its pH is such that no buffering is necessary. “Ropivacaine doesn’t require any compounding. You can just use it at 1% straight out of the bottle. That’s what we do in our office, and we’ve had very good experience with it,” according to the dermatologist.

Achieving smooth sailing with local anesthesia

Dr. Cressey delivers ropivacaine slowly through a 30-gauge needle, which makes for a smaller, less painful puncture. She utilizes a topical cold spray, and places a vibrating machine as a distractant proximal to where she is injecting. She keeps the anesthetic at room temperature or warms it to body temperature in a water bath as another means of reducing the pain of injection.

 

 

The distal digital block

This is a cross between a traditional proximal digital block and a wing block. It works well for the second, third, and fourth digits, which are mostly volar dominant. The block bathes the volar nerve branch in anesthesia at the midline of the finger or toe.

Dr. Cressey begins by injecting ropivacaine proximal and lateral to the junction of the proximal nail fold and lateral nail fold. After creating a dermal wheal, she directs her needle perpendicularly downward toward the finger or toe pad, injecting 1-4 mL of anesthesia, depending upon digit size. Visible blanching will progress digitally. If resistance is encountered, it suggests the needle has penetrated a ligament or other fibrous tissue. Simply withdraw the needle and continue injecting.

“What’s nice about the distal digital block is you get an immediate effect, and there’s good hemostasis during the procedure as well,” she said.

Dr. Cressey reported no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

 

– Ropivacaine has a fast onset of action, longer duration than either lidocaine or bupivacaine, and it’s the only one of the three that’s inherently vasoconstrictive. For Brienne Cressey, MD, those features make ropivacaine the local anesthetic of choice in performing nail surgery.

“Local anesthesia is really key for nail surgery. If you don’t have good anesthesia it’s not a good experience for either the surgeon or the patient,” she observed at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News
Dr. Brienne Cressey
However, when she asked for a show of hands at the outset of her talk on nail surgery pearls before a packed hall filled with Mohs surgeons, lidocaine (Xylocaine) was far and away the audience’s number-one choice for local anesthesia in nail surgery, followed by bupivacaine (Marcaine) in a distant second. Only a handful of surgeons favored ropivacaine (Naropin). So Dr. Cressey set about convincing the crowd as to why ropivacaine is worthy of serious consideration. She also explained how she employs the local anesthetic in performing a distal digital block, a procedure not widely used in dermatology, but one she prefers for nail surgery.

Lidocaine has a fast onset – less than 1 minute – but a problematic short duration of 30-120 minutes. Bupivacaine has the disadvantage of a slow onset of up to 5 minutes, albeit with a longer duration of anesthesia at 2-4 hours. Ropivacaine has a fast onset, plus a duration of up to 8 hours. And unlike lidocaine and bupivacaine, which are vasodilatory, ropivacaine is vasoconstrictive.



“With lidocaine, you get a lot of blood right after you take off your tourniquet. With ropivacaine, you get really nice reperfusion, but it’s not too much. You take off the tourniquet, check to see you’ve got reperfusion, then you add a little ropivacaine – about 0.5 mL – on either side of the base of the distal phalanx. It stops the bleeding immediately and you can easily put on a pressure dressing. It’s a nice way to get the patient over the hump of those first hours of pain and lets them drive home in comfort,” explained Dr. Cressey, a dermatologist working in a group practice at Dermatology Professionals in East Greenwich, R.I.

Ropivacaine is less cardiotoxic than bupivacaine. And ropivacaine offers an additional advantage: Its pH is such that no buffering is necessary. “Ropivacaine doesn’t require any compounding. You can just use it at 1% straight out of the bottle. That’s what we do in our office, and we’ve had very good experience with it,” according to the dermatologist.

Achieving smooth sailing with local anesthesia

Dr. Cressey delivers ropivacaine slowly through a 30-gauge needle, which makes for a smaller, less painful puncture. She utilizes a topical cold spray, and places a vibrating machine as a distractant proximal to where she is injecting. She keeps the anesthetic at room temperature or warms it to body temperature in a water bath as another means of reducing the pain of injection.

 

 

The distal digital block

This is a cross between a traditional proximal digital block and a wing block. It works well for the second, third, and fourth digits, which are mostly volar dominant. The block bathes the volar nerve branch in anesthesia at the midline of the finger or toe.

Dr. Cressey begins by injecting ropivacaine proximal and lateral to the junction of the proximal nail fold and lateral nail fold. After creating a dermal wheal, she directs her needle perpendicularly downward toward the finger or toe pad, injecting 1-4 mL of anesthesia, depending upon digit size. Visible blanching will progress digitally. If resistance is encountered, it suggests the needle has penetrated a ligament or other fibrous tissue. Simply withdraw the needle and continue injecting.

“What’s nice about the distal digital block is you get an immediate effect, and there’s good hemostasis during the procedure as well,” she said.

Dr. Cressey reported no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE ACMS ANNUAL MEETING

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Using Dermoscopy to Identify Melanoma and Improve Diagnostic Discrimination (FULL)

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Using Dermoscopy to Identify Melanoma and Improve Diagnostic Discrimination
Use of dermoscopy and detection algorithms by primary care physicians can enhance assessment of clinically suspicious lesions compared with that of naked eye examinations.

From 1982 to 2011, the melanoma incidence rate doubled in the US.1 In 2018, an estimated 87,290 cases of melanoma in situ and 91,270 cases of invasive melanoma will be diagnosed in the US, and 9,320 deaths will be attributable to melanoma.2 Early detection of melanoma is critically important to reduce melanoma-related mortality, with 5-year survival rates as high as 97% at stage 1A vs a 20% 5-year survival when there is distant metastasis.2,3 Melanoma is particularly relevant for medical providers working with veterans because melanoma disproportionately affects service members with an incidence rate ratio of 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.86) compared with that of the general population.4

Biopsy is the definitive diagnostic tool for melanoma. Histologic analysis differentiates melanoma from seborrheic keratoses, pigmented nevi, dermatofibromas, and other pigmented lesions that can resemble melanoma on clinical examination. However, biopsy must be used judiciously as unnecessary biopsies contribute to health care costs and leave scars, which can have psychosocial implications. With benign nevi outnumbering melanoma about 2 million to 1, biopsy is indicated once a threshold of suspicion is obtained.5

Dermoscopic Tool

Dermoscopy is a microscopy-based tool to improve noninvasive diagnostic discrimination of skin lesions based on color and structure analysis. Coloration provides an indication of the composition of elements present in the skin with keratin appearing yellow, blood appearing red, and collagen appearing white. Coloration also suggests pigment depth as melanin appears black when located in the stratum corneum, brown when located deeper in the epidermis, and blue when located in the dermis.6 Finally, characteristic histopathologic alterations in the dermoepidermal junction, rete ridges, pigment-containing cells, and/or melanocyte granules that occur in melanoma are recognizable with dermoscopy.6

In 2001, Bafounta and colleagues performed the first meta-analysis on the efficacy of dermoscopy compared with that of clinical evaluation, finding that dermoscopy performed specifically by dermatology-trained clinicians improved the accuracy of identifying melanoma from an odds ratio of 16 (95% CI, 9-31) with naked eye examination to 76 (95% CI, 25-223) with dermoscopy.7

More recently, Terushkin and colleagues demonstrated that diagnosis specificity improves when a general dermatologist is trained in dermoscopic pattern recognition. Naked eye examination produced a benign to malignant ratio (BMR) of 18.4:1, indicating that about 18 of 19 biopsies considered suspicious for melanoma ultimately yielded benign melanocytic lesions. Although the BMR for the general dermatologist experienced an increase after dermoscopy training, the ratio eventually decreased to 7.9:1.8

Dermoscopic Analysis

Some of the common patterns recognized in melanoma are demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 is a close-up of a patient’s upper back showing a solitary asymmetric melanocytic lesion containing multiple red, brown, black, and blue hues. 

The lesion is highly suspicious for melanoma. Key patterns identified under dermoscopy in Figure 2 increase the level of suspicion. The pink circle in the upper left of the lesion demonstrates a scarlike regression of pigment structure.  The orange triangle signifies a region with marked variability in color called an atypical pigment network, and the centrally located yellow circle and gray square identify interspersed atypical dots and globules of color. The red rectangle on the right highlights irregular streaking, linear radial projections suggestive of superficial spreading melanoma. The green line identifies hypopigmentation with surrounding curvilinear globular structures collectively known as a negative network.  Finally, the bottom blue triangle overlies an area with a hazy blue tinge called a blue-white veil, indicating the presence of melanocytes deep in the dermis (Table 1).6,9

Pattern analysis, the dermoscopic interpretation method preferred by pigmented lesion specialists, requires simultaneously assessing numerous lesion patterns that vary depending on body site.10 Alternative dermoscopic algorithms that focus on the most common features of melanoma have been developed to aid practitioners with the interpretation of dermoscopy findings: the 7-point checklist, the Menzies method, the ABCD rule, and the CASH algorithm (Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5). 

To apply these algorithms to evaluate the lesion in Figures 1 and 2 ( eAppendix ).11-14 The triage amalgamated dermoscopic algorithm (TADA) method, a newer algorithm designed for novice dermoscopy users, is also discussed briefly.

Argenziano and colleagues developed the 7-point checklist in 1998. Two points are assigned to the lesion for each of the major criteria and 1 point for each minor criteria. 

The major criteria include an atypical pigment network, blue-white veil, and atypical vascular pattern; the minor criteria include irregular streaks, irregular pigmentation, irregular dots/globules, and regression structures.11 The lesion shown in Figure 2 scores an 8 out of 10 by this metric, handily surpassing the 3 points required to suggest melanoma.11

The Menzies method was developed by Menzies and colleagues in 1996. To be classified as melanoma, the pigmented lesion must show an absence of pattern symmetry and color uniformity while simultaneously exhibiting at least one of the following: blue-white veil, multiple brown dots, pseudopods, radial streaming, scarlike depigmentation, peripheral block dots/globules, 5 to 6 colors, multiple blue/gray dots, and a broadened network.12 

Again, the lesion shown in Figure 2 meets the criteria concerning for melanoma based on this algorithm.

The ABCD rule is a more technical dermoscopic evaluation algorithm developed in 1994 by Stolz and colleagues. This method yields a numeric value called the total dermoscopic score (TDS) based on Asymmetry, Border pigment pattern, Color variation, and 5 Different structural components. 

The assessment of asymmetry is determined by analyzing the lesion in a plane bisected by 2 axes set at 90°. A score from 0 to 2 is assigned based on the number of axes showing asymmetry in shape, color, or structure. Border pigment pattern is analyzed by dividing the lesion into eighths. A sharp, abrupt change in pigment pattern at the periphery earns the lesion 1 point for each division. The determination of the color variation score is done by adding 1 point for each white, red, light brown, dark brown, blue-gray, or black region identified in the lesion. Last, the lesion is assigned 1 point for each of 5 different structural components observed in the lesion, which include networks, homogenous areas, dots, globules, and streaks. To be significant, homogenous areas must be at least 10% of the lesion, and multiple branched streaks or dots must be visible. The TDS is calculated with the following formula: TDS = 1.3 x Asymmetry + 0.1 x Border + 0.5 x Color + 0.5 x Different. Higher scores are more concerning of melanoma, with scores > 5.45 suggesting melanoma.13 The lesion shown in Figure 2 registers a 7.7 by this metric.

Henning and colleagues developed the CASH algorithm in 2006 with the intention of assisting less experienced dermoscopy users with lesion evaluation.14 This algorithm tallies points for Color, Architectural disorder, Symmetry, and Homogeneity. One point is attributed to a lesion for each light brown, dark brown, black, red, white, and/or blue region present. Architectural disorder is assigned a point value between 0 and 2, with 0 indicating the absence of or minimal architectural disorder, 1 indicating moderate disorder, and 2 indicating marked disorder. Symmetry is assigned a point value between 0 and 2, with 0 points assigned to a lesion that exhibits biaxial symmetry, 1 point assigned to a lesion that exhibits monoaxial symmetry, and 2 points assigned to a lesion that exhibits biaxial asymmetry. Finally, 1 point is attributed to a lesion for evidence of each of the following: atypical network, dots/globules, streaks/pseudopods, blue-white veil, regression structures, blotches > 10% of the overall lesion size, and polymorphous blood vessels. The lesion in Figure 2 scores 16 points out of the maximum total CASH score of 17. Any lesion scoring 8 or more is suggestive of malignant melanoma.14

Finally, the TADA method was developed by Rogers and colleagues in 2016.15 This method uses sequential questions to evaluate lesions. First, “Does the lesion exhibit clear dermoscopic evidence of an angioma, dermatofibroma, or seborrheic keratosis?” If “yes,” then no additional dermoscopic evaluation is necessary, and it is recommended to monitor the lesion. If the answer to the first question is “no,” then ask, “Does the lesion exhibit architectural disorder?” The presence of architectural disorder is based on an overall impression of the lesion, which includes symmetry with regard to structures and colors. Any lesion deemed to exhibit architectural disorder should be biopsied. If the lesion has no architectural disorder, the third question is, “Does the lesion contain any starburst patterns, blue-black or gray coloration, shiny white structures, negative networks, ulcers or erosions, and/or vessels?” If “yes,” then the lesion should be biopsied. Since the lesion in Figure 2 exhibits marked architectural disorder in terms of symmetry and color, analysis of the lesion with the TADA method would yield a recommendation for biopsy.15

 

 

Dermoscopy in Practice

A. Bernard Ackerman, MD, a key figure in the modern era of dermatopathology, wrote an editorial for the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in 1985 titled “No one should die of malignant melanoma.” The editorial highlighted that the visual changes associated with melanoma often manifest years prior to malignant invasion and advocated that all physicians should have competence in melanoma detection, specifically mentioning the importance of training primary care physicians (PCPs), dermatologists, and pathologists in this regard.16 This sentiment is equally as true now as it was in 1985.

Naked eye examination paired with an evaluation of patient risk factors for melanoma, including fair skin types, significant sun exposure history, history of sunburn, geographic location, and personal and family history of melanoma, are the foundation of melanoma detection efforts.17 Studies suggest that the triage skills of PCPs could be improved in regard to the evaluation of pigmented lesions. Primary care residents, for instance, did not accurately diagnose 40% of malignant melanoma cases.18,19 Additionally, a meta-analysis demonstrated that PCP accuracy when diagnosing malignant melanoma ranged between 49% and 80%, significantly less than the 85% to 89% exhibited by practicing dermatologists.19 Dermoscopy could be incorporated as an element of the skin examination to enhance lesion discrimination among PCPs, as it has proven use in dermatologic practice.

Dermoscopy is not readily used by PCPs. A survey study of 705 family practitioners in the US performed by Morris and colleagues demonstrated that only 8.3% of participants currently use a dermatoscope to evaluate pigmented lesions.20 The most common barriers to dermoscopy use cited by PCPs in the US include the cost of the dermatoscope, the time required to acquire proficiency, and the lack of financial reimbursement.16 True utilization of dermoscopy among PCPs is higher than this figure suggests due to the number of PCPs who access dermoscopic evaluations via teledermatology. All 21 Veterans Integrated Services Networks of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system, for instance, participate in teledermatology and jointly employ more than 1,150 trained telehealth clinical technicians who created a collective 107,000 teledermatology encounters with and without dermoscopy for evaluation by dermatologists in the most recent fiscal year(Martin Weinstock, written communication, October 2017). Nonetheless, it is necessary to determine the contribution that wider utilization of dermoscopy among PCPs would have on melanoma surveillance.

Studies show that dermoscopic algorithms improve the sensitivity while slightly decreasing the specificity of PCPs to detect melanoma compared with that of the naked eye examination. Dolianitis and colleagues demonstrated that a baseline sensitivity of 60.9% for melanoma detection improved to 85.4% with the 7-point checklist, 85.4% with Menzies method, and 77.5% with the ABCD rule, while the baseline specificity of 85.4% moderated to 73.0%, 77.7%, and 80.4%, respectively, among 61 medical practitioners after studying dermoscopy techniques from 2 CDs.21 Westerhoff and colleagues performed a randomized controlled trial with 74 PCPs to determine the effect of a minimal intervention on melanoma diagnostic accuracy. The intervention consisted of providing participants in the experimental group with an atlas of microscopic features common to melanoma to be read at the participants’ leisure, a 1-hour presentation on microscopy, and a 25-questionpractice quiz. Participants randomized to the intervention group improved their diagnostic accuracy from 57.8% to 75.9% with the use of dermoscopy. This group also experiencedimproved accuracy in its clinical diagnosis of melanoma from 54.6% to 62.7%.22

Argenziano and colleagues demonstrated similar results after PCPs attended a 4-hour workshop on dermoscopy. The 73 PCPs in this study evaluated 2,522 lesions randomized to naked eye examination or dermoscopy. The BMR, calculated from the data provided, improved from 12.6:1 to 10.5:1, respectively, when dermoscopy was incorporated into lesion analysis, while the sensitivity increased from 54.1% to 79.2% and the negative predictive value increased from 95.8% to 98.1%. It is important to note that the BMR and negative predictive value improved in tandem, indicating that PCPs were more discriminatory with their referrals for evaluation by dermatology while capturing a greater percentage of melanomas.23

These studies are not without limitations that preclude broad generalizations. For example, Dolianitis and colleagues and Westerhoff and colleagues provided participants with dermoscopic images of the lesions to be evaluated instead of requiring personal use of a dermatoscope, whereas the study by Argenziano and colleagues incorporated only 6 histopathologically proven malignant melanomas into each of the naked eye examination and the experimental dermoscopy groups.21-23 Yet these studies suggest that broader use of dermoscopy among PCPs could improve the accuracy of melanoma detection given clinically relevant training.

Several additional studies identify positive correlations associated with dermoscopy use among PCPs. A recent survey of 425 French general practitioners found that 8% of the study participants acknowledged owning a dermatoscope. Dermatoscope owners spent a statistically significant longer time analyzing each pigmented skin lesions, exhibited greater confidence in their analysis of pigmented lesions, and issued fewer overall referrals to dermatologists.24

Similarly, Rosendahl and colleagues evaluated the number needed to treat (NNT) (equivalent to the BMR) among 193 Australian PCPs and found that the NNT was inversely correlated to the frequency with which the physicians used dermoscopy. However, it was difficult to determine the definitive cause of the reduced NNT in this study because a similar effect was observed when NNT was evaluated based on general practitioner subspecialization.25 Again, despite limitations, these studies suggest that increased dermoscopy use among PCPs could reduce the morbidity of lifelong scarring as well as the short-term anxiety associated with a possible melanoma diagnosis.

 

 

Limitations

Even in the hands of a trained dermatologist, dermoscopy has limitations. Featureless melanoma is a term applied to melanoma lesions bereft of classical findings on both naked eye examination and dermoscopy. Menzies, a dermatologic pioneer in dermoscopy, acknowledged this limitation in 1996 while showing that 8% of melanomas evaded dermoscopic detection. He proceeded to discuss the importance of clinical history in melanoma detection because all of the featureless melanomas exhibited recent changes in size, shape, and/or color.26 More recently, sequential dermoscopy (mole mapping) imaging has been implemented to successfully identify these lesions.27 Thus, dermoscopy cannot replace dermatologists trained in the art of visual assessment with honed clinical diagnostic acumen. Rather, dermoscopy is a tool to enhance the assessment of clinically suspicious lesions and aid diagnostic discrimination of uncertain pigmented lesions.

Conclusion

Primary care physicians are on the frontline of medicine and often the first to have the opportunity to detect the presence of melanoma. Notably, 52.2% of the 884.7 million medical office visits performed annually in the US are with PCPs.28 Despite the benefits, dermoscopy is not uniformly used by dermatologists in the US. Of dermatologists practicing for more than 20 years, 76.2% use dermoscopy compared with 97.8% of dermatologists in practice for less than 5 years. This illustrates an increased use in tandem with dermatology residencies integrating dermoscopy training as a component of the curriculum, showing the importance of incorporating dermoscopy into medical school and residency training for PCPs..29-31 Guidelines regarding dermoscopy training and dermoscopic evaluation algorithms should be established, routinely taught in medical education, and actively incorporated into training curriculum for PCPs in order to improve patient care and realize the potential health care savings associated with the early diagnosis and treatment of melanoma. Dermoscopic-teledermatology consultations present a viable opportunity within the VHA to expedite access to care for veterans and simultaneously offer evaluative feedback on lesions to referring PCPs, as skilled, dermoscopy-trained dermatologists render the diagnoses. Given the devastating mortality rate of melanoma, continued multidisciplinary education on identifying melanoma is of the utmost importance for patient care. Widespread implementation of dermoscopy and dermoscopic-teledermatology consultations could save lives and slow the ever-increasing economic burden associated with melanoma treatment, costing $1.467 billion in 2016.32

References

1. Guy GP Jr, Thomas CC, Thompson T, Watson M, Massetti GM, Richardson LC. Vital signs: melanoma incidence and mortality trends and projections-United States, 1982-2030. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(21):591-596.

2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7-30.

3. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2017. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2017. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2017/cancer-facts-and-figures-2017.pdf. Accessed April 19, 2018.

4. Lea CS, Efird JT, Toland AE, Lewis DR, Phillips CJ. Melanoma incidence rates in active duty military personnel compared with a population-based registry in the United States, 2000-2007. Mil Med. 2014;179(3):247-253.

5. Thomas L, Puig S. Dermoscopy, digital dermoscopy and other diagnostic tools in the early detection of melanoma and follow-up of high-risk skin cancer patients. Acta Derm Venereol. 2017;97(218):14-21.

6. Marghoob AA, Usatine RP, Jaimes N. Dermoscopy for the family physician. Am Fam Physician. 2013;88(7):441-450.

7. Bafounta ML, Beauchet A, Aegerter P, Saiag P. Is dermoscopy (epiluminescence microscopy) useful for the diagnosis of melanoma? Results of a meta-analysis using techniques adapted to the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Arch Dermatol. 2001;137(10):1343-1350.

8. Terushkin V, Warycha M, Levy M, Kopf AW, Cohen DE, Polsky D. Analysis of the benign to malignant ratio of lesions biopsied by a general dermatologist before and after the adoption of dermoscopy. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(3):343-344.

9. Wolner ZJ, Yélamos O, Liopyris K, Rogers T, Marchetti MA, Marghoob AA. Enhancing skin cancer diagnosis with dermoscopy. Dermatol Clin. 2017;35(4):417-437.

10. Carli P, Quercioli E, Sestini S, et al. Pattern analysis, not simplified algorithms, is the most reliable method for teaching dermoscopy for melanoma diagnosis to residents in dermatology. Br J Dermatol. 2003;148(5):981-984.

11. Argenziano G, Fabbrocini G, Carli P, De Giorgi V, Sammarco E, Delfino M. Epiluminescence microscopy for the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic skin lesions. Comparison of the ABCD rule of dermatoscopy and a new 7-point checklist based on pattern analysis. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134(12):1563-1570.

12. Menzies SW, Ingvar C, Crotty KA, McCarthy WH. Frequency and morphologic characteristics of invasive melanomas lacking specific surface microscopic features. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132(10):1178-1182.

13. Nachbar F, Stolz W, Merkle T, et al. The ABCD rule of dermatoscopy. High prospective value in the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic skin lesions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1994;30(4):551-559.

14. Henning JS, Dusza SW, Wang SQ, et al. The CASH (color, architecture, symmetry, and homogeneity) algorithm for dermoscopy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56(1):45-52.

15. Rogers T, Marino M, Dusza SW, Bajaj S, Marchetti MA, Marghoob A. Triage amalgamated dermoscopic algorithm (TADA) for skin cancer screening. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2017;7(2):39-46.

16. Ackerman AB. No one should die of malignant melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1985;12(1):115-116.

17. Gandini S, Sera F, Cattaruzza MS, et al. Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: II: sun exposure. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41(1):45-60.

18. Gerbert B, Maurer T, Berger T, et al. Primary care physicians as gatekeepers in managed care. Primary care physicians’ and dermatologists’ skills at secondary prevention of skin cancer. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132(9):1030-1038.

19. Corbo MD, Wismer J. Agreement between dermatologists and primary care practitioners in the diagnosis of malignant melanoma: review of the literature. J Cutan Med Surg. 2012;16(5):306-310.

20. Morris JB, Alfonso SV, Hernandez N, Fernández MI. Examining the factors associated with past and present dermoscopy use among family physicians. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2017;7(4):63-70.

21. Dolianitis C, Kelly J, Wolfe R, Simpson P. Comparative performance of 4 dermoscopic algorithms by nonexperts for the diagnosis of melanocytic lesions. Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(8):1008-1014.

22. Westerhoff K, Mccarthy WH, Menzies SW. Increase in the sensitivity for melanoma diagnosis by primary care physicians using skin surface microscopy. Br J Dermatol. 2000;143(5):1016-1020.

23. Argenziano G, Puig S, Zalaudek I, et al. Dermoscopy improves accuracy of primary care physicians to triage lesions suggestive of skin cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(12):1877-1882.

24. Chappuis P, Duru G, Marchal O, Girier P, Dalle S, Thomas L. Dermoscopy, a useful tool for general practitioners in melanoma screening: a nationwide survey. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175(4):744-750.

25. Rosendahl C, Williams G, Eley D, et al. The impact of subspecialization and dermatoscopy use on accuracy of melanoma diagnosis among primary care doctors in Australia. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67(5):846-852.

26. Menzies SW, Ingvar C, Crotty KA, McCarthy WH. Frequency and morphologic characteristics of invasive melanomas lacking specific surface microscopic features. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132(10):1178-1182.

27. Kittler H, Guitera P, Riedl E, et al. Identification of clinically featureless incipient melanoma using sequential dermoscopy imaging. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142(9):1113-1119.

28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ambulatory care use and physician office visits. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/physician-visits.htm. Updated May 3, 2017. Accessed April 10, 2018.

29. Murzaku EC, Hayan S, Rao BK. Methods and rates of dermoscopy usage: a cross-sectional survey of US dermatologists stratified by years in practice. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71(2):393-395.

30. Nehal KS, Oliveria SA, Marghoob AA, et al. Use of and beliefs about dermoscopy in the management of patients with pigmented lesions: a survey of dermatology residency programmes in the United States. Melanoma Res. 2002;12(6):601-605.

31. Wu TP, Newlove T, Smith L, Vuong CH, Stein JA, Polsky D. The importance of dedicated dermoscopy training during residency: a survey of US dermatology chief residents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68(6):1000-1005.

32. Lim HW, Collins SAB, Resneck JS Jr, et al. The burden of skin disease in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(5):958-972

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Mr. Holmes is a Medical Student at the University of California, Riverside in Riverside, California. Ms. Limone is a Medical Student, Dr. Vassantachart is a PGY-2 Dermatology Resident, and Dr. Zumwalt is a PGY-4 Dermatology Resident, all at Loma Linda University in Loma Linda, California. Dr. Jacob is the Dermatology Section Chief and Professor of Dermatology, and Dr. Hirokane is the Dermatology Clinical Director
and Assistant Professor of Dermatology, both at Loma Linda University and the Loma Linda VA Medical Center.
Correspondence: Dr. Jacob (sharon.jacob@va.gov)

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of
Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 35(4)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S39-S45
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Mr. Holmes is a Medical Student at the University of California, Riverside in Riverside, California. Ms. Limone is a Medical Student, Dr. Vassantachart is a PGY-2 Dermatology Resident, and Dr. Zumwalt is a PGY-4 Dermatology Resident, all at Loma Linda University in Loma Linda, California. Dr. Jacob is the Dermatology Section Chief and Professor of Dermatology, and Dr. Hirokane is the Dermatology Clinical Director
and Assistant Professor of Dermatology, both at Loma Linda University and the Loma Linda VA Medical Center.
Correspondence: Dr. Jacob (sharon.jacob@va.gov)

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of
Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Author and Disclosure Information

Mr. Holmes is a Medical Student at the University of California, Riverside in Riverside, California. Ms. Limone is a Medical Student, Dr. Vassantachart is a PGY-2 Dermatology Resident, and Dr. Zumwalt is a PGY-4 Dermatology Resident, all at Loma Linda University in Loma Linda, California. Dr. Jacob is the Dermatology Section Chief and Professor of Dermatology, and Dr. Hirokane is the Dermatology Clinical Director
and Assistant Professor of Dermatology, both at Loma Linda University and the Loma Linda VA Medical Center.
Correspondence: Dr. Jacob (sharon.jacob@va.gov)

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of
Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Use of dermoscopy and detection algorithms by primary care physicians can enhance assessment of clinically suspicious lesions compared with that of naked eye examinations.
Use of dermoscopy and detection algorithms by primary care physicians can enhance assessment of clinically suspicious lesions compared with that of naked eye examinations.

From 1982 to 2011, the melanoma incidence rate doubled in the US.1 In 2018, an estimated 87,290 cases of melanoma in situ and 91,270 cases of invasive melanoma will be diagnosed in the US, and 9,320 deaths will be attributable to melanoma.2 Early detection of melanoma is critically important to reduce melanoma-related mortality, with 5-year survival rates as high as 97% at stage 1A vs a 20% 5-year survival when there is distant metastasis.2,3 Melanoma is particularly relevant for medical providers working with veterans because melanoma disproportionately affects service members with an incidence rate ratio of 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.86) compared with that of the general population.4

Biopsy is the definitive diagnostic tool for melanoma. Histologic analysis differentiates melanoma from seborrheic keratoses, pigmented nevi, dermatofibromas, and other pigmented lesions that can resemble melanoma on clinical examination. However, biopsy must be used judiciously as unnecessary biopsies contribute to health care costs and leave scars, which can have psychosocial implications. With benign nevi outnumbering melanoma about 2 million to 1, biopsy is indicated once a threshold of suspicion is obtained.5

Dermoscopic Tool

Dermoscopy is a microscopy-based tool to improve noninvasive diagnostic discrimination of skin lesions based on color and structure analysis. Coloration provides an indication of the composition of elements present in the skin with keratin appearing yellow, blood appearing red, and collagen appearing white. Coloration also suggests pigment depth as melanin appears black when located in the stratum corneum, brown when located deeper in the epidermis, and blue when located in the dermis.6 Finally, characteristic histopathologic alterations in the dermoepidermal junction, rete ridges, pigment-containing cells, and/or melanocyte granules that occur in melanoma are recognizable with dermoscopy.6

In 2001, Bafounta and colleagues performed the first meta-analysis on the efficacy of dermoscopy compared with that of clinical evaluation, finding that dermoscopy performed specifically by dermatology-trained clinicians improved the accuracy of identifying melanoma from an odds ratio of 16 (95% CI, 9-31) with naked eye examination to 76 (95% CI, 25-223) with dermoscopy.7

More recently, Terushkin and colleagues demonstrated that diagnosis specificity improves when a general dermatologist is trained in dermoscopic pattern recognition. Naked eye examination produced a benign to malignant ratio (BMR) of 18.4:1, indicating that about 18 of 19 biopsies considered suspicious for melanoma ultimately yielded benign melanocytic lesions. Although the BMR for the general dermatologist experienced an increase after dermoscopy training, the ratio eventually decreased to 7.9:1.8

Dermoscopic Analysis

Some of the common patterns recognized in melanoma are demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 is a close-up of a patient’s upper back showing a solitary asymmetric melanocytic lesion containing multiple red, brown, black, and blue hues. 

The lesion is highly suspicious for melanoma. Key patterns identified under dermoscopy in Figure 2 increase the level of suspicion. The pink circle in the upper left of the lesion demonstrates a scarlike regression of pigment structure.  The orange triangle signifies a region with marked variability in color called an atypical pigment network, and the centrally located yellow circle and gray square identify interspersed atypical dots and globules of color. The red rectangle on the right highlights irregular streaking, linear radial projections suggestive of superficial spreading melanoma. The green line identifies hypopigmentation with surrounding curvilinear globular structures collectively known as a negative network.  Finally, the bottom blue triangle overlies an area with a hazy blue tinge called a blue-white veil, indicating the presence of melanocytes deep in the dermis (Table 1).6,9

Pattern analysis, the dermoscopic interpretation method preferred by pigmented lesion specialists, requires simultaneously assessing numerous lesion patterns that vary depending on body site.10 Alternative dermoscopic algorithms that focus on the most common features of melanoma have been developed to aid practitioners with the interpretation of dermoscopy findings: the 7-point checklist, the Menzies method, the ABCD rule, and the CASH algorithm (Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5). 

To apply these algorithms to evaluate the lesion in Figures 1 and 2 ( eAppendix ).11-14 The triage amalgamated dermoscopic algorithm (TADA) method, a newer algorithm designed for novice dermoscopy users, is also discussed briefly.

Argenziano and colleagues developed the 7-point checklist in 1998. Two points are assigned to the lesion for each of the major criteria and 1 point for each minor criteria. 

The major criteria include an atypical pigment network, blue-white veil, and atypical vascular pattern; the minor criteria include irregular streaks, irregular pigmentation, irregular dots/globules, and regression structures.11 The lesion shown in Figure 2 scores an 8 out of 10 by this metric, handily surpassing the 3 points required to suggest melanoma.11

The Menzies method was developed by Menzies and colleagues in 1996. To be classified as melanoma, the pigmented lesion must show an absence of pattern symmetry and color uniformity while simultaneously exhibiting at least one of the following: blue-white veil, multiple brown dots, pseudopods, radial streaming, scarlike depigmentation, peripheral block dots/globules, 5 to 6 colors, multiple blue/gray dots, and a broadened network.12 

Again, the lesion shown in Figure 2 meets the criteria concerning for melanoma based on this algorithm.

The ABCD rule is a more technical dermoscopic evaluation algorithm developed in 1994 by Stolz and colleagues. This method yields a numeric value called the total dermoscopic score (TDS) based on Asymmetry, Border pigment pattern, Color variation, and 5 Different structural components. 

The assessment of asymmetry is determined by analyzing the lesion in a plane bisected by 2 axes set at 90°. A score from 0 to 2 is assigned based on the number of axes showing asymmetry in shape, color, or structure. Border pigment pattern is analyzed by dividing the lesion into eighths. A sharp, abrupt change in pigment pattern at the periphery earns the lesion 1 point for each division. The determination of the color variation score is done by adding 1 point for each white, red, light brown, dark brown, blue-gray, or black region identified in the lesion. Last, the lesion is assigned 1 point for each of 5 different structural components observed in the lesion, which include networks, homogenous areas, dots, globules, and streaks. To be significant, homogenous areas must be at least 10% of the lesion, and multiple branched streaks or dots must be visible. The TDS is calculated with the following formula: TDS = 1.3 x Asymmetry + 0.1 x Border + 0.5 x Color + 0.5 x Different. Higher scores are more concerning of melanoma, with scores > 5.45 suggesting melanoma.13 The lesion shown in Figure 2 registers a 7.7 by this metric.

Henning and colleagues developed the CASH algorithm in 2006 with the intention of assisting less experienced dermoscopy users with lesion evaluation.14 This algorithm tallies points for Color, Architectural disorder, Symmetry, and Homogeneity. One point is attributed to a lesion for each light brown, dark brown, black, red, white, and/or blue region present. Architectural disorder is assigned a point value between 0 and 2, with 0 indicating the absence of or minimal architectural disorder, 1 indicating moderate disorder, and 2 indicating marked disorder. Symmetry is assigned a point value between 0 and 2, with 0 points assigned to a lesion that exhibits biaxial symmetry, 1 point assigned to a lesion that exhibits monoaxial symmetry, and 2 points assigned to a lesion that exhibits biaxial asymmetry. Finally, 1 point is attributed to a lesion for evidence of each of the following: atypical network, dots/globules, streaks/pseudopods, blue-white veil, regression structures, blotches > 10% of the overall lesion size, and polymorphous blood vessels. The lesion in Figure 2 scores 16 points out of the maximum total CASH score of 17. Any lesion scoring 8 or more is suggestive of malignant melanoma.14

Finally, the TADA method was developed by Rogers and colleagues in 2016.15 This method uses sequential questions to evaluate lesions. First, “Does the lesion exhibit clear dermoscopic evidence of an angioma, dermatofibroma, or seborrheic keratosis?” If “yes,” then no additional dermoscopic evaluation is necessary, and it is recommended to monitor the lesion. If the answer to the first question is “no,” then ask, “Does the lesion exhibit architectural disorder?” The presence of architectural disorder is based on an overall impression of the lesion, which includes symmetry with regard to structures and colors. Any lesion deemed to exhibit architectural disorder should be biopsied. If the lesion has no architectural disorder, the third question is, “Does the lesion contain any starburst patterns, blue-black or gray coloration, shiny white structures, negative networks, ulcers or erosions, and/or vessels?” If “yes,” then the lesion should be biopsied. Since the lesion in Figure 2 exhibits marked architectural disorder in terms of symmetry and color, analysis of the lesion with the TADA method would yield a recommendation for biopsy.15

 

 

Dermoscopy in Practice

A. Bernard Ackerman, MD, a key figure in the modern era of dermatopathology, wrote an editorial for the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in 1985 titled “No one should die of malignant melanoma.” The editorial highlighted that the visual changes associated with melanoma often manifest years prior to malignant invasion and advocated that all physicians should have competence in melanoma detection, specifically mentioning the importance of training primary care physicians (PCPs), dermatologists, and pathologists in this regard.16 This sentiment is equally as true now as it was in 1985.

Naked eye examination paired with an evaluation of patient risk factors for melanoma, including fair skin types, significant sun exposure history, history of sunburn, geographic location, and personal and family history of melanoma, are the foundation of melanoma detection efforts.17 Studies suggest that the triage skills of PCPs could be improved in regard to the evaluation of pigmented lesions. Primary care residents, for instance, did not accurately diagnose 40% of malignant melanoma cases.18,19 Additionally, a meta-analysis demonstrated that PCP accuracy when diagnosing malignant melanoma ranged between 49% and 80%, significantly less than the 85% to 89% exhibited by practicing dermatologists.19 Dermoscopy could be incorporated as an element of the skin examination to enhance lesion discrimination among PCPs, as it has proven use in dermatologic practice.

Dermoscopy is not readily used by PCPs. A survey study of 705 family practitioners in the US performed by Morris and colleagues demonstrated that only 8.3% of participants currently use a dermatoscope to evaluate pigmented lesions.20 The most common barriers to dermoscopy use cited by PCPs in the US include the cost of the dermatoscope, the time required to acquire proficiency, and the lack of financial reimbursement.16 True utilization of dermoscopy among PCPs is higher than this figure suggests due to the number of PCPs who access dermoscopic evaluations via teledermatology. All 21 Veterans Integrated Services Networks of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system, for instance, participate in teledermatology and jointly employ more than 1,150 trained telehealth clinical technicians who created a collective 107,000 teledermatology encounters with and without dermoscopy for evaluation by dermatologists in the most recent fiscal year(Martin Weinstock, written communication, October 2017). Nonetheless, it is necessary to determine the contribution that wider utilization of dermoscopy among PCPs would have on melanoma surveillance.

Studies show that dermoscopic algorithms improve the sensitivity while slightly decreasing the specificity of PCPs to detect melanoma compared with that of the naked eye examination. Dolianitis and colleagues demonstrated that a baseline sensitivity of 60.9% for melanoma detection improved to 85.4% with the 7-point checklist, 85.4% with Menzies method, and 77.5% with the ABCD rule, while the baseline specificity of 85.4% moderated to 73.0%, 77.7%, and 80.4%, respectively, among 61 medical practitioners after studying dermoscopy techniques from 2 CDs.21 Westerhoff and colleagues performed a randomized controlled trial with 74 PCPs to determine the effect of a minimal intervention on melanoma diagnostic accuracy. The intervention consisted of providing participants in the experimental group with an atlas of microscopic features common to melanoma to be read at the participants’ leisure, a 1-hour presentation on microscopy, and a 25-questionpractice quiz. Participants randomized to the intervention group improved their diagnostic accuracy from 57.8% to 75.9% with the use of dermoscopy. This group also experiencedimproved accuracy in its clinical diagnosis of melanoma from 54.6% to 62.7%.22

Argenziano and colleagues demonstrated similar results after PCPs attended a 4-hour workshop on dermoscopy. The 73 PCPs in this study evaluated 2,522 lesions randomized to naked eye examination or dermoscopy. The BMR, calculated from the data provided, improved from 12.6:1 to 10.5:1, respectively, when dermoscopy was incorporated into lesion analysis, while the sensitivity increased from 54.1% to 79.2% and the negative predictive value increased from 95.8% to 98.1%. It is important to note that the BMR and negative predictive value improved in tandem, indicating that PCPs were more discriminatory with their referrals for evaluation by dermatology while capturing a greater percentage of melanomas.23

These studies are not without limitations that preclude broad generalizations. For example, Dolianitis and colleagues and Westerhoff and colleagues provided participants with dermoscopic images of the lesions to be evaluated instead of requiring personal use of a dermatoscope, whereas the study by Argenziano and colleagues incorporated only 6 histopathologically proven malignant melanomas into each of the naked eye examination and the experimental dermoscopy groups.21-23 Yet these studies suggest that broader use of dermoscopy among PCPs could improve the accuracy of melanoma detection given clinically relevant training.

Several additional studies identify positive correlations associated with dermoscopy use among PCPs. A recent survey of 425 French general practitioners found that 8% of the study participants acknowledged owning a dermatoscope. Dermatoscope owners spent a statistically significant longer time analyzing each pigmented skin lesions, exhibited greater confidence in their analysis of pigmented lesions, and issued fewer overall referrals to dermatologists.24

Similarly, Rosendahl and colleagues evaluated the number needed to treat (NNT) (equivalent to the BMR) among 193 Australian PCPs and found that the NNT was inversely correlated to the frequency with which the physicians used dermoscopy. However, it was difficult to determine the definitive cause of the reduced NNT in this study because a similar effect was observed when NNT was evaluated based on general practitioner subspecialization.25 Again, despite limitations, these studies suggest that increased dermoscopy use among PCPs could reduce the morbidity of lifelong scarring as well as the short-term anxiety associated with a possible melanoma diagnosis.

 

 

Limitations

Even in the hands of a trained dermatologist, dermoscopy has limitations. Featureless melanoma is a term applied to melanoma lesions bereft of classical findings on both naked eye examination and dermoscopy. Menzies, a dermatologic pioneer in dermoscopy, acknowledged this limitation in 1996 while showing that 8% of melanomas evaded dermoscopic detection. He proceeded to discuss the importance of clinical history in melanoma detection because all of the featureless melanomas exhibited recent changes in size, shape, and/or color.26 More recently, sequential dermoscopy (mole mapping) imaging has been implemented to successfully identify these lesions.27 Thus, dermoscopy cannot replace dermatologists trained in the art of visual assessment with honed clinical diagnostic acumen. Rather, dermoscopy is a tool to enhance the assessment of clinically suspicious lesions and aid diagnostic discrimination of uncertain pigmented lesions.

Conclusion

Primary care physicians are on the frontline of medicine and often the first to have the opportunity to detect the presence of melanoma. Notably, 52.2% of the 884.7 million medical office visits performed annually in the US are with PCPs.28 Despite the benefits, dermoscopy is not uniformly used by dermatologists in the US. Of dermatologists practicing for more than 20 years, 76.2% use dermoscopy compared with 97.8% of dermatologists in practice for less than 5 years. This illustrates an increased use in tandem with dermatology residencies integrating dermoscopy training as a component of the curriculum, showing the importance of incorporating dermoscopy into medical school and residency training for PCPs..29-31 Guidelines regarding dermoscopy training and dermoscopic evaluation algorithms should be established, routinely taught in medical education, and actively incorporated into training curriculum for PCPs in order to improve patient care and realize the potential health care savings associated with the early diagnosis and treatment of melanoma. Dermoscopic-teledermatology consultations present a viable opportunity within the VHA to expedite access to care for veterans and simultaneously offer evaluative feedback on lesions to referring PCPs, as skilled, dermoscopy-trained dermatologists render the diagnoses. Given the devastating mortality rate of melanoma, continued multidisciplinary education on identifying melanoma is of the utmost importance for patient care. Widespread implementation of dermoscopy and dermoscopic-teledermatology consultations could save lives and slow the ever-increasing economic burden associated with melanoma treatment, costing $1.467 billion in 2016.32

From 1982 to 2011, the melanoma incidence rate doubled in the US.1 In 2018, an estimated 87,290 cases of melanoma in situ and 91,270 cases of invasive melanoma will be diagnosed in the US, and 9,320 deaths will be attributable to melanoma.2 Early detection of melanoma is critically important to reduce melanoma-related mortality, with 5-year survival rates as high as 97% at stage 1A vs a 20% 5-year survival when there is distant metastasis.2,3 Melanoma is particularly relevant for medical providers working with veterans because melanoma disproportionately affects service members with an incidence rate ratio of 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.86) compared with that of the general population.4

Biopsy is the definitive diagnostic tool for melanoma. Histologic analysis differentiates melanoma from seborrheic keratoses, pigmented nevi, dermatofibromas, and other pigmented lesions that can resemble melanoma on clinical examination. However, biopsy must be used judiciously as unnecessary biopsies contribute to health care costs and leave scars, which can have psychosocial implications. With benign nevi outnumbering melanoma about 2 million to 1, biopsy is indicated once a threshold of suspicion is obtained.5

Dermoscopic Tool

Dermoscopy is a microscopy-based tool to improve noninvasive diagnostic discrimination of skin lesions based on color and structure analysis. Coloration provides an indication of the composition of elements present in the skin with keratin appearing yellow, blood appearing red, and collagen appearing white. Coloration also suggests pigment depth as melanin appears black when located in the stratum corneum, brown when located deeper in the epidermis, and blue when located in the dermis.6 Finally, characteristic histopathologic alterations in the dermoepidermal junction, rete ridges, pigment-containing cells, and/or melanocyte granules that occur in melanoma are recognizable with dermoscopy.6

In 2001, Bafounta and colleagues performed the first meta-analysis on the efficacy of dermoscopy compared with that of clinical evaluation, finding that dermoscopy performed specifically by dermatology-trained clinicians improved the accuracy of identifying melanoma from an odds ratio of 16 (95% CI, 9-31) with naked eye examination to 76 (95% CI, 25-223) with dermoscopy.7

More recently, Terushkin and colleagues demonstrated that diagnosis specificity improves when a general dermatologist is trained in dermoscopic pattern recognition. Naked eye examination produced a benign to malignant ratio (BMR) of 18.4:1, indicating that about 18 of 19 biopsies considered suspicious for melanoma ultimately yielded benign melanocytic lesions. Although the BMR for the general dermatologist experienced an increase after dermoscopy training, the ratio eventually decreased to 7.9:1.8

Dermoscopic Analysis

Some of the common patterns recognized in melanoma are demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 is a close-up of a patient’s upper back showing a solitary asymmetric melanocytic lesion containing multiple red, brown, black, and blue hues. 

The lesion is highly suspicious for melanoma. Key patterns identified under dermoscopy in Figure 2 increase the level of suspicion. The pink circle in the upper left of the lesion demonstrates a scarlike regression of pigment structure.  The orange triangle signifies a region with marked variability in color called an atypical pigment network, and the centrally located yellow circle and gray square identify interspersed atypical dots and globules of color. The red rectangle on the right highlights irregular streaking, linear radial projections suggestive of superficial spreading melanoma. The green line identifies hypopigmentation with surrounding curvilinear globular structures collectively known as a negative network.  Finally, the bottom blue triangle overlies an area with a hazy blue tinge called a blue-white veil, indicating the presence of melanocytes deep in the dermis (Table 1).6,9

Pattern analysis, the dermoscopic interpretation method preferred by pigmented lesion specialists, requires simultaneously assessing numerous lesion patterns that vary depending on body site.10 Alternative dermoscopic algorithms that focus on the most common features of melanoma have been developed to aid practitioners with the interpretation of dermoscopy findings: the 7-point checklist, the Menzies method, the ABCD rule, and the CASH algorithm (Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5). 

To apply these algorithms to evaluate the lesion in Figures 1 and 2 ( eAppendix ).11-14 The triage amalgamated dermoscopic algorithm (TADA) method, a newer algorithm designed for novice dermoscopy users, is also discussed briefly.

Argenziano and colleagues developed the 7-point checklist in 1998. Two points are assigned to the lesion for each of the major criteria and 1 point for each minor criteria. 

The major criteria include an atypical pigment network, blue-white veil, and atypical vascular pattern; the minor criteria include irregular streaks, irregular pigmentation, irregular dots/globules, and regression structures.11 The lesion shown in Figure 2 scores an 8 out of 10 by this metric, handily surpassing the 3 points required to suggest melanoma.11

The Menzies method was developed by Menzies and colleagues in 1996. To be classified as melanoma, the pigmented lesion must show an absence of pattern symmetry and color uniformity while simultaneously exhibiting at least one of the following: blue-white veil, multiple brown dots, pseudopods, radial streaming, scarlike depigmentation, peripheral block dots/globules, 5 to 6 colors, multiple blue/gray dots, and a broadened network.12 

Again, the lesion shown in Figure 2 meets the criteria concerning for melanoma based on this algorithm.

The ABCD rule is a more technical dermoscopic evaluation algorithm developed in 1994 by Stolz and colleagues. This method yields a numeric value called the total dermoscopic score (TDS) based on Asymmetry, Border pigment pattern, Color variation, and 5 Different structural components. 

The assessment of asymmetry is determined by analyzing the lesion in a plane bisected by 2 axes set at 90°. A score from 0 to 2 is assigned based on the number of axes showing asymmetry in shape, color, or structure. Border pigment pattern is analyzed by dividing the lesion into eighths. A sharp, abrupt change in pigment pattern at the periphery earns the lesion 1 point for each division. The determination of the color variation score is done by adding 1 point for each white, red, light brown, dark brown, blue-gray, or black region identified in the lesion. Last, the lesion is assigned 1 point for each of 5 different structural components observed in the lesion, which include networks, homogenous areas, dots, globules, and streaks. To be significant, homogenous areas must be at least 10% of the lesion, and multiple branched streaks or dots must be visible. The TDS is calculated with the following formula: TDS = 1.3 x Asymmetry + 0.1 x Border + 0.5 x Color + 0.5 x Different. Higher scores are more concerning of melanoma, with scores > 5.45 suggesting melanoma.13 The lesion shown in Figure 2 registers a 7.7 by this metric.

Henning and colleagues developed the CASH algorithm in 2006 with the intention of assisting less experienced dermoscopy users with lesion evaluation.14 This algorithm tallies points for Color, Architectural disorder, Symmetry, and Homogeneity. One point is attributed to a lesion for each light brown, dark brown, black, red, white, and/or blue region present. Architectural disorder is assigned a point value between 0 and 2, with 0 indicating the absence of or minimal architectural disorder, 1 indicating moderate disorder, and 2 indicating marked disorder. Symmetry is assigned a point value between 0 and 2, with 0 points assigned to a lesion that exhibits biaxial symmetry, 1 point assigned to a lesion that exhibits monoaxial symmetry, and 2 points assigned to a lesion that exhibits biaxial asymmetry. Finally, 1 point is attributed to a lesion for evidence of each of the following: atypical network, dots/globules, streaks/pseudopods, blue-white veil, regression structures, blotches > 10% of the overall lesion size, and polymorphous blood vessels. The lesion in Figure 2 scores 16 points out of the maximum total CASH score of 17. Any lesion scoring 8 or more is suggestive of malignant melanoma.14

Finally, the TADA method was developed by Rogers and colleagues in 2016.15 This method uses sequential questions to evaluate lesions. First, “Does the lesion exhibit clear dermoscopic evidence of an angioma, dermatofibroma, or seborrheic keratosis?” If “yes,” then no additional dermoscopic evaluation is necessary, and it is recommended to monitor the lesion. If the answer to the first question is “no,” then ask, “Does the lesion exhibit architectural disorder?” The presence of architectural disorder is based on an overall impression of the lesion, which includes symmetry with regard to structures and colors. Any lesion deemed to exhibit architectural disorder should be biopsied. If the lesion has no architectural disorder, the third question is, “Does the lesion contain any starburst patterns, blue-black or gray coloration, shiny white structures, negative networks, ulcers or erosions, and/or vessels?” If “yes,” then the lesion should be biopsied. Since the lesion in Figure 2 exhibits marked architectural disorder in terms of symmetry and color, analysis of the lesion with the TADA method would yield a recommendation for biopsy.15

 

 

Dermoscopy in Practice

A. Bernard Ackerman, MD, a key figure in the modern era of dermatopathology, wrote an editorial for the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in 1985 titled “No one should die of malignant melanoma.” The editorial highlighted that the visual changes associated with melanoma often manifest years prior to malignant invasion and advocated that all physicians should have competence in melanoma detection, specifically mentioning the importance of training primary care physicians (PCPs), dermatologists, and pathologists in this regard.16 This sentiment is equally as true now as it was in 1985.

Naked eye examination paired with an evaluation of patient risk factors for melanoma, including fair skin types, significant sun exposure history, history of sunburn, geographic location, and personal and family history of melanoma, are the foundation of melanoma detection efforts.17 Studies suggest that the triage skills of PCPs could be improved in regard to the evaluation of pigmented lesions. Primary care residents, for instance, did not accurately diagnose 40% of malignant melanoma cases.18,19 Additionally, a meta-analysis demonstrated that PCP accuracy when diagnosing malignant melanoma ranged between 49% and 80%, significantly less than the 85% to 89% exhibited by practicing dermatologists.19 Dermoscopy could be incorporated as an element of the skin examination to enhance lesion discrimination among PCPs, as it has proven use in dermatologic practice.

Dermoscopy is not readily used by PCPs. A survey study of 705 family practitioners in the US performed by Morris and colleagues demonstrated that only 8.3% of participants currently use a dermatoscope to evaluate pigmented lesions.20 The most common barriers to dermoscopy use cited by PCPs in the US include the cost of the dermatoscope, the time required to acquire proficiency, and the lack of financial reimbursement.16 True utilization of dermoscopy among PCPs is higher than this figure suggests due to the number of PCPs who access dermoscopic evaluations via teledermatology. All 21 Veterans Integrated Services Networks of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system, for instance, participate in teledermatology and jointly employ more than 1,150 trained telehealth clinical technicians who created a collective 107,000 teledermatology encounters with and without dermoscopy for evaluation by dermatologists in the most recent fiscal year(Martin Weinstock, written communication, October 2017). Nonetheless, it is necessary to determine the contribution that wider utilization of dermoscopy among PCPs would have on melanoma surveillance.

Studies show that dermoscopic algorithms improve the sensitivity while slightly decreasing the specificity of PCPs to detect melanoma compared with that of the naked eye examination. Dolianitis and colleagues demonstrated that a baseline sensitivity of 60.9% for melanoma detection improved to 85.4% with the 7-point checklist, 85.4% with Menzies method, and 77.5% with the ABCD rule, while the baseline specificity of 85.4% moderated to 73.0%, 77.7%, and 80.4%, respectively, among 61 medical practitioners after studying dermoscopy techniques from 2 CDs.21 Westerhoff and colleagues performed a randomized controlled trial with 74 PCPs to determine the effect of a minimal intervention on melanoma diagnostic accuracy. The intervention consisted of providing participants in the experimental group with an atlas of microscopic features common to melanoma to be read at the participants’ leisure, a 1-hour presentation on microscopy, and a 25-questionpractice quiz. Participants randomized to the intervention group improved their diagnostic accuracy from 57.8% to 75.9% with the use of dermoscopy. This group also experiencedimproved accuracy in its clinical diagnosis of melanoma from 54.6% to 62.7%.22

Argenziano and colleagues demonstrated similar results after PCPs attended a 4-hour workshop on dermoscopy. The 73 PCPs in this study evaluated 2,522 lesions randomized to naked eye examination or dermoscopy. The BMR, calculated from the data provided, improved from 12.6:1 to 10.5:1, respectively, when dermoscopy was incorporated into lesion analysis, while the sensitivity increased from 54.1% to 79.2% and the negative predictive value increased from 95.8% to 98.1%. It is important to note that the BMR and negative predictive value improved in tandem, indicating that PCPs were more discriminatory with their referrals for evaluation by dermatology while capturing a greater percentage of melanomas.23

These studies are not without limitations that preclude broad generalizations. For example, Dolianitis and colleagues and Westerhoff and colleagues provided participants with dermoscopic images of the lesions to be evaluated instead of requiring personal use of a dermatoscope, whereas the study by Argenziano and colleagues incorporated only 6 histopathologically proven malignant melanomas into each of the naked eye examination and the experimental dermoscopy groups.21-23 Yet these studies suggest that broader use of dermoscopy among PCPs could improve the accuracy of melanoma detection given clinically relevant training.

Several additional studies identify positive correlations associated with dermoscopy use among PCPs. A recent survey of 425 French general practitioners found that 8% of the study participants acknowledged owning a dermatoscope. Dermatoscope owners spent a statistically significant longer time analyzing each pigmented skin lesions, exhibited greater confidence in their analysis of pigmented lesions, and issued fewer overall referrals to dermatologists.24

Similarly, Rosendahl and colleagues evaluated the number needed to treat (NNT) (equivalent to the BMR) among 193 Australian PCPs and found that the NNT was inversely correlated to the frequency with which the physicians used dermoscopy. However, it was difficult to determine the definitive cause of the reduced NNT in this study because a similar effect was observed when NNT was evaluated based on general practitioner subspecialization.25 Again, despite limitations, these studies suggest that increased dermoscopy use among PCPs could reduce the morbidity of lifelong scarring as well as the short-term anxiety associated with a possible melanoma diagnosis.

 

 

Limitations

Even in the hands of a trained dermatologist, dermoscopy has limitations. Featureless melanoma is a term applied to melanoma lesions bereft of classical findings on both naked eye examination and dermoscopy. Menzies, a dermatologic pioneer in dermoscopy, acknowledged this limitation in 1996 while showing that 8% of melanomas evaded dermoscopic detection. He proceeded to discuss the importance of clinical history in melanoma detection because all of the featureless melanomas exhibited recent changes in size, shape, and/or color.26 More recently, sequential dermoscopy (mole mapping) imaging has been implemented to successfully identify these lesions.27 Thus, dermoscopy cannot replace dermatologists trained in the art of visual assessment with honed clinical diagnostic acumen. Rather, dermoscopy is a tool to enhance the assessment of clinically suspicious lesions and aid diagnostic discrimination of uncertain pigmented lesions.

Conclusion

Primary care physicians are on the frontline of medicine and often the first to have the opportunity to detect the presence of melanoma. Notably, 52.2% of the 884.7 million medical office visits performed annually in the US are with PCPs.28 Despite the benefits, dermoscopy is not uniformly used by dermatologists in the US. Of dermatologists practicing for more than 20 years, 76.2% use dermoscopy compared with 97.8% of dermatologists in practice for less than 5 years. This illustrates an increased use in tandem with dermatology residencies integrating dermoscopy training as a component of the curriculum, showing the importance of incorporating dermoscopy into medical school and residency training for PCPs..29-31 Guidelines regarding dermoscopy training and dermoscopic evaluation algorithms should be established, routinely taught in medical education, and actively incorporated into training curriculum for PCPs in order to improve patient care and realize the potential health care savings associated with the early diagnosis and treatment of melanoma. Dermoscopic-teledermatology consultations present a viable opportunity within the VHA to expedite access to care for veterans and simultaneously offer evaluative feedback on lesions to referring PCPs, as skilled, dermoscopy-trained dermatologists render the diagnoses. Given the devastating mortality rate of melanoma, continued multidisciplinary education on identifying melanoma is of the utmost importance for patient care. Widespread implementation of dermoscopy and dermoscopic-teledermatology consultations could save lives and slow the ever-increasing economic burden associated with melanoma treatment, costing $1.467 billion in 2016.32

References

1. Guy GP Jr, Thomas CC, Thompson T, Watson M, Massetti GM, Richardson LC. Vital signs: melanoma incidence and mortality trends and projections-United States, 1982-2030. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(21):591-596.

2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7-30.

3. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2017. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2017. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2017/cancer-facts-and-figures-2017.pdf. Accessed April 19, 2018.

4. Lea CS, Efird JT, Toland AE, Lewis DR, Phillips CJ. Melanoma incidence rates in active duty military personnel compared with a population-based registry in the United States, 2000-2007. Mil Med. 2014;179(3):247-253.

5. Thomas L, Puig S. Dermoscopy, digital dermoscopy and other diagnostic tools in the early detection of melanoma and follow-up of high-risk skin cancer patients. Acta Derm Venereol. 2017;97(218):14-21.

6. Marghoob AA, Usatine RP, Jaimes N. Dermoscopy for the family physician. Am Fam Physician. 2013;88(7):441-450.

7. Bafounta ML, Beauchet A, Aegerter P, Saiag P. Is dermoscopy (epiluminescence microscopy) useful for the diagnosis of melanoma? Results of a meta-analysis using techniques adapted to the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Arch Dermatol. 2001;137(10):1343-1350.

8. Terushkin V, Warycha M, Levy M, Kopf AW, Cohen DE, Polsky D. Analysis of the benign to malignant ratio of lesions biopsied by a general dermatologist before and after the adoption of dermoscopy. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(3):343-344.

9. Wolner ZJ, Yélamos O, Liopyris K, Rogers T, Marchetti MA, Marghoob AA. Enhancing skin cancer diagnosis with dermoscopy. Dermatol Clin. 2017;35(4):417-437.

10. Carli P, Quercioli E, Sestini S, et al. Pattern analysis, not simplified algorithms, is the most reliable method for teaching dermoscopy for melanoma diagnosis to residents in dermatology. Br J Dermatol. 2003;148(5):981-984.

11. Argenziano G, Fabbrocini G, Carli P, De Giorgi V, Sammarco E, Delfino M. Epiluminescence microscopy for the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic skin lesions. Comparison of the ABCD rule of dermatoscopy and a new 7-point checklist based on pattern analysis. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134(12):1563-1570.

12. Menzies SW, Ingvar C, Crotty KA, McCarthy WH. Frequency and morphologic characteristics of invasive melanomas lacking specific surface microscopic features. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132(10):1178-1182.

13. Nachbar F, Stolz W, Merkle T, et al. The ABCD rule of dermatoscopy. High prospective value in the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic skin lesions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1994;30(4):551-559.

14. Henning JS, Dusza SW, Wang SQ, et al. The CASH (color, architecture, symmetry, and homogeneity) algorithm for dermoscopy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56(1):45-52.

15. Rogers T, Marino M, Dusza SW, Bajaj S, Marchetti MA, Marghoob A. Triage amalgamated dermoscopic algorithm (TADA) for skin cancer screening. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2017;7(2):39-46.

16. Ackerman AB. No one should die of malignant melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1985;12(1):115-116.

17. Gandini S, Sera F, Cattaruzza MS, et al. Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: II: sun exposure. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41(1):45-60.

18. Gerbert B, Maurer T, Berger T, et al. Primary care physicians as gatekeepers in managed care. Primary care physicians’ and dermatologists’ skills at secondary prevention of skin cancer. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132(9):1030-1038.

19. Corbo MD, Wismer J. Agreement between dermatologists and primary care practitioners in the diagnosis of malignant melanoma: review of the literature. J Cutan Med Surg. 2012;16(5):306-310.

20. Morris JB, Alfonso SV, Hernandez N, Fernández MI. Examining the factors associated with past and present dermoscopy use among family physicians. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2017;7(4):63-70.

21. Dolianitis C, Kelly J, Wolfe R, Simpson P. Comparative performance of 4 dermoscopic algorithms by nonexperts for the diagnosis of melanocytic lesions. Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(8):1008-1014.

22. Westerhoff K, Mccarthy WH, Menzies SW. Increase in the sensitivity for melanoma diagnosis by primary care physicians using skin surface microscopy. Br J Dermatol. 2000;143(5):1016-1020.

23. Argenziano G, Puig S, Zalaudek I, et al. Dermoscopy improves accuracy of primary care physicians to triage lesions suggestive of skin cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(12):1877-1882.

24. Chappuis P, Duru G, Marchal O, Girier P, Dalle S, Thomas L. Dermoscopy, a useful tool for general practitioners in melanoma screening: a nationwide survey. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175(4):744-750.

25. Rosendahl C, Williams G, Eley D, et al. The impact of subspecialization and dermatoscopy use on accuracy of melanoma diagnosis among primary care doctors in Australia. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67(5):846-852.

26. Menzies SW, Ingvar C, Crotty KA, McCarthy WH. Frequency and morphologic characteristics of invasive melanomas lacking specific surface microscopic features. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132(10):1178-1182.

27. Kittler H, Guitera P, Riedl E, et al. Identification of clinically featureless incipient melanoma using sequential dermoscopy imaging. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142(9):1113-1119.

28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ambulatory care use and physician office visits. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/physician-visits.htm. Updated May 3, 2017. Accessed April 10, 2018.

29. Murzaku EC, Hayan S, Rao BK. Methods and rates of dermoscopy usage: a cross-sectional survey of US dermatologists stratified by years in practice. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71(2):393-395.

30. Nehal KS, Oliveria SA, Marghoob AA, et al. Use of and beliefs about dermoscopy in the management of patients with pigmented lesions: a survey of dermatology residency programmes in the United States. Melanoma Res. 2002;12(6):601-605.

31. Wu TP, Newlove T, Smith L, Vuong CH, Stein JA, Polsky D. The importance of dedicated dermoscopy training during residency: a survey of US dermatology chief residents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68(6):1000-1005.

32. Lim HW, Collins SAB, Resneck JS Jr, et al. The burden of skin disease in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(5):958-972

References

1. Guy GP Jr, Thomas CC, Thompson T, Watson M, Massetti GM, Richardson LC. Vital signs: melanoma incidence and mortality trends and projections-United States, 1982-2030. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(21):591-596.

2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7-30.

3. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2017. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2017. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2017/cancer-facts-and-figures-2017.pdf. Accessed April 19, 2018.

4. Lea CS, Efird JT, Toland AE, Lewis DR, Phillips CJ. Melanoma incidence rates in active duty military personnel compared with a population-based registry in the United States, 2000-2007. Mil Med. 2014;179(3):247-253.

5. Thomas L, Puig S. Dermoscopy, digital dermoscopy and other diagnostic tools in the early detection of melanoma and follow-up of high-risk skin cancer patients. Acta Derm Venereol. 2017;97(218):14-21.

6. Marghoob AA, Usatine RP, Jaimes N. Dermoscopy for the family physician. Am Fam Physician. 2013;88(7):441-450.

7. Bafounta ML, Beauchet A, Aegerter P, Saiag P. Is dermoscopy (epiluminescence microscopy) useful for the diagnosis of melanoma? Results of a meta-analysis using techniques adapted to the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Arch Dermatol. 2001;137(10):1343-1350.

8. Terushkin V, Warycha M, Levy M, Kopf AW, Cohen DE, Polsky D. Analysis of the benign to malignant ratio of lesions biopsied by a general dermatologist before and after the adoption of dermoscopy. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(3):343-344.

9. Wolner ZJ, Yélamos O, Liopyris K, Rogers T, Marchetti MA, Marghoob AA. Enhancing skin cancer diagnosis with dermoscopy. Dermatol Clin. 2017;35(4):417-437.

10. Carli P, Quercioli E, Sestini S, et al. Pattern analysis, not simplified algorithms, is the most reliable method for teaching dermoscopy for melanoma diagnosis to residents in dermatology. Br J Dermatol. 2003;148(5):981-984.

11. Argenziano G, Fabbrocini G, Carli P, De Giorgi V, Sammarco E, Delfino M. Epiluminescence microscopy for the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic skin lesions. Comparison of the ABCD rule of dermatoscopy and a new 7-point checklist based on pattern analysis. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134(12):1563-1570.

12. Menzies SW, Ingvar C, Crotty KA, McCarthy WH. Frequency and morphologic characteristics of invasive melanomas lacking specific surface microscopic features. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132(10):1178-1182.

13. Nachbar F, Stolz W, Merkle T, et al. The ABCD rule of dermatoscopy. High prospective value in the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic skin lesions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1994;30(4):551-559.

14. Henning JS, Dusza SW, Wang SQ, et al. The CASH (color, architecture, symmetry, and homogeneity) algorithm for dermoscopy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56(1):45-52.

15. Rogers T, Marino M, Dusza SW, Bajaj S, Marchetti MA, Marghoob A. Triage amalgamated dermoscopic algorithm (TADA) for skin cancer screening. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2017;7(2):39-46.

16. Ackerman AB. No one should die of malignant melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1985;12(1):115-116.

17. Gandini S, Sera F, Cattaruzza MS, et al. Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: II: sun exposure. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41(1):45-60.

18. Gerbert B, Maurer T, Berger T, et al. Primary care physicians as gatekeepers in managed care. Primary care physicians’ and dermatologists’ skills at secondary prevention of skin cancer. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132(9):1030-1038.

19. Corbo MD, Wismer J. Agreement between dermatologists and primary care practitioners in the diagnosis of malignant melanoma: review of the literature. J Cutan Med Surg. 2012;16(5):306-310.

20. Morris JB, Alfonso SV, Hernandez N, Fernández MI. Examining the factors associated with past and present dermoscopy use among family physicians. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2017;7(4):63-70.

21. Dolianitis C, Kelly J, Wolfe R, Simpson P. Comparative performance of 4 dermoscopic algorithms by nonexperts for the diagnosis of melanocytic lesions. Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(8):1008-1014.

22. Westerhoff K, Mccarthy WH, Menzies SW. Increase in the sensitivity for melanoma diagnosis by primary care physicians using skin surface microscopy. Br J Dermatol. 2000;143(5):1016-1020.

23. Argenziano G, Puig S, Zalaudek I, et al. Dermoscopy improves accuracy of primary care physicians to triage lesions suggestive of skin cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(12):1877-1882.

24. Chappuis P, Duru G, Marchal O, Girier P, Dalle S, Thomas L. Dermoscopy, a useful tool for general practitioners in melanoma screening: a nationwide survey. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175(4):744-750.

25. Rosendahl C, Williams G, Eley D, et al. The impact of subspecialization and dermatoscopy use on accuracy of melanoma diagnosis among primary care doctors in Australia. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67(5):846-852.

26. Menzies SW, Ingvar C, Crotty KA, McCarthy WH. Frequency and morphologic characteristics of invasive melanomas lacking specific surface microscopic features. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132(10):1178-1182.

27. Kittler H, Guitera P, Riedl E, et al. Identification of clinically featureless incipient melanoma using sequential dermoscopy imaging. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142(9):1113-1119.

28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ambulatory care use and physician office visits. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/physician-visits.htm. Updated May 3, 2017. Accessed April 10, 2018.

29. Murzaku EC, Hayan S, Rao BK. Methods and rates of dermoscopy usage: a cross-sectional survey of US dermatologists stratified by years in practice. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71(2):393-395.

30. Nehal KS, Oliveria SA, Marghoob AA, et al. Use of and beliefs about dermoscopy in the management of patients with pigmented lesions: a survey of dermatology residency programmes in the United States. Melanoma Res. 2002;12(6):601-605.

31. Wu TP, Newlove T, Smith L, Vuong CH, Stein JA, Polsky D. The importance of dedicated dermoscopy training during residency: a survey of US dermatology chief residents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68(6):1000-1005.

32. Lim HW, Collins SAB, Resneck JS Jr, et al. The burden of skin disease in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(5):958-972

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 35(4)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 35(4)s
Page Number
S39-S45
Page Number
S39-S45
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Using Dermoscopy to Identify Melanoma and Improve Diagnostic Discrimination
Display Headline
Using Dermoscopy to Identify Melanoma and Improve Diagnostic Discrimination
Sections
Citation Override
Fed Pract. 2018 May;35(suppl 4):S39-S45
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media

Pediatric cancers are on the rise

Article Type
Changed

 

– The incidence of many pediatric cancers are on the rise, and the increase is occurring in nearly all demographic groups studied, according to the latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Pediatric cancers that increased significantly in incidence from 2001 through 2014, compared with previous time periods, include thyroid carcinoma, hepatic tumors, lymphomas, renal tumors, and brain tumors. Other cancer types remained unchanged, except malignant melanoma, which saw a significant decline in incidence over the same period, reported David A. Siegel, MD, of the Epidemic Intelligence Service at the CDC in Atlanta.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News
Dr. David A. Siegel
“Some of the possible causes might be as benign as just increased ascertainment, but it might be more complicated, such as environmental exposures or population-based changes,” he said during a poster discussion session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

Recent studies of trends in pediatric cancer have either used data from before 2010 or covered less than a third of the U.S. population, the investigators noted.

To get a more accurate estimate of current trends, the investigators relied on the United States Cancer Statistics, which combines data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and the National Program of Cancer Registries. Together, the combined databases cover 100% of the U.S. population.

Dr. Siegel and his colleagues looked at cancer incidence rates and trends among individuals younger than 20 years of age from across 48 states from 2001 to 2014 – Mississippi, Nevada, and the District of Columbia were not included.

They used a joinpoint regression method to calculate average annual percent change (AAPC) in rates, then stratified rates and trends by sex, age, and race/ethnicity; location; economic status; and cancer type.
 

 


During the 14-year period of the study, there were a total of 196,200 incident cases of pediatric cancer, for an overall cancer incidence rate of 173 per million. The pediatric cancer with the highest incident rate was leukemia of any type (45.6 per million), brain tumors (30.8), and lymphomas (26.0).

Incidence rates were highest among males, patients from infancy through age 4, non-Hispanic whites, children who live in the Northeast region, those who live in the wealthiest counties, and those who live in urban/metropolitan counties. The overall pediatric cancer incidence rate increased, with an AAPC of 0.7 (95% confidence interval, 0.5-0.8).

“Rates increased in each stratum of sex, age, and race/ethnicity (except non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native), region, economic status, and rural/urban classification,” the investigators wrote.

Cancers with significantly increased AAPC included thyroid carcinomas (AAPC, 4.8), hepatic tumors (2.5), lymphomas (1.7), renal tumors (0.6), and brain tumors (all types, 0.4).
 

 


There were no significant changes in the incidence of either germ cell cancer, retinoblastoma, leukemia, neuroblastoma, soft-tissue sarcomas, or bone tumors.

The only significant decrease over the study period was in the incidence of melanoma in children (–2.6).

“Possible causes of increasing rates might include changes in diagnostic, coding, and reporting standards, increased detection, population-based changes (such as increasing obesity), and environmental exposures,” they wrote.

Public health campaigns about the dangers of UV exposure and promoting the use of sunscreens may account for the decline in the incidence of malignant melanoma, they suggested.

The study was supported by the CDC. Dr. Siegel and coauthors are CDC employees. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Siegel DA et al. ASPHO 2018, Abstract 605.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– The incidence of many pediatric cancers are on the rise, and the increase is occurring in nearly all demographic groups studied, according to the latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Pediatric cancers that increased significantly in incidence from 2001 through 2014, compared with previous time periods, include thyroid carcinoma, hepatic tumors, lymphomas, renal tumors, and brain tumors. Other cancer types remained unchanged, except malignant melanoma, which saw a significant decline in incidence over the same period, reported David A. Siegel, MD, of the Epidemic Intelligence Service at the CDC in Atlanta.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News
Dr. David A. Siegel
“Some of the possible causes might be as benign as just increased ascertainment, but it might be more complicated, such as environmental exposures or population-based changes,” he said during a poster discussion session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

Recent studies of trends in pediatric cancer have either used data from before 2010 or covered less than a third of the U.S. population, the investigators noted.

To get a more accurate estimate of current trends, the investigators relied on the United States Cancer Statistics, which combines data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and the National Program of Cancer Registries. Together, the combined databases cover 100% of the U.S. population.

Dr. Siegel and his colleagues looked at cancer incidence rates and trends among individuals younger than 20 years of age from across 48 states from 2001 to 2014 – Mississippi, Nevada, and the District of Columbia were not included.

They used a joinpoint regression method to calculate average annual percent change (AAPC) in rates, then stratified rates and trends by sex, age, and race/ethnicity; location; economic status; and cancer type.
 

 


During the 14-year period of the study, there were a total of 196,200 incident cases of pediatric cancer, for an overall cancer incidence rate of 173 per million. The pediatric cancer with the highest incident rate was leukemia of any type (45.6 per million), brain tumors (30.8), and lymphomas (26.0).

Incidence rates were highest among males, patients from infancy through age 4, non-Hispanic whites, children who live in the Northeast region, those who live in the wealthiest counties, and those who live in urban/metropolitan counties. The overall pediatric cancer incidence rate increased, with an AAPC of 0.7 (95% confidence interval, 0.5-0.8).

“Rates increased in each stratum of sex, age, and race/ethnicity (except non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native), region, economic status, and rural/urban classification,” the investigators wrote.

Cancers with significantly increased AAPC included thyroid carcinomas (AAPC, 4.8), hepatic tumors (2.5), lymphomas (1.7), renal tumors (0.6), and brain tumors (all types, 0.4).
 

 


There were no significant changes in the incidence of either germ cell cancer, retinoblastoma, leukemia, neuroblastoma, soft-tissue sarcomas, or bone tumors.

The only significant decrease over the study period was in the incidence of melanoma in children (–2.6).

“Possible causes of increasing rates might include changes in diagnostic, coding, and reporting standards, increased detection, population-based changes (such as increasing obesity), and environmental exposures,” they wrote.

Public health campaigns about the dangers of UV exposure and promoting the use of sunscreens may account for the decline in the incidence of malignant melanoma, they suggested.

The study was supported by the CDC. Dr. Siegel and coauthors are CDC employees. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Siegel DA et al. ASPHO 2018, Abstract 605.

 

– The incidence of many pediatric cancers are on the rise, and the increase is occurring in nearly all demographic groups studied, according to the latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Pediatric cancers that increased significantly in incidence from 2001 through 2014, compared with previous time periods, include thyroid carcinoma, hepatic tumors, lymphomas, renal tumors, and brain tumors. Other cancer types remained unchanged, except malignant melanoma, which saw a significant decline in incidence over the same period, reported David A. Siegel, MD, of the Epidemic Intelligence Service at the CDC in Atlanta.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News
Dr. David A. Siegel
“Some of the possible causes might be as benign as just increased ascertainment, but it might be more complicated, such as environmental exposures or population-based changes,” he said during a poster discussion session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology.

Recent studies of trends in pediatric cancer have either used data from before 2010 or covered less than a third of the U.S. population, the investigators noted.

To get a more accurate estimate of current trends, the investigators relied on the United States Cancer Statistics, which combines data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and the National Program of Cancer Registries. Together, the combined databases cover 100% of the U.S. population.

Dr. Siegel and his colleagues looked at cancer incidence rates and trends among individuals younger than 20 years of age from across 48 states from 2001 to 2014 – Mississippi, Nevada, and the District of Columbia were not included.

They used a joinpoint regression method to calculate average annual percent change (AAPC) in rates, then stratified rates and trends by sex, age, and race/ethnicity; location; economic status; and cancer type.
 

 


During the 14-year period of the study, there were a total of 196,200 incident cases of pediatric cancer, for an overall cancer incidence rate of 173 per million. The pediatric cancer with the highest incident rate was leukemia of any type (45.6 per million), brain tumors (30.8), and lymphomas (26.0).

Incidence rates were highest among males, patients from infancy through age 4, non-Hispanic whites, children who live in the Northeast region, those who live in the wealthiest counties, and those who live in urban/metropolitan counties. The overall pediatric cancer incidence rate increased, with an AAPC of 0.7 (95% confidence interval, 0.5-0.8).

“Rates increased in each stratum of sex, age, and race/ethnicity (except non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native), region, economic status, and rural/urban classification,” the investigators wrote.

Cancers with significantly increased AAPC included thyroid carcinomas (AAPC, 4.8), hepatic tumors (2.5), lymphomas (1.7), renal tumors (0.6), and brain tumors (all types, 0.4).
 

 


There were no significant changes in the incidence of either germ cell cancer, retinoblastoma, leukemia, neuroblastoma, soft-tissue sarcomas, or bone tumors.

The only significant decrease over the study period was in the incidence of melanoma in children (–2.6).

“Possible causes of increasing rates might include changes in diagnostic, coding, and reporting standards, increased detection, population-based changes (such as increasing obesity), and environmental exposures,” they wrote.

Public health campaigns about the dangers of UV exposure and promoting the use of sunscreens may account for the decline in the incidence of malignant melanoma, they suggested.

The study was supported by the CDC. Dr. Siegel and coauthors are CDC employees. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Siegel DA et al. ASPHO 2018, Abstract 605.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ASPHO 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Pediatric cancer incidence in the United States has increased significantly in recent decades.Major finding: From 2001 to 2014, there were 196,200 incident cases of pediatric cancer for an overall cancer incidence rate of 173 per 1 million.

Study details: A review of data from the United States Cancer Statistics for children under age 20.

Disclosures: The CDC supported the study. Dr. Siegel and his coauthors are CDC employees. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

Source: Siegel DA et al. ASPHO 2018, Abstract 605.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica